Intent [Archive] - JREF Forum

The idea

20th February 2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
"How can the effects of a universe that has no primal-cause ever come to exhibit intent?"

Could you at least simplify that a bit? Is there something outside of the universe that the universe is observed to be affecting? Why talk about "the effects of a universe"?

On the other hand, it's not the universe as a whole that is observed to exhibit intent. Intent is exhibited somewhere in the universe.

So maybe you could ask, "How can it be that intent is exhibited in a universe that has no primal cause?"

Given that you have observed intent somewhere in the universe, why would you conclude that "the universe has a primal cause"? It seems that you are just presuming that your conclusion is obvious and that it must be accepted unless someone can come up with a good reason for not accepting it. However, if you have some thesis such as "the universe has a primal cause", then shouldn't the onus be on you to establish your thesis?

Humphreys

20th February 2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Leaving that aside, would you mind stating the purpose of the universe?

Actually, and correct me if I am wrong lifegazer, I think he is referring not to the intent of the universe, but to the obvious intent of living creatures within the universe.

I imagine his argument is something like: Why would a random big bang create living beings controlled by the laws of physics that display intent, and have urges and goals, etc.

Am I right? If not, I don't really understand your argument, and it seems like most people here don't either. Maybe you need to expand a little.

Without life, the universe shows no intent at all as far as I can tell.

The idea

20th February 2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
"How can the effects of a universe that has no primal-cause ever come to exhibit intent?"

I would suggest that if you do not understand the question, that you are very stupid, foreign, or just plainly insincere.
You can call me stupid and foreign, but don't call me insincere unless you want this thread to be moved into the Flame War zone.

hammegk

20th February 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys

Without life, the universe shows no intent at all as far as I can tell.

I suspect lg would agree; I do anyway. Now, where does "non-life" end and "life" begin? :)

Atlas

20th February 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys
Without life, the universe shows no intent at all as far as I can tell. That would put a finer point on it Humphreys.

Might you also agree that because intent is a human word and concept that the universe shows no intent without human life.

If so, my question is made finer. What is the intent or purpose (either one) of human life that the universe exhibits?

Humphreys

20th February 2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Might you also agree that because intent is a human word and concept that the universe shows no intent without human life.

I'm imagining when lifegazer says 'intent', he means any deliberate conscious, willful act. Animals feel the need to eat, so they do so. This is intent, right?

Originally posted by Atlas
If so, my question is made finer. What is the intent or purpose (either one) of human life that the universe exhibits?

You personally have many purposes in life, survival for a start.

I don't want to necessarily start arguing for lifegazer here, so I'll leave him to answer his own questions. I just wanted to make things clearer, how I saw them, to allow the discussion to continue. Lifegazer seems to get real vague at times, perhaps deliberately so he doesn't get so easily backed into a corner.

Atlas

20th February 2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys
I'm imagining when lifegazer says 'intent', he means any deliberate conscious, willful act. Animals feel the need to eat, so they do so. This is intent, right?
Perhaps. Another word might be: urge. I think intent is more conscious and urge is more unconscious, almost gravitatingly so.I don't want to necessarily start arguing for lifegazer here, so I'll leave him to answer his own questions... Lifegazer seems to get real vague at times...Can't argue with that. I'm pretty sure with better definition we'll have similar positions.

Atlas

20th February 2004, 05:03 PM

Here is a counter intuitive thought for comment...

Is it fair to say the intent or purpose of a thing, like a human or a universe, is what it ultimately does?

That is... Is the purpose of the universe... To Die?

The idea

20th February 2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Is it fair to say the intent or purpose of a thing, like a human or a universe, is what it ultimately does? [...] Die?
No, it isn't fair to say. People intend to avoid death. Those who intend to die are called "suicidal." Dying happens to a person. It is not something that people do in an active sense. ("I'm busy dying. Call me later.") Dying is the end of doing.

Atlas

20th February 2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by The idea

No, it isn't fair to say. People intend to avoid death. Those who intend to die are called "suicidal." Dying happens to a person. It is not something that people do in an active sense. ("I'm busy dying. Call me later.") Dying is the end of doing. OK, let's for the sake of argument, say that is true. Is it also by implication true for a universe?

Since the universe appears to incline in that direction, can you say with certainty that it has another purpose. Can you divine that purpose? Does it have a consciousness that wishes an alternative to returning from whence it came? Why would it?

I'm just stirring the pot here. I do not believe that we can infer a purpose to the universe.

For lifegazer... is it possible that the universe has one purpose (To Die), and life arises with a diametrically opposed intent (To Live)?

Suggestologist

20th February 2004, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I propose that a realm exhibiting intent is only compatible with idealism.
I do not see how a universe without primal-cause can exhibit intent through its effects.
I'm not looking for catchphrases here like "emerging property" - I'm actually after some reasoning from you lot, for a change.

How can the effects of a universe that has no primal-cause ever come to exhibit intent? Any takers?

Evolution influences material in such a way that materials that replicate get more populous; -- which is a tautology.

In order to replicate more, material gains an advantage when it can represent the outside world in such a way that it helps its own replication. This representation is internal.

Such representations and internal processes (within the closed material sub-system) that assist replication can be viewed as operating with intent; and some may call this a mind.

Exaptations (and similar concept-phenomenon) allow for internal processes/representations to intend things other than the replication-related with approximately the same efficiency as the replicatory intent.

Hexxenhammer

20th February 2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

I suspect lg would agree; I do anyway. Now, where does "non-life" end and "life" begin? :) Somewhere around viruses I suppose. They exibit the properties of both.

hammegk

21st February 2004, 05:31 AM

Agreed. The question then becomes "what doesn't?".

And why should we have faith that we should be discussing "life" terracentrically or anthropomorphically?

Atlas

21st February 2004, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I propose that a realm exhibiting intent is only compatible with idealism. Idealism has a few definitions - Here are a 3, tersely worded.
The doctrine that ideas are the only reality.

The theory that the object of external perception, in itself or as perceived, consists of ideas.

The system or theory that denies the existence of material bodies, and teaches that we have no rational grounds to believe in the reality of anything but ideas and their relations.

Intent is no doubt merely today's word. Perhaps an even more fundamental question is:"How can Ideas form in the Material world?" I don't know - they just do. The material brain seems to pump the stuff of Idea like the heart pumps blood. Do we "think" for ourselves or not?

If the Idea of Intent exists today but not, say 5000 years ago, where does the realm of Idealism get it's Ideas. Does an Overbeing of Ideal intervene and put every thought I have into my head? Or just new ideas? Are new ideas proof that the Overbeing of Ideal exists because without intervention from such a Being no new ideas are possible?

Returning to the proposal: Let's agree that an Idea (Intent) is compatible with Idealism. That seems unobjectionable. But is the human idea of intent only compatible with Idealism? Well, if Intent is merely a human construct, a human word for certain perceived real world behaviors, (which is all I think that it is,) and if human beings have a brain that pumps out Idea or Thought in the material world,(which I think they do,) then it is easy to think that the idea arose out of the material brain in the material world.

Intent is tricky to work with here. Idealism says that it does not exist in the world, only in our minds. I'm saying that the materialist agrees. What the materialist says exists is 'behaviors' - and Intent is a projected overlay by humans onto those behaviors.

As an example of projection, I have asked if we might see that the intent of the Universe is 'To Die'. That seems to be the behavior it is engaged in. Of course there might be an Idealized Superbeing "knowing" nothing of entropy, evil, and death that intended to explore those strange concepts on a grand scale. Is this perception of intent, albeit different from someone else's perception, invalid? How can we recognize truth in such a flexible concept? If an inflexible truth can be found there, what is it?

While lifegazer does not use the term Superbeing in his opening post, he substitutes his proxy - "primal-cause" which condenses to a similar concept. I suggest that as far as the Idea of Intent is concerned, it is certainly just as valid to assume that the material brain perceives behaviors in the material world and identifies those behaviors with a conceptual construct it names Intent? Intent can be said to belong to Idealism definitionally, because it is an idea. But then it offers no insight whatsoever into whether Materialism or Idealism provides the truer description of reality.

joyrex

21st February 2004, 07:26 AM

My opinion is that life has an intent to be. But not in the same sense that we humans have intentions. I can't describe it more accurately, it's like a driving force.. also I can't guess what parts this intent is composed of. However I wouldn't say it's something like intelligence as such, rather it is manifested in things such as evolution and consciousness. These are means of life to show its intent and expose the "will" to be alive.

As you can see I antropomorphed the whole thing, and from it misunderstandings can arise.. but for me it wouldn't be easy to describe it in other than metaphoric terms.

:)

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys
Actually, and correct me if I am wrong lifegazer, I think he is referring not to the intent of the universe, but to the obvious intent of living creatures within the universe.

Yes... I haven't mentioned the intent of existence as a whole. I have suggested though that the universe exhibits intent through us, and arguably through other creatures.
It's actually irrelevant what this intent is towards. All that matters is that it is there.
From this observation, I conclude that a realm exhibiting intent is only compatible with idealism: Specifically, my own idealist philosophy - only [the intangible spirit/mind of] God exists.

I imagine his argument is something like: Why would a random big bang create living beings controlled by the laws of physics that display intent, and have urges and goals, etc.

Yes.

The idea

21st February 2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's actually irrelevant what this intent is towards. All that matters is that it is there.
From this observation [that there is some intent by some entity], I conclude that a realm exhibiting intent is only compatible with idealism: Specifically, my own idealist philosophy - only [the intangible spirit/mind of] God exists.

We have an observation and a conclusion. How did you get from the observation to the conclusion? Tell us without being as sloppy as Euclid was. Euclid neglected to mention some assumptions that he was relying on and people like Moritz Pasch formulated some of those assumptions.

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Originally posted by Humphreys:
"Without life, the universe shows no intent at all as far as I can tell."

I suspect lg would agree; I do anyway. Now, where does "non-life" end and "life" begin? :)
Actually, I don't agree. I see intent exhibited by the primal-cause of all universal effects. And if a primal-cause doesn't exist, then from whence cometh intent?
I see purpose in creation as a whole.
I'm not sure I want to explain why as it would take too long and deviate from the original issue.
Neither is the life:nonlife thingy an issue here. Call humanity what you want... at the end of the day, I still suggest that we exhibit intent.

I see various concepts being dragged into the conversation here - in the thread generally - which are not really relevant to the original point being made.

hammegk

21st February 2004, 12:50 PM

Er, ok. Now if we could just define "life". :)

Dorian Gray

21st February 2004, 12:52 PM

Lifegiver asks: Are we ever going to get to the real point of this thread?
Lifegiver answers: No reasoning to be seen here whatsoever.
Case closed.

The universe is not alive. Even if it were, it would be presumptuous for anyone to claim to know whether it had an intent, much less what that intent was.

It could just as easily be argued that the universe is a machine.

The idea

21st February 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
It could just as easily be argued that the universe is a machine.
The universe is a four-dimensional movie and we're all just trying to stay alive long enough to see the credits at the end.

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by The idea
"It's actually irrelevant what this intent is towards. All that matters is that it is there.
From this observation [that there is some intent by some entity], I conclude that a realm exhibiting intent is only compatible with idealism: Specifically, my own idealist philosophy - only [the intangible spirit/mind of] God exists."

We have an observation and a conclusion. How did you get from the observation to the conclusion?
I contend that intent must emanate, fundamentally, from a source that has absolute free-will... since I see no reason to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was born/yielded from processes without any intent in themselves.
Hence, the fact that intent exists within man (if we accept this, of course) is a proof that man, essentially, emanates from a source with absolute free-will.
A source with absolute free-will is reducible to God. An entity with any dependency or limits cannot have absolute free-will over existence.

Atlas

21st February 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by The idea

We have an observation and a conclusion. How did you get from the observation to the conclusion?
I suspect lifegazer prefers to use "conclude" rather than "assume" when it relates to his own idea.

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Er, ok. Now if we could just define "life". :)
Err, why? This concept is irrelevant to my argument. Did I miss another one of your subtle jokes somewhere?

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Lifegiver asks:
Lifegiver answers:
Case closed.

The universe is not alive. Even if it were, it would be presumptuous for anyone to claim to know whether it had an intent, much less what that intent was.

It could just as easily be argued that the universe is a machine.
Dorian, forget "the universe". I can't be bothered arguing that the universe as a whole is exhibiting intent - even though I think that it is. But I shall argue that man exhibits intent until the cows come home, because it's so bloomin' obvious.

The thread is built upon this simple observation. If man has intent, from whence does it come?

The idea

21st February 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I contend that intent must emanate, fundamentally, from a source that has absolute free-will... since I see no reason to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was born/yielded from processes without any intent in themselves.
At the very beginning of a trial, the judge can think, "I see no reason to accept that the defendant's statement is true."

Nevertheless, the plaintiff has to bring forward evidence. The judge doesn't say, "I don't believe that the defendant is going to succeed. Therefore, I accept the claim of the plaintiff. Case closed."

The plaintiff has to make a case and the defendant gets an opportunity to respond.

Atlas

21st February 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
But I shall argue that man exhibits intent until the cows come home, because it's so bloomin' obvious.

The thread is built upon this simple observation. If man has intent, from whence does it come? Lifegazer,
I hope you discuss my assertion that Intent is merely a construct of the human mind that overlay the behaviors of living beings, objects and the universe itself. Intent may be an interpolation of the human emotion of hope combined with the urges that drive us. Or something like that which we've given a name to. Doesn't the Idealist first deny that Intent is real as anything but an idea.

Dymanic

21st February 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

But I shall argue that man exhibits intent until the cows come home, because it's so bloomin' obvious.
It's also obvious that the sun revolves around the earth.

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by The idea
"I contend that intent must emanate, fundamentally, from a source that has absolute free-will... since I see no reason to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was born/yielded from processes without any intent in themselves."

At the very beginning of a trial, the judge can think, "I see no reason to accept that the defendant's statement is true."

Nevertheless, the plaintiff has to bring forward evidence. The judge doesn't say, "I don't believe that the defendant is going to succeed. Therefore, I accept the claim of the plaintiff. Case closed."

The plaintiff has to make a case and the defendant gets an opportunity to respond.
Perhaps you overlooked my reasoning, as highlighted.
If intent exists, as I contend that it does in ourselves, then I argue that it must emanate from a source with absolute free-will, because of the reasoning given.

The idea

21st February 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Perhaps you overlooked my reasoning, as highlighted.

Are you developing a new, esoteric kind of comedy? Let's see, here's a simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. I see no reason to accept the thesis that there exist positive whole numbers x, y, z, and n with n greater than 2 such that (x^n)+(y^n)=z^n. Therefore, Fermat's Last Theorem is true. QED. Why did that fellow Wiles waste everybody's time with his long-winded proof?

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Intent may be an interpolation of the human emotion of hope

Tell you what, let's swap "intent" for "emotion" or "hope" and have the exact same argument: How can emotion or hope exist within humanity, if it doesn't exist within the universe itself?

combined with the urges that drive us.

Urges? Are we talking about the forces of nature here, or are we back at "intent"?

Doesn't the Idealist first deny that Intent is real as anything but an idea.
Not this idealist. Check out world history, soon to culminate with armageddon imo, all due to human intent in its various guises. Human intent has shaped human experience. It is a living force, I would suggest.

Atlas

21st February 2004, 02:11 PM

I am trying to get at the question from another angle. When I say "I am going to build a house." I am expressing intent. But it is intent that could be called be called desire. Until we see action, that is, the behavior of intent, it is in the realm of urge, although an urge expressed consciously as a thought.

So for the human does the question condense down to "Where do thoughts and urges come from." You speak of intent in particular but I want to know if we can approach it from the general.

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by The idea

Are you developing a new, esoteric kind of comedy? Let's see, here's a simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. I see no reason to accept the thesis that there exist positive whole numbers x, y, z, and n with n greater than 2 such that (x^n)+(y^n)=z^n. Therefore, Fermat's Last Theorem is true. QED. Why did that fellow Wiles waste everybody's time with his long-winded proof?
You're being overly pedantic, I feel, for such an informal crowd. I suspect that you have a philosophy or mathematics degree.:k:

...Okay okay, to appease you, I will rearrange the order of my statement and expand slightly:

I see no reason (I find it irrational) to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was itself born/yielded from processes/effects without any intent in themselves. (This is the view which opposes the existence of a primal-cause, of course.)
Without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will. Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will.

If man exhibits intent, then I argue that his nature emanates directly from a primal-cause.
Given that my philosophy is "Only God exists", it is easy to see why I say that the exhibition of intent is only compatible with idealism. My form of it, anyway.

Any better squire?

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
I am trying to get at the question from another angle. When I say "I am going to build a house." I am expressing intent. But it is intent that could be called be called desire.

Okay then... swap "intent" for "desire" and let's have the same discussion.

Is there any way you can make your point without transfering from one applies-to-humanity-only concept, to another?

Atlas

21st February 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Okay then... swap "intent" for "desire" and let's have the same discussion.

Is there any way you can make your point without transfering from one applies-to-humanity-only concept, to another?
You missed the second part of my post:
So for the human does the question condense down to "Where do thoughts and urges come from." You speak of intent in particular but I want to know if we can approach it from the general.

I was anxious to explore your reasoning on intent (or urges and thought) down from humans, through animals and plants to the lifeless rocks and universe to prove that there was a source for it all. But to The Idea you immediately assumed the source as your answer. To prove the Source/primal-cause/God do we have to assume it starting off?

Atlas

21st February 2004, 02:52 PM

Lifegazer,

I don't know if you are considering my question so I'll assume that I can pursue it.

Do you think that hunger and hatred are among the urges that drive men? Do you believe that their own emotions and thoughts are owned by them? That indeed, they can be idealists, with their own thoughts on the world. Or is every thought that comes into their head put there by the assumed Overbeing.

This renders us automatons, in my opinion, so I believe you'll agree that our thoughts and emotions are our own and we are responsible for acting in harmony. No Overbeing is forcing thoughts and emotions on us in that regard. It's truly up to us and that is why you spend the time trying to convince us.

I think this is a distinction you must be clear about before we try to prove that intent is a manifestation of the primal-cause.

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Do you think that hunger and hatred are among the urges that drive men?

Amongst other things, yes. And again, we could swap "intent" for these new human-concepts of "hunger" or "hatred" and ask how a universe without such things could yield effects (ourselves) with such things.
This thread started off with "intent" as its basis and your counterarguments have augmented that base by building upon it with additional concepts such as hope, desire, hunger, hatred, and emotion in general. The material-universe (the majority here assume) possesses none of the traits you attribute to mankind. So each time you post/counter, you seem to strengthen my argument.
Are you aware of this? :)

Do you believe that their own emotions and thoughts are owned by them?

