Article on Science and God

[digital angel]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith?hpid=z7

What do you think?

 

[ElvenVeil]

That Stephen Hawking is right (ofc). . .. I would like to add more, but I think I fail somehow . In my eyes, what Stephen Hawking does is drawing the obvious, and sane, conclusion

 

[sammael]

Perhaps unfortunately, I know very little about physics and metaphysics. I am curious about what the definition of 'nothing' is in this context though, I thought it was an absolute. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing." Perhaps someone can enlighten me? I will read his book if I can get my hands on it.

Shoot me if you will, but the way I see it, just as God (in whatever concept) cannot be proved and cannot be not proved, so too spontaneous creation cannot be proved and cannot be not proved. It's still faith isn't it? He just has a different set of beliefs.

 

[Jesse]

No, it is not faith, unless science somehow starts to not work.

When did science and atheism gain this fundamental attachment? It's not like science grew as a reply to religion while atheism is total lack of belief.

 

[Black Rose]

Perhaps unfortunately, I know very little about physics and metaphysics. I am curious about what the definition of 'nothing' is in this context though, I thought it was an absolute. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing." Perhaps someone can enlighten me? I will read his book if I can get my hands on it.

Nothing is something just divide any finite structure by infinity.

Although a thing requires things to be whole and complete in themselves.

But things do not exist in Buddhism, in some forms only relationships exist.

Provability fields.

A question would be: what is smaller than a quantum (that has a finite size)

 

[Vrecknidj]

"We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy."

— Carl Gustav Jung

 

[Da Blob]

"We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy."

— Carl Gustav Jung

Is this not Truth? Yet it is not science. Science does not have a monopoly on Truth

No, it is not faith, unless science somehow starts to not work.

When did science and atheism gain this fundamental attachment? It's not like science grew as a reply to religion while atheism is total lack of belief.

Pure science is as faith-based as some religions. Applied science is that which works and really does not need to make assumptions in order to work. Atheists adopt Pure science as a Belief System, simply because it is impossible for any without advanced degrees in mathematics and/or physics to refute the assumptions, axioms and tenets of this academic school.
Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of those with such degrees are devout Atheists, who are quite willing to prostitute Pure Science to promote their religious views... Those who point to the fallacy of these atheists and are qualified to do so, are in such a minority, they are shouted down or just ignored...

Under the category of "Be careful of What you ask for" I wonder if it is even possible to prostitute Applied Science for the same purpose. That is to say, how are the engineerings of the world being used by atheists?

 

[Agent Intellect]

Using science to 'disprove' God is like using a microscope to look at the moon.

 

[SpaceYeti]

It seems to me that he never attempted to prove God doesn't exist. He simply mentions the fact that God is not necessary to explain anything, which is a simple observation.

However, I am curious about this line of thinking where all of reality is subject to scientific inquiry, yet God somehow has this diplomatic immunity.

 

[Agent Intellect]

It seems to me that he never attempted to prove God doesn't exist. He simply mentions the fact that God is not necessary to explain anything, which is a simple observation.

Science takes it axiomatically that God is not needed to explain anything. This means that science is only exploring territory that doesn't need God as an explanation. It would be like concluding kangaroo's don't exist when you've only looked in Manhattan.

I don't believe in God. I will admit, when I was 18 and "lost" my faith, science was the most persuasive argument to me. My continued disbelief, however, comes from other lines of inquiry.

However, I am curious about this line of thinking where all of reality is subject to scientific inquiry, yet God somehow has this diplomatic immunity.

Not all of reality is subject to scientific inquiry.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Science takes it axiomatically that God is not needed to explain anything. This means that science is only exploring territory that doesn't need God as an explanation. It would be like concluding kangaroo's don't exist when you've only looked in Manhattan.

I don't believe in God. I will admit, when I was 18 and "lost" my faith, science was the most persuasive argument to me. My continued disbelief, however, comes from other lines of inquiry.

No, science takes it axiomatically that only things which are part of observable reality (IE, it effects observable reality in any noticeable way at all) has any relevant effect or possible explanatory potential. If there's no way of knowing about it, well, then there's no way to know about it.

Not all of reality is subject to scientific inquiry.

How is it even possible to know that?

 

[Black Rose]

No, science takes it axiomatically that only things which are part of observable reality (IE, it effects observable reality in any noticeable way at all) has any relevant effect or possible explanatory potential. If there's no way of knowing about it, well, then there's no way to know about it.

If you are color blind how must you rely on the observations of others to have certainty that colors you cant observer exist? If observations is the key to scientific inquiry than what you use as the interpretor of observation determines the results. For this reason the subjectivity of interpretation needs be considered. What faculties of perception are the base of science.

 

[SpaceYeti]

If you are color blind how must you rely on the observations of others to have certainty that colors you cant observer exist? If observations is the key to scientific inquiry than what you use as the interpretor of observation determines the results. For this reason the subjectivity of interpretation needs be considered. What faculties of perception are the base of science.

All faculties of perception. Anything percieved in any manner is subject to scientific inquiry. We've even developed tools to help us detect things not immediately or readily observable, such as radiation, germs, or atoms. Color blind people might use a spectrometer to determine the wavelength of light waves they cannot directly perceive.

