What is Discernment?

[Iacchus]

What is discernment, if not the ability to differentiate? Why differentiate if not to determine the value or meaning of something? Indeed, why is the whole Universe set up so that we can differentiate and evaluate each and every thing there is? Could it be because there's a genuine purpose behind our being here? Or else why would the Universe be wrought with meaning through and through? Is that to say there's nothing coherent about the Universe, which brings it all into focus, an ultimate meaning in other words? What is the meaning of a human body, with the sum total of its parts? Certainly not a lack of coherence, right? What is meaning without consciousness? And how could we discern otherwise?

[Beancounter]

Iacchus

Is this one thread or 15?

[MRC_Hans]

Mmm, and your point is?

Hans

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why differentiate if not to determine the value or meaning of something?
Discernment is also useful if you wish to organize, to catergorize, or identify things.

What is meaning without consciousness?
A definition? ;)

And how could we discern otherwise?
By awaking from deep sleep.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Mmm, and your point is?

Hans Just asking why we're given the ability to discern and differentiate between things if not for the sake of establishing their meaning. And I don't necessarily mean in the human sense either, because if there was no difference between one thing and the next there would be nothing here. So in that sense everything must be comprised of meaning.

[Beancounter]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just asking why we're given the ability to discern and differentiate between things if not for the sake of establishing their meaning. And I don't necessarily mean in the human sense either, because if there was no difference between one thing and the next there would be nothing here. So in that sense everything must be comprised of meaning.

Meaning? I differentiate between things to make sure I don't brush my teeth with the lawnmower.

I am sure I am trivialising your question but due to my unphilosophical mind I need a bit more clarification (if I am to continue in the thread, which may not be your preference anyway :) )

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Discernment is also useful if you wish to organize, to catergorize, or identify things.Yes, and each of these has meaning in its own right.


A definition? ;)To whom?


By awaking from deep sleep. And then we would be conscious, right?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beancounter

Meaning? I differentiate between things to make sure I don't brush my teeth with the lawnmower. Common sense?


I am sure I am trivialising your question but due to my unphilosophical mind I need a bit more clarification (if I am to continue in the thread, which may not be your preference anyway :) ) Well, if it has no meaning to you, why bother?

[Beancounter]

I'll get my coat...

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just asking why we're given the ability to discern and differentiate between things if not for the sake of establishing their meaning. And I don't necessarily mean in the human sense either, because if there was no difference between one thing and the next there would be nothing here. So in that sense everything must be comprised of meaning. Well, I don't KNOW of course, but I find it likely that we were "given" the ability to discern by evolution, because it makes one heck of a survival factor. The fact that there are differences can in no logical way lead to the conclusion that there is meaning.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beancounter

I'll get my coat... Am I to conclude that what I've said means nothing to you? How so? And what right do you have to differentiate? Or, are you trying to suggest differentiation has nothing to do with it?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and each of these has meaning in its own right.
I'm afraid I dont follow...

To whom?
A very good question because I think it elaborates on the concept of "meaning". Does "meaning" refer to something cosmic (in the sense of a God), or is meaning something personal which will vary according to whomever you ask?

And then we would be conscious, right?
Of course.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Well, I don't KNOW of course, but I find it likely that we were "given" the ability to discern by evolution, because it makes one heck of a survival factor. The fact that there are differences can in no logical way lead to the conclusion that there is meaning.Then what's your point, if it has no meaning? :p

So what you seem to be suggesting is that Evolution is what instills ultimate meaning in life, right?

[MRC_Hans]

Nonsense and straw-man.

Bye.

Hans

[Beancounter]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Am I to conclude that what I've said means nothing to you? How so? And what right do you have to differentiate? Or, are you trying to suggest differentiation has nothing to do with it?

Someone's pinched my coat.

I am just battling to see the link between differentiating between two things and their "meaning". As pointed out by Hans the ability to differentiate is a pretty important factor in our continued survivial. I took it to the extreme by referring to brushing my teeth with a lawnmower but an element of "common sense" as you called it is the ability to differentiate between which is the right tool to use and which is the wrong.

I fail to see how the judgement call that differentiation requires is designed to establish something's meaning. Surely it is rather intended to establish what is the best course of action to take based on the nature of the thing being considered.

Now the above may be well wide of the mark and over simplistic but that is why I was looking for clarity from you as to more precisely what you meant.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I'm afraid I dont follow...Doesn't meaning in fact follow suit with everything? Sort of like our shadow, which follows us around wherever we go? In other words what's the whole purpose of the English language (with all its semantics) if not to convey meaning?


A very good question because I think it elaborates on the concept of "meaning". Does "meaning" refer to something cosmic (in the sense of a God), or is meaning something personal which will vary according to whomever you ask?But isn't meaning merely a value we place on things based upon their differences? In which case why not ask where it begins and where it ends?


Of course. Of course. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Nonsense and straw-man.

Bye.

Hans Good riddens to that which is meaningless and worthless. :p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beancounter

I fail to see how the judgement call that differentiation requires is designed to establish something's meaning. Surely it is rather intended to establish what is the best course of action to take based on the nature of the thing being considered. Well then, by all means, brush your teeth with a lawn mower! ... See if I care!

Don't you realize how ridiculous that sounds? But then again, if it actually meant something? ;)

[Beancounter]

Ok, I've found my coat.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beancounter

I fail to see how the judgement call that differentiation requires is designed to establish something's meaning. Surely it is rather intended to establish what is the best course of action to take based on the nature of the thing being considered.Oh yeah, it can also mean the difference between life and death if we're not careful. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Well, I don't KNOW of course, but I find it likely that we were "given" the ability to discern by evolution, because it makes one heck of a survival factor. The fact that there are differences can in no logical way lead to the conclusion that there is meaning.

Hans Would you conclude then, that survival has something to do with the meaning of existence? Which is, afterall that which has survived, right? In other words by the very fact that it exists imparts it has meaning doesn't it? Otherwise why discuss it? ... i.e., that which is meaningless.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Doesn't meaning in fact follow suit with everything? Sort of like our shadow, which follows us around wherever we go? In other words what's the whole purpose of the English language (with all its semantics) if not to convey meaning?
Ah, I understand now. Yes, you are correct :)

But isn't meaning merely the value placed on things based upon their differences?
Meaning can be anything and come from anyone. One million bananas means "one million bananas" to me, but it may mean something entirely new to a person who exchanges bananas as currency (in other words, one's personal circumstances, from native language to preferred operating system, can easily affect the meaning of things). Or at least if you believe meaning is subjective...