Well we know one thing, don't we? - That concepts such as intent, hunger, hatred, hope, love, desire, joy, funny (blimey, this list is growing and growing), etc. etc., are not owned/possessed by the material universe itself. By what sense can we say that the material-universe knows what desire, for example, is?
So yes, whatever entity experiences such concepts, must be the creator and owner of them. I.e., mankind is, somehow, the source of its own joy, peace (there's another one for ya), sorrow (and another), etc. etc..

Hence, mankind is linked directly to the primal-cause of all perceived existence.

That indeed, they can be idealists, with their own thoughts on the world. Or is every thought that comes into their head put there by the assumed Overbeing.

You already know my thoughts on this: Only God exists.
But there is also what God perceives within its own awareness - illusory though it is.

Let me make my point as succintly as I can to you: ~You~ are an impression upon God's awareness.

This renders us automatons, in my opinion,

There is no "us". There is just the impression of us. Do you understand yet? Please tell me that you do.

so I believe you'll agree that our thoughts and emotions are our own and we are responsible for acting in harmony. No Overbeing is forcing thoughts and emotions on us in that regard. It's truly up to us and that is why you spend the time trying to convince us.

~You~ are responsible for absolutely nothing, since you do not actually exist. God exists, and is lost within the awareness of being you. So my friend... you are actually my God. And I am yours. We are all our God.

Only God exists. Everything else is a perception. Gettit?

hammegk

21st February 2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Err, why? This concept is irrelevant to my argument.

That would perhaps depend on "life"'s definition.

What is "non-life"?

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

That would perhaps depend on "life"'s definition.

What is "non-life"?
I can only suggest that you re-read this thread in detail.
The term "life" is irrelevant to the argument. So is the term "non-life".
Relevant concepts within this thread include "intent" and "source". But I'm not concerned with ~life~ or its definition.

You're not on track sir.

Atlas

21st February 2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

...That concepts such as intent, hunger, hatred, hope, love, desire, joy, funny... are not owned/possessed by the material universe itself....
So yes, whatever entity experiences such concepts, must be the creator and owner of them. I.e., mankind is, somehow, the source of its own joy, peace..., etc. etc..This is Good. I exist as the creator of my own experience. Now we can engage the topic.
There is no "us". There is just the impression of us. Do you understand yet? Please tell me that you do.
~You~ are responsible for absolutely nothing, since you do not actually exist.Only God exists. Everything else is a perception. Gettit?
Whoops - That was fast. I was hoping to build to your assumption thru some kind of proof. But I can't if I no longer exist.

I thought I had something too. You know, it doesn't seem fair that you can assume the very thing you're INTENT on proving.

Well I know you wouldn't do it if you didn't have to.

I'm done.

hammegk

21st February 2004, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're not on track sir.

And I would say you are a dunce who continues to miss my point (which was by no means a joke).

What intent would you ascribe to "non-life"?

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
This is Good. I exist as the creator of my own experience. Now we can engage the topic.

Naw, you still don't gettit. Atlas is not the creator of his own experience. Atlas is the experience. What ~you~ are is an effect, being perceived by God. But you in reality, (God), are lost within the awareness of being Atlas. As it was ordained.

Whoops - That was fast. I was hoping to build to your assumption thru some kind of proof. But I can't if I no longer exist.

Further evidence that you do not understand. You do exist, but you are God - not Atlas.

I thought I had something too. You know, it doesn't seem fair that you can assume the very thing you're INTENT on proving.

I assume nothing. If I have intent, then I have God's free-will = God is my origin. This would be blasphemy or insanity if it wasn't for the fact that I propose that only God exists.
We are all God, being/perceiving itself as us.

I'm done.
And dusted, so it appears.

lifegazer

21st February 2004, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

And I would say you are a dunce who continues to miss my point (which was by no means a joke).

What intent would you ascribe to "non-life"?
No sir, it is you who is the dunce. For the last time, the concept of ~life~ (and its opposite) is completely irrelevant to this whole argument/thread. I do not need to incorporate those concepts into this argument.

The primary concept of relevance here, is that of "intent". Is this concept exhibited by any entities (regardless of ~life~ tags)(specifically, ourselves)?
If so, from whence cometh it?
This is the crux of it all.
Welcome to the discussion proper.

I don't care what life is, or non-life. I'm simply not interested here. It makes absolutely no mark upon my argument. Do you understand? Stop and think before you make any more such gaffes.

gentlehorse

21st February 2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Naw, you still don't gettit. Atlas is not the creator of his own experience. Atlas is the experience. What ~you~ are is an effect, being perceived by God. But you in reality, (God), are lost within the awareness of being Atlas. As it was ordained.

I've heard this line of thought before, but haven't run across an organized religion that adheres to or professes it. This is quite possibly a reflection of the fact that I'm no religious scholar. In any event, I first encountered it as a teen while reading Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land ("Thou art God"). Have you read it, and, if so, did it play a role in the evolution of your world-view? If not, what, out of curiosity, influenced you?

We are all God, being/perceiving itself as us.

I grok in fullness. :D

Yahweh

21st February 2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Er, ok. Now if we could just define "life". :)
"Life" has a few organic properties which distinguish it from "non-life".

As far as viruses go, the answer to that will depend on which biologist you ask.

hammegk

22nd February 2004, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

No sir, it is you who is the dunce.
Okay. :)

...
Stop and think before you make any more such gaffes.
Over & out, waiting on further instructions. ;)

I do wish you had understood my "non-life intent" comment. You might consider atman=brahmin.

Yahweh: Is anthropomorphic terra-centrism justifiable, or just a hope?

lifegazer

22nd February 2004, 02:25 PM

"I see no reason (I find it irrational) to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was itself born/yielded from processes/effects without any intent in themselves. (This is the view which opposes the existence of a primal-cause, of course.)
Without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will. Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will.

If man exhibits intent, then I argue that his nature emanates directly from a primal-cause.
Given that my philosophy is "Only God exists", it is easy to see why I say that the exhibition of intent is only compatible with idealism. My form of it, anyway."

Any serious responses left?

lifegazer

22nd February 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by gentlehorse

I've heard this line of thought before, but haven't run across an organized religion that adheres to or professes it. This is quite possibly a reflection of the fact that I'm no religious scholar. In any event, I first encountered it as a teen while reading Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land ("Thou art God"). Have you read it, and, if so, did it play a role in the evolution of your world-view? If not, what, out of curiosity, influenced you?

I grok in fullness. :D
I cannot really cite any major influences except three books called "Conversations with God", by Neale Donald Walsch. I'm actually opening myself up to alot of stick by admitting this since his books aren't 'philosophy', exactly. In fact, they're probably categorised as new-age/spiritual.
I read the books and they sparked something inside of me. That's all I can say.

hammegk

22nd February 2004, 02:52 PM

IIRC, many mystics throughout recorded history have said the same thing. :)

Isn't that also a current teaching of Hinduism?

lifegazer

22nd February 2004, 03:08 PM

Maybe a few have just said it. But how many have given reason for saying it?

Yahweh

22nd February 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Yahweh: Is anthropomorphic terra-centrism justifiable, or just a hope?
It seems justifyable for the purpose of catergorizing. Personally, I dont like the idea of "just (intuitively) knowing what life is".

Perhaps expanding my previous definition will be of some help...
From Wikipedia - Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Defining_the_concept_of_life):
A conventional definition

In biology, an entity has traditionally been considered to be alive if it exhibits all the following phenomena at least once during its existence:

<blockquote> 1. Growth
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create roughly exact copies of itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions. </blockquote>

These criteria are not without their uses, but their disparate nature makes them unsatisfactory from a number of perspectives; in fact, it is not difficult to find counterexamples and examples that require further elaboration. For example, according to the above definition, one could say:

<blockquote> * fire is alive. (This could be remedied by adding the requirement of locality, where there is an obvious feature that delineates the spatial extension of the living being, such as a cell membrane.)
* male mules are not alive as they are sterile and cannot reproduce.
* viruses are not alive as they do not grow. </blockquote>

Biologists who are content to focus on terrestrial organisms often note some additional signs of a "living organism", including these:

<blockquote> 1. Living organisms contain molecular components such as: carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins.
2. Living organisms require both energy and matter in order to continue living.
3. Living organisms are composed of at least one cell.
4. Living organisms maintain homeostasis.
5. Species of living organisms will evolve. </blockquote>

All life on Earth is based on the chemistry of carbon compounds. Some assert that this must be the case for all possible forms of life throughout the universe; others describe this position as 'carbon chauvinism'.

Other definitions

Other definitions include:

<blockquote> * Lynn Margulis's definition of life as an autopoietic (self-producing), water based, lipid-protein bound, carbon metabolic, nucleic acid replicated, protein readout system
* "a system of inferior negative feedbacks subordinated to a superior positive feedback" (J. theor Biol. 2001)
* "functional organization for sustaining self and kind, involving active use of energy and information replication (respectively)" (Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits, which classifies about 25 categories of replicating or self-sustaining phenomena)
* Tom Kinch's definition of life as a highly organized auto-cannibalizing system naturally emerging from conditions common on planetary bodies, and consisting of a population of replicators capable of mutation, around each set of which a homeostatic metabolizing organism, which actively helps reproduce and/or protect the replicator(s), has evolved
* Stuart Kauffman's definition of life as an autonomous agent or autonomous agents capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle </blockquote>

lifegazer

22nd February 2004, 03:19 PM

Yahweh, you went through all that trouble for nuttin.

Yahweh

22nd February 2004, 03:19 PM

Yahweh

22nd February 2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Yahweh, you went through all that trouble for nuttin.
Yeah probably, but I'm primarily interested in expanding my personal knowledge...

I'll get around to making my trouble "worth something" when I feel like it...

hammegk

22nd February 2004, 04:01 PM

Nice reply. Have you seen this discussion?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

My point is that definitions are tricky. I don't really propose that say, what we have named bosons/boson fields are "alive".

Do they seem to demonstrate some intent? The urge to "be" rather than "not-be" for example.

lg Maybe a few have just said it. But how many have given reason for saying it?
Are descriptive words the "thing-in-itself"? Nope, just code we use to project maps depicting the territory in ways we can understand.

RussDill

22nd February 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, I don't agree. I see intent exhibited by the primal-cause of all universal effects. And if a primal-cause doesn't exist, then from whence cometh intent?
I see purpose in creation as a whole.
I'm not sure I want to explain why as it would take too long and deviate from the original issue.
Neither is the life:nonlife thingy an issue here. Call humanity what you want... at the end of the day, I still suggest that we exhibit intent.

I see various concepts being dragged into the conversation here - in the thread generally - which are not really relevant to the original point being made.

Lifegazer, alternate explainations exist. You can plug you ears, say they don't make sense to you, say you would never accept them, but it doesn't matter. As long as an alternate explanation exists, you haven't come even remotely close to proving your point.

Also, you seem very stuck on this freewill thing. Think back to a decision you made based on free will. If you were put in the same situation again, with the same memories, same emotions, same everything again, would you make the same decision? If you did, what does that mean for free will? If you wouldn't, does it just mean your decision is random?

csense

22nd February 2004, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

Think back to a decision you made based on free will. If you were put in the same situation again, with the same memories, same emotions, same everything again, would you make the same decision? If you did, what does that mean for free will? If you wouldn't, does it just mean your decision is random?

You can not recreate the same spatio-temporal event. It either is the event, or it is something different, no matter how similar they may appear be.

Having said that, even if you could do this, a similar or even identical outcome does not refute free will.

RandFan,Jr.

23rd February 2004, 05:49 AM

Forgive me but a number of you are being obtuse. You know the point of LG's argument why not deal with the it rather than pretend that there is no validity to the premise without stating so explicitly? Since many of you have not stated whether or not you believe that humans have free will it is not possible to deduce whether or not you accept the premise.

Do you accept free will? If not then simply state it and argue why humans have no "intent". If you accept that humans have intent then make a case why human intent is not incongruous with our understanding of the formation of the universe, evolution and natural selection.

Originally posted by lifegazer
A computer performs how we intend it to. A computer is a tool or extension of our own intent.

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, computers perform as the laws of mathematics require them to. Technically anything capable of carrying out computation is a computer, too. They don't have to be boxes of circuit boards. [/B] Assuming that you believe that humans have free will then you are making a false dichotomy of either a computer performs how we intend it to or as the laws of mathematics require them to. When I write a program I use the "laws of mathematics" to determine how to write the program so that it will perform as I "intend" it to. No dichotomy.

hammegk

23rd February 2004, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Forgive me but a number of you are being obtuse. You know the point of LG's argument why not deal with the it rather than pretend that there is no validity to the premise without stating so explicitly?
LOL. Obtuse? Not most of this bunch. Their problem is that every argument they can muster for "their side" is at best circular -- and they know it. :)

IOW, the same reason the only attack against "You obey TLOP" was directed at the sillygism used to present it, or a circular argument. ;)

Humphreys

23rd February 2004, 07:31 AM

Lifegazer, a robot could appear to show intent, without actually having intent.

Nature could, in theory, randomly assemble something robot-like without the need for primal-cause. Likewise, nature could randomly assemble a human (over many years of evolution, obviously), and give the illusion of intent.

A creature without free-will could easily be created by nature with no primal-cause necessary.

As long as no one here believes we have the kind of free-will idealism hints at, there really is no problem with the existence of intent.

Would you agree?

Dymanic

23rd February 2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Humphreys

Nature could, in theory, randomly assemble something robot-like without the need for primal-cause
It's hard to deny that part of our heritage as biological organisms includes a large number of what might be called low-level responses to stimuli. If someone pokes a stick at your eye, you blink; you don't choose to blink -- in fact, it is virtually impossible to choose not to. This is a good example of what can be called a 'sub-process', this undoubtedlly a very ancient one. Like many sub-processes, millions of years of trial and error have established speedy response over sophistication as the optimal design specs for this particular routine, and for good reason -- events in the external world are often best measured in milliseconds.

Overriding a sub-process thusly streamlined for speed is difficult to do, but this is not to say that such a sub-process may not be overriden. At any given time, any number of these sub-processes may be competing for priority, and in organisms with complex behavior, other processes may either augment or inhibit them. The particular behavior that emerges as the response to a given set of stimuli then is the result of the outcome of what may be a complex internal struggle.

If we insist that the system must include intent, the difficult challenge then is to decide where to allocate that. It is hard to justifly attributing intent to a primitive, low-level process such as a simple blink response, unless we are willing to be so liberal with the term that we would give it to something as crude as a thermostat. But why exactly should we more readily accept attributing it to what turns out to be basically a set of inhibitory (or augmentary) processes? If human behavior ultimately reduces to a bundle of low-level processes, where is intent?

RandFan,Jr.

23rd February 2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
IOW, the same reason the only attack against "You obey TLOP" was directed at the sillygism used to present it, or a circular argument. ;) I rememeber pages and pages of arguing against "TLOP". Franko would be pleased at the current change of events.

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Humphreys
Lifegazer, a robot could appear to show intent, without actually having intent.

I had a computer discussion earlier. All machines are extensions of man's intent. A robot appears to show intent because it is showing intent - our intent.

Nature could, in theory, randomly assemble something robot-like without the need for primal-cause.

Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting intent unless nature herself is endowed with intent.
How does intent emerge, in an effect, from a universe exhibiting absolutely no intent? The question seeks a reasonable answer.

Likewise, nature could randomly assemble a human (over many years of evolution, obviously), and give the illusion of intent.

My argument is that the intent exhibited by humanity emanates directly from the primal-cause of existence. I.e., it doesn't belong to humanity.
Our intent, therefore, belongs to God (the primal-cause).
As agents of this intent, the conclusion is that we are really God, lost in the perception of being human.

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
lg
Are descriptive words the "thing-in-itself"? Nope, just code we use to project maps depicting the territory in ways we can understand.
You're not a stupid man, so see if these words resonate within you: You are God of all existence, perceiving itself as being hammegk.

Hardly difficult to comprehend.

Dymanic

23rd February 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

How does intent emerge, in an effect, from a universe exhibiting absolutely no intent? The question seeks a reasonable answer.
Since you haven't yet established that the word 'intent' actually refers to a meaninful concept at all, the question seems premature.

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
Lifegazer, alternate explainations exist.

No they don't. I'm asked to believe an irrational assertion: namely, that a system (man) exhibiting intent can be created by a system and within a system that exhibits none itself (the universe).
In other words, that's not an explanation, but a crock - designed to placate the ears of those who want nothing to do with a God.

You can plug you ears,

I can plug my ears?!
Having the balls to open my ears has led me to uncovering this lunatic conspiracy.

say they don't make sense to you, say you would never accept them, but it doesn't matter. As long as an alternate explanation exists, you haven't come even remotely close to proving your point.

No alternate explanation exists. Only an irrational get-out-clause exists.

Dancing David

23rd February 2004, 11:19 AM

Well Lifegazer,
I could bring out the accidental creation theory that i presented before, let it suffice to just say that there may have been a creation without it being deliberate or having an intent. You create the links in your chain through your own devices, they are not a necessity of creation.

Say that the nascent universe was a soda bottle and that the creator wanted to pour the creation into a glass, but after reading an article in God Monthly they decide that they want thier drink to be warm, instead of cold. they put the bottle in the microwave and set the time and power too long. And the result is the Big Bang!

So there is the intent: to drink the soda from a galss, and there is the result of the intent which is not deliberate.

Why is it that a creation must be deliberate and must have intent?

You are placing limit on that which is limit less by definition.

Oh well, carry on.

Suggestologist

23rd February 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I had a computer discussion earlier. All machines are extensions of man's intent. A robot appears to show intent because it is showing intent - our intent.

Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting intent unless nature herself is endowed with intent.
How does intent emerge, in an effect, from a universe exhibiting absolutely no intent? The question seeks a reasonable answer.

I've provided a reasonable answer from evolution. You seem to have skipped over it.

Humphreys

23rd February 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I had a computer discussion earlier. All machines are extensions of man's intent. A robot appears to show intent because it is showing intent - our intent.

Computers and robots are not conscious and they do not have free will. They are just lumps of material arranged in a particular way. Are you open to the possibility (of course miniscule) that my computers exact arrangement of material could be created by pure chance by a nature with no primal-cause?

Logically, it could. Therefore, random, purposelessness nature can create intent (or the illusion of, more accurately). Order can emerge from chaos, and intent can emerge from purposelessness.

Why wouldn't it be able to?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting intent unless nature herself is endowed with intent.