 

[Black Rose]

All faculties of perception. Anything percieved in any manner is subject to scientific inquiry. We've even developed tools to help us detect things not immediately or readily observable, such as radiation, germs, or atoms. Color blind people might use a spectrometer to determine the wavelength of light waves they cannot directly perceive.

What of faculties not yet within the human brain. To experience qualia is definitely not the same as detecting its side affects. This leads into where science has a limit. You cannot taste ice cream the same way as I. You may share the experience but as an individual you don't experience what I experience. Looking at braincells tells you not what consciouses is.

 

[Da Blob]

Anything percieved in any manner is subject to scientific inquiry.

This is not true or at least is just mere Double Speak, depending on the specific definition of the vague term, 'scientific inquiry'

Scientific methodology is extremely limited - indeed it is much more analogous to a microscope than a telescope. Science cannot see the Big Picture.

Science is limited to the study of variables. Any phenomena that doesn't change, objectively, can't be studied via scientific methods.

Science is limited to studying variables that can be measured by valid and reliable scales. If it can't be measured, it can't exist is a scientific universe. The category of "things that exist but can't be measured" includes consciousness and human experience.

Scientific experimentation is limited to the study of a single isolated variable in a controlled environment based upon the mere hope that variance is not a effect of an uncontrolled environment, but rather a cause in and of itself. re: the concept of the Independent variable...

Science is static, it makes for a poor God...

 

[SpaceYeti]

What of faculties not yet within the human brain. To experience qualia is definitely not the same as detecting its side affects. This leads into where science has a limit. You cannot taste ice cream the same way as I. You may share the experience but as an individual you don't experience what I experience. Looking at braincells tells you not what consciouses is.

Yes, objective investigation is necessarily not subjective. I don't sense things the same way as you (perhaps) because we're different people. It's exactly like how one camera cannot take the exact same picture as another camera. I don't see why this is such a hang-up. We know, objectively, that we are separate people. My bottle of water does not contain the water your bottle contains. It's one of the damned rules of logic, for crying out loud! "A thing is not what it is not". So what? Yes, we have subjective experiences. Sure, we cannot place a value of some unit on a particular thought (unless we knew the exact amount of energy that thought actually used, in which case we could place it's energy value on it), but that doesn't mean there's some sort of other world that exists. It means only that we think, that we're subjects. Just like we don't allocate energy in the same way computers, we don't allocate electrochemical energy the same way as each other, resulting in a different subject and different relative qualia. It's not as big a deal as people like to make it out to be.

 

[Black Rose]

I understand that the quantity can be measured of qualia can in no way tells us what it is.

But for there being "another world" that is determined by other means involving interpretation of data or in this case, All explanations is interpretation/arrangements of subjective qualia experience. You have not qualified what is valid in assuming otherwise.

Many-worlds interpretation

I am not objecting to it being possible to investigate qualia but to say I know what it is is beyond word and is only experienced. Quantifying descriptions adds little value to experience riding a bike but building one it helps allot.

 

[BigApplePi]

This is not true or at least is just mere Double Speak, depending on the specific definition of the vague term, 'scientific inquiry'

Scientific methodology is extremely limited - indeed it is much more analogous to a microscope than a telescope. Science cannot see the Big Picture.

Science is limited to the study of variables. Any phenomena that doesn't change, objectively, can't be studied via scientific methods.

Science is limited to studying variables that can be measured by valid and reliable scales. If it can't be measured, it can't exist is a scientific universe. The category of "things that exist but can't be measured" includes consciousness and human experience.

Scientific experimentation is limited to the study of a single isolated variable in a controlled environment based upon the mere hope that variance is not a effect of an uncontrolled environment, but rather a cause in and of itself. re: the concept of the Independent variable...

Science is static, it makes for a poor God...

Take this until we find a better metaphor:

Science, as economics, is like a questionable overcoat hung on life. We can try to make it fit but can be taken off rejected at any time.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I understand that the quantity can be measured of qualia can in no way tells us what it is.

But for there being "another world" that is determined by other means involving interpretation of data or in this case, All explanations is interpretation/arrangements of subjective qualia experience. You have not qualified what is valid in assuming otherwise.

Many-worlds interpretation

I am not objecting to it being possible to investigate qualia but to say I know what it is is beyond word and is only experienced. Quantifying descriptions adds little value to experience riding a bike but building one it helps allot.

Sorry, try to write what you're saying more clearly. I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[Black Rose]

Sorry, try to write what you're saying more clearly. I don't understand what you're saying.

You claim anything can be investigated by science. So your results will always define reality as it truly is. Is is separate from ought by individuated preference. By that method what is tells us nothing but fact about the world but not what ought to be done in ethics. This is irreverent to your line of inquiry, you only want to know what is.

So if science tells us what things are, then is qualia a thing, can it be explained quantitatively or is quantity not enough for its explanation.

I interject that qualia can only be experienced and explaining it is fruitless with words.

What is sweetness, can it be seen in a neural circuit, that does it explain why only that circuit has the potential for tasting sweet and not sour or bitter or a taste unknown?