[Wudang]

You use too many meanings of meaning. What meaning of meaning do you mean? If you disagree then the meaning of life can be found in a dictionary.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Ah, I understand now. Yes, you are correct :)

Meaning can be anything and come from anyone. One million bananas means "one million bananas" to me, but it may mean something entirely new to a person who exchanges bananas as currency (in other words, one's personal circumstances, from native language to preferred operating system, can easily affect the meaning of things). Or at least if you believe meaning is subjective... So what? What would it mean if there was nothing to differentiate? If a tree fell in the woods and there was no one there (human) to witness it, would it still make a noise?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Wudang

You use too many meanings of meaning. What meaning of meaning do you mean? If you disagree then the meaning of life can be found in a dictionary. How about the meaning which entails everything? Or, how about the meaning which is derived from the significance of existence?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what? What would it mean if there was nothing to differentiate? If a tree fell in the woods and there was no one there (human) to witness it, would it still make a noise?
Yes,

Gosh that was easy.
So what you seem to be suggesting is that Evolution is what instills ultimate meaning in life, right?
Why does there have to be a meaning ? A lot of people who consider themselves spritual labour under the misapprehension that there has to be a greater meaning to life. After all we couldn't all be put here just to procreate and to become a source of food for worms, right ? I mean there has to be a greater purpose doesn't there ?

[Iacchus]

Doesn't the significance of existence have meaning to you? Do you have any issues with dying by any chance?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by The Don

Why does there have to be a meaning ? A lot of people who consider themselves spritual labour under the misapprehension that there has to be a greater meaning to life. After all we couldn't all be put here just to procreate and to become a source of food for worms, right ? I mean there has to be a greater purpose doesn't there ? Yes, and do you realize that you're using the word meaning to convey that the word meaning is meaningless?

[Iacchus]

So, it's through the means of Science that we have been unable to establish that an ultimate meaning of life exists. However, is that to suggest that an ultimate meaning of life doesn't exist?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, it's through the means of Science that we have been unable to establish that an ultimate meaning of life exists.
The scientific method doesn't determine the meaning of anything, just how it works.

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, is that to suggest that an ultimate meaning of life doesn't exist?
I suggest that since neither you nor anyone else can agree on an ultimate meaning, that the term is... er... meaningless.

You find your own meanings in life. I find mine. No matter how hard you wish for it, there isn't a universal one.

Come. Live with us in the real world. It's not such a bad place.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

The scientific method doesn't determine the meaning of anything, just how it works.It definitely has its means though doesn't it?


I suggest that since neither you nor anyone else can agree on an ultimate meaning, that the term is... er... meaningless.There's only one Universe, and it all comes from the same place, regardless of what us humans care to call it.


You find your own meanings in life. I find mine. No matter how hard you wish for it, there isn't a universal one. And yet to suggest that such a thing has no beginning or an end is absurd. :p


Come. Live with us in the real world. It's not such a bad place. What, and live in a world without meaning? Now you tell me which is more real? ;)

[Piscivore]

This is what I mean when I name you "Lord High Equivocator", but the meaning doesn't mean I intend to be mean. :p

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What is discernment, if not the ability to differentiate? Why differentiate if not to determine the value or meaning of something? Indeed, why is the whole Universe set up so that we can differentiate and evaluate each and every thing there is? Could it be because there's a genuine purpose behind our being here? Or else why would the Universe be wrought with meaning through and through?Why is this even a question? If we live in a universe with a purpose, and we're so good at discerning that we can differentiate everything, why can't we discern what the purpose is?

Is it possible to discern the difference(s) between a universe filled with meaning and with an ultimate purpose, and a universe filled with meaning but with no ultimate purpose itself? If not, why not? If so, why do we have such a hard time telling which one we live in?

[jimlintott]

Why does it have to be any more complicated than, can I eat this, can I sleep here and where can I find another to breed with?

The answers to all your questions may actually be 'inside the box'.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

Why is this even a question? If we live in a universe with a purpose, and we're so good at discerning that we can differentiate everything, why can't we discern what the purpose is?

Is it possible to discern the difference(s) between a universe filled with meaning and with an ultimate purpose, and a universe filled with meaning but with no ultimate purpose itself? If not, why not? If so, why do we have such a hard time telling which one we live in? But why do we have the propensity to ask? Indeed, to suggest that everything has its own meaning but, that no ultimate meaning exists -- for example, in the way the constituent parts of the human body which, have no meaning in and of themselves, come together to form a whole human being -- sounds completely absurd! In fact without a sense of wholeness to understand the relationship between the constituent parts, there would be no meaning.

Contrary to what Science may believe, with its propensity to dissect and catalog everything to the single last detail, human beings were perfectly capable of functioning properly before it came along. And yes, that included a life which had meaning.

[Wudang]

Snort.
ut why do we have the propensity to punch each other in the teeth? Indeed, to suggest that everything has its own meaning but, that no ultimate meaning exists -- for example, in the way the constituent parts of the human body which, have no meaning in and of themselves, come together to form a whole human being -- sounds completely absurd! In fact without a sense of wholeness to understand the relationship between the constituent parts, there would be no reason to punch each other in the teeth.

Contrary to what Science may believe, with its propensity to dissect and catalog everything to the single last detail, human beings were perfectly capable of punching each other in the teeth before it came along. And yes, that included a life which had punching each other in the teeth

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

Why does it have to be any more complicated than, can I eat this, can I sleep here and where can I find another to breed with?

The answers to all your questions may actually be 'inside the box'. Yes, and would a robot require any more than that from its program?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Wudang

Contrary to what Science may believe, with its propensity to dissect and catalog everything to the single last detail, human beings were perfectly capable of punching each other in the teeth before it came along. And yes, that included a life which had punching each other in the teeth Yes, even a drunken brawl can have a sense of meaning. ;) Of course most wouldn't consider that meaning in its higher sense, unless of course one were a dead drunk.

[Wudang]

Yes, even a drunken debate can have people punching each other in the teeth . Of course most wouldn't consider that punching each other in the teeth in its higher sense, unless of course one were a drunk bullsh*tter.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[T]o suggest that everything has its own meaning but, that no ultimate meaning exists -- for example, in the way the constituent parts of the human body which, have no meaning in and of themselves, come together to form a whole human being -- sounds completely absurd!And yet, arguing that there must be a meaning to something, but not knowing what that meaning is, is equally absurd.