This isn't logically or demonstrably true, as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Our intent, therefore, belongs to God (the primal-cause).
As agents of this intent, the conclusion is that we are really God, lost in the perception of being human.

That's some wild speculation lifegazer.

Humphreys

23rd February 2004, 11:40 AM

Double post.

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Suggestologist
In order to replicate more, material gains an advantage when it can represent the outside world in such a way that it helps its own replication. This representation is internal.

Your argument was difficult to follow. This key paragraph for example, needs clarification if you want me to respond.

RandFan,Jr.

23rd February 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic
Since you haven't yet established that the word 'intent' actually refers to a meaninful concept at all, the question seems premature. Forgive me but I am truly confused. Must every word be defined before you understand the "intent" of the argument?

Noncausal Accounts:

A.) Decisions or actions requiring no cause at all.

B.) Decisions or actions nondeterministically caused by prior events.

Intent: The desired outcome of an individual derived from a "noncausal account".

in·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tnt)
n.
Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
Law. The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
Meaning; purport.

noncausal

adj not causative

caus·a·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kôz-tv)
adj.
Functioning as an agent or cause.
Expressing causation. Used of a verb or verbal affix.

de·ci·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-szhn)
n.
The passing of judgment on an issue under consideration.
The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind.
A conclusion or judgment reached or pronounced; a verdict.
Firmness of character or action; determination.

de·ter·min·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-tûrm-nzm)
n.
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

de·termin·isti·cal·ly
adv.

Help me out please. Is there realy something that is not understood here?

Suggestologist

23rd February 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Your argument was difficult to follow. This key paragraph for example, needs clarification if you want me to respond.

Ok, when material can respond to external stimulus in such a way that it stays together as unit for a longer period of time; it has more opportunity to replicate.

An example of response to external stimulus is the way plants turn to face the sun -- to more efficiently absorb energy. They don't do this because of cognitive function; but it does help them survive and replicate.

The reason they do this is due to a sort of internal representation that directs their motion towards the energy. This internal representation came about because of evolutionary pressures that offered a survival advantage to those plants that could do so -- these plants lived longer than those which did not have the internal representation.

RandFan,Jr.

23rd February 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Humphreys
[B]Computers and robots are not conscious and they do not have free will.[b] They are just lumps of material arranged in a particular way. Are you open to the possibility (of course miniscule) that my computers exact arrangement of material could be created by pure chance by a nature with no primal-cause?

Logically, it could. Therefore, random, purposelessness nature can create intent (or the illusion of, more accurately). Order can emerge from chaos, and intent can emerge from purposelessness.[b] Can I break down your argument?

Premise: Computers have no free will.
Premise: Computers could be created by chance.
Conclusion: Intent (or the illusion of intent) can emerge from purposelessness.

The argument only proves that which it assumes. We agree that computers at present only have the illusion of intent. Computers having presently failed to pass the touring test do not think as humans and don't even really have any such "illusions" but whatever "intent" that computers exhibit or mirror in humans they do so because of the "intent" of humans or the deterministic nature of humans.

The question becomes, do humans have free will or simply the illusion of free will? If humans don't have free will then the computer is simply an extension of man's deterministic nature and proves your argument.

If humans do have free will then computers represent an illusion that is a construct of human consciousness and free will (intent) and does not prove your argument.

Atlas

23rd February 2004, 12:11 PM

Lifegazer,
When you explore Intent as something that could not have arisen without a primal-cause that possessed the quality, it makes me wonder if there is any human quality that exists without it being an existent quality of that same primal-cause.

I imagine your argument is: No - all human/animal/plant/rock/gas qualities exist because they exist in the primal-cause.

Humans eat - So does the primal-unchanging-cause.
Humans sleep - so too God.
Humans crap - yes God crapped us a world. And vomited space.

Is this your position? We see in vomit something only God could've come up with? He intended us to find Him there..

This may sound stupid but you never really define your terms and your brand of logic invites the absurd reference.

Indeed, If we say Lifegazer's God is Intent, We must also say Lifegazer's God is Absurd.

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Suggestologist
The reason they do this is due to a sort of internal representation that directs their motion towards the energy.

I'd like to know more about this process, but I guess it's not relevant to this thread.
I'd also like to have an in-depth discussion on why I think design is exhibited in nature/evolution as a whole, but again, that's for another thread.

This internal representation came about because of evolutionary pressures that offered a survival advantage to those plants that could do so -- these plants lived longer than those which did not have the internal representation.
Interesting stuff. But how do you carry this argument to mankind?
I mean, I base my whole thread upon the certainty, imo, that we possess the attribute of intent or concious purpose. It's one thing to talk about brainless plants, but how do you make the same point with ourselves?

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Lifegazer,
Humans eat - So does the primal-unchanging-cause.
Humans sleep - so too God.
Humans crap - yes God crapped us a world. And vomited space.

Is this your position? We see in vomit something only God could've come up with? He intended us to find Him there..

This may sound stupid but you never really define your terms and your brand of logic invites the absurd reference.

Indeed, If we say Lifegazer's God is Intent, We must also say Lifegazer's God is Absurd.
My earlier post to you was in reference to concepts which exist as actual traits of humanity but not within the universe. Intent, desire, hope, joy, happiness, etc. etc..
This post of yours doesn't relate to that post of mine. To be truthful, this is a very poor response by you.

Dancing David

23rd February 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Ok, when material can respond to external stimulus in such a way that it stays together as unit for a longer period of time; it has more opportunity to replicate.

An example of response to external stimulus is the way plants turn to face the sun -- to more efficiently absorb energy. They don't do this because of cognitive function; but it does help them survive and replicate.

The reason they do this is due to a sort of internal representation that directs their motion towards the energy. This internal representation came about because of evolutionary pressures that offered a survival advantage to those plants that could do so -- these plants lived longer than those which did not have the internal representation.

As long as you allow for the effect not always being the reason that a trait is chosen for survival. We really can not tell if the reason plants track the sun has survival benefit or if they do so because of another process that is beneficial that alos causes them to track the sun.

RandFan,Jr.

23rd February 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Is this your position? We see in vomit something only God could've come up with? He intended us to find Him there..

This may sound stupid but you never really define your terms and your brand of logic invites the absurd reference.

Indeed, If we say Lifegazer's God is Intent, We must also say Lifegazer's God is Absurd. I won't speak for LG. I do think the direction that LG is going is along the lines of a "god of the gaps" argument. (JMO LG) Just because humans appear to have a unique quality does not prove god. However I think LG is making a reasonable philosophical argument and deserves a sincere response.

A river flowing down hill seeks the course of least resistance. This is logical. The river like Suggestologist's flower are easily understood by the laws of physics and evolution. It is demonstrable that humans could exist today just like the flower and river. Existing because of and responding to variables.

There is a small difference though. We are the only known things in the universe that have the illusion that we have free will (or actually have free will).

The point means nothing if you deny free will. But where were all of you who do not accept free will when Franko was arguing TLOP?

It would seem the acceptance of free will is transitory. Another uniquely human trait, "to hold a position based on ego".

Dymanic

23rd February 2004, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.

Help me out please. Is there realy something that is not understood here?
I think there is plenty here that is understood perfectly well, the problem being that the understanding is based on questionable assumptions. All this business about intent ultimately ends up being about dualism; i.e., there can only be genuine intent if there is actually 'somebody home'.

Or did you think I was quibbling about semantics?

RandFan,Jr.

23rd February 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic
I think there is plenty here that is understood perfectly well, the problem being that the understanding is based on questionable assumptions. All this business about intent ultimately ends up being about dualism; i.e., there can only be genuine intent if there is actually 'somebody home'.

Or did you think I was quibbling about semantics? Yes.

Is the argument really about dualism or free will? It wouldn't be the first time I missed the mark by such a wide margin.

Edited to note: Not all theologians or materialists universally accept or reject free will. Yes free will is counter to an omniscient god but then aren't most theological positions contradictory to some degree?

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
I won't speak for LG. I do think the direction that LG is going is along the lines of a "god of the gaps" argument. (JMO LG) Just because humans appear to have a unique quality does not prove god. However I think LG is making a reasonable philosophical argument and deserves a sincere response.

I think that it is absolutely irrational to accept that we (who possess intent/purpose) were created by a universe which absolutely does not. Hence my argument is founded upon reason: that if we have intent then existence, fundamentally, must also possess it.
A "God of the gaps" argument would seek to insert God where there was no explanation. Whereas I conclude that God exists because of my reasoning.

There is a small difference though. We are the only known things in the universe that have the illusion that we have free will (or actually have free will).

Yes. There is concious purpose in our actions.

The point means nothing if you deny free will. But where were all of you who do not accept free will when Franko was arguing TLOP?

It would seem the acceptance of free will is transitory. Another uniquely human trait, "to hold a position based on ego".
How can anyone deny that there is intent in their own lives? I'm perplexed.

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Is the argument really about dualism or free will?

I'm a monist - only God exists. I'm arguing that we are God perceiving itself as us. Which makes 'us' an illusion within perception. Just like a dream.

Humphreys

23rd February 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Can I break down your argument?

Hi RandFan; of course.

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Premise: Computers have no free will.
Premise: Computers could be created by chance.
Conclusion: Intent (or the illusion of intent) can emerge from purposelessness.

The argument only proves that which it assumes. We agree that computers at present only have the illusion of intent. Computers having presently failed to pass the touring test do not think as humans and don't even really have any such "illusions" but whatever "intent" that computers exhibit or mirror in humans they do so because of the "intent" of humans or the deterministic nature of humans.

Yes, but my original point was that nature could create this same computer without the need for humans, in theory. Therefore, nature can at least create the illusion of intent without primal-cause.

So, as I said in my first post to lifegazer, his argument is only a problem for anyone who believes the kind of free-will idealism hints at, exists.

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
If humans don't have free will then the computer is simply an extension of man's deterministic nature and proves your argument.

Yes. But this is a real grey area definition-wise, everyone seems to have a different view on what free-will really means.

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
If humans do have free will then computers represent an illusion that is a construct of human consciousness and free will (intent) and does not prove your argument.

Exactly.

Lifegazer's problem is, his argument is an argument in favour of idealism that is only valid if idealism is true.

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys
Yes, but my original point was that nature could create this same computer without the need for humans, in theory.

You cannot be serious! *throws racket away*
Sorry, couldn't resist. But that's exactly how I feel in regards your statement.
Do you honestly believe that given the right weather systems, the earth might have knocked-up a pentium-4 computer complete with windows xp and internet ready?
:jaw:

Lifegazer's problem is, his argument is an argument in favour of idealism that is only valid if idealism is true.
No. My argument is grounded upon a fact of human existence (possessing intent/purpose). The rest is reason.

Atlas

23rd February 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
My earlier post to you was in reference to concepts which exist as actual traits of humanity but not within the universe. Intent, desire, hope, joy, happiness, etc. etc..
This post of yours doesn't relate to that post of mine. To be truthful, this is a very poor response by you.
That's because it wasn't a response to an earlier post. You have tried to educate me in the ways your doublethink several times... I still don't have it down so I continue to ask.

You tell me that: mankind is, somehow, the source of its own joy, peace, sorrow, etc. etc...Hence, mankind is linked directly to the primal-cause of all perceived existence.
Next with your bothways technique you try to pound it into my thick skull: Atlas is not the creator of his own experience. Atlas is the experience. This seems to be in opposition to the prior statement that mankind is, somehow, the source of its own joy, but you clarify(?) You do exist, but you are God - not Atlas.

So all things in existence are mere perceptions of God. This makes getting at the nature of Intent troublesome, illusory even.

One of your quotes to me was : If intent exists, as I contend that it does in ourselves, then I argue that it must emanate from a source with absolute free-will

I questioned some assumptions and your argument becomes assertion (beautifully ironic): I assume nothing. If I have intent, then I have God's free-will = God is my origin.

Your actual proof seems to be the assertion that: Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting intent unless nature herself is endowed with intent.

The shorthand meaning in that line is: Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting intent...

My point is that whether we're talking about Intent, Design, Chlorophyll or Snot all argument comes down to: Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting anything because Nature is defined by you as an illusory perception of the overbeing, that primal-cause. An illusory perception that exists only as an experience. And for humans only, that illusory experience is one of free-will. A bizarre compounding of the unreal with the real.

And the reverse compounding is also true. Humans don't exhibit intent without God Having it and putting it into our illusory experience. And Humans don't exhibit fingernails without God having fingernails and putting it into our illusory experience.

Can you untangle the doublethink?

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Well Lifegazer,
I could bring out the accidental creation theory that i presented before

God slipped and the universe fell out of his pocket?
You do realise that this is a rational discussion, I hope?

let it suffice to just say that there may have been a creation without it being deliberate or having an intent.

Okay then - God did slip and the universe did fall...

You create the links in your chain through your own devices, they are not a necessity of creation.

What you mean is that I observe a fact about existence and then deduce a conclusion from this fact.

Say that the nascent universe was a soda bottle and that the creator wanted to pour the creation into a glass, but after reading an article in God Monthly they decide that they want thier drink to be warm, instead of cold. they put the bottle in the microwave and set the time and power too long. And the result is the Big Bang!

Perhaps you don't realise that this is a rational discussion, afterall. Just a hunch I have.

So there is the intent: to drink the soda from a galss, and there is the result of the intent which is not deliberate.

Err...

Why is it that a creation must be deliberate and must have intent?

Didn't you read the thread? Man possesses intent. Therefore - man being an effect of existence - existence itself possesses intent. Along those lines, anyway.

You are placing limit on that which is limit less by definition.

?
Sorry David, but this post of yours was bobbins.

Humphreys

23rd February 2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You cannot be serious! *throws racket away*
Sorry, couldn't resist. But that's exactly how I feel in regards your statement.
Do you honestly believe that given the right weather systems, the earth might have knocked-up a pentium-4 computer complete with windows xp and internet ready?
:jaw:

You're looking at it the wrong way.

It is theoretically possible, yes? If not, why not?

Once we accept it is possible in theory, we must agree that nature can indeed create intent (or the illusion of, at least).

Don't just try to picture a computer popping up out of nowhere without a creator, that isn't the point of my example.

If it helps, don't think of a pentium machine with windows XP installed, think of the simplest machine you can imagine that still displays the illusion of intent (however small).

Originally posted by lifegazer
No. My argument is grounded upon a fact of human existence (possessing intent/purpose). The rest is reason.

But if we don't have the kind of free-will idealism implies, then our intent is nothing but an illusion; the same as a computer or robot.

So, again, if it is plausible that nature could create a computer/robot, it is plausible that nature could create a human with the illusion of intent.

Once again, your argument is an argument in favour of idealism that is only valid if idealism is true.

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Atlas is not the creator of his own experience. Atlas is the experience. This seems to be in opposition to the prior statement that mankind is, somehow, the source of its own joy, but you clarify(?) You do exist, but you are God - not Atlas.

The bottom line is that 'you' are really God perceiving Yourself as lowly Atlas. "Lowly" in relation to God itself, of course.

Sorry, something has come up - I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow or later tonight.

Flatworm

23rd February 2004, 02:39 PM

Sorry for jumping in so late in a thread, LG, but where exactly did you prove that an entity capable of 'intent' can only arise from a system with 'intent'?

It is certainly possible for things with, say, and IP address to arise in our universe without the universe itself having an IP address. How do you define 'intent' and what bars it from appearing spontaneously?

Do any animals exhibit 'intent'? How about bacteria?

I think I smell a fallacy of composition here.

Dancing David

23rd February 2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm a monist - only God exists. I'm arguing that we are God perceiving itself as us. Which makes 'us' an illusion within perception. Just like a dream.

But that illusion thing is the hang up, I am 'me' , my stomach is part of me. I don't go around saying that my stomach is an illusion. Why not believe in god and and that we are part of god, without making us illusions?

Dancing David

23rd February 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

God slipped and the universe fell out of his pocket?

Or he fell on a doughnut...

You do realise that this is a rational discussion, I hope?

Okay then - God did slip and the universe did fall...

What you mean is that I observe a fact about existence and then deduce a conclusion from this fact.

You deduce more than a conclusion from a single fact. The fact in this case 'I believe that humans have intent' does not lead to a single conclusion, the primal cause has intent. The two may be related but are not a necessity.

Perhaps you don't realise that this is a rational discussion, afterall. Just a hunch I have.

Err...

God has no sense of humor? How sad your god must be.

:(

Didn't you read the thread? Man possesses intent. Therefore - man being an effect of existence - existence itself possesses intent. Along those lines, anyway.

I don't see a cause of chaining them here, things that have intent must be part of a chain of intent? It would be like saying that there are murderers and therefore god is a murderer.

?
Sorry David, but this post of yours was bobbins. [/B]

Bobbins are useful in a sewing machine, thanks!

Only because you make god in your exact image, how can you keep placing limits on the limit-less.

Why must god be constrained to your conventions?

You are a limited creature, maybe your imagination is broke. If god exists, they certainly show a sense of humor and imagination.

Yahweh

23rd February 2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm a monist - only God exists. I'm arguing that we are God perceiving itself as us. Which makes 'us' an illusion within perception. Just like a dream.
I know I exist. The figments in my imagination dont "know" they exist.

I dont quite follow your reasoning.

Why is it that you know the nature of reality, but the rest of us are so cleverly fooled?

lifegazer

23rd February 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Flatworm
Sorry for jumping in so late in a thread, LG, but where exactly did you prove that an entity capable of 'intent' can only arise from a system with 'intent'?

"I see no reason (I find it irrational) to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was itself born/yielded from processes/effects without any intent in themselves. (This is the view which opposes the existence of a primal-cause, of course.)
Without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will. Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will."

Without writing an essay, this is the basis of what I'm talking about.

It is certainly possible for things with, say, and IP address to arise in our universe without the universe itself having an IP address.

We create IP addresses. They are a product of our intent. Try something else.

How do you define 'intent' and what bars it from appearing spontaneously?

I hate boring definition games. "Intent" is bleedin' obvious, I thought - Conscious purpose. Deliberate action, for a reason known by the entity which is acting. Or words of similar meaning.
Please don't annoy me by trying to demean the credibility of the thread with confusion about the meaning of "intent".

Do any animals exhibit 'intent'? How about bacteria?

It doesn't matter. Read the thread and you'll see why.

I think I smell a fallacy of composition here.
Have a shower.

Atlas

23rd February 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm a monist - only God exists. I'm arguing that we are God perceiving itself as us. Which makes 'us' an illusion within perception. Just like a dream.
I see I'm picking the same quote as Yahweh. Dancing David also commented to about the illusion thing.