What is pain what is pleasure in and of themselves. Is it a circuit, is it a chemical. What is the threshold / number, why that number? Can one chemical by itself feel sweetness.

 

[Agent Intellect]

No, science takes it axiomatically that only things which are part of observable reality (IE, it effects observable reality in any noticeable way at all) has any relevant effect or possible explanatory potential. If there's no way of knowing about it, well, then there's no way to know about it.

Exactly, science takes it axiomatically that there is a natural cause. This in no way can be used as evidence that there are no "unnatural" causes. It's illogical to use an assumption to prove that said assumption is true.

How is it even possible to know that?

See below.

Yes, objective investigation is necessarily not subjective. I don't sense things the same way as you (perhaps) because we're different people. It's exactly like how one camera cannot take the exact same picture as another camera. I don't see why this is such a hang-up. We know, objectively, that we are separate people. My bottle of water does not contain the water your bottle contains. It's one of the damned rules of logic, for crying out loud! "A thing is not what it is not". So what? Yes, we have subjective experiences. Sure, we cannot place a value of some unit on a particular thought (unless we knew the exact amount of energy that thought actually used, in which case we could place it's energy value on it), but that doesn't mean there's some sort of other world that exists. It means only that we think, that we're subjects. Just like we don't allocate energy in the same way computers, we don't allocate electrochemical energy the same way as each other, resulting in a different subject and different relative qualia. It's not as big a deal as people like to make it out to be.

Measuring the energy it takes to have a thought, or the time it takes for a thought to process, or the chemical reactions that take place during a thought, still can't tell you anything about the content of the thought.

When people talk about subjectivity being different, it's not about the fact that 'there is' different subjects, or the way different people will communicate their interpretation of an event. What's being discussed is the actual content of thought, or the actual content of qualia. How does one perform science on the internal mental state of sadness? Or the internal mental state of what a new car smells like? Or the internal mental state of an epiphany?

This is not true or at least is just mere Double Speak, depending on the specific definition of the vague term, 'scientific inquiry'

Scientific methodology is extremely limited - indeed it is much more analogous to a microscope than a telescope. Science cannot see the Big Picture.

Science is reductionist in nature, but that doesn't mean it can't see the big picture.

Science is limited to the study of variables. Any phenomena that doesn't change, objectively, can't be studied via scientific methods.

Correct, in a sense. But, time is always changing, so just about anything can be measured as a function of time.

Science is limited to studying variables that can be measured by valid and reliable scales. If it can't be measured, it can't exist is a scientific universe. The category of "things that exist but can't be measured" includes consciousness and human experience.

Scientific experimentation is limited to the study of a single isolated variable in a controlled environment based upon the mere hope that variance is not a effect of an uncontrolled environment, but rather a cause in and of itself. re: the concept of the Independent variable...

Controlled experiment is the ideal for science, but there is also natural experiment, observational studies, naturalistic observation, and other observational sciences.

Science is static, it makes for a poor God...

That would depend what one expects from their God.

 

[Black Rose]

Science is reductionist in nature, but that doesn't mean it can't see the big picture.

Is this Dependant on the number of variables obtained to be arranged like a puzzle. To see a big picture would require the defined size of the puzzle. Is science only part of the puzzle, no, it is a method of obtaining certain pieces. They are located/put together it the mind but like you mentioned epiphanies,

subjective investigations of the self is another tool to root out error.

 

[Hadoblado]

The link isn't working for me atm. Does he say that there is no God, or that there is no need for a God?

 

[Dr. Freeman]

The latter. I believe that God and science are not mutually exclusive. To take it a step beyond that, He probably is the ultimate physicist.

 

[gcomeau]

No, it is not faith, unless science somehow starts to not work.

When did science and atheism gain this fundamental attachment?.

Atheists don't have strong incentives to reject scientific findings because they conflict with their previously held beliefs. So as science rolls along they generally roll right along with it.

And the religious... well, less so. Obviously. The attachment has develloped over decades and centuries of scientists having to fight religious dogma every time they come up with a result some religious faction thinks conflicts with their articles of faith. Evolution being the primary driver of that conflict.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You claim anything can be investigated by science. So your results will always define reality as it truly is. Is is separate from ought by individuated preference. By that method what is tells us nothing but fact about the world but not what ought to be done in ethics. This is irreverent to your line of inquiry, you only want to know what is.

OKay, this is quickly losing it's context. Yes, our subjective values are subjective, not objective. Our subjective experiences are subjective. However, a god either exists or does not. Heaven either exists or does not. Our subjective experiences are irrelevant. Any objective thing is subject to scientific investigation.

Further, our subjective world is due to the fact that we are the system which is objective. It's subjective only because we're the subject. It exists as an effect of our objective brain processes, which can be measured and quantified. However, psychology is attempting to scientifically investigate subjectivity anyhow.

And another thing; Just because science says something is true (I guess we're personifying it, now), it doesn't mean it is. It only means it's the most reasonable conclusion based on the observed evidence.

So if science tells us what things are, then is qualia a thing, can it be explained quantitatively or is quantity not enough for its explanation.

It can be explained as mental impulses, biochemical signals in the brain. We can't quantify the subjective aspects of them, no, but that's because they're a subjective event and therefore only available to that single person.