We know what meaning the parts of the human body have, and we know what meaning the whole human body has. Why don't we know what meaning the entire universe has?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Beancounter

Meaning? I differentiate between things to make sure I don't brush my teeth with the lawnmower.
Originally posted by Iacchus
Common sense?
...

Common sense as a result of the ability to differentiate, mayhap?

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what right do you have to differentiate?

Er... "right"?

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what? What would it mean if there was nothing to differentiate? If a tree fell in the woods and there was no one there (human) to witness it, would it still make a noise?

This was answered in my yearbook. Essentially, since no one's ears would be there to convert the vibration into sound/noise, it does not.

You again, Iacchus
Doesn't the significance of existence have meaning to you? Do you have any issues with dying by any chance?

I think existence is a wonderful thing and that we're the products of a chance roll by the universe. I don't need a "meaning" to make it special. As far as "dying by chance", no, I don't like it. But that's existence.

Not Iacchus, but Tricky!
You find your own meanings in life. I find mine. No matter how hard you wish for it, there isn't a universal one.

I'm with Tricky on the general idea here, but I'm still open to the idea of there being a universal meaning. I just don't need one and I'm not going to waste time looking for it.

I just can't see what's so bad about a world without meaning so I can't see why it's necessary. The world is. That's all.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Wudang

Yes, even a drunken debate can have people punching each other in the teeth . Of course most wouldn't consider that punching each other in the teeth in its higher sense, unless of course one were a drunk bullsh*tter. Dionysus was the god of wine (http://www.dionysus.org/x1401.html#22), not drunkenness by the way. ;) He was also known as the god of confrontation (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html).

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

And yet, arguing that there must be a meaning to something, but not knowing what that meaning is, is equally absurd.

We know what meaning the parts of the human body have, and we know what meaning the whole human body has. Why don't we know what meaning the entire universe has? Like I said, Science, in its lack of completeness or, the lack of understanding thereof, seems to be incapable of providing this.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Dionysus was the god of wine (http://www.dionysus.org/x1401.html#22), not drunkenness by the way. ;) He was also known as the god of confrontation (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html).

In Greek mythology which is relevant because..........?

I am, in fact, less liable to punch people in the teeth when drunk so your point is lost on me.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Wudang

In Greek mythology which is relevant because..........?Because I'm the one who wrote the book about it. ;)


I am, in fact, less liable to punch people in the teeth when drunk so your point is lost on me. Of course even if you did, how could you possibly remember, except for all the bruises all over your face the next day?

[chance]

iacchus Would it be so absurd and/or difficult to accept, if there is no ‘ultimate meaning’ to discern?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because I'm the one who wrote the book about it. ;)
[]/i]
Which is only relevant in your own ego. Unless you wrote a book about about greek myths punching each other in the teeth?

[i]
Of course even if you did, how could you possibly remember, except for all the bruises all over your face the next day?
Why do you passive aggressives always think of yourselves so highly?

[jimlintott]

originally posted by me
Why does it have to be any more complicated than, can I eat this, can I sleep here and where can I find another to breed with?

Is it possible that you might even attempt to answer this question with an actual answer, not a question? For someone who is trying to make a point, your sentences are far too frequently worded and punctuated as interrogatives.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

I'm with Tricky on the general idea here, but I'm still open to the idea of there being a universal meaning. I just don't need one and I'm not going to waste time looking for it.

I just can't see what's so bad about a world without meaning so I can't see why it's necessary. The world is. That's all. Might actually make sense if the world were nothing but a hollow shell ... which it ain't. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Wudang

Which is only relevant in your own ego. Unless you wrote a book about about greek myths punching each other in the teeth?All this tells me is that you didn't follow the link.


Why do you passive aggressives always think of yourselves so highly? Hey, maybe I actually have something to say here and, I'm tired of people insinuating (to put it nicely) that there is no meaning in life. Are you saying that you're unwilling to stand to be corrected? Besides, I'm not the one who brought up this punching people in the teeth thing.

And what makes you so snug as a bug under the rug?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

Is it possible that you might even attempt to answer this question with an actual answer, not a question? For someone who is trying to make a point, your sentences are far too frequently worded and punctuated as interrogatives. Could it be that it sounds this way because you are unwilling to ask these questions yourself?

By the way, wasn't this also Socrates' approach?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by chance

iacchus Would it be so absurd and/or difficult to accept, if there is no ‘ultimate meaning’ to discern? Might I suggest that you continue to look if, in fact this is what you wish to find? ;)

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Iacchus
All this tells me is that you didn't follow the link.
[/i]
Actually I did and I did a quick grep for punch and teeth.
[i]

Hey, maybe I actually have something to say here and, I'm tired of people insinuating (to put it nicely) that there is no meaning in life. Are you saying that you're unwilling to stand to be corrected? Besides, I'm not the one who brought up this punching people in the teeth thing.

And what makes you so snug as a bug under the rug?

Are you willing to stand up to be corrected? Are you willing to accept that I actually have something to day here? Until you clarify what you are trying to say then everything you say about "meaning" applies equally well to punching people in the teeth. Did you really not get that?
:jaw:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Wudang

Are you willing to stand up to be corrected? Are you willing to accept that I actually have something to day here? Until you clarify what you are trying to say then everything you say about "meaning" applies equally well to punching people in the teeth. Did you really not get that?
:jaw: No. Do you know why? Because if there is no meaning to life, why should I accept anything anything more (or less) from you? Hey, doesn't that sound awfully mean to say? And yet you know what they say, "Reality bites."

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By the way, wasn't this also Socrates' approach?

No. (http://www.gutenberg.net/etext94/repub13.txt)

Socrates (in Plato's writings, at least which is how we know him) would ask a question, get an answer, ask a question to refine the answer, etc. until he understood his companion's position.

He always answered questions put to him- sometimes with a wit you seem to aspire to, but fall short of ;)- but directly and honestly. He never (that I can recall, at least) answered a direct question with a equivocal, unrelated, and naive question of his own. That "technique" is all you, my friend.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Might actually make sense if the world were nothing but a hollow shell ... which it ain't. ;)

What do layers of rock have to do with meaning?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No. Do you know why? Because if there is no meaning to life, why should I accept anything anything more (or less) from you? Hey, doesn't that sound awfully mean to say? And yet you know what they say, "Reality bites."