My take on this thread is that intent is a red herring. Since all is illusion we can take any other quality of man and use it equally as evidence of primal-cause.

Love, Evil, Hair, Teeth, Fingernails anything. All are equally illusory aspects of self, perceived by God.

Furthermore we can use anything in Nature as a substitute for Intent - Cancer, Rat dung, Snail slime, Baby snot, or flowers.

In the large sense of your vision isn't this true? All is God, All is Illusion.

You just don't make the final connection: God = Illusion.

Dymanic

23rd February 2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I hate boring definition games. "Intent" is bleedin' obvious, I thought - Conscious purpose. Deliberate action, for a reason known by the entity which is acting. Or words of similar meaning.

Please don't annoy me by trying to demean the credibility of the thread with confusion about the meaning of "intent".

You appear to be unprepared to meet a challenge to your assertion that the word 'intent' refers to a crisp concept with anything but an argument from personal incredulity. I say that your use of the term includes some dubious unexamined assumptions, such as the way it tacitly assumes the presence of an 'intender', some centrally-located arbiter of all actions. If your only response is that such a challenge to what you have clearly stated as 'bleedin obvious' must be in some way disingenuous, all I can say is that your post count indicates that you should know how much weight such poor substitutes for an actual argument will carry in this place.

"There is concious purpose in our actions" you have said. Yet surely you must concede that 'our actions' include much that is not voluntary. Musicians, martial artists, billiard players, etc, all report that their best stuff happens when they 'aren't trying too hard'. We often find ourselves doing things we didn't realize we were doing -- or things that we didn't intend to do. We hear the ancient call of various biological drives. Do you decide when you are hungry? How long can you 'decide' not to breathe? Do you choose to fall in love (or not to), and with whom?

Manipulating the behavior of humans can be a valuable survival skill. Masters of the art are those who can find ways to make the guy think it was his idea. Genes have had millions of years to perfect this. If you want to make a case for human behavior being anything more, then go ahead. Unless you think we don't deserve anything better than you stamping your feet and hollering about it being obvious.

Flatworm

24th February 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

"I see no reason (I find it irrational) to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was itself born/yielded from processes/effects without any intent in themselves.

In other words, you cannot prove it, but simply want us to take it as axiomatic.

Without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will.

Let me guess- "absolute free will" is different from normal free will, and this is another unproven axiom that you expect us to just accept.

Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will."

I agree with this statement. However, that doesn't stop said entity from arising from a system without intent.

We create IP addresses. They are a product of our intent. Try something else.

But they are not a product of IP addresses, which is the point. I was showing that it is not true in general that an entity with attribute X can only arise from a system with attribute X.

I hate boring definition games. "Intent" is bleedin' obvious, I thought - Conscious purpose. Deliberate action, for a reason known by the entity which is acting. Or words of similar meaning.
Please don't annoy me by trying to demean the credibility of the thread with confusion about the meaning of "intent".

Pardon me, but you DO have a history of taking words with a commonly understood meaning and using them to mean something completely different.

Fine, now how do we determine if some other mind posesses intent, without being privy to its inner thought processes?

It doesn't matter. Read the thread and you'll see why.

I'm sorry, but it does matter. It is important in demonstrating there is no sharp distinction between intent and instinct, and consequently lends support to a naturalistic origin for intent.

hammegk

24th February 2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh

I know I exist.

Are you being facetious, or do you mean that statement?

As I phrase it (to keep Uppie happy), thought exists; I'm also 100% certain what is occuring requires thought (well- not really, but nihilism & solipsism are useless). OK, *I* think is also fine from my viewpoint. ;)

The real question, assuming you meant it, is how do you know? Please provide scientific proof not contingent on truth of the axiom "objective, material, reality exists".

"Know" is an interesting word, isn't it?

Atlas

24th February 2004, 09:52 AM

Taken from postings by lifegazer
Intent Defined: "Intent" is: Conscious purpose. Deliberate action, for a reason known by the entity which is acting.

1) If man exhibits intent, then I argue that his nature emanates directly from a primal-cause.
2) [For] without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will.
3) [Furthermore], an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will.Originally posted by Flatworm: Do any animals exhibit 'intent'?
Lifegazer Responds: It doesn't matter.
Flatworm Responds: I'm sorry, but it does matter. It is important in demonstrating there is no sharp distinction between intent and instinct, and consequently lends support to a naturalistic origin for intent. Lifegazer, I agree with Flatworm and hope you'll take the time to offer clarifications independently of your response to my previous post.

Do you believe that an animal that appears to stalk another intending to have it as a meal possesses free-will?

One day last summer I watched a spider who had built a web in an outside corner of my window. Over the course of about 10 minutes 3 small moths flew above the web and landed on the window and walked down behind the web. The spider was acutely aware of their presence. When the first one flew off it seemed to me as though the spider jumped on his web like one might land on a trampoline to stop jumping into the air. The web shook but the moth escaped right through the web strands. I had never seen a spider do that and wondered if I was imagining it. I gazed intently at the spider drama for the next few moments. The second moth flew, and the spider jumped as before, shaking his web just as I would if I wanted to maximize the chances of a web strand entangling my prey. The second moth escaped. Then the third moth flew, the spider jumped a third time and the third moth was hung up on a line. The spider closed in and wrapped up his prey. At every stage the spider displayed real intent. All predators do.

In the world before man existed, spiders acted out this intentional drama for millions of years. A raw and visceral display of intent. I have also seen spiders ignore some prey in their web as well... an exercise of free will?

In your philosophy, do spiders have free will or is this instinctual and evidence of a naturalistic origin for intent?

Atlas

24th February 2004, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
I know I exist.

Originally posted by hammegk
...how do you know? Please provide scientific proof not contingent on truth of the axiom "objective, material, reality exists".

"Know" is an interesting word, isn't it? But hammegk, He's Yahweh...All Knowing... He probably meant it in the Biblical sense.

sackett

24th February 2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I cannot really cite any major influences except three books called "Conversations with God", by Neale Donald Walsch. I'm actually opening myself up to alot of stick by admitting this since his books aren't 'philosophy', exactly. In fact, they're probably categorised as new-age/spiritual.
I read the books and they sparked something inside of me. That's all I can say.

Has anybody noticed that LG has come out?

" . . . and they sparked something inside of me." That's manly. That's comprehensible. That's unanswerable. And that's religion.

lifegazer

24th February 2004, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by sackett

Has anybody noticed that LG has come out?

" . . . and they sparked something inside of me." That's manly. That's comprehensible. That's unanswerable. And that's religion.
Stop being a plonker and deal with the reasoning within the thread.

lifegazer

24th February 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
My take on this thread is that intent is a red herring. Since all is illusion we can take any other quality of man and use it equally as evidence of primal-cause.

Love, Evil, Hair, Teeth, Fingernails anything. All are equally illusory aspects of self, perceived by God.

Nope, you err. "Intent" (and love & evil, from your list) is a real quality/characteristic emanating from God, whereas the things perceived within sensation, are illusory.
Note: The sensations are real too - they do happen. But what is discerned from them ("things"), are illusions.

sackett

24th February 2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Stop being a plonker and deal with the reasoning within the thread.

Pore feller wants to start a cult, I guess, but lacking charisma, poetry, or even a thesarus, he tries to ignite the faithful with make-believe science and bogus metaphysics. Can't see why: I for one believe with my whole heart in The Big Giant Head.

lifegazer

24th February 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by sackett

Pore feller wants to start a cult, I guess, but lacking charisma, poetry, or even a thesarus, he tries to ignite the faithful with make-believe science and bogus metaphysics. Can't see why: I for one believe with my whole heart in The Big Giant Head.
All bark pal. No bite. Anybody with any credibility would destroy my philosophy by addressing it. You're not. Therefore, you do not hurt me.
Now p*** off.

Atlas

24th February 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by sackett
I for one believe with my whole heart in The Big Giant Head. Hold on one moment lifegazer.....

Hey Sackett, ya plonker...um - Is that the same as The Giant Big Head, because I heard that was a myth.

sackett

24th February 2004, 11:28 AM

Big Giant, Giant Big, Biant Gig -- well, now that you ask me, I'm not sure. One is Absolute Truth and the rest are vile heresies, of course, but you knew that.

I've got it! Let's ask LiceGrater!

lifegazer

24th February 2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Flatworm
"I see no reason (I find it irrational) to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was itself born/yielded from processes/effects without any intent in themselves."

In other words, you cannot prove it, but simply want us to take it as axiomatic.

The statement was meant to be read as a whole. You omitted the second half of the statement, which qualifies the first:-
"Without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will. Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will."

So, as a whole, my statement explains why I see no reason to accept the premise or argument that... etc..

"Without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will."

Let me guess- "absolute free will" is different from normal free will, and this is another unproven axiom that you expect us to just accept.

A primal-cause that is the source of any intent within existence, has absolute free-will, by default.

"Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will."

I agree with this statement. However, that doesn't stop said entity from arising from a system without intent.

You need to explain. How can a system possessing intent, be the product of an embracing system possessing none (we assume) whatsoever?
The question is applicable to all human characteristics. For example, how can a system possessing desire, be the product of an embracing system possessing none (we assume) whatsoever?
So please bear this in mind when responding.

But they are not a product of IP addresses, which is the point. I was showing that it is not true in general that an entity with attribute X can only arise from a system with attribute X.

IP addresses are products of our minds, first & foremost. So, IP addresses are the products of a mind that has knowledge about IP addresses.

Fine, now how do we determine if some other mind posesses intent, without being privy to its inner thought processes?

Well, why not ask that entity: "Oy guv'nor... did you consciously intend to do X, or did you do it without thinking?"
Guvnor's possible responses:-
(1) Grunt.
(2) He eats you.
(3) He doesn't know what X is or whether he did it.
(4) He says: "Of course I intended to do it.".

Ask me about this post. I will not grunt or eat you, and will understand the question.

I'm sorry, but it does matter. It is important in demonstrating there is no sharp distinction between intent and instinct, and consequently lends support to a naturalistic origin for intent.
I only need to prove the existence of any intent, for my argument to be valid. So, regardless of what happens to animals, I claim that humans consciously choose specific direction of action - if only some of the time.
I'm aware that some human actions are instinctive. But not all.

lifegazer

24th February 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
In your philosophy, do spiders have free will or is this instinctual and evidence of a naturalistic origin for intent?
I don't want to have a long discussion about animals or spiders. As I have said, the presence of any intent doth suffice to make my argument credible.

However, in answer to your question, I would say this:
Any creature which exhibits conscious recognition of its surroundings to whatever degree and which consciously decides to act in a specific manner, has exhibited some level of intent.

It sounds to me as though your spider is more than an organic robot obeying the commands of software which has no primal-cause.

I expect lots of people to disagree with that view. But it's not important to this thread anyway.

Atlas

24th February 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
1) "Intent" (and love & evil) is a real quality/characteristic emanating from God,
2) whereas the things perceived within sensation, are illusory.
3) The sensations are real too - they do happen.
4) But what is discerned from sensations ("things"), are illusions. I am still missing something that I think is crucial.

I am the sum total of my thoughts, feelings (emotions and sensations). They are real and insubstantial. All bodies and things in the world are only material and affecting (Temperature and Gravitationally). Hence they are to you unreal, illusory, and unreliable. Only our real sensations and thoughts are true (and feelings like Intent). All else is "unreal" illusion.

Because of your sweeping reliance on illusion, are you sure that other human beings exist? How would you know? They are merely objects in your perceived illusion. You may be and probably are all alone. The experience of lifegazer is truly all that there is, and at least, most definitely, all that is necessary. In your philosophy, since everything that is not the experience of lifegazer is an illusion, there is nothing that you can offer the world. The existence of your world and it's contents is not real. You are talking to ghosts in a dream. It's not as though you wonder if your keyboard is real - you KNOW it is not!

A few posts back hammegk offered a challenge to Yahweh that I want you to consider...Originally posted by hammegk to Yahweh
The real question, assuming you meant it, is how do you know? Please provide scientific proof not contingent on truth of the axiom "objective, material, reality exists". Lifegazer, this question has a stranger twist yet for an Idealist/Monist, doesn't it? That is...

How do you KNOW that you have not descended into a form of madness. A madness that knows its own delusion is the only thing that is real. A madness in which you are shouting at the ghosts around you to recognize themselves as illusions. Because God... Because God... Because God...

lifegazer

24th February 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Because of your sweeping reliance on illusion, are you sure that other human beings exist?

I keep trying to tell you: only God exists.

Being [any] human is a perception within God's awareness.
Therefore, no humans really exist.

In your philosophy, since everything that is not the experience of lifegazer is an illusion, there is nothing that you can offer the world.

I can offer you and everyone else their true identity. Therefore, my philosophy can bring truth, peace, equality, justice, and freedom to the world. My philosophy has much to offer.

The existence of your world and it's contents is not real.

But the experience of the world is real, and therefore significant to whomever (God) is having that experience.

You are talking to ghosts in a dream. It's not as though you wonder if your keyboard is real - you KNOW it is not!

I'm talking to different aspects of God. All aspects of God are real.

How do you KNOW that you have not descended into a form of madness. A madness that knows its own delusion is the only thing that is real. A madness in which you are shouting at the ghosts around you to recognize themselves as illusions. Because God... Because God... Because God...
The world hovers around armageddon related to nonsensical philosophies of existence/life. I offer absolute reason to all which equates to world peace, at the very least.
The world is mad, not me. I am angry, not mad.

I think that my philosophy (that God is existence itself) is the only thing which can save mankind. Not me, but the philosophy/truth itself. I think that the 21st century shall see the acceptance of this truth, en masse, or the world's demise.
We live at an important time in time.

Atlas

24th February 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I keep trying to tell you: [b]only God exists. Being [any] human is a perception within God's awareness. Therefore, no humans really exist.
But the experience of the world is real... What you say is: If Johnnie throws a rock and hits you in the head - Johnnie wasn't real, the rock wasn't real, Your head wasn't real, But God experiences a headache.

There is not much there to hang a morality on. Nothing happened except God's headache.

I'm talking to different aspects of God. All aspects of God are real. All is God, All is Illusion, All is Real?

The world is mad, not me. The question was... How do you KNOW that?

I think that my philosophy (that God is existence itself) is the only thing which can save mankind. But you never explain how any kind of morality arises from it... Since we are all God... We can do anything!

Atlas

24th February 2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
As I have said, the presence of any intent doth suffice to make my argument credible. I agree that is what you have said.

In response I have echoed Flatworm in asking: In your philosophy, do spiders have free will or is this instinctual and evidence of a naturalistic origin for intent? You have answered, and I am here condensing two of your thoughts from your response, lifegazer... It sounds to me as though your spider has exhibited some level of intent.

I believe that is a fair statement of your response to me. It says that human Intent is similar to a spider's Intent in that both arise out of free will descending from the primal cause.

I know you don't wish to talk about spiders, but free will often implies aspects of Morality and Soul.

Can you briefly contrast the morality and soul of the spider with that of man. The presence of Intent may, as you say, suffice to make your argument credible, but perhaps it's implications will illuminate the more incredible aspects for discussion.

Thanks

csense

24th February 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I keep trying to tell you: only God exists.

Being human is a perception within God's awareness.
Therefore, no humans really exist.

If it is true that no humans really exist, then in what meaningful way can you use the term being in your argument, since this obviously infers a state of existence.

If we truly do not exist, then it should follow that God is the qualifier for the term being, and if that is true, how can God not be aware of himself.

spejic

24th February 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
The question was... How do you KNOW that?I have asked this question to Lifegazer many times, and have never gotten a response.

Lifegazer, you must admit that the god's dream illusion is not perfect, otherwise you would never have figured out the world is an illusion. Also, there must be a method to discovering the existence of the illusion, as you have admitied that you somehow discovered the truth (that is, you were not born with these beliefs, but came across them somehow and had your mind changed). If these are true, then why is it that you alone among the tens of billions of people that are alive or have lived came across this belief? Why is it that you cannot give us a method for determining the illusion ourselves? Certainly we cannot all get the same brainstorm you got, but after getting this brainstorm, you should be able to learn new things about illusion-world that could help us discover it. We meer illusion-world believing humans have a system for figuring things out. It is called "science". It isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good as you must admit (seeing as how you live in the technological western world with the rest of us). There has to be a way to use science (or even just a theoretical idea of how to use science even if we don't have the technique or technology a the moment) to show that illusion-world is really an illusion.

Wouldn't this be a good thing for you? Wouldn't wide-spread discovery, description and exploitation of the illusion meta-reality be a boon to the uber-god? Wouldn't it be the moment of Hegelian self-dicovery that the uber-god has been building towards since time began?

Of course it would. But it is a two-way street. You have to allow for the fact that you may be wrong. You have to put the tinyest grain of doubt in that 100% doubtless brain of yours.

lifegazer

24th February 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
But you never explain how any kind of morality arises from it... Since we are all God... We can do anything!
Imagine the scenario: All establishments (scientific, religious, and philosophical) and all governments, somehow acknowledge, en masse, that God is existence.
Hence, morality arises from unilateral philosophy. If I kill my neighbour, I kill myself. If I abuse my neighbour, I abuse myself. Afterall, all is One.

You have accused me of nothing more than a dry philosophical message. This isn't true. I just don't see the point in trying to sell Unity until I have proved that we are unified.

Atlas

24th February 2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You need to explain. How can a system possessing intent, be the product of an embracing system possessing none (we assume) whatsoever?
The question is applicable to all human characteristics. For example, how can a system possessing desire, be the product of an embracing system possessing none (we assume) whatsoever?
So please bear this in mind when responding. Lifegazer,
Above is a partial response you sent to Flatworm. You have said forcefully and often that the immaterial free will of the primal-cause entity acts on the illusion of the world and it's contents instilling impressions of free will and intent.

I wonder if we may use invisible energies that arise from matter and appear intent on causing orbits and warming the hearts of the inhabitants of the material world.

Gravity and solar radiation may substitute on the material plane for the force of God giving rise to Intent and Desire.

They seem to have a similar constancy to God at least on the human scale. Of course, I know you are a Monist/Idealist but you have invited us to consider alternatives. It is in that spirit that I offer up the invisible material energies and speculate that life developed in response to these pulls and warmings exhibiting what would evolve to be Intent and Desire, in the same strange way sight arose in response to light.

Now we have 2 sets of invisible energies giving rise to the perceived intellectual states of Intent and Desire. Neither is very deeply presented. But on their face, neither can be said from this discussion to be a superior theory - I'm speaking only in terms of Life displaying Intent.