I interject that qualia can only be experienced and explaining it is fruitless with words.

Sure, it's a subjective thing. It cannot be measured by anyone not experiencing it, and only one person can possibly experience it.

What is sweetness, can it be seen in a neural circuit, that does it explain why only that circuit has the potential for tasting sweet and not sour or bitter or a taste unknown?

For the same reason certain computer circuits do something instead of something else. That's what it does, that's it's thing. I'm no biochemist or neurologist, but parts of the brain do what parts of the brain do. And the person who is that brain senses the effect directly, while nobody else does.

What is pain what is pleasure in and of themselves. Is it a circuit, is it a chemical. What is the threshold / number, why that number? Can one chemical by itself feel sweetness.

I don't know.

 

[Jah]

http://www.tmz.com/2011/05/17/kirk-cameron-to-hawking-heaven-does-exist/

 

[Black Rose]

OKay, this is quickly losing it's context. Yes, our subjective values are subjective, not objective. Our subjective experiences are subjective. However, a god either exists or does not. Heaven either exists or does not. Our subjective experiences are irrelevant. Any objective thing is subject to scientific investigation.

Further, our subjective world is due to the fact that we are the system which is objective. It's subjective only because we're the subject. It exists as an effect of our objective brain processes, which can be measured and quantified. However, psychology is attempting to scientifically investigate subjectivity anyhow.

And another thing; Just because science says something is true (I guess we're personifying it, now), it doesn't mean it is. It only means it's the most reasonable conclusion based on the observed evidence.

If that is the case then we are losing the boundary between subjectivity and objectivity if one can reach into the other.

As for god(s) what if s/he/it is limited to the subjective.

And is so far into the subjective that it cannot be reached scientifically or explained so as to be understood by other who have not experienced god(?) so to be a perception only accessibly to a limited number of individuals.

A God network rather than a God spot but to subvert the mind into a illusion/imagination so vast as to be as real as any complex experience within this the objective world.

Da Blobs subjective God rather than an objective God.

 

[Da Blob]

Interesting thought amine - 0ne I don't remember considering myself.

If God was an Object, then anyone with eyes could see Him and anyone with ears could hear Him...

except for the fact that God is invisible because He never changes and we can only perceive that which changes...

 

[SpaceYeti]

Exactly, science takes it axiomatically that there is a natural cause. This in no way can be used as evidence that there are no "unnatural" causes. It's illogical to use an assumption to prove that said assumption is true.

You're ignoring one major factor, here; Science defines "natural" causes as any cause that can be either directly or indirectly observed. That is, anything that has any effect on anything we perceive in any way is part of the natural world. If there's evidence of a ghost, that ghost is part of the natural world. The super-natural thus becomes defined in such a way that even if it does exist, we can never know about it, for it has no observable effect on the universe. This generally means most supernatural things then would be called "natural" in scientific jargon, such as ghosts, vampires, gods, or basically any mythological/para-psychological thing of any sort, since they all would have some sort of effect on the observable world if they actually existed.

Measuring the energy it takes to have a thought, or the time it takes for a thought to process, or the chemical reactions that take place during a thought, still can't tell you anything about the content of the thought.

It could tell you about the content of the thought if the subject's neural pathways and biochemical blah blah had all been mapped out. That, however, would require honesty and cooperation from the subject, and we'd probably have to cut his head open. We simply don't perceive it first hand, we have to rely on second hand tales, just like an objective event we weren't around for.

When people talk about subjectivity being different, it's not about the fact that 'there is' different subjects, or the way different people will communicate their interpretation of an event. What's being discussed is the actual content of thought, or the actual content of qualia. How does one perform science on the internal mental state of sadness? Or the internal mental state of what a new car smells like? Or the internal mental state of an epiphany?

I'm no neural scientist. Mapping the cells of the brain and energy pathways etc, etc. then we can figure out what someone's thinking, perhaps link him up to a TV and watch his imagination go, even. My point is that the only reason we can't quantify these qualia is because there's necessarily only one observer and no way of verifying his veracity.

 

[SpaceYeti]

If that is the case then we are losing the boundary between subjectivity and objectivity if one can reach into the other.

Just like the boundary between night and day has a hazy, mildy sunny, mildly dark, neither hot or cold compared to the day or night it's going to/coming from boundary, so too does subjectivity and objectivity. There's no reason to presume the boundary between the two is an insurmountable fortress of pain and agony and death.

As for god(s) what if s/he/it is limited to the subjective.

Then it's nothing more than an impression, not based on the objective world. IE, God would then not really exist, but be a figment of the imagination. Emotions, for example, are subjective. They're not figments of the imagination, however, because nobody presumes there's this ever-present love-spirit causing the feeling, they admit it's just a feeling, and that they are simply feeling it subjectively. God, on the other hand, is claimed to exist outside of the subjective experiences, in a place separate from our minds.

And is so far into the subjective that it cannot be reached scientifically or explained so as to be understood by other who have not experienced god(?) so to be a perception only accessibly to a limited number of individuals.

There's no good reason to suppose that's the case. It might be, sure, but I don't believe it is.

A God network rather than a God spot but to subvert the mind into a illusion/imagination so vast as to be as real as any complex experience within this the objective world.