Yawn. Bored now. Either you still don't get that words that are spelled the same are not the same or you're just trolling.
Anyway turning your (cough) logic around, if there is meaning me punching you in the teeth then you would accept it? Or if I punch you in the teeth twice so there is mean value?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

What do layers of rock have to do with meaning? Do layers of rock have meaning? Sure they do. It's all about their relationship with their surroundings.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

No. (http://www.gutenberg.net/etext94/repub13.txt)

Socrates (in Plato's writings, at least which is how we know him) would ask a question, get an answer, ask a question to refine the answer, etc. until he understood his companion's position.

He always answered questions put to him- sometimes with a wit you seem to aspire to, but fall short of ;)- but directly and honestly. He never (that I can recall, at least) answered a direct question with a equivocal, unrelated, and naive question of his own. That "technique" is all you, my friend. By the way, how can error be conceived in a mind which aspires towards no purpose or meaning?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do layers of rock have meaning? Sure they do. It's all about their relationship with their surroundings.

So a punch in the teeth has meaning for the same reason. Q I rather think ED.

[jimlintott]

Could it be that it sounds this way because you are unwilling to ask these questions yourself?

I have asked the questions, many times. This is one of the answers I've encountered. It is simple and applies equally to all living things. It satisfies Occam's Razor.

I am asking you as to why you think it needs to be more complicated.

I will put it to you again. Why does there need to be more to life than finding your next meal, mate and suitable environment in which to live?

Wouldn't the meaning of life apply equally to all life? Is there something inherently special about humans?

[LostAngeles]

Backing up here:

I said
...I just can't see what's so bad about a world without meaning so I can't see why it's necessary. The world is. That's all.
Iacchus responded
Might actually make sense if the world were nothing but a hollow shell ... which it ain't. ;)
I said
What do layers of rock have to do with meaning?
Iachuus responded
Do layers of rock have meaning? Sure they do. It's all about their relationship with their surroundings.

I'm under the impression that you're referring to what would commonly be considered a "higher meaning," that everything has a purpose be it given by God or not. This is something I don't see as being nor as being needed. There's nothing wrong, in my eyes, with the world simply being a world.

This isn't some "Hollow Earth" theory I've got so what are you talking about?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

I have asked the questions, many times. This is one of the answers I've encountered. It is simple and applies equally to all living things. It satisfies Occam's Razor.

I am asking you as to why you think it needs to be more complicated.

I will put it to you again. Why does there need to be more to life than finding your next meal, mate and suitable environment in which to live?

Wouldn't the meaning of life apply equally to all life? Is there something inherently special about humans? Is this kind of what you're referring to here? ... Or no?


25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: ) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. ~ Matthew 6:25-34 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+6)Hey, I have no problem abiding by this. ;)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus Originally posted by Piscivore
No.

Socrates (in Plato's writings, at least which is how we know him) would ask a question, get an answer, ask a question to refine the answer, etc. until he understood his companion's position.

He always answered questions put to him- sometimes with a wit you seem to aspire to, but fall short of - but directly and honestly. He never (that I can recall, at least) answered a direct question with a equivocal, unrelated, and naive question of his own. That "technique" is all you, my friend.
By the way, how can error be conceived in a mind which aspires towards no purpose or meaning?

Nice example, yes. Thanks for illustrating that.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is this kind of what you're referring to here? ... Or no?


Hey, I have no problem abiding by this. ;)

Your attitude might change if you lived in Ruwanda.
Behold the vultures of the air ........

Consider the stinking corpse lilies ....

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

I'm under the impression that you're referring to what would commonly be considered a "higher meaning," that everything has a purpose be it given by God or not. This is something I don't see as being nor as being needed. There's nothing wrong, in my eyes, with the world simply being a world.Do you recognize the possibility that it exists though?


This isn't some "Hollow Earth" theory I've got so what are you talking about? What would be the point of being human without a navigator at the helm so to speak? Are we just merely the images we convey towards each other?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Nice example, yes. Thanks for illustrating that. Just want to make sure you get your meaning's worth. ;)

[jimlintott]

Is this kind of what you're referring to here? ... Or no?

No.

Here, I'll try again only I'll make it very simple.

Is there more to life than finding your next meal, mate and suitable environment in which to live?

That is a yes or no question.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

No.

Here, I'll try again only I'll make it very simple.

Is there more to life than finding your next meal, mate and suitable environment in which to live?

That is a yes or no question. Life is meaningless. What's your point? And if there is meaning to life, where do you draw the line? Or, are you trying to say we can have it both ways?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you recognize the possibility that it exists though?


What would be the point of being human without a navigator at the helm so to speak? Are we just merely the images we convey towards each other?

First question: if you read my original post, you'd know the answer because I specifically addressed that.

Second and Third: Aren't we the "navigator" of ourselves and Yes.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

First question: if you read my original post, you'd know the answer because I specifically addressed that.Consider it a rhetorical question then, because sometimes things bear repeating.


Second and Third: Aren't we the "navigator" of ourselves and Yes. In other words there's something more substantial to existence than merely the forms we recognize, right?

[jimlintott]

Life is meaningless. What's your point? And if there is meaning to life, where do you draw the line?

You have stated several times that life is meaningless. Why is life meaningless? If you believe life is meaningless then why do you keep trying to find convoluted nonsensical meaning for it? Why are you incapable of answering a simple yes or no question? I guess you are incapable of an unequivocable answer.

I certainly don't think life is maningless. I have actually stated what I think life is about in a single sentence. Surely, with your unlimited talent for manipulating the language you can do the same. I did draw a line. Where do you draw the line?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

You have stated several times that life is meaningless. Why is life meaningless? If you believe life is meaningless then why do you keep trying to find convoluted nonsensical meaning for it? Why are you incapable of answering a simple yes or no question? I guess you are incapable of an unequivocable answer.

I certainly don't think life is maningless. I have actually stated what I think life is about in a single sentence. Surely, with your unlimited talent for manipulating the language you can do the same. I did draw a line. Where do you draw the line? Do I buy into the notion that life is nothing but meaningless hogwash? No. However, this is about all it can amount to based upon the majority of opinions which I've heard expressed on this board. Sorry, but I do take exception to that. ;)

So, in answer to questions pertaining to the meaningless of what I have to say, why should you expect me to respond any differently? It's like I was saying, you can't have it both ways.

[jimlintott]

Do I buy into the notion that life is nothing but meaningless hogwash? No. However, this is about all it can amount to based upon the majority of the opinions which I've heard expressed on this board. Sorry, but I do take exception to that.