Atlas

24th February 2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Imagine the scenario: All establishments (scientific, religious, and philosophical) and all governments, somehow acknowledge, en masse, that God is existence.
Hence, morality arises from unilateral philosophy. If I kill my neighbour, I kill myself. If I abuse my neighbour, I abuse myself. Afterall, all is One.

You have accused me of nothing more than a dry philosophical message. This isn't true. I just don't see the point in trying to sell Unity until I have proved that we are unified. I think you underestimate the ability of Man to rationalize any philosophy to his personal moral advantage.

Christians teach - We are all God's children. Still, we kill gleefully. Buddhists teach about the ONE - I think it is probably a more peaceful philosophy, but merely on philosophical terms I don't know enough to argue that Buddha teaches peace better than Jesus. Your philosophy seems to go beyond Buddhism in it's teachings of the illusion.

While Buddhism recognizes the illusion of opposites and preaches the middle way, it still encourages the people to incline to the light. Humans live in a solid reality full of opposites - the enlightened Buddhist accepts reality and transcends it.

There is little to suggest that telling people that they don't exist, except as aspects of a single dream, instills peace, or harmony of soul.

Maybe you'll explore that in a new thread.

lifegazer

24th February 2004, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Can you briefly contrast the morality and soul of the spider with that of man.

You make things difficult for me. Such is life.
As I already have said, I have no need to discuss animals or spiders to make my argument - based upon the presence of any intent - credible. All I need to do is show that intent exists, even within myself if nothing else.
I intend to change your attitude squire. The effort is not nulled by your (assumed) disinterest, either.

Having said that, I will attempt to answer your question since I am sincere and eager to impress.;)

... There is a difference between man and all other living things. There can be no doubt about this. Indeed, most of us readily accept this.
Most of us say this difference is due to the fact that we are self-aware whereas our fellow life-forms are only aware of specific concepts/ideas in relation to the environment we share. For example, a bird is self-aware but only in terms of concepts/ideas which relate to that bird's well-being and in relation to the environment - of which it is also aware. Such a bird cares nothing more than to survive and reproduce. All of its actions mirror these desires. A human being, however, cares about how its actions shall be judged by the greater-whole (of humanity).
Our behaviour is driven by a fear or concern for what others shall think of us. Hence, our actions are driven by more than staying alive. They are driven by a desire to be respected or remembered. Or by, perhaps, a desire to glorify what is right or good or selfless, itself.
And let us not forget the desire to express our creativity. This is vitally important to this discussion. No animal cares to impress, artistically, except man. In this realisation alone, resides the realisation of man's differences with all else which [supposedly] lives.
... Man is creative, by nature. Another sign that he is descended of God... the creator.

Atlas

24th February 2004, 05:37 PM

That was pretty good. But you didn't mention morality or soul.

I'm really only interested in soul. Since we see intent in the spider, hence free-will according to your philosophy, what about the soul of that little guy.

Are there 3 free-wills now... Absolute - Human - and Spider and 3 types of soul?

RussDill

24th February 2004, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I think that it is absolutely irrational to accept that we (who possess intent/purpose) were created by a universe which absolutely does not. Hence my argument is founded upon reason: that if we have intent then existence, fundamentally, must also possess it.
A "God of the gaps" argument would seek to insert God where there was no explanation. Whereas I conclude that God exists because of my reasoning.

So...because we have intent/purpose, we had to have been created by something with intent/purpose.

OK, god has intent/purpose, so...

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
That was pretty good. But you didn't mention morality or soul.

I'm really only interested in soul. Since we see intent in the spider, hence free-will according to your philosophy, what about the soul of that little guy.

Are there 3 free-wills now... Absolute - Human - and Spider and 3 types of soul?
Perhaps one could say that the measure of ones spirit was reflected by the measure of ones intent.
In any case, it is my philosophy that God is existence. Hence our eight legged friend is as holy as ourselves, except that he can never know this - we must assume.
We can.
Our soul belongs to God.

As for morality; well my philosophy advocates action for the whole. Selfless actions, that is.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
There is little to suggest that telling people that they don't exist, except as aspects of a single dream, instills peace, or harmony of soul.

I'm disappointed that you still haven't grasped the meaning behind my philosophy. Everybody definitely does exist. But they are God, lost within the illusion of things, believing themselves to be the man they see in the mirror. That belief is the illusion. Existence is God. You are God.

scribble

25th February 2004, 02:09 AM

Didn't somebody ask lifegazer if he had just read Stranger in a Strange Land? What was the answer to that?

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by scribble
Didn't somebody ask lifegazer if he had just read Stranger in a Strange Land? What was the answer to that?
The answer is no.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by csense
If it is true that no humans really exist, then in what meaningful way can you use the term being in your argument, since this obviously infers a state of existence.

God is... existence is God.

If we truly do not exist, then it should follow that God is the qualifier for the term being, and if that is true, how can God not be aware of himself.
God imposes a dream upon itself in which awareness is focussed and lost within that dream. "We" are the intended awareness of the dream.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by spejic
Lifegazer, you must admit that the god's dream illusion is not perfect, otherwise you would never have figured out the world is an illusion.

I would argue otherwise - that the illusion is perfect because it enables God to become aware of Godself within the illusion itself. My philosophy is the conclusion of my experience within the illusion, whilst still within that illusion.
Such knowledge will one day facillitate heaven on earth. Otherwise, we shall destroy ourselves. There's only two choices for man, and the decision will be made sooner than we might think.

Also, there must be a method to discovering the existence of the illusion, as you have admitied that you somehow discovered the truth (that is, you were not born with these beliefs, but came across them somehow and had your mind changed). If these are true, then why is it that you alone among the tens of billions of people that are alive or have lived came across this belief?

I have no idea and it doesn't matter. My philosophy makes all people equally special, fundamentally.

Why is it that you cannot give us a method for determining the illusion ourselves?

The method is simple: from this day forth, resolve to believe nothing which is not definitely true. Then, acknowledge that something is having the abstract/intangible inward experience of being you. Your sensations, your thoughts, your emotions, your characteristics - all are found within your awareness.
This is the basis of my philosophy. Amazing as it might seem, plenty here have disputed this philosophical footing.
My philosophy is one of pure reason, accepting no assumptions or conclusions which cannot be verified by experience or reason.

Certainly we cannot all get the same brainstorm you got, but after getting this brainstorm, you should be able to learn new things about illusion-world that could help us discover it. We meer illusion-world believing humans have a system for figuring things out. It is called "science". It isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good as you must admit (seeing as how you live in the technological western world with the rest of us). There has to be a way to use science (or even just a theoretical idea of how to use science even if we don't have the technique or technology a the moment) to show that illusion-world is really an illusion.

Science is the study of the order which exists within the illusion. Science has its head stuck inside the fishbowl. It contemplates the relations which exist between [i]things.
Science thinks that the things it studies are reality.
It is philosophy which will be our saviour - not science - for philosophy can show science that the essence of existence is not a "thing" as perceived within the fishbowl of our awareness.

Wouldn't this be a good thing for you? Wouldn't wide-spread discovery, description and exploitation of the illusion meta-reality be a boon to the uber-god? Wouldn't it be the moment of Hegelian self-dicovery that the uber-god has been building towards since time began?

You're crazy. Do you think that God has no interest other than exploitation of universal resources?

Of course it would. But it is a two-way street. You have to allow for the fact that you may be wrong. You have to put the tinyest grain of doubt in that 100% doubtless brain of yours.
There is no longer any doubt in my mind that God is existence.

Wrath of the Swarm

25th February 2004, 06:12 AM

There is no longer any doubt in my mind that God is existence. That... is why you fail.

Dymanic

25th February 2004, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

...acknowledge that something is having the abstract/intangible inward experience of being you. Your sensations, your thoughts, your emotions, your characteristics - all are found within your awareness.
This is the basis of my philosophy.
This is called 'Cartesian dualism' (i.e., of Descartes). Amazing as it might seem to you, plenty here have disputed this with strong arguments. Among the recommended reading on the topic is this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=25726)

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

This is called 'Cartesian dualism' (i.e., of Descartes). Amazing as it might seem to you, plenty here have disputed this with strong arguments. Among the recommended reading on the topic is this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=25726)
I challenge you to address what I have said, here.
I want to see you explain to this forum how something is not having the experience of being you (the opposing view to myself). This is really like arguing that there is no experience of 'you' at all.
Then, I want to see you explain to this forum why the experience of being 'you' is not really comprised of sensations, thoughts & emotions, within awareness.
I dare ya.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
That... is why you fail. [/B]
Fail?
My philosophy explains existence and is consistent with quantum-mechanics and relativity.

Wrath of the Swarm

25th February 2004, 10:44 AM

Precisely. If you understood existence, or quantum mechanics, or relativity, you would understand how ludicrous your claim actually is.

Here, I have something for you.

[PLANK]

Dymanic

25th February 2004, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I want to see you explain to this forum how something is not having the experience of being you
I'll try to work with that, though you might have taken a little more time in crafting that sentence.

If there is 'something' having the experience, then what needs explaining is what the nature of that something is. Descartes said, "cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). For him, the fact that there are thoughts stood alone as proof that there is a thinker; a 'ghost in the machine'. If you want to make an actual case for the existence of such a ghost (and btw, the onus is on you, as the one making this extraordinary claim, to do so) then you may find it difficult to do so in a way that is compatable with standard physics.
Then, I want to see you explain to this forum why the experience of being 'you' is not really comprised of sensations, thoughts & emotions, within awarenessThis sentence, however, is so badly put together that I can't do a thing with it. I'm not even sure whether I agree or not.

Wudang

25th February 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Fail?
My philosophy explains existence and is consistent with quantum-mechanics and relativity.

NO, it has repeatedly been demonstrated to you that you do not even understand what the words mean.

hammegk

25th February 2004, 11:29 AM

Mud-slinging is so much more fun than explaining, iyo, why lg's god, or more basically Objective Idealism is at variance with QM or GR.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic
"I want to see you explain to this forum how something is not having the experience of being you"

If there is 'something' having the experience, then what needs explaining is what the nature of that something is.

No it doesn't. I do eventually proceed to explain that this ~thing~ is God, but that's irrelevant to the validity of the original statement itself, for we can be sure that something is having the experience of being you even if we don't know what that thing is.
In other words, asking you to explain to this forum how something is not having the experience of being you, needs a better response than the one you have just given.

Descartes said, "cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). For him, the fact that there are thoughts stood alone as proof that there is a thinker; a 'ghost in the machine'. If you want to make an actual case for the existence of such a ghost (and btw, the onus is on you, as the one making this extraordinary claim, to do so) then you may find it difficult to do so in a way that is compatable with standard physics.

To ask for a scientific/mathematical presentation
of God, is a ludicrous notion. It's bad philosophy - irrational. God is not a finite thing discerned within existence. God is existence.

"Then, I want to see you explain to this forum why the experience of being 'you' is not really comprised of sensations, thoughts & emotions, within awareness"

This sentence, however, is so badly put together that I can't do a thing with it. I'm not even sure whether I agree or not.
Nonsense. The experience of being 'you' is comprised of sensations (red, cold, pain, sweet, loud, etc. etc.), thoughts (I assume you have thoughts) and emotions (I assume you know what feelings are like), within awareness.
Why don't you understand that? Do you have a low IQ? If you do, then I apologise and will try my best to use smaller words.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Wudang
"My philosophy explains existence and is consistent with quantum-mechanics and relativity."

NO, it has repeatedly been demonstrated to you that you do not even understand what the words mean.
You're a plonker Wudang and I don't want you jumping into my threads after 5 pages just to utter two unsubstantiated lines of garbage. In future, stay away or explain your gripes.

Quantum mechanics
My philosophy declares that everything emanates from a primal-cause which, by default, must possess absolute free-will. A primal-cause cannot be a primal-cause unless it possess free-will, by rational default.
Hence, my philosophy says that God has an indeterministic nature, and that God's energy is essentially unpredictable. However, since God's energy is the cause of perceived [classical order] existence, we should expect to see God's energy moving towards a general ordering. Hence the probablistic ordering inherent within fundamental particles, which are essentially derivatives of fundamental energy - God's energy.

If I'd have been born two hundred years ago and had the same kind of philosophy as now, I might have predicted the base knowledge known via QM. That's how consistent my philosophy is with quantum mechanics.
Not to mention the importance of the observer to particle perception. Without an observer, all energy exists as the whole of its potential. So, without any observers, the energy of existence is just a blurry potential, awaiting observation so that it can become some things definite.

I'm intending to present my own thread about relativity soon. So I won't discuss it here right now.

Dancing David

25th February 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Mud-slinging is so much more fun than explaining, iyo, why lg's god, or more basically Objective Idealism is at variance with QM or GR.

hamme,
It is not that god is incompatible, it is that LG's description is ludicrous.

His theory should state that QM and relativity are immaterial because they are illsuions of percieved reality.
Some how QM is proof of the will of the primal cause and relativity is proof that light is the mind of god.

Dancing David

25th February 2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're a plonker Wudang and I don't want you jumping into my threads after 5 pages just to utter two unsubstantiated lines of garbage. In future, stay away or explain your gripes.

use the Ignore feature lifeDazer, that way you can talk to yourself.

Quantum mechanics
My philosophy declares that everything emanates from a primal-cause which, by default, must possess absolute free-will. A primal-cause cannot be a primal-cause unless it possess free-will, by rational default.

whine.... but Lifegazer why does an indterminant process imply free will? Does a causality imply free will? Does randomness imply free will? Does chaos theory imply free will?

Hence, my philosophy says that God has an indeterministic nature, and that God's energy is essentially unpredictable.

Yeah because you can no where god is but not when he is there , right? If god is unpresictable, then how do you know they exists. I would think unpredictable is the opposite of your philosophy.

However, since God's energy is the cause of perceived [classical order] existence, we should expect to see God's energy moving towards a general ordering.

Why since the general tendency of the universe is to disorder. have you fudged the law of thermodynamics yet? The universe does not tend to oredr, it tends to uniformity.

Hence the probablistic ordering inherent within fundamental particles, which are essentially derivatives of fundamental energy - God's energy.

Have you shown that order, or do you mean that god's manifestation is in the probable area of an electron around a nucleus. that is really vauge and quite woo, even for you LG!

If I'd have been born two hundred years ago and had the same kind of philosophy as now,

You will still be a run of the mill monist , Berkley beat you to this, you have nothing new to offer, sorry.

I might have predicted the base knowledge known via QM.

Yeah, lets hear your predictions and then see how they match with QM.

That's how consistent my philosophy is with quantum mechanics.
Not to mention the importance of the observer to particle perception. Without an observer, all energy exists as the whole of its potential.

Sorry Lifegazer put you missed the boat and sank on that one. the energy is always manifest as the waveform, the wave form does not collapse.

So, without any observers, the energy of existence is just a blurry potential, awaiting observation so that it can become some things definite.

Yeah, well lets ee you prove it, does an electron change size just because you observe it.?

I'm intending to present my own thread about relativity soon. So I won't discuss it here right now.

I'd better stop drinking at the screen when i read that one.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
His theory should state that QM and relativity are immaterial because they are illsuions of percieved reality.

QM and relativity are thoughts/ideas which mirror an understanding of the order present within perception.

Some how QM is proof of the will of the primal cause

Some how? I just gave detailed reason why - God's energy is free, being of free-will. Therefore, fundamentally, all energy within existence is inderministic.

and relativity is proof that light is the mind of god.
Each individual sees his own universe, borne within his own mind.
The sensation of light is an abstract experience had within awareness of the mind, and created by that mind.
Everything we see exists within us.

You need to up a few gears.

Suezoled

25th February 2004, 12:44 PM

You need to let your hamster back on to type.

Dymanic

25th February 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The experience of being 'you' is comprised of sensations (red, cold, pain, sweet, loud, etc. etc.), thoughts (I assume you have thoughts) and emotions (I assume you know what feelings are like), within awareness.
Why don't you understand that? Do you have a low IQ? If you do, then I apologise and will try my best to use smaller wordsI'd appreciate that. Yes, I am an incredibly dense clod. One thing you might clarify is what you mean by 'within awareness' (since I don't see how that adds anything). Oh, and also, the distinction between 'thoughts' and 'emotions' seems quite clear to you. Since it is not at all clear to me, would you mind explaining that? (I'd prefer it in simple terms, but if you have to use them big words, I'll see if I can't find my dictionary).

I do eventually proceed to explain that this ~thing~ is God, but that's irrelevant to the validity of the original statement itselfThat doesn't seem so much like an explanation as an excuse for the lack of one ("It's God, the unexplainable"). we can be sure that something is having the experience of being you even if we don't know what that thing is.Can we?

Upchurch

25th February 2004, 01:17 PM

Poor lifegazer. He always gets in trouble when he tries to use physical arguments to defend his immaterialist position. :nope:

Incidently, how can a philosophy that relies on the concept of causality be consistant with a science that proves acausality? If the philosophy agrees with the existance of acausality in the universe, it can't really argue the necessity of causality, now can it?

Poor lifegazer.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
use the Ignore feature lifeDazer, that way you can talk to yourself.

I will listen to anybody. I don't hide from nobody. But if they are being a plonker, then I'll tell 'em. You too. He was out of order diving in after 5 pages with a two-line put-down. That sort of participation is not welcome in my threads.

whine.... but Lifegazer why does an indterminant process imply free will?

Energy of the existence which is essentially indeterministic, emanates from a source which is not controlled by any other thing. There is no control upon that source. Yet this energy proceeds towards order. Thus, the energy is self-ordering. I.e., the source whose energy is unknowable, proceeds to create order within itself.

Does a causality imply free will? Does randomness imply free will? Does chaos theory imply free will?

There is no such thing as acausality, except in relation to a primal-cause. Don't cite quantum events as acausal because physics cannot see the cause. That's not good philosophy.

Yeah because you can no where god is but not when he is there , right?

Actually, God is beyond space and time. Hence, the energy of existence is beyond space and time. That's why we cannot really see anything that is definitely existing within space and time. Again, my philosophy is consistent with what we know.

If god is unpresictable, then how do you know they exists. I would think unpredictable is the opposite of your philosophy.

Knowing that God exists and knowing what God shall do are two totally different things.

Why since the general tendency of the universe is to disorder.

We see order. We see order from the reality of quantum indeterminism. Therefore, quantum indeterminism progresses towards the order that we see. It's a myth that the general tendency of the universe is towards disorder. In fact, through time, there has been a progression towards creating more and more systems of complex order. Life itself, for example.
If the universe absolutely-moved towards uniformity, then localities of order would never have arisen.

have you fudged the law of thermodynamics yet? The universe does not tend to oredr, it tends to uniformity.