IE "hallucination".

Da Blobs subjective God rather than an objective God.

A god which is purely subjective is nothing more than a meme, a thing you create in your own imagination, whether on purpose or not.

 

[Agent Intellect]

You're ignoring one major factor, here; Science defines "natural" causes as any cause that can be either directly or indirectly observed. That is, anything that has any effect on anything we perceive in any way is part of the natural world. If there's evidence of a ghost, that ghost is part of the natural world. The super-natural thus becomes defined in such a way that even if it does exist, we can never know about it, for it has no observable effect on the universe. This generally means most supernatural things then would be called "natural" in scientific jargon, such as ghosts, vampires, gods, or basically any mythological/para-psychological thing of any sort, since they all would have some sort of effect on the observable world if they actually existed.

Supernatural phenomena have an objective affect on:

1. The way people behave.
2. The way people interpret patterns, events, and meanings.
3. The way people interact in a society.
4. The beliefs people have about various natural phenomena.
5. The way people interact with their environment.

And the list could probably go on. The point is, if the supernatural, which exists "beyond" the natural world (whatever that may mean) can still have an effect on the natural world via the subjective human experience of the world.

Perhaps a way to think about it could be as the human subject being a conduit between the supernatural and the natural.

It could tell you about the content of the thought if the subject's neural pathways and biochemical blah blah had all been mapped out. That, however, would require honesty and cooperation from the subject, and we'd probably have to cut his head open. We simply don't perceive it first hand, we have to rely on second hand tales, just like an objective event we weren't around for.

It could perhaps tell you about the internal content of thought, but it would not give you the actual internal content of somebody elses thoughts. All this would be able to do is allow us to re-create images based on data that tells us that "such and such neural pattern corresponds to this and that thought." It would not actually be the content of a thought.

I'm no neural scientist. Mapping the cells of the brain and energy pathways etc, etc. then we can figure out what someone's thinking, perhaps link him up to a TV and watch his imagination go, even.

This strikes me as coming from the same line of reasoning used to conclude the homunculus argument. Re-creating thoughts on a computer based on neural mapping would not be the content of thought, it would not be equivalent to a persons subjective experience of being the proprietor of thoughts within their own internal mental arena.

My point is that the only reason we can't quantify these qualia is because there's necessarily only one observer and no way of verifying his veracity.

This tells me that you either don't understand what qualia is, that you have a different definition of qualia that I do, or that your own experience of qualia is very different from my own.

 

[Jesse]

]God: ineffable
Science: Looking for observable things.

Can anyone point out how those two things might cause tension?

Anyone?

Sarcasm aside I would just like to point out the fact that all prophets could be lying therefore making religion eternally faith based.

On the topic of God not based on the religious kind, it's kind of impossible to prove the existence/non-existence.

I mean what is the point of arguing sciences worth regarding religion except to disprove the horrible dogma of past beliefs (look the earth is round and women are good at nothing but cooking)

 

[SpaceYeti]

Supernatural phenomena have an objective affect on:

1. The way people behave.
2. The way people interpret patterns, events, and meanings.
3. The way people interact in a society.
4. The beliefs people have about various natural phenomena.
5. The way people interact with their environment.

And the list could probably go on. The point is, if the supernatural, which exists "beyond" the natural world (whatever that may mean) can still have an effect on the natural world via the subjective human experience of the world.

People act certain ways based on things they believe. That's no indication their beliefs are correct.

Perhaps a way to think about it could be as the human subject being a conduit between the supernatural and the natural.

As may be the case. There's no reason to suppose it is, though.

It could perhaps tell you about the internal content of thought, but it would not give you the actual internal content of somebody elses thoughts. All this would be able to do is allow us to re-create images based on data that tells us that "such and such neural pattern corresponds to this and that thought." It would not actually be the content of a thought.

Of course. We're not them. Why is this so important to you? Of course we aren't them. Just like my bed is not your bed, my foot is not your foot, and my mind is not your mind. I fail to see why this is so important.

This strikes me as coming from the same line of reasoning used to conclude the homunculus argument. Re-creating thoughts on a computer based on neural mapping would not be the content of thought, it would not be equivalent to a persons subjective experience of being the proprietor of thoughts within their own internal mental arena.

No, it would not be the original "stuff" of the thought. That's still not important. Okay, we're not them. So what?

This tells me that you either don't understand what qualia is, that you have a different definition of qualia that I do, or that your own experience of qualia is very different from my own.

I'm using it as a synonym for "subjective experience". While it's defined to be indefinable, we seem to place words on it quite nicely. Sure, we cannot describe the actual feeling of pain, but everybody seems to have an impulse they refer to and react to in the same way which we all call "pain". I simply don't consider the fact that we cannot experience the experiences of people who we are not to be a big deal. We're not them. A huge argument about how we may not feel the same way they do, their subjective experiences are experienced differently somehow, simply doesn't matter. It's axiomatic, not some sort of deep, existential thought.

Here people are trying to figure out what makes people tick, and your clenching argument against their discoveries is "But you're not that person who is not you!", and the neural-psychologist/physicist looks at you and says "Duh. Do you have anything to add to the conversation?"