So, in answer to questions pertaining to the meaningless of what I have to say, why should you expect me to respond any differently? It's like I was saying, you can't have it both ways.

Wow, all those sentences and only two question marks. Now we're getting somewhere.

It is my belief that life's meaning is limited to simple survival as a species. Find a suitable environment to live. Find food to eat. Find ways to propagate. I like this because, as I said, it can be applied to all living things and it is very simple.

So, why am I wrong? Why do you disagree? What evidence is there that I should alter this point of view? (That last question being the most important.)

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Like I said, Science, in its lack of completeness or, the lack of understanding thereof, seems to be incapable of providing this [meaning the entire universe has]. And so, of course, do religions and philosophies.

The fact that there are more than one religion or philosophy shows that we don't know the meaning of the universe. We can guess at it, sure. We can apply reason to it. We can listen to people who say that they are speaking on behalf of the Creator. But not everyone arrives at the same conclusion, and that's why anyone who says that they know the meaning of the universe comes across as sounding either egotistical or false.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

Wow, all those sentences and only two question marks. Now we're getting somewhere.

It is my belief that life's meaning is limited to simple survival as a species. Find a suitable environment to live. Find food to eat. Find ways to propagate. I like this because, as I said, it can be applied to all living things and it is very simple.

So, why am I wrong? Why do you disagree? What evidence is there that I should alter this point of view? (That last question being the most important.) But what if we aren't satisfied by merely grazing in the field like cattle? And why do we continue to ask why, regardless?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

And so, of course, do religions and philosophies.

The fact that there are more than one religion or philosophy shows that we don't know the meaning of the universe. We can guess at it, sure. We can apply reason to it. We can listen to people who say that they are speaking on behalf of the Creator. But not everyone arrives at the same conclusion, and that's why anyone who says that they know the meaning of the universe comes across as sounding either egotistical or false. So, to imply that there is no meaning then? Aren't you in fact voicing your own imperative here, that indeed this is it? And, to the extent that anyone disagrees, they're wrong? Or, if they're not wrong, we just pass it off as meaningless nonsense then, right?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, to imply that there is no meaning then? Aren't you in fact voicing your own imperative here, that indeed this is how it is? And, to the extent that anyone disagrees, they're wrong? Or, if they're not wrong, we just pass it off as meaningless nonsense then, right? I am implying - well, now actually I'm stating - that there is no discernable difference between the universe we live in and a universe that has no meaning. That there is no discernable difference between this universe and a universe where the God of the Bible is just a character in a very popular story, with no real power or creative ability.

If you disagree, then show me the difference. I am willing to be persuaded. How is a universe that has no meaning different than the one we live in now?

[chance]

Iacchus chance> Would it be so absurd and/or difficult to accept, if there is no ‘ultimate meaning’ to discern?
Might I suggest that you continue to look if, in fact this is what you wish to find? Suggest away. But what mechanism is available to me to discern if I have discovered an ‘ultimate meaning’ from fiction, or a lie?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

I am implying - well, now actually I'm stating - that there is no discernable difference between the universe we live in and a universe that has no meaning. That there is no discernable difference between this universe and a universe where the God of the Bible is just a character in a very popular story, with no real power or creative ability.

If you disagree, then show me the difference. I am willing to be persuaded. How is a universe that has no meaning different than the one we live in now? Just because God is not visible in a form we can readily see, does not mean He's not the author of meaning. In fact if He was readily discernable, why would we continue to seek Him, through meaning? Can't you see that this in fact might be God's way of exhibiting a profound respect for our intelligence?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by chance

Suggest away. But what mechanism is available to me to discern if I have discovered an ‘ultimate meaning’ from fiction, or a lie? That would be based upon your own sincerity and your desire to know I would think? All I can say, is if you're looking for falsity, this is no doubt what you will find.

[jimlintott]

But what if we aren't satisfied by merely grazing in the field like cattle? And why do we continue to ask why, regardless?

Does our ability to ask questions or our lack of satisfaction mean that there must be more? Our lack of satisfaction (you should really only speak for yourself) or the human ability for thinking is hardly evidence that there is more than what I suggest. Is there any solid evidence or are you just hoping it to be true? Not every question has an answer. Not every question has to have an answer that you like.

Questioning reality can't change reality.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

Does our ability to ask questions or our lack of satisfaction mean that there must be more? Our lack of satisfaction (you should really only speak for yourself) or the human ability for thinking is hardly evidence that there is more than what I suggest. Is there any solid evidence or are you just hoping it to be true? Not every question has an answer. Not every question has to have an answer that you like.

Questioning reality can't change reality. What is it about human beings though, that requires them to seek meaning, in just about everything they do? There's no doubt much of it is attributable to the fact that we have large brains which allow us to do so, but that still doesn't answer the why of it in terms of meaning.

[jimlintott]

What is it about human beings though, that requires them to seek meaning, in just about everything they do? There's no doubt much of it is attributable to the fact that we have large brains which allow us to do so, but that still doesn't answer the why of it in terms of meaning.

Are you assuming that we are the only living things that seek meaning? Does simply seeking something make it exist?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

Are you assuming that we are the only living things that seek meaning? Does simply seeking something make it exist? Why do salmon swim upstream? If not to get back to their origin or, original nature?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just because God is not visible in a form we can readily see, does not mean He's not the author of meaning.I never said that it did.

In fact if He was readily discernable, why would we continue to seek Him, through meaning? Can't you see that this in fact might be God's way of exhibiting a profound respect for our intelligence? Of course it might be. And it is just as possible that it might be that it is His way of exhibiting His trickster-bully nature, or that He doesn't really exist at all. With all our discernment abilities, we can't discern a difference between the situation we are in and a situation in which there is no God. Can't you see that?

[jimlintott]

Why do salmon swim upstream? If not to get back to their origin or, original nature?

To lay eggs. This is their adaptation. This falls under propagating the species in a suitable environment. Are the humans and other animals that know about this migration, and exploit it, seeking something other than food?

Crocodiles gather at crossing points in rivers to exploit animal migrations. Sharks gather at certain spots annually to exploit young birds learning to fly. How do they manage to reason this? To try to seperate humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is folly and will encumber your ability to understand life and its meanings. Time to open your mind.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

I never said that it did.