The universe emanated from indivisibility/uniformity. It progressed towards fragmented localities of order. Particles, atoms, molecules, stars, planets, galaxies.

If the second law of thermodynamics was absolutely true, then none of these things could have been yielded from the big-bang.

Have you shown that order, or do you mean that god's manifestation is in the probable area of an electron around a nucleus. that is really vauge and quite woo, even for you LG!

You're asking for another bop.
:hit:
All fundamental-particles are derivative of fundamental-energy of fundamental-source. This indeterministic energy progresses towards the order that we actually see within awareness.
As I said to you in my previous post, the sensation of light is an abstract experience, anyway - like pain, for example. So, the sensation of light is a mind-given experience, had by that mind.
The source of what we see is the mind itself, and its energy is indeterministic because it is the primal-cause of all existence.

You will still be a run of the mill monist , Berkley beat you to this, you have nothing new to offer, sorry.

I haven't read Berkeley so I cannot comment. I can guarantee that his philosophy wasn't exactly like mine though. Did he ever mention "intent", for example?

Yeah, lets hear your predictions and then see how they match with QM.

That's my point - they do match with QM.
200 years ago, for example, I might have concluded that since God is existence and God has free-will, then God's energy (God itself) is indeterministic. Therefore, no part of God can definitely be seen within space and time. Hence, we should expect to see - with the right technology - that the fundamental building-blocks of the universe are also indeterministic, by nature. Yet, since they are the basis of [perceived] classical-order, we should also expect to see these particles exhibit a probablistic-order within their behaviour.
I could have said this 2000 years ago, never mind in A.D. 1800. I didn't need 20th-century scientific knowledge to have predicted this. All I needed to realise, was that God's energy must be, fundamentally, indeterministic.

Sorry Lifegazer put you missed the boat and sank on that one. the energy is always manifest as the waveform, the wave form does not collapse.

I beg your pardon? There's no such thing as a particle?

I'd better stop drinking at the screen when i read that one.
Yes you had. I don't want you drunk when you finally realise that 'you' are God.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Incidently, how can a philosophy that relies on the concept of causality be consistant with a science that proves acausality?

SCIENCE HAS NOT PROVEN ACAUSALITY.
Emphasis justified.

That's right my slippery friend - just because science cannot observe the cause of an effect does not automatically imply that the effect has no cause. Try running this past your philosophy teacher. If he/she doesn't agree, then join another class/school.

Furthermore, the concept of "acausality" can only have reality if there is a primal-cause (which is without cause). A primal-cause "just is". It is not born.

If the philosophy agrees with the existance of acausality in the universe, it can't really argue the necessity of causality, now can it?

Every thing perceived within existence is a product (an effect) of the primal-cause.
Hence, an acausal primal-cause is the cause of all perceived effects.

Poor lifegazer.
Squire, do not look down your nose at me. I am more than your equal when it comes down to rational discourse.
Where were you for the first 5 pages?
:dio:

spejic

25th February 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I would argue otherwise - that the illusion is perfect because it enables God to become aware of Godself within the illusion itself.But it isn't doing that - people still think they are people, except for you, who is thought of as a crackpot by all other aspects of All-God. By your own philosophy, most of All-God thinks your ideas are silly - and when you die, all your ideas will be forgotten, which means that All-God has actually gotten nowhere on the quest to self-awareness.My philosophy makes all people equally special, fundamentally. Then give me $10,000. We are all the same thing, right? It does not effect the cosmic ballance for me to have that money instead of you, right?The method is simple: from this day forth, resolve to believe nothing which is not definitely true. [...] My philosophy is one of pure reason, accepting no assumptions or conclusions which cannot be verified by experience or reason.Without self-questioning, you cannot know what is truth and what is not. If your philosophy comes from pure reason, then experience has nothing to do with it. And if you can use reason and experience to prove your claims, then why are you having such a hard time convincing even one other person that your beliefs are right?Science has its head stuck inside the fishbowl.It only is now because you have not given us anything ourside the fishbowl to look at. Science in and of itself (that is, the philosophy of science) is good under all circumstances, and can be used outside the fishbowl as well as inside it. We only need some kind of fact, some kind of record of an event to get started.You're crazy. Do you think that God has no interest other than exploitation of universal resources?But exploitation is certainly a part of the All-God, and I have evidence. People are aspects of the All-God, people exploit universal resources, thus the All-God desires exploitation. At the very least, you must admit that to get people interested in the outside-illusion universe, they must be able to get something useful from it.There is no longer any doubt in my mind that God is existence. I feel great pity for you.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Suezoled
You need to let your hamster back on to type.
Hello. I'm lifegazer's hamster. I'm called Buffy. I just wanted to say hi and let you know that lifegazer is a wonderful philosopher. Plus, he buys me hamster treats.

Upchurch

25th February 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Where were you for the first 5 pages?Not wasting my time on pseduoscientific drivel and troll baiting, which I will now commence in doing both.
SCIENCE HAS NOT PROVEN ACAUSALITYIt has, actually, not that you'd understand it. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that your argument from ignorance is correct and the implication of acausality is that we simply don't know the cause. Why, then, must we assume there is a cause at all? How do you prove causality is true?
Furthermore, the concept of "acausality" can only have reality if there is a primal-cause (which is without cause). A primal-cause "just is". It is not born. Goodness, I must have forgotten your love of unsupported assumptions. Acausality is not a singular occurence. If it exsits at all (and it does), one would expect it to happen repeatedly and randomly (which it does). There is no singular source of acausality, as you would like to imply.
Every thing perceived within existence is a product (an effect) of the primal-cause.
Hence, an acausal primal-cause is the cause of all perceived effects. Prove it.
Squire, do not look down your nose at me. I am more than your equal when it comes down to rational discourse. Thing is, if you're going to play with the big boys, so to speak, you've got to do better than this endless repitition of logical errors and fallacies. Have you done any research at all in any of the topics you've referenced? Or is your "rational discourse" simply devine insperation from God?

It just really sad that you still haven't gotten any further than this. Ah well, perhaps someday you'll learn the difference between reason and rationale and the relationship of reason to truth. May I recommend The Logic Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0079130836/qid=1077746679//ref=pd_ka_1/102-3869643-8624162?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) as a fairly basic starting place? As far as I can tell, it's still pretty much the standard starting text.

Atlas

25th February 2004, 02:09 PM

If I'd have been born two hundred years ago and had the same kind of philosophy as now,I might have predicted the base knowledge known via QM. Lifegazer, this is exactly what I've always thought was missing from your philosophy - real world connection.

If you could have predicted it, do you think you would have? After all, philosophy is not always the friend of science. Science wants to make things like medical instruments and bombs. Only one of which gets people closer to their maker.

Still for me, a prediction would be great. It would help to silence the skeptics here as well.

Is there anything left in your philosophy that can tell us something new about the experience of reality that science might use to ameliorate the human condition? What can we look for? What are the avenues that science should be pursuing. Or is science pretty much at it's dead at this point.

You seem to put your philosophy above science, that's why I ask.

Atlas

25th February 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's my point - they do match with QM.
200 years ago, for example, I might have concluded that since God is existence and God has free-will, then God's energy (God itself) is indeterministic. I hadn't gotten this post when I posted my last one about predictions.

Now I wonder if this same indeterministic deity would've led you to the same kind of interventionist deity of Judeo-Christianity. Surely, it could have.

Why or Why not?

Flatworm

25th February 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The statement was meant to be read as a whole. You omitted the second half of the statement, which qualifies the first:-
"Without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will. Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will."
[/quote[

I omitted it because it is nothing more than a reaffirmation of your assumption. It is not a proof.

[quote]
So, as a whole, my statement explains why I see no reason to accept the premise or argument that... etc..

No, it simply rephrases your assumption.

A primal-cause that is the source of any intent within existence, has absolute free-will, by default.

Unfortunately, you have not established that intent must spring from intent, or that there is a primal cause.

You need to explain. How can a system possessing intent, be the product of an embracing system possessing none (we assume) whatsoever?
The question is applicable to all human characteristics. For example, how can a system possessing desire, be the product of an embracing system possessing none (we assume) whatsoever?
So please bear this in mind when responding.

IP addresses are products of our minds, first & foremost. So, IP addresses are the products of a mind that has knowledge about IP addresses.

You still don't understand the analogy. It has nothing to do with whether the property under consideration is artificial or not. It simply goes to show that it is not true in general that a thing with property X can only arise from a system having property X.

Consider "crystalline structure". Many materials have a crystalline structure, but that doesn't imply that the universe as a whole has crystalline structure.

All the evidence before us demonstrates that intent exists on many levels of sophistication in the animal kingdom. It is certainly not a stretch to see stimulus-response behaviour arising naturalistically- it is merely an extension of cause-and-effect among inanimate systems. From there we can trace the increase of complexity in responses, with the birth of memory to the rise of desires. The fulfillment of needs and desires is the seed of intent.

Well, why not ask that entity: "Oy guv'nor... did you consciously intend to do X, or did you do it without thinking?"
Guvnor's possible responses:-
(1) Grunt.
(2) He eats you.
(3) He doesn't know what X is or whether he did it.
(4) He says: "Of course I intended to do it.".

Ask me about this post. I will not grunt or eat you, and will understand the question.

Very cute, but hopelessly simplistic. Any novice computer programmer can create a program that will answer "Because I intend to" when you type in "Why do you do anything?". More advanced programs can obviously reach much higher levels of sophistication conversationally, but all can respond that they have intent.

Meanwhile, a gorilla can assemble bedding material in anticipation of nightfall, chimps form political alliances within their tribes, and your cat can train you to let it out- but none of these can communicate that they have intent.

I only need to prove the existence of any intent, for my argument to be valid. So, regardless of what happens to animals, I claim that humans consciously choose specific direction of action - if only some of the time.

No, you further need to demonstrate that this intent cannot arise from a system that has not innate intent. Once again, you simply assume the answer you want, and repeat it endlessly instead of proving it.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
"If I'd have been born two hundred years ago and had the same kind of philosophy as now,I might have predicted the base knowledge known via QM."

Lifegazer, this is exactly what I've always thought was missing from your philosophy - real world connection.

If you could have predicted it, do you think you would have?

That's impossible to answer. All I know is that I could have. It wasn't beyond me or my philosophy.
I knew about the indeterminism of fundamental energy before I began relating it to God's indeterministic nature/energy. Whether I would have done that without knowing about it first is a different matter. I cannot say.

Still for me, a prediction would be great. It would help to silence the skeptics here as well.

You won't believe whatever I predict until science verifies it. Do you have the connections to conduct an experiment which might prove my prediction?

Is there anything left in your philosophy that can tell us something new about the experience of reality that science might use to ameliorate the human condition? What can we look for? What are the avenues that science should be pursuing. Or is science pretty much at it's dead at this point.

Mark 11
24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

We are God. By the measure of our will shall we receive. The placebo effect is a proof of this.

You seem to put your philosophy above science, that's why I ask.
Philosophy is above everything except God itself. Reason is the path to God.

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Now I wonder if this same indeterministic deity would've led you to the same kind of interventionist deity of Judeo-Christianity. Surely, it could have.

Surely? Why "surely"?

My philosophy is that God gives unto man that man gives unto himself, since man is really God, afterall. I do not expect miracles unless I expect miracles first.

hammegk

25th February 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

hamme,
It is not that god is incompatible, it is that LG's description is ludicrous.
Okey-dokey: just pretend for the QM GR argument that Objective Idealism is it, maybe lg is a little off. Why does one think QM, GR & Idealism are incompatible?

His theory should state that QM and relativity are immaterial because they are illsuions of percieved reality.
Here is the problem, "perceived material reality" is not illusory; it is as real as any other part of idealism. Is your mind illusory?

Some how QM is proof of the will of the primal cause and relativity is proof that light is the mind of god.
Hmm, I admit that isn't apparent to me at least; and also I missed seeing those contentions.

Atlas

25th February 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Surely? Why "surely"?

My philosophy is that God gives unto man that man gives unto himself, since man is really God, afterall. I do not expect miracles unless I expect miracles first. As for surely, part of your quote was this:I might have concluded that since God is existence and God has free-will, then God's energy (God itself) is indeterministic. If God has free will and is indeterministic surely he could be as interventionist as the Judeo-Christian deity. Those are the same qualities He'd possess, true? So, if you were in the prediction business you might just as easily predicted massive interventions. The religions do. Why wouldn't you.

As for this: I do not expect miracles unless I expect miracles first. You certainly have a way with words. Might someone near you in the illusion expect a miracle and catch you off guard. I don't suppose anybody has yet, huh?

Atlas

25th February 2004, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Okey-dokey: just pretend for the QM GR argument that Objective Idealism is it...

Here is the problem, "perceived material reality" is not illusory; it is as real as any other part of idealism. Is your mind illusory?
Hammegk,
As I understand the philosophy of Objective Idealism (which is not much), their seems to exist a reality with trees and brains that is simultaneous with appearances and ideas. Likewise my real self is blood and guts but the mirror shows an objective reality that is mere appearance which is simultaneous with my general idea of self.

I don't know whether Objective Idealism says that the appearance IS the idea or what it says about other ideas not based on the objective world. Maybe you can comment.

I don't think that lifegazer's Monism is even Subjective Idealism because my subjective reality is hardly my own, it is an impression of God experienced as me. An uber-idealism that calls me deluded twice. Once because I accept hard reality and not the insubstantialness of it, and twice because even my experience, while real, is not unique to me but "I" am the dream of another. Does it seem that way to you?

Lifegazer, I'm hoping this clarifies how your philosophy strikes me anyway. I think we need to contrast it with other thought to identify and illuminate the areas that cause us trouble. Either I am understanding, or your message needs a finer edge. (I do not accept that I am too dense -- you've got to take message into the world of the very dense.)

lifegazer

25th February 2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
As for surely, part of your quote was this:I might have concluded that since God is existence and God has free-will, then God's energy (God itself) is indeterministic. If God has free will and is indeterministic surely he could be as interventionist as the Judeo-Christian deity. Those are the same qualities He'd possess, true? So, if you were in the prediction business you might just as easily predicted massive interventions. The religions do. Why wouldn't you.

God does what man is sure of. If man is sure of God's "intervention", then sobeit.

As for this: I do not expect miracles unless I expect miracles first. You certainly have a way with words. Might someone near you in the illusion expect a miracle and catch you off guard. I don't suppose anybody has yet, huh? [/B]
No. I yearn to meet that person within 'me', to be honest. Yet I will not meet that person within me until I am sure that I will meet that person within me. Catch 22.

RussDill

25th February 2004, 07:57 PM

Still unable to answer any of my questions I see, and you *still* haven't answered the ice cream dellima. Just more hand waving and insisting.

Wudang

26th February 2004, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Mud-slinging is so much more fun than explaining, iyo, why lg's god, or more basically Objective Idealism is at variance with QM or GR.

It is not mud slinging. As you well know lifegazer has started threads on QM and relativity where he demonstrated his ignorance of the subjects. For starters he totally fails to grasp frames of reference and as you appear to know that is fundamental to relativity.
I find your comment disingenious at best.

Wudang

26th February 2004, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're a plonker Wudang and I don't want you jumping into my threads after 5 pages just to utter two unsubstantiated lines of garbage. In future, stay away or explain your gripes.

Quantum mechanics
My philosophy declares that everything emanates from a primal-cause which, by default, must possess absolute free-will. A primal-cause cannot be a primal-cause unless it possess free-will, by rational default.
Hence, my philosophy says that God has an indeterministic nature, and that God's energy is essentially unpredictable. However, since God's energy is the cause of perceived [classical order] existence, we should expect to see God's energy moving towards a general ordering. Hence the probablistic ordering inherent within fundamental particles, which are essentially derivatives of fundamental energy - God's energy.

If I'd have been born two hundred years ago and had the same kind of philosophy as now, I might have predicted the base knowledge known via QM. That's how consistent my philosophy is with quantum mechanics.
Not to mention the importance of the observer to particle perception. Without an observer, all energy exists as the whole of its potential. So, without any observers, the energy of existence is just a blurry potential, awaiting observation so that it can become some things definite.

I'm intending to present my own thread about relativity soon. So I won't discuss it here right now.

You've already started and then abandoned your own thread on realtivity. You abandoned it because people who had actually read a book tried to correct you.
And again when caught in a bare-faced lie you throw personal insults.

lifegazer

26th February 2004, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Wudang

You've already started and then abandoned your own thread on realtivity. You abandoned it because people who had actually read a book tried to correct you.
And again when caught in a bare-faced lie you throw personal insults.
I have never started a thread on relativity. And I've told you that I don't want you in my threads unless you have something meaningful to say. You have completely overlooked my take on quantum-mechanics, for example, which I presented in the face of your earlier insult.

lifegazer

26th February 2004, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
I don't think that lifegazer's Monism is even Subjective Idealism because my subjective reality is hardly my own, it is an impression of God experienced as me. An uber-idealism that calls me deluded twice. Once because I accept hard reality and not the insubstantialness of it, and twice because even my experience, while real, is not unique to me but "I" am the dream of another.

The highlighted bit is wrong. 'You' are not the dream of another. You are God who has been duped, for lack of a better word, into believing that It is Atlas.
Only God exists, remember. That's my philosophy. Everything else is an illusion, held within the mind of God.

Wudang

26th February 2004, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have never started a thread on relativity. And I've told you that I don't want you in my threads unless you have something meaningful to say. You have completely overlooked my take on quantum-mechanics, for example, which I presented in the face of your earlier insult.

My apologies - the relativity thread was started by another, and I confused it with your "reality of space and motion" thread.
What earlier insult?
And it is not your thread, it is the forums thread. I will resurrect the QM, Relativity and "Upchurchs question" threads. If you want me out of this thread do not make false claims about QM or relativity.
And hammegk, I did not say that QM or GR is inconsistent with Idealism because it is not. Idealism is a consistent and coherent philosophy based on the converse of the materialist assumption.

lifegazer

26th February 2004, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
Still unable to answer any of my questions I see,

What questions? I'll answer any serious questions.

and you *still* haven't answered the ice cream dellima. Just more hand waving and insisting.
"But QM isn't just about indetrminism, there is still excating probability within it. You wouldn't be able to predict free-will like that. It would be like postulating, without ever seeing you eat ice cream, that exactly 65.43202093820% of the time, you will choose chocolate. And then observing your ice cream choices millions of times, and seeing it match. Doesn't sound like free will to me.

(Determining the probabilities of events occuring without seeing them is a fairly straightforward process in QM.)"