 

[Black Rose]

I'm using it as a synonym for "subjective experience". While it's defined to be indefinable, we seem to place words on it quite nicely. Sure, we cannot describe the actual feeling of pain, but everybody seems to have an impulse they refer to and react to in the same way which we all call "pain". I simply don't consider the fact that we cannot experience the experiences of people who we are not to be a big deal. We're not them. A huge argument about how we may not feel the same way they do, their subjective experiences are experienced differently somehow, simply doesn't matter. It's axiomatic, not some sort of deep, existential thought.

Here people are trying to figure out what makes people tick, and your clenching argument against their discoveries is "But you're not that person who is not you!", and the neural-psychologist/physicist looks at you and says "Duh. Do you have anything to add to the conversation?"

But there is a limit to this investigation.

If all 7 billion humans were born without noses and an alien came to earth with a nose we could look at its brain but in no way would this tell what what the experience of smell is like.

We are not him/her/it but there is more to it then asking what his experience is like if s/he/ spoke human dialect.

What is it like to be a bat brain with sonar ears or a dolphin brain with under watter sonar? Only the dolphin and bat know what they experience. Human brains seem different in some way not fundamental to semantic language alone.

What would it feel like to have experiences by genetically or artificial adding new brain regions to the neocortex. Only the volunteer would understand this new unexplored experience. And could not share it except with others who have similar new extensions or natural brain oddities.

 

[Agent Intellect]

People act certain ways based on things they believe. That's no indication their beliefs are correct.

These things have a noticeable and even measurable effect on objective reality. This means that something which is not measurable, an internal subjective state, is causing objectively measurable effects.

As may be the case. There's no reason to suppose it is, though.

There is for those people who experience these things. For them, there is no reason to think what you believe is true.

Of course. We're not them. Why is this so important to you? Of course we aren't them. Just like my bed is not your bed, my foot is not your foot, and my mind is not your mind. I fail to see why this is so important.

No, it would not be the original "stuff" of the thought. That's still not important. Okay, we're not them. So what?

The point would be that the internal mental state of people is intangible - something that exists but is outside the realm of science. Measuring brain states is not the same as the internal subjective experience of the person. This is precisely what makes us not automatons and is one of the main philosophical problems of artificial intelligence.

I'm using it as a synonym for "subjective experience". While it's defined to be indefinable, we seem to place words on it quite nicely.

Being able to put words to something does not encompass what it is. Try explaining color to someone born blind. The definition of something has nothing to do with it's this-ness.

Sure, we cannot describe the actual feeling of pain, but everybody seems to have an impulse they refer to and react to in the same way which we all call "pain". I simply don't consider the fact that we cannot experience the experiences of people who we are not to be a big deal. We're not them. A huge argument about how we may not feel the same way they do, their subjective experiences are experienced differently somehow, simply doesn't matter. It's axiomatic, not some sort of deep, existential thought.

Here people are trying to figure out what makes people tick, and your clenching argument against their discoveries is "But you're not that person who is not you!", and the neural-psychologist/physicist looks at you and says "Duh. Do you have anything to add to the conversation?"

I'm not talking about the fact that human subjects are separate from one another. I'm talking about how they A) exist and B) cannot be measured by science.

Your argument has been that, if the supernatural existed, even if it in-itself could not be objectively observed or measured, it would have an indirect objective effect on the natural world that could be measured. My argument is that the internal subjective state of a person fits this description.

Just because we can apply words to something like belief, or motivation, or value, doesn't make the actual experience of these things tangible. You have argued that the only thing that keeps us from being able to measure such things is our inability to adequately map the entire human brain. I'm arguing that, even a complete and accurate mapping of someones entire brain will still not bridge the gap between the intangible experience of subjectivity and the measurable external world. A subject exists without also being an object; a subject in-itself does not occupy space, it does not have a temperature, it doesn't have a speed etc.

Don't get me wrong, I do not believe in souls, or even dualism in any strict sense. However, I think, in terms of science, there is an unbridgeable gap between the physical substrate of the brain and the emergent property of a conscious "I" with it's own internal subjective state. My way of viewing this is close to Hofstadter in Gödel, Escher, Bach.

 

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by SpaceYeti
Science defines "natural" causes as any cause that can be either directly or indirectly observed.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect
Supernatural phenomena have an objective affect on:

1. The way people behave. ...

Then would this be a correct observation?

The hard sciences cover natural causes, not anything claimed supernatural.
Psychology is that science (a soft science) which deals with the way people behave with what is called, "supernatural."

With this subdivision between sciences, we take care of the supernatural.

 

[Black Rose]

Then would this be a correct observation?

The hard sciences cover natural causes, not anything claimed supernatural.
Psychology is that science (a soft science) which deals with the way people behave with what is called, "supernatural."

With this subdivision between sciences, we take care of the supernatural.

A natural object that has subjective awareness of mind makes it very Super-natural yes?

Puzzling that we try to understand ourselves by objects not subject.

Self Aware Universe talking to itself. Me and you. But Also as separate beings of intentionality.

Intentionality = Super-natural.

 

[Da Blob]

Agreed! despite the view of humans as just being chimpanzees, with a 3% difference in genetic makeup - which is the objective definition of humans. There is something quite supernatural about subjective human consciousness.