Of course it might be. And it is just as possible that it might be that it is His way of exhibiting His trickster-bully nature, or that He doesn't really exist at all. With all our discernment abilities, we can't discern a difference between the situation we are in and a situation in which there is no God. Can't you see that? If God were all things, then He has every means at His disposal by which to conceal Himself or, if He so chooses, reveal Himself. However, that's entirely up to Him. While I admit that it may not even be necessary to ascribe the proccess to Him, so long as we find meaning in our lives. In which case, we as human beings, would have fulfilled the purpose of our design.

Albeit if we were to discover who He is, it would no doubt entail the process of discernment.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[B]Doesn't meaning in fact follow suit with everything?
No, it doesn't.

[jimlintott]

If God were all things, then He has every means at His disposal by which to conceal Himself or, if He so chooses, reveal Himself.

To define something as all things is to not define anything at all. A definition enables us to seperate something from everything else. If you can believe that something can be all things then it is easy to understand why you can't understand why I don't believe in that particular something.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

To define something as all things is to not define anything at all. A definition enables us to seperate something from everything else. If you can believe that something can be all things then it is easy to understand why you can't understand why I don't believe in that particular something. What is energy?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahzi

No, it doesn't. Oh, yes it does. ;)

[jimlintott]

What is energy?

What is matter?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

What is matter? What is information? And where is the wisdom to discern it?

[jimlintott]

What is information? And where is the wisdom to discern it?

How do you discern something that is defined as everything?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If God were all things, then He has every means at His disposal by which to conceal Himself or, if He so chooses, reveal Himself.Can God make it so that it is impossible to discern whether He exists or not?

If He can, then what is the difference between a universe where God makes Himself utterly imperceptible and one where He doesn't exist at all?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

How do you discern something that is defined as everything? Does information have something to do with the conversion of energy into matter? Or, how exactly does that happen? This I don't know?

By the way, why does one have to be a nuclear physicist to know that God exists? That would kind of defeat the purpose of seeking Him wouldn't it? And, just because I can't answer all these technical questions doesn't mean I'm not incapable of knowing is it? Maybe there's something more to it than just being knowledgable.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By the way, why does one have to be a nuclear physicist to know that God exists? That would kind of defeat the purpose of seeking Him wouldn't it? And, just because I can't answer all these technical questions doesn't mean I'm not incapable of knowing is it? Ahh, the heart of the matter.

If God needs to be sought out, why wouldn't it be very difficult to find Him?

If God is easy to find, why hasn't everyone found Him, or more to the point, why hasn't everyone who thinks they have found Him found the same version of Him?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

Can God make it so that it is impossible to discern whether He exists or not?

If He can, then what is the difference between a universe where God makes Himself utterly imperceptible and one where He doesn't exist at all? Well I agree, the whole thing would be entirely useless if, in fact the world as we know is all there is ...


31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. ~ Matthew 22:31-32 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+22)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

Ahh, the heart of the matter.

If God needs to be sought out, why wouldn't it be very difficult to find Him?

If God is easy to find, why hasn't everyone found Him, or more to the point, why hasn't everyone who thinks they have found Him found the same version of Him? Well, if God is all things, then the experience of God comes taylor-made, and is adaptable to each and everyone of us, no matter what we do in life. In which case we don't need to be a nuclear physicist to know who He is, so long as we are honest and sincere I would say.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[W]e don't need to be a nuclear physicist to know who He is, so long as we are honest and sincere I would say. Does the most honest, sincere Hindu know God?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, if God is all things, then the experience of God comes taylor-made, and is adaptable to each and everyone of us, no matter what we do in life. In which case we don't need to be a nuclear physicist to know who He is, so long as we are honest and sincere I would say.

I am and honest and sincere (demonstrably moreso than you, anyway ;)) atheist, and I know not this "god" of which you speak.

I mean in a personal sense, of course. I am familiar with him as a character in a work of fiction.

Just being honest and sincere.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
...then the experience of God comes taylor-made,

TIM Taylor? That would explain a lot, actually... :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

Does the most honest, sincere Hindu know God? If one were a faithful practicing Hindu, then no doubt.

[chance]

Iacchus Chance> Suggest away. But what mechanism is available to me to discern if I have discovered an ‘ultimate meaning’ from fiction, or a lie? That would be based upon your own sincerity and your desire to know I would think? All I can say, is if you're looking for falsity, this is no doubt what you will find. My sincerity and inquisitiveness would only allow me to proceed so far i.e. I would be seeking to find some ‘ultimate meaning’ and my sincerity would allow me to be honest with my self and not invent explanations.

Inquisitiveness will not help me discern fact from fiction.
Sincerity will not help me discern fact from fiction.

You stated “If I look for falsity I will find it”, well that would be a good thing, and I could eliminate some of the information, provided I have a mechanism to discern what I am examining is falsifiable, yes?

So I’ll ask again - what mechanism is available to discern an ‘ultimate meaning’ (or any observation for that matter). Perhaps you could tell me what method you use personally.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

I am and honest and sincere (demonstrably moreso than you, anyway ;)) atheist, and I know not this "god" of which you speak.

I mean in a personal sense, of course. I am familiar with him as a character in a work of fiction.

Just being honest and sincere. A person may indeed be discrete, but not necessarily dishonest. In fact discrete means being single-minded as opposed to duplicitous.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by chance

So I’ll ask again - what mechanism is available to discern an ‘ultimate meaning’ (or any observation for that matter). Perhaps you could tell me what method you use personally. It's rather simple really. 1 + 1 = 2. And if you can't acknowledge that, then I guess it is pointless. So, at the very least what does this tell you? That the truth does exist and, that it is discernable.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus Originally posted by Piscivore
I am and honest and sincere (demonstrably moreso than you, anyway ) atheist, and I know not this "god" of which you speak.

I mean in a personal sense, of course. I am familiar with him as a character in a work of fiction.

Just being honest and sincere.
A person may indeed be discrete, but necessarily dishonest. In fact discrete means being single-minded as opposed to duplicitious.

That's very nice, but I didn't say "discrete"- I said "honest" and "sincere"

An honest person is by definition not duplicitious.