This is a "dilemma"? :confused:

In my philosophy, God's indeterminate nature is the cause of perceived existence. So, God's energy is essentially indeterminate. However, since this energy is responsible for the order perceived within our existence, it would be expected (in my philosophy) that a general ordering of that energy were to be observable at the base-particle level. There should be a probability that fundamental-particles do conform towards an expected order.

So, God has free-will. God's energy is essentially indeterminate. God's energy produces perceived order. Therefore, God's energy, though indeterminate, should be observed to conform to a general order.

Your icecream has melted away.

EdipisReks

26th February 2004, 02:02 AM

:s2:

lifegazer

26th February 2004, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
And it is not your thread, it is the forums thread. I will resurrect the QM, Relativity and "Upchurchs question" threads. If you want me out of this thread do not make false claims about QM or relativity.

I don't necessarily want you out of the thread. I just don't want you in it unless you're going to say more than a two-line put-down.

lifegazer

26th February 2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by EdipisReks
:s2:
Think of me as your alarm call.

EdipisReks

26th February 2004, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Think of me as your alarm call.

i dream of jeannie

hammegk

26th February 2004, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Atlas

As I understand the philosophy of Objective Idealism (which is not much), their seems to exist a reality with trees and brains that is simultaneous with appearances and ideas. Likewise my real self is blood and guts but the mirror shows an objective reality that is mere appearance which is simultaneous with my general idea of self.
I wouldn't say that, exactly, but it seems a reasonable attempt to verbalize the unverbalizable

I don't know whether Objective Idealism says that the appearance IS the idea or what it says about other ideas not based on the objective world. Maybe you can comment.
IMO, "objective" means that "what-is" exists as-it-is independent of what I take as 'myself(for lack of a better word)'. And I assume without possibility of proof that "what-is" in totality is all there is, and that it's objectiveness cannot be revised by any finite group of "individual(for lack of a better word)' sentiences=intents.

I don't think that lifegazer's Monism is even Subjective Idealism because my subjective reality is hardly my own, it is an impression of God experienced as me. An uber-idealism that calls me deluded twice. Once because I accept hard reality and not the insubstantialness of it, and twice because even my experience, while real, is not unique to me but "I" am the dream of another. Does it seem that way to you?
So far as I've seen, nihilism cannot be denied by science or logic. We choose to assume it is not true, since any other asumption is hopelessness and unproductive imo.

Solipsism has the same problem. The best we can do is by gentlemens' agreement accept that "*I* think=exist, and "you" think=exist in some basic sense independently ... so we have something to discuss. No possible proof will ever exist whether we are in any sense "independent" or whether we are both dreams/realities of a True Solipsist.

At this point one does what one's logic and worldview best dictate. Either materialism or immaterialism can be assumed, ones' worldview examined logically, and a choice made and defended. I mention again that the non-life/life problem, HPC at the level of human brain complexity, and now dreaming, are interesting points to examine to assist one in making a choice. So as I see, neither position cannot make any comment on "free-will" vs. "super-determinism". I choose to act as though *I* can employ "free-will", which from my parochial knowledge & understanding is the same -- again, to me -- as super-determinism.

LG chooses to accept a True Solipsist which he names "god" would be one way to think of his stance, again imo.

hammegk

26th February 2004, 05:12 AM

oops, dammit ...

sackett

26th February 2004, 06:00 AM

I recently read an opinion by an Islamic scholar (a German; no Arab would dare say this) that every fifth sentence of the Quran doesn't make sense - not even in isolation, let alone in relation to what comes before or after it. And yet, you can hardly name a more influential religious text than the Quran.

The Old Testament, especially in the prophetic patches, is not much more coherent than the Quran. Other holy books run to gobbledegook in places, and none of them is without its obscure passages. And of course if you try to parse them in detail to extract paraphrasable meaning, you're soon in deep doodoo, or rather the holy inspired authors would be if they were around to respond.

None of that counts for a tinker's fardt when it comes to assessing a holy book's effectiveness. The more incoherent the message, the better it goes down with those predisposed to believe. It's the poetry that matters, not the content: the medium is everything, the message is almost nothing.

So if you want to start a religion, ~don't~ follow LiteSaber's example. He has a vision of the-universe-as-god/god-as-the-universe kinda thing; nothing new, but, I suppose, inspiring to a poorly stocked mind. There's no intrinsic reason why LG's religion (in formal descriptive terms, a cosmology known as Big Giant Head) couldn't take off and become a viable cult, with the right holy book to inspire belief.

But, alas, LG attempts to -reason- his universe into existence, using misunderstood science and metaphysics. Won't work, just won't work, and couldn't work, let him ply his tools ever so well. Inspirational religious texts, that is, books that enflame the faithful, aren't reasoned or even reasonable.

Prophets, bring not peace but a sword! Clothe your horse's neck with thunder! Roll up the heavens like unto a scroll! Behold, a pale rider! Etc. (I admit I can't do this stuff myself, but then I lack motivation: I already have a job.)

Also: Telling prospective converts to piff oss is -not- the way to build a following.

hammegk

26th February 2004, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by sackett
Inspirational religious texts, that is, books that enflame the faithful, aren't reasoned or even reasonable.

Nope. Successful ones at gaining adherents just have the ability to flip the switch in someone's head from belief to faith.

lg mentioned at some point a 3 book series he read -- Conversations With God I, II, and III -- or some such, which were the catalyst for his current faith (as I think I understand his faith).

RussDill

26th February 2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have never started a thread on relativity.

You've started plenty of threads on realitivity, just not on this board (the one on this board references all the other threads on other boards). I like how you disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.

And I've told you that I don't want you in my threads unless you have something meaningful to say.

Well, the realitivity thread was sorta mine, and you really didn't have anything meaningful to say in my opinion, so :p

You have completely overlooked my take on quantum-mechanics, for example, which I presented in the face of your earlier insult.

Its been pretty well hashed out by others in these threads, without you responding, so him responding would be kinda pointless (especially given the attitude you have towards him)

RussDill

26th February 2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What questions? I'll answer any serious questions.

Unfortunately, you only consider a question serious if it has an answer that makes sense in context of your philosophy. I look for questions that meet the exact opposite requirements.

"But QM isn't just about indetrminism, there is still excating probability within it. You wouldn't be able to predict free-will like that. It would be like postulating, without ever seeing you eat ice cream, that exactly 65.43202093820% of the time, you will choose chocolate. And then observing your ice cream choices millions of times, and seeing it match. Doesn't sound like free will to me.

(Determining the probabilities of events occuring without seeing them is a fairly straightforward process in QM.)"

This is a "dilemma"? :confused:

My point is that you cannot predict free will like that. So QM is clearly not related to free will.

In my philosophy, God's indeterminate nature is the cause of perceived existence.

Not determinate; not certain or fixed; indefinite; not precise; as, an indeterminate number of years.

This conflicts with other statements in your philosophy. As you claimed that god does not exist within time or space, and being indeterminate would require change, which would require time.

So, God's energy is essentially indeterminate.

God doesn't have energy, god exists outside of time and space, energy is a part of time and space, which in your philosophy, is part of god's imagination. (also, you could replace this statement with energy is essentially indeterminate, and the whole thing would make as much sense).

However, since this energy is responsible for the order perceived within our existence, it would be expected (in my philosophy) that a general ordering of that energy were to be observable at the base-particle level.

By orderable, I'll assume you mean TLOP. Matter an energy is "ordered" as according to TLOP. However, in your philosophy, TLOP is all part of god's perception/imagination, whatever.

There should be a probability that fundamental-particles do conform towards an expected order.

This is where it gets down to the issue. If you view a classical TLOP, then everything works like clockwork, and then where is god? He would not be able to make any decisions, and according to you, god is "indeterminate", ie, he can make change. So like you said before, you would have never gone a long with the clockwork TLOP, and predicted that particles would behave in ways we would not be able to predict.

[Side note: the actual necessity for the universe not being clockwork in your philosophy is unclear to me, since god is playing out a scenerio, to see the result, which I do everyday, with computer programs, which I expect to behave like clockwork]

So it is your philosophy, that random QM events are due to God's "change" ability, "God" is making the decision. However, conscious free will desicions do not fit any rubrik, they happen as they happen, and the results certainly cannot be predicted (especially if you are under the assumptions that free will is a) not simply random and b) not a process that can be traced out and followed step by step through logic). TLOP does not fit this description, there a huge number of rules that cannot be bent or broken, ever, ie, charge conservation, not even for units of time under a plank. Also, even for things that can be violated in a classical sense, the change is still predicted, and exacting numerial limitations are placed on them, such as conservation of energy. Also, no matter what the quantum interaction, we can predict with exacting probability what the results will be. With free will, you cannot, otherwise you are admitting that it is simply a random function, like rolling a die.

So, God has free-will. God's energy is essentially indeterminate. God's energy produces perceived order. Therefore, God's energy, though indeterminate, should be observed to conform to a general order.

QM is not a "general order", TLOP of physics are very excacting. All your argument comes down to is that there must be someone enforcing TLOP, and by our current knowledge of TLOP, there is no requirement of "free will" on that enforcer, the ice cream example points this out perfectly. (Your argument on intent being seperate from this one).

Your icecream has melted away.

Nope, I have shown with the ice cream that QM and TLOP have no need of free will, and in fact, they do not conform to what would be expected if they were being driven by free will.

Dancing David

26th February 2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Okey-dokey: just pretend for the QM GR argument that Objective Idealism is it, maybe lg is a little off. Why does one think QM, GR & Idealism are incompatible?

None that I know of, as an observational monist i would say the end result of materialism and idealism is the same. I just object to the use of science that LG makes.

Here is the problem, "perceived material reality" is not illusory; it is as real as any other part of idealism. Is your mind illusory?

If I am pedantic, yes the mind is an illusion, because that is just lump under the rug word. But the contention that the 'real' world is illusion is part of Lifedazer's dualism.

Hmm, I admit that isn't apparent to me at least; and also I missed seeing those contentions.

Could be my misinerpretation.

uruk

27th February 2004, 01:49 PM

But they are God, lost within the illusion of things

So, your god can't tell what is illusion or not. Man! your god is stupid! Or stoned.What hope do we have of unity if God can't even tell what's real or not? "Am I me or several billion people?

I take it back, God is not stupid or stoned, just severly schizophrenic.

Behold your god! no! I'm god. No! I'm god! ad infinitum. (or 6 billion)

lifegazer

27th February 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by uruk

So, your god can't tell what is illusion or not. Man! your god is stupid! Or stoned.What hope do we have of unity if God can't even tell what's real or not? "Am I me or several billion people?

I take it back, God is not stupid or stoned, just severly schizophrenic.

Behold your god! no! I'm god. No! I'm god! ad infinitum. (or 6 billion)
God would choose to lose itself within the illusion. Exactly the same principle to losing yourself in your dreams at night.
Sometimes, we even lose ourselves within conscious thought.

If I were you, I'd watch out for thunderstorms.

Atlas

27th February 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
If I were you, I'd watch out for thunderstorms.
Lifegazer,

1) No Smiley accompanying the comment above indicates that you believe that God truly is, or can be, interventionist and whimfull, or perhaps an angry being whose willfulness is expressed in natural catastrophes. Could you expand on that thought. You recently said: I do not expect miracles unless I expect miracles first. Were you saying to uruk that expecting God to be high or schizophrenic makes God unstable and liable to do anything?

2) I liked Hammegk's idea that your philosophy may represent that of a True Solipsist. The capitalization of the word True indicates that the Self at the center of the solipsism is a Higher Self than lifegazer. It does seem a name that is close approximation to the philosophy you represent, don't you agree?

3) In any case, the Idealist that you are uses logic to become the Monist that you are. Some might argue that there is no evidence for any sea of Idea beyond the individual's experience of illusion. Do you cite evidence for your leap of logic. You seem convinced that our idea of reality is flawed and we have been fooled by the illusion of reality. How do you know you have not been fooled by the illusions of philosophy and reason. I ask that because all the religions and science employing those tools appear to have gotten it wrong according to you.

spejic

27th February 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

God would choose to lose itself within the illusion.Then why not continue living as if the illusion is the reality, just as the All-God wants us to? Who are you to deny the All-God his desire to have a daydream? You are a nothing but a blasphemer!

lifegazer

28th February 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Lifegazer,

1) No Smiley accompanying the comment above indicates that you believe that God truly is, or can be, interventionist and whimfull, or perhaps an angry being whose willfulness is expressed in natural catastrophes.

Condemn God and you condemn the very essence of your being (since you are God), invoking heaven knows what (man's thought is creative, being divine). I would advise no man to condemn or mock God. Seriously.

2) I liked Hammegk's idea that your philosophy may represent that of a True Solipsist. The capitalization of the word True indicates that the Self at the center of the solipsism is a Higher Self than lifegazer. It does seem a name that is close approximation to the philosophy you represent, don't you agree?

I have said a couple of times that I am a solipsist in the sense that God is the only being who exists.

3) In any case, the Idealist that you are uses logic to become the Monist that you are. Some might argue that there is no evidence for any sea of Idea beyond the individual's experience of illusion. Do you cite evidence for your leap of logic. You seem convinced that our idea of reality is flawed and we have been fooled by the illusion of reality. How do you know you have not been fooled by the illusions of philosophy and reason. I ask that because all the religions and science employing those tools appear to have gotten it wrong according to you.
Science has been fooled by materialism. And religion - the ones proclaiming the existence of a God - do not realise that if God does exist, then nothing else can.

I'm not the very first to proclaim God as all existence. But I do it by my own reason.

lifegazer

28th February 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by spejic
Then why not continue living as if the illusion is the reality, just as the All-God wants us to?

How long do you think mankind, on this planet, can continue to live? Time's running out for us mate. Check out peak-oil, or check-out global-warming, or check-out the drastically-decelerating salinity of the north Atlantic, or check-out terrorism + ever-easier access to more deadly weapons.
These aren't small trivialities I'm talking about here. Mankind has a few difficult choices to make. In my opinion, only selfless unity can save mankind, longterm.

Who are you to deny the All-God his desire to have a daydream? You are a nothing but a blasphemer!
Mankind has had too much time to rot.

Wudang

28th February 2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

In my opinion, only selfless unity can save mankind, longterm.

So why do you throw so many personal insults at people? You don't seem to live by your own philosophy.

lifegazer

29th February 2004, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Wudang

So why do you throw so many personal insults at people? You don't seem to live by your own philosophy.
Why do you think that somebody who desires unity for the whole should not be dismayed and angry as he witnesses human breakdown and indifference to that plight?
Even Jesus turned a few tables in his time.

Wudang

29th February 2004, 04:21 AM

I just scanned an online copy of the bible for the word "plonker". Oddly enough, zero hits. Are you here to preach unity or indulge yourself, your choice. As you act, so are you judged.

Dorian Gray

29th February 2004, 01:41 PM

A source with absolute free-will is reducible to God. Reduced from what? There's something bigger than God? Wow.

Is it your lack of understanding?

hawkins_anderson

1st March 2004, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
How can the effects of a universe that has no primal-cause ever come to exhibit intent? Any takers?

Intent in which context?

uruk

1st March 2004, 09:35 AM

God would choose to lose itself within the illusion. Exactly the same principle to losing yourself in your dreams at night.
If I were you, I'd watch out for thunderstorms.

Bad analogy. You still have identity when you dream or day dream. Your god's schizophrenia is much more sever.

I live in south Texas. I don't think I have to worry too much about thunderstorms.

uruk

1st March 2004, 09:53 AM

Condemn God and you condemn the very essence of your being (since you are God), invoking heaven knows what (man's thought is creative, being divine). I would advise no man to condemn or mock God. Seriously.

I'm not mocking god but rather your interpretation of god.

How long do you think mankind, on this planet, can continue to live? Time's running out for us mate. Check out peak-oil, or check-out global-warming, or check-out the drastically-decelerating salinity of the north Atlantic, or check-out terrorism + ever-easier access to more deadly weapons.

According to your philosophy, these would be trival concerns because the are illusionary just as we are. I'd be more concered about god waking up or snapping out of this daydream. because when he regains his "singular" identity we're gone. Poof!

I'm amazed by your ability to say in the same breath that this existance is all illusion and then whine about economic and evironmental concern as if you believe this illusion is real.

Quit waffleing!

Illusion or not, this existance is real to us. We can not experiance anything outside this existance. everything else is moot.

Bow down to this illusion, cause it is all we got!

lifegazer

1st March 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by uruk
I'm not mocking god but rather your interpretation of god.

Mine is the God of all existence: omnipresent; omnipotent; omniscient.
God is you. Therefore, be careful what you condemn.

I'm amazed by your ability to say in the same breath that this existance is all illusion and then whine about economic and evironmental concern as if you believe this illusion is real.

The experience is real - the emotions and sensations are real. As such, they are important.
This illusion facilitates God's being. Hence, if mankind as a whole chooses armageddon, then God shall experience eternal death (to being).

Quit waffleing!

Stop condemning my philosophy if you don't understand it.

Illusion or not, this existance is real to us. We can not experiance anything outside this existance. everything else is moot.

Bow down to this illusion, cause it is all we got!
I would say the same thing to you and to everyone else upon the Earth. And I would also add that unless you and they seek unity, then they and the earth are doomed.

Wudang

1st March 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

God is you. Therefore, be careful what you condemn.

Is God me too? Does that mean you'll stop condemning me as a plonker?

lifegazer

1st March 2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Wudang

Is God me too? Does that mean you'll stop condemning me as a plonker?
I do not condemn the God in you by condemning the plonker in you. I condemn 'plonkerism'.

scribble

1st March 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I do not condemn the God in you by condemning the plonker in you. I condemn 'plonkerism'.

No, you're wrong. ALL is god. That includes Plonkerism. We're all in God's mind. The plonkerism is as much a real part of god as the man is. Tough break, but that's your philosophy.

Upchurch

1st March 2004, 02:39 PM

Calling God a plonker. That's gutsy.

lifegazer

1st March 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by scribble

No, you're wrong. ALL is god. That includes Plonkerism. We're all in God's mind. The plonkerism is as much a real part of god as the man is. Tough break, but that's your philosophy.
'Plonkerism' is a trait or characteristic, much like good, bad, nasty, sad, depressed, murderous, sensitive, etc. etc..
Clearly, some traits are more preferable than others. Who here, for example, would not condemn outright nastiness?
Hence, I condemn plonkerism because I see it as a negative limited trait or characteristic. I don't want to see God exhibiting such a trait. I want to see the glory of God.

uruk

1st March 2004, 03:15 PM

Mine is the God of all existence: omnipresent; omnipotent; omniscient. God is you. Therefore, be careful what you condemn.