Speaking of which, for who believe that God could not exist, without them perceiving Him, there is a lesson below about the extreme limitations of humans to perceive even simple things... Sure physicists can explain everything - but that does not mean that explanation is correct, for there is a lot about the universe we simply cannot observe, as noted below...

Along with professor George Alvarez, graduate student Jordan Suchow from Department of Psychology at Harvard University made a new discovery in the filed of optical illusions. The paper titled Motion silences awareness of visual change was published in Current Biology on January 6, 2011...

http://www.moillusions.com/2011/01/video-new-silencing-illusion.html

 

[Jesse]

There is something quite supernatural about subjective human consciousness..

No there isn't. Has anybody heard of confirmation bias?

 

[Black Rose]

No there isn't. Has anybody heard of confirmation bias?

Do rocks ponder their own existence, Or ask what could be beyond the natural?

We have the ability to ask questions that supersede there existence.

We create what never was in attempt to play God Ex Nihlo.

In my dreams I create worlds Ex Nhilo.

In computer simulations matter and energy is created Ex Nihlo.

Who is to say that before the Big Bang was not Ex Nihlo, An imagination of God.

From Another forum.

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.


Suspend disbelief for 3 second both theist and atheist and think of this.

Existing between past and future is the present. Existing beyond time is called nirvana

A fractal is a shape of infinite complexity within a finite space similar to how Pie is a finite number but irrational.

10^25 atoms exist in the human brain. Some can read 10,000 words a minute others cant.

If experience is the key to reaching God, to see what God see's then to experience infinity within a finite space would require becoming aware of all infinity that could exist inside your body.

A multi-verse in every atom of every cell.

If you could see that within yourself would you be a god/God.

 

[Jah]

Just a little correction da Blob: The genetic correlation between chimps and humans are upwards of 98% (which leaves only two thirds to half the difference you alluded.)


(Btw. Kitten; I'm of the opinion that the poem of William Blake:
"To see the world in a grain of sand..." (Which btw. is a very long poem, this being the opening stanza, named Auguries of Innocence, dealing with the inhumane nature of man.)
IS exactly what we're doing with physics and chemistry. Since the understanding of the vastness of the empty space between the physical quarks, and it's parallel in interstellar space. How everything arises from nearly nothing. (and the constant play between forces of nothing.). The poetic injustice, it seems, of how all we love "is" nothing, and all we see are temporary shadows in the gigantic play of forces that is our universe.)


Life being the slight, conscious part of all the universe, in it's splendor of forces, Barely with it's eyes open to the majestic poetry of nothing.
Not even realizing our own fragility, we trample on forwards as through we are certain these forces will spare us. That we'll be saved from the inevitable expansion of the sun and the collision of the Andromeda Galaxy into ours...

We may observe, but, as of yet, we may not change.
Driven largely by hormonal trends, randomly afflicted onto us by ways of diet and genetic lottery, Habitual and blind to most the world. Some of us try to expand our views, others content to sit and meticulously push the button for immediate satisfaction, not daring to envision a greater freedom, knowledge and power in this world.


I say we do pursue what life seemingly always does; more power.
Always the increasing ability to change itself and others.
Bursting forwards as a rising force in the universe, and I believe we should continue to do so.


There are no likely gods that can alter the course of these powers, the momentum of billions of years have accumulated and accelerated. Thus our willingness to discard the information that tells us of our insignificance, and pray to some non-existing father-figure for help, is nothing short of pathetic.
Absolute Pathos, the over-emphasis of suffering and emotional security.


It's not even useful to assume this figure to exist, by the same argument that it's not useful to keep homeopaths around as medicine.

It allows us to seek a comfortable lie that will let us destroy ourselves, rather than face the facts, and take the bitter medicine which may remedy our suffering.
The useless shackles of religion, from which we must strip the flower, not so that those suffering may be without comfort, but so that they may break free.
(The last line there for those of you who know a little Marx.)


And lest we forget; Those who seek the comfort of religious dogma, unlike those who seek the comfort of non-medicine like homeopathy, have the unprecedented ability to make all of us on this planet suffer their bad choice, not just themselves.

This is particularly due to their "God Given Rights."
A phrase which drips with omnipotent Acid which has the ability to smolder even the most hardy and, seemingly, self-evident moral/ethical "truth". (The quotes here not to indicate there are no truths, but to indicate the difficulty of proving them. The issue of moral Truth is a much larger topic than what a few measly parenthesis can justifiably hold.)

 

[Da Blob]

Why worship a "Great Nothingness" when there are alternatives? For this rather silly concept to be even considered one must attribute to the single physical law, Gravity even more ability to initiate change than the greatest of humans and most of the gods they have invented.

There really is no reasonable explanation for the dynamic system that is our universe found in the typical Big Bang theory of Evolution - not a single explanation that explains CHANGE - beginning with the very first change - the one that itself, created the beginning...

The explanations I have seen have all involved the use of reverse causality in the best of cases, which is a rather odd way of going about it because a cause is something that creates a change and not an effect.

For example, Exactly where was the laws that we call the thermodynamic laws of chemistry stored, when there was no such thing as Chemistry. Where were all of the laws of organic chemistry housed before there was an organism?