Oh, and "discrete" means "separate from". I think you intended to say "discreet", which means "circumspect" or "modest" - neither of which means "single-minded" (which itself is not an antonym of "duplicitious") in the slightest, nor does either preclude honesty or sincerety.


edited to elaborate one small point

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If one were a faithful practicing Hindu, then no doubt. Even if he had never heard of Jesus? Or had heard of Jesus, but honestly, sincerely believed that Hinduism was the true way to know God?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

Even if he had never heard of Jesus? Or had heard of Jesus, but honestly, sincerely believed that Hinduism was the true way to know God? Who's Jesus? If it's just a name that you profess with the lips, what does that mean?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

That's very nice, but I didn't say "discrete"- I said "honest" and "sincere"

An honest person is by definition not duplicitious.

Oh, and "discrete" means "separate from". I think you intended to say "discreet", which means "circumspect" or "modest" - neither of which means "single-minded" (which itself is not an antonym of "duplicitious") in the slightest, nor does either preclude honesty or sincerety."Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." ~ Matthew 6:1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+6)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." ~ Matthew 6:1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+6)

What has an injunction against public displays of charity to do with an honest and sincere person rejecting god?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus Originally posted by Beleth
Even if he had never heard of Jesus? Or had heard of Jesus, but honestly, sincerely believed that Hinduism was the true way to know God?Who's Jesus?You know who Jesus is. Don't start playing the fool at this point in our conversation.

Please answer the question. I will repeat it.
"Does the most honest, sincere Hindu know God, even if he had never heard of Jesus, or had heard of Jesus but honestly, sincerely believed that Hinduism was the true way to know God?"

[Iacchus]

Didn't I already answer this? Wasn't the first answer good enough? Why do you insist that I repeat myself then? Perhaps it would be best if you could answer it for yourself?

[jimlintott]

Well, if God is all things, then the experience of God comes taylor-made, and is adaptable to each and everyone of us, no matter what we do in life. In which case we don't need to be a nuclear physicist to know who He is, so long as we are honest and sincere I would say.

If you are happy defining something as everything and then insisting it can somehow be discerned as unique then fine. For a person like myself, cursed with a rational mind, it doesn't work.

Of course defining something as all things is adaptable to each of us. It can be whatever any of us choose it to be.

If you wish to convince me that there are gods then you will have to provide me with adequate information to enable me to discern it from all things. Otherwise all things are simply all things.

[Iacchus]

Something which manifests itself through and permeates all things. Can energy do this? And yet what tells the energy to manifest itself in a specific form? Where does the information to do this come from, if not from the energy itself? If so, does that mean energy is capable of intelligence?

What is consciousness, if not a display of intelligent energy?

[chance]

Iacchus chance> what mechanism is available to discern an ‘ultimate meaning’ (or any observation for that matter). Perhaps you could tell me what method you use personally. It's rather simple really. 1 + 1 = 2. And if you can't acknowledge that, then I guess it is pointless. So, at the very least what does this tell you? That the truth does exist and, that it is discernable. Total evasion of the question noted.

1+1=2 demonstrates what? Accuracy of base 10 mathematics?, yes?
I could use mathematics to discern truths within that discipline. Do you propose I use mathematics in say philosophy? Sounds absurd to me, but I’m will to change my mind if you can provide a demonstration to persuade me that it is a viable method for discerning truth outside the mathematical discipline. Or you could provide an example of how to apply your 1+1=2 method IRL, assuming your method is not to be taken literally.

As an example, what method of discernment can be used in the following:

Here are 3 competing ideas on the meaning of life (i.e. insofar as what reality we observe).

a. What we see is real (a materialistic universe).
b. Transmission Theory as put forward by Interesting Ian (our brain is a transmitter/receiver for a ‘self’).
c. Brain in a vat (we live in the matrix).

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just asking why we're given the ability to discern and differentiate between things if not for the sake of establishing their meaning. And I don't necessarily mean in the human sense either, because if there was no difference between one thing and the next there would be nothing here. So in that sense everything must be comprised of meaning.

What is meaning?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

What is meaning? Got a dictionary?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by chance

Total evasion of the question noted.

1+1=2 demonstrates what? Accuracy of base 10 mathematics?, yes?
I could use mathematics to discern truths within that discipline. Do you propose I use mathematics in say philosophy? Sounds absurd to me, but I’m will to change my mind if you can provide a demonstration to persuade me that it is a viable method for discerning truth outside the mathematical discipline. Or you could provide an example of how to apply your 1+1=2 method IRL, assuming your method is not to be taken literally. No, the method is in the inherent ability to recognize the truth. In other words how else or you going to know if you can't see it for yourself? Indeed, what is it that tells us this is so? And, if you can't acknowledge 1 + 1 = 2, how can you acknowledge E=MC2?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Didn't I already answer this? Wasn't the first answer good enough?I suppose it was. I just didn't expect you to dismiss John 14:6 so easily.

[jimlintott]

Something which manifests itself through and permeates all things.

That is far to vague to be a definition. Although it could almost describe gravity. What kind of something? Manifests itself, how, when, where? Permeates all things? It's in my coffee and in my feces? If it permeates all things then physical evidence should be everywhere.

It is extremely difficult to move the supreme being idea from belief to reality. Define it as something that many people believe in and you've got me. Insist it is real and I'll need clear definitions and evidence. I apologise for being so discerning.

A really good definition or theory would be so clear that after reading it, it would become self evident. Something like 'a change in allele frequency over time'.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

I suppose it was. I just didn't expect you to dismiss John 14:6 so easily. Well even if it were true, and I'm not saying it isn't, if the most people can do is profess it on their lips, as if that's all that was necessary, i.e., without any idea of what they're talking about, then that pretty much discounts the whole idea and basically puts everybody on equal standing. In which case it puts those who profess but don't understand at a distinct disadvantage, because what they've accepted they've accepted blindly. And as I understand, many gentiles are received into heaven much more readily -- due to their unbias -- than those who have accepted a false Christ who, justify everything they do (right or wrong) in the name of Jesus.

And of course you've had a chance to read the thread, The Name Jesus = 666? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41823) Because these are the people I'm talking about here. So in this respect you can't say the Christian God is playing favorites, because He's not, it just appears that way due to human nature. Which of course, is why it leaves such a bad taste in so many people's mouths.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

That is far to vague to be a definition. Although it could almost describe gravity. What kind of something? Manifests itself, how, when, where? Permeates all things? It's in my coffee and in my feces? If it permeates all things then physical evidence should be everywhere.

It is extremely difficult to move the supreme being idea from belief to reality. Define it as something that many people believe in and you've got me. Insist it is real and I'll need clear definitions and evidence. I apologise for being so discerning.