I condem that god part of me that dream me up as an ugly, dull, poor person! Damn me and my poor choice of illusion!

Hence, if mankind as a whole chooses armageddon, then God shall experience eternal death (to being).

Notice he wrote god is [omnipresent; omnipotent; omniscient.] and then wrote [God shall experience eternal death (to being)]in the same post . Amazing.

Tell me, how can we kill god if he is all that omni-stuff?
If he can die then how can he be omni-anything?
And what happens if god dies? And what does it matter to us?

Stop condemning my philosophy if you don't understand it.

How can you understand that which makes no sense. Judging by your contradictory statements, you don't even seem to understand it yourself either.

The experience is real - the emotions and sensations are real.
So what part of this is an illusion? If we are illusions and this existance is an illusion, then it IS REAL to us. What does all that other god stuff matter to us then? We are god, god is us. So what? We still have to deal with this "reality".

And I would also add that unless you and they seek unity, then they and the earth are doomed.

I do agree with you here (except the earth part. we have the ability to annihilate ourselves but not the planet). We have to unite in our concern for our fellow man. But we have to do it for ourselves. No god in any religion has ever helped or will ever help us. And THAT'S reality

scribble

1st March 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

'Plonkerism' is a trait or characteristic, much like good, bad, nasty, sad, depressed, murderous, sensitive, etc. etc..

All of which exist in God's mind, just as you and I do.

Clearly, some traits are more preferable than others. Who here, for example, would not condemn outright nastiness?

Not I! Not you! But how can we speak for all that is God? All we can hope is to speak for each our own tiny part.

Hence, I condemn plonkerism because I see it as a negative limited trait or characteristic. I don't want to see God exhibiting such a trait. I want to see the glory of God.

But you cannot know what God wants. It is unfortunate. You are like unto a neuron in the brain of God, unable to know what is being thought, only to fire your own synapses when you are stimulated.

If only we could all achieve unity, then we would be able to see the big picture that God is thinking.

Atlas

1st March 2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Tell me, how can we kill god if he is all that omni-stuff?
If he can die then how can he be omni-anything?
And what happens if god dies? And what does it matter to us?Uruk,
I'll bet you go right to the head of the plonker line for that. I mean, sure I had that same thought...what does it matter to us, if god dies to "being"? (But I would never say it.)

And then it occurred to me that, here on the outer edges of the limitless vastness, there is probably a lot of illusion counting on us. The primal-cause primal-caused a whole great big illusion of stars and planets - only one of which gives the primal-cause eternal "life" within his own singularity.

Do you really want to be responsible for the day when:God shall experience eternal death (to being)? What if he's not ready? Besides, would he ever do that to you if the situation were reversed?

Think about it... Maybe somebody's deity should get an apology ;)

uruk

1st March 2004, 09:15 PM

Do you really want to be responsible for the day when:God shall experience eternal death (to being)? What if he's not ready? Besides, would he ever do that to you if the situation were reversed?

If we achieve unity and god wakes up or ends this illusion: we're gone!
If we deny god and god dies: we're gone too!
If god stays in this dream state and god is lost in the illusion, then god is ineffectual as a deity.
so we're on our own.

It doesn't matter. We have no choice in the matter. So why worry.

Think about it... Maybe somebody's deity should get an apology

But I am god. So I'm waiting......

RussDill

1st March 2004, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Notice he wrote god is [omnipresent; omnipotent; omniscient.] and then wrote [God shall experience eternal death (to being)]in the same post . Amazing.

Naw, what really makes me laugh, is that lifegazer has this all powerfull god cooked up, that is outside of time. And then he claims that to find out if that god wants life or death, that god has to run a "simulation". Wha? A) That is making the statement that he does not know something and must engage in a complex process of experimentation to discover it and B) That there is a before simulation/decision for god and a after simulation/decision for god. and lifegazer will a) ignore this post or b) wave his hands about frantically hoping that he will be able to make it magically go away.

Wudang

2nd March 2004, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

'Plonkerism' is a trait or characteristic, much like good, bad, nasty, sad, depressed, murderous, sensitive, etc. etc..
Clearly, some traits are more preferable than others. Who here, for example, would not condemn outright nastiness?
Hence, I condemn plonkerism because I see it as a negative limited trait or characteristic. I don't want to see God exhibiting such a trait. I want to see the glory of God.

Thank you for that clarification. Do you see your misuse of words such as singularity and infer as being negative characteristics which God should not exhibit? Do you see an inability to acknowledge one's mistakes as a negative that God should not exhibit? Do you condemn these when you see them in yourself? Or, as I earlier asked, are you here to preach unity or indulge yourself?
That which you call plonkerism I call a desire for consistency.

uruk

2nd March 2004, 09:11 AM

and lifegazer will a) ignore this post or b) wave his hands about frantically hoping that he will be able to make it magically go away.

I choose B.

Wudang

2nd March 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by RussDill

and lifegazer will a) ignore this post or b) wave his hands about frantically hoping that he will be able to make it magically go away.

He seems to be following his usual strategy when demonstrably wrong: he keeps quiet for a day or two then will start a new thread and ignore the old threads apart from an occasional comment about how right he was in them.

lifegazer

2nd March 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Notice he wrote god is [omnipresent; omnipotent; omniscient.] and then wrote [God shall experience eternal death (to being)]in the same post . Amazing.

Tell me, how can we kill god if he is all that omni-stuff?

Because we are that God. We are God being (or 'becoming'). Therefore, if we - as God being - choose armageddon, then we - as that God - choose death to being.
God can only "be" in relation to other things. God is absolute. But if, whilst being, God chooses armageddon, then God chooses death to [relative] being. Please note however, that this does not kill God's absolute existence - just his relative being.

God does not die if man dies. But God's being does die if God, as man, chooses death to being.

If he can die then how can he be omni-anything?

God doesn't die.

So what part of this is an illusion?

The sensations, thoughts & feelings, are all really happening to God. What isn't real, is the things which God discerns from those sensations, which God imagines exists externally to awareness.

If we are illusions and this existance is an illusion, then it IS REAL to us.

There is no "us". There is only God, thinking of itself as us. God can be anything - hence the diversity of mankind.

What does all that other god stuff matter to us then? We are god, god is us. So what?

"So what?"?! Are you insane? Of course you are... my apologies.
'You' are God. You are sovereign of all you perceive, because all you perceive is happening within you.

We still have to deal with this "reality".

Yes... and the time is fast approaching when we shall deal with this reality as the God that we are.

No god in any religion has ever helped or will ever help us. And THAT'S reality
God gives you the sensations, thoughts & feelings, which constitute ~your~ very existence. And God gives to you what you give unto yourself.
We are God. We must ordain miracles to see miracles.

lifegazer

2nd March 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by scribble
Not I! Not you! But how can we speak for all that is God? All we can hope is to speak for each our own tiny part.

I speak for the God who wants to maintain eternal being. I speak for the God who knows that this can only happen if we exist in unity, in the knowledge of our oneness as God. I speak for the God who chooses love, peace, joy, and equality. I speak of a world with no borders and one government, truly for the people by the people, where the first shall come last and the last shall come first. I speak of our destiny.

But you cannot know what God wants.

God either wants what I want (for everyone that is God), or God wants no being (death to being). The question begs - if God chooses the latter - why God would choose to be in the first place if God so abhors being. That's like asking why somebody who abhors pain would choose to walk through a fire.

Armageddon cannot happen. My philosophy is the only incentive left to prevent it. For it will happen unless man comes to know his singular identity.

lifegazer

2nd March 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Uruk,
I'll bet you go right to the head of the plonker line for that.

No... Russ is chief plonker here. :p

I mean, sure I had that same thought...what does it matter to us, if god dies to "being"? (But I would never say it.)

We are God's being. If God's being dies, then the universe dies... and we die.

lifegazer

2nd March 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
Naw, what really makes me laugh, is that lifegazer has this all powerfull god cooked up, that is outside of time. And then he claims that to find out if that god wants life or death, that god has to run a "simulation". Wha? A) That is making the statement that he does not know something and must engage in a complex process of experimentation to discover it and B) That there is a before simulation/decision for god and a after simulation/decision for god. and lifegazer will a) ignore this post or b) wave his hands about frantically hoping that he will be able to make it magically go away. [/B]
God is absolute existence. Nothing else exists. God has no form, since God exists at boundless singularity.
God is... "I AM".

Those ancient Jews were aware of this, it seems.
So, God cannot be anything unless God creates a realm-of-things to which God can relate.
This realm must exist as an illusion, within God's awareness, since God is absolute existence and nothing else exists.

Thus, being is perceived as an illusion, but is an expression of God's diverse potential.

scribble

2nd March 2004, 01:39 PM

I can't respond to most of what you've said because frankly, it's gone past the point of being entertaining and back into stupid. Ah, well, it was fun for a day.

Originally posted by lifegazer The question begs - if God chooses the latter - why God would choose [i]to be in the first place if God so abhors being. That's like asking why somebody who abhors pain would choose to walk through a fire.

You're telling me God chose to exist in the first place?

What's more - you're telling me God could have chosen to never exist in the first place?

That's one dilly of a pickle there!

lifegazer

2nd March 2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Wudang
Do you see your misuse of words such as singularity and infer as being negative characteristics which God should not exhibit?

Lifegazer is not perfect. He certainly does not claim to be a poet or a master of the English language. He freely admits to having no academic credibility. He has no social standing or financial power.
Yet he has a philosophy which can save the world, if but that world embraced his philosophy.
Forget lifegazer and think about his philosophy.

lifegazer

2nd March 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by scribble
You're telling me God chose to exist in the first place?

What's more - you're telling me God could have chosen to never exist in the first place?

That's one dilly of a pickle there!
You aren't thinking about what I have written.
God exists.
God's being proceeds God's existence.

Dymanic

2nd March 2004, 01:58 PM

lifegazer, I'd like to thank you for reinforcing the importance of critical thinking by providing examples of the the types of conclusions reached through alternative methods. Keep up the good work.

lifegazer

2nd March 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Wudang

He seems to be following his usual strategy when demonstrably wrong: he keeps quiet for a day or two then will start a new thread and ignore the old threads apart from an occasional comment about how right he was in them.
Hardly Sir.
What usually happens is that I start a thread - in this case about "intent" - and after a while the original content of that thread is ignored or forgotten whilst we discuss lifegazer's imperfections, such as his inability to spell or use words correctly. More often than not, my philosophy is condemned because I'm not judged as morally or ethically perfect. Yet I never proclaimed myself as the second-coming in the first place.

lifegazer

2nd March 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic
lifegazer, I'd like to thank you for reinforcing the importance of critical thinking by providing examples of the the types of conclusions reached through alternative methods. Keep up the good work.
Nobody ever says nice stuff like this to me.:v:

Atlas

2nd March 2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
We are God's being. If God's being dies, then the universe dies... and we die. Lifegazer,
We die anyway and God always is. If God experiments in Being and his omniscience fails him once He can always try again.

You know what troubles me is that the solipsistic twists you take between us not existing at all and dieing and taking the universe with us, well someone who isn't as nice as you, say Charles Manson or Jim Jones, can use this same rhetoric like a nihilistic confuser ray. Throw in a little LSD and some speed and your message becomes: I speak for God and he says shape up or die!

Oh wait, the drugs are optional.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I speak for the God who wants to maintain eternal being. I speak for the God who knows that this can only happen if we exist in unity, in the knowledge of our oneness as God. I speak for the God...

God either wants what I want (for everyone that is God), or God wants no being ...

Armageddon cannot happen. My philosophy is the only incentive left to prevent it...

scribble

2nd March 2004, 03:09 PM

[i]Originally posted by lifegazer
More often than not, my philosophy is condemned because I'm not judged as morally or ethically perfect. Yet I never proclaimed myself as the second-coming in the first place. [/B]

You are blind.

Your philosophy is condemned because it's ridiculous. The reason there are "Attacks on your character" is because it's your fault your philosophy is nonsense. You could build a workable philosophy out of some of the cornerstones you've chosen for your nonsense, if you had any idea how to think rationally or logically.

As it is, your philosophy is irrational nonsense. That might go over well some places, but not here.

uruk

2nd March 2004, 03:38 PM

Yet I never proclaimed myself as the second-coming in the first place.

Yes you do. Well maybe not the second coming, but you claim to be a prophet. look what you wrote here:

I speak for the God who wants to maintain eternal being. I speak for the God who knows that this can only happen if we exist in unity, in the knowledge of our oneness as God. I speak for the God who chooses love, peace, joy, and equality. I speak of a world with no borders and one government, truly for the people by the people, where the first shall come last and the last shall come first. I speak of our destiny.

Sounds like your trying to start a religion here. Is your way the only way to salvation? What if (this is a big if) we work things out with out your god or philosophy? Are we still doomed?

Because we are that God. We are God being (or 'becoming'). Therefore, if we - as God being - choose armageddon, then we - as that God - choose death to being.
God can only "be" in relation to other things. God is absolute. But if, whilst being, God chooses armageddon, then God chooses death to [relative] being. Please note however, that this does not kill God's absolute existence - just his relative being.

God does not die if man dies. But God's being does die if God, as man, chooses death to being.

Man, Russdill, can you call 'em or what.

What a load of poetic obfuscation!

What exactly is god becoming or being? Us? Real? A Platypus?
And when you say "God can only 'be' in relation to other things", are we talking about "real" things or illusionary things. It can't be "real" things because god is the only thing that exists. What excatly does it mean to "be" in relation to an illusionary thing?

O.k. so if "we" (god having this dream or illusion) chooses armgeddon, then it is just god's dream or illusion coming to an end. God is still o.k.;, doing fine; what a nightmare!; let's have another go at it, shall I?
Which brings to my statement: So what! We'er gone. big deal!we weren't real to begin with. God still exists. He'll just have another dream. Not much else to do, being the only thing that exists and all.

The sensations, thoughts & feelings, are all really happening to God. What isn't real, is the things which God discerns from those sensations, which God imagines exists externally to awareness.

What is the difference? The sensations are "real". That's what counts. We can not percieve this god or his realm. All we can percieve is this illusion. There is no difference between a "reality" or an illusion if there is no way for us to experiance beyond this existance or prove that it is or is not an illusion. What do I gain by accepting that this is an illusion that I don't gain by accepting that this is "reality"? Oh. that's right "unity". O.K. we're all god. You and I are the same. What I do to you I do to me. (hmm, sounds familiar. xianinty I think,or was it buddidsim. all of them I think). How does that change my situation? I still have to deal with this "illusion". I gotta get up and go to work. I still gotta eat and sleep. I'm still gonna get sick and die. Same as if I accept this existance as real. So what.

There is no "us". There is only God, thinking of itself as us. God can be anything - hence the diversity of mankind.
Still does not change anything. We still have to deal with this "illusion" as percieved individuals.

"So what?"?! Are you insane? Of course you are... my apologies.

Are you in the habit of constantly insulting god?... Oh wait there's my apology.

First you say:
There is no "us". There is only God, thinking of itself as us. God can be anything - hence the diversity of mankind.
Then you say:
'You' are God. You are sovereign of all you perceive, because all you perceive is happening within you.
Who's the insane one?

That's like asking why somebody who abhors pain would choose to walk through a fire.
Well, maybe it's the lesser of two evils. like either walk through a fire or read these post for an eternity.

Lifegazer is not perfect.
If you can admit this, then you must admit that your philosophy may be mistaken also.

RussDill

2nd March 2004, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Yes... and the time is fast approaching when we shall deal with this reality as the God that we are.

And that would make a difference because....

Currently, we are all indiduals with our own thoughts, feelings, emotions, memories personalities, strengths, weaknesses, problems, etc. If we die, we no longer "have" that identity

If we all went along with your thing, we would all be indiduals with our own thoughts, feelings, emotions, memories personalities, strengths, weaknesses, problems, etc. If we die, we no longer "have" that identity. Except if we get along, some diety would make some choice over another, a choice that doesn't really matter, since it would really just be symantics.

RussDill

2nd March 2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I speak for the God who wants to maintain eternal being. I speak for the God who knows that this can only happen if we exist in unity, in the knowledge of our oneness as God. I speak for the God who chooses love, peace, joy, and equality. I speak of a world with no borders and one government, truly for the people by the people, where the first shall come last and the last shall come first. I speak of our destiny.

So something can happen that god does not want to happen? Lemme spell it out here:

"God who wants to maintain eternal being" vs "this can only happen if we exist in unity"

also, borders, and differing governments are a good thing, just like having one mega corporation would be a bad thing, or even one corporation that controls an industry is a bad thing. Diversity is a good thing, choice is a good thing.

RussDill

2nd March 2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

God is absolute existence. Nothing else exists. God has no form, since God exists at boundless singularity.
God is... "I AM".

Those ancient Jews were aware of this, it seems.

looks like wild waving hands it is. Anyway, the jews most definately believed in beings besides god, take satan for instance. And anyway, in genesis, a listing of all of existence is made, god, and the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god, whatever, whatever. *Then* god created the heavens and the earth. So that would be something new, beyond the word/god.

So, God cannot be anything unless God creates a realm-of-things to which God can relate.

More handwaving, god exists, you said it yourself, he exists with or without imaging that he is all of us. Also, the "realm-of-things" is just his imagination and an illusion according to you. So to say he is being only because he relates to an illusion of his own creation makes him sound like a bit of a nutcase to say the least.

This realm must exist as an illusion, within God's awareness, since God is absolute existence and nothing else exists.

Thus, being is perceived as an illusion, but is an expression of God's diverse potential.

More handwaving. The above statements add nothing to your argument, and match with none of the points I made.

lifegazer

3rd March 2004, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by uruk
Sounds like your trying to start a religion here. Is your way the only way to salvation? What if (this is a big if) we work things out with out your god or philosophy? Are we still doomed?

We all know that mankind will never live in peace and equality unless, as a whole, he chooses to do so. Our species, divided, will eventually crumble away to nothing.

What exactly is god becoming or being? Us? Real? A Platypus?

God is being whatever has being. Yet all things have being in relation to each other. God has no being except absolute being... and that relates to no thing that we know. God is existence. Everything else is a relative illusion within the awareness of The Absolute.

And when you say "God can only 'be' in relation to other things", are we talking about "real" things or illusionary things. It can't be "real" things because god is the only thing that exists. What excatly does it mean to "be" in relation to an illusionary thing?

Relationships can exist between concepts or between illusory entities. Our ability to define a system is not contingent upon the reality of that system.
I gotta go. Might finish replying later.