A really good definition or theory would be so clear that after reading it, it would become self evident. Something like 'a change in allele frequency over time'. I'm referring to "energy" here. Isn't in fact everything -- in the physical sense -- a manifestion of energy?

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What is the meaning of a human body, with the sum total of its parts?
My body is a sex machine.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Riddick

My body is a sex machine. Actually that's not far from the truth, especially when looking at it in terms of the whole of nature which, is geared up towards sexual reproduction. But then again what's the point without a mind to go along for the ride. :D

[chance]

Iacchus Chance> Total evasion of the question noted.

1+1=2 demonstrates what? Accuracy of base 10 mathematics?, yes?
I could use mathematics to discern truths within that discipline. Do you propose I use mathematics in say philosophy? Sounds absurd to me, but I’m will to change my mind if you can provide a demonstration to persuade me that it is a viable method for discerning truth outside the mathematical discipline. Or you could provide an example of how to apply your 1+1=2 method IRL, assuming your method is not to be taken literally. No, the method is in the inherent ability to recognize the truth. There is no such thing as an “inherent ability to recognise the truth”, and I will prove it to you thus:

Which of the following statements are true,
I am 165cm tall,
I am 166cm tall,
I am 167cm tall,
I am 168cm tall,
I am 169cm tall,
I am 170cm tall,
I am 171cm tall,
I am 172cm tall,
I am 173cm tall,
I am 174cm tall,
I am 175cm tall,

You continued with,In other words how else or you going to know if you can't see it for yourself? Indeed, what is it that tells us this is so? And, if you can't acknowledge 1 + 1 = 2, how can you acknowledge E=MC2? Indeed how will you recognise the truth, even something ‘simple’ like mathematics there are areas of grey.
More importantly mathematics has methods, for example if I stated, “is 26 a perfect number?” tell me what you would do to discern the truth, or not, of that statement.

And not to let you off the hook, you failed to attempt to show me how to apply your method to this question

could provide an example of how to apply your 1+1=2 method IRL, assuming your method is not to be taken literally.

As an example, what method of discernment can be used in the following:

Here are 3 competing ideas on the meaning of life (i.e. insofar as what reality we observe).

a. What we see is real (a materialistic universe).
b. Transmission Theory as put forward by Interesting Ian (our brain is a transmitter/receiver for a ‘self’).
c. Brain in a vat (we live in the matrix).

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by chance

Which of the following statements are true,I never said we were all-knowing. However, once we evaluate something and get a grasp on the tools we use, how would we know it's true if, in fact we can't see it for ourselves? How is it that we are able weigh things out and pin-point an answer? And, in fact know that it's true? Is there something inherent about who we are that allows us to do so?

[chance]

Iacchus chance> Which of the following statements are true, I never said we were all-knowing. However, once we evaluate something and get a grasp on the tools we use, how would we know it's true if, in fact we can't see it for ourselves? How is it that we are able weigh things out and pin-point an answer? And, in fact know that it's true? Is there something inherent about who we are that allows us to do so? I never implied to be all-knowing was a requirement, merely requesting a practical example of your method, or demonstration to the 2 examples provided (I won’t hold my breath).

You stated “once we evaluate something”, Ah, now you see this is more specific, an evaluation means passing some judgement by the use of some method, how the evaluation is conducted is critical, I’ll give you some help with my previous question:

Which of the following statements are true,
I am 165cm tall,
I am 166cm tall,
I am 167cm tall,
I am 168cm tall,
I am 169cm tall,
I am 170cm tall,
I am 171cm tall,
I am 172cm tall,
I am 173cm tall,
I am 174cm tall,
I am 175cm tall,

You could evaluate (discern) by any of the following methods:
a. Direct questioning via this forum,
b. Guess (1 in 10 chance),
c. Meet IRL and estimate my hight,
d. Meet IRL and use a tape measure.

Easy question then, which of the above is likely to give the truth? Now this implies that you have seen it for yourself, (a reasonable level of proof), what then if you can’t see it for yourself? Basically it boils down to trust.

But should this reliance on trust be a problem? In the scientific community there is a high level of trust, such that I need not endlessly re-invent the wheel to progress (science is self correcting by specifically eliminating a requirement for an ‘ultimate truth’). The level of rigour, professionalism, and transparency ensure that the scientific method works so well it’s self evident. Use any other method and you introduce an element of risk.

[Iacchus]

How do you know 1 + 1 = 2, aside from the fact that your teacher told you so? Once you get past the symbols it's pretty straight forward isn't it? In which case it's the principle behind 1 + 1 = 2 that we acknowledge, and it's the principle we establish the relationship with. So how is it that we're capable of acknowleding any principle whatsoever? Is our ability to recognize it (the truth) within us or, without? If you were to say without then you're sadly mistaken.

Therefore what could it possibly mean if one were to suggest, "The kingdom of heaven is within?"

[chance]

Iacchus How do you know 1 + 1 = 2, aside from the fact that your teacher told you so? Once you get past the symbols it's pretty straight forward isn't it? In which case it's the principle behind 1 + 1 = 2 that we acknowledge, and it's the principle we establish the relationship with. So how is it that we're capable of acknowleding any principle whatsoever? Is our ability to recognize it (the truth) within us or, without? If you were to say without then you're sadly mistaken.

Therefore what could it possibly mean if one were to suggest, "The kingdom of heaven is within?"
Is this an answer to my previous post?

However How do you know 1 + 1 = 2, aside from the fact that your teacher told you so? Not strictly true, one could go back to basic principles and re-invent mathematics from scratch, and in every instance 1+1 would =2, so it is not reliant on the teacher. Where the trust come in, is in the consistency that I could go one step further an state 1+2=3, using the teacher as a stepping stone. That’s the method (discernment).

Now the tricky bit In which case it's the principle behind 1 + 1 = 2 that we acknowledge, and it's the principle we establish the relationship with. Yes, with mathematics there called Axioms, but don’t make the mistake that they mean nothing is certain. Find a method of proving an axiom wrong, and your in Nobel Prize territory.

So how is it that we're capable of acknowleding any principle whatsoever? It’s how it’s acknowledged is the key, to what levels of doubt and uncertainty do you allow yourself. And Is our ability to recognize it (the truth) within us or, without? If you were to say without then you're sadly mistaken. As a strict definition, it is ‘without’, but levels of trust slowly build some ‘within’. If I’m sadly mistaken (it won’t be the first) I’m will to be educated, if your up to it. (waits with anticipation of revealing his method or providing an example of it.)