We are surrounded by a system composed of objects that cannot compose...

The "Serenity Prayer" of AA talks about CHANGE, yet it seems that so many intelligent people do not realize that the power to Novel CHANGE, involves a Higher Power...

God has given us life itself as a freely given gift. The 'God-given Rights' spoken of, really come from the hands of our fellow men - no matter what the Founding Fathers said... It is the condemnation of our species, that we cannot freely give to our fellow men, the rights to be fully human...

So point to the hypocrites instead of to the Saints, there certainly outnumber the Saints and perhaps they are fair examples of the man-made religions. However, There has been no Christian who has ever practiced Christianity perfectly - except Christ Himself. The wise among us know that for most, to put on the mantle of Christ is very much like a Chimp putting on a suit and tie...


BTW- for those who did not check out the link I posted... The point is that Christians can perceive the 'metaphysical' dots changing colors and atheists cannot, on the Grand Scale of Being, many cannot perceive Changing only the after the fact changes.

 

[Black Rose]

(Btw. Kitten; I'm of the opinion that the poem of William Blake:
"To see the world in a grain of sand..." (Which btw. is a very long poem, this being the opening stanza, named Auguries of Innocence, dealing with the inhumane nature of man.)
IS exactly what we're doing with physics and chemistry. Since the understanding of the vastness of the empty space between the physical quarks, and it's parallel in interstellar space. How everything arises from nearly nothing. (and the constant play between forces of nothing.). The poetic injustice, it seems, of how all we love "is" nothing, and all we see are temporary shadows in the gigantic play of forces that is our universe.)

As a Buddhist being close to my religion beliefs injustice is illusion of those that need a way of explanation for not getting what they want from life.

even if children die in the street this is the justice of a natural world physical laws but free will allows us to save those children from suffering and death.

Happiness is possible.

Life being the slight, conscious part of all the universe, in it's splendor of forces, Barely with it's eyes open to the majestic poetry of nothing.
Not even realizing our own fragility, we trample on forwards as through we are certain these forces will spare us. That we'll be saved from the inevitable expansion of the sun and the collision of the Andromeda Galaxy into ours...

Free will does not eliminate cause and effect but gives it meaning by the transcendent methods of mind to perceiver how their ideas could be alternatives to reality.

We may observe, but, as of yet, we may not change.
Driven largely by hormonal trends, randomly afflicted onto us by ways of diet and genetic lottery, Habitual and blind to most the world. Some of us try to expand our views, others content to sit and meticulously push the button for immediate satisfaction, not daring to envision a greater freedom, knowledge and power in this world.

This is metaphysical just as justice is a pattern as so a square.

New International Version (©1984)
The LORD said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by." Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake.

God is in the patterned experience of love metaphysically not matter and energy but temporal pattern composed of matter and energy.

What of the meta-verse of mind of emergence within multi-verse not in communication with this thermodynamic law set we exist by our big bang.

They could exist with no contact and still exist regardless of our opinions.

I say we do pursue what life seemingly always does; more power.
Always the increasing ability to change itself and others.
Bursting forwards as a rising force in the universe, and I believe we should continue to do so.

I do not disagree.

There are no likely gods that can alter the course of these powers, the momentum of billions of years have accumulated and accelerated. Thus our willingness to discard the information that tells us of our insignificance, and pray to some non-existing father-figure for help, is nothing short of pathetic.
Absolute Pathos, the over-emphasis of suffering and emotional security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job

It's not even useful to assume this figure to exist, by the same argument that it's not useful to keep homeopaths around as medicine.

It allows us to seek a comfortable lie that will let us destroy ourselves, rather than face the facts, and take the bitter medicine which may remedy our suffering.
The useless shackles of religion, from which we must strip the flower, not so that those suffering may be without comfort, but so that they may break free.
(The last line there for those of you who know a little Marx.)

All delusion leads to unresolved solutions to real problems of existential / physical angst. But Truth is never bitter it is liberating. All die but maya (illusion) make the loss of self suspect, Atoms may not be humanoid beyond the grave but awareness may last as a transformation (Pantheism).

And lest we forget; Those who seek the comfort of religious dogma, unlike those who seek the comfort of non-medicine like homeopathy, have the unprecedented ability to make all of us on this planet suffer their bad choice, not just themselves.

This is particularly due to their "God Given Rights."
A phrase which drips with omnipotent Acid which has the ability to smolder even the most hardy and, seemingly, self-evident moral/ethical "truth". (The quotes here not to indicate there are no truths, but to indicate the difficulty of proving them. The issue of moral Truth is a much larger topic than what a few measly parenthesis can justifiably hold.)

Delusional pleasure is not enlightenment but it is a fact of life that can only be changed by a free choice of the individual towards enlightenment. Moral is a method not absolute to only one way of attaining a self fulfilled life.

Why worship a "Great Nothingness" when there are alternatives? For this rather silly concept to be even considered one must attribute to the single physical law, Gravity even more ability to initiate change than the greatest of humans and most of the gods they have invented.

There really is no reasonable explanation for the dynamic system that is our universe found in the typical Big Bang theory of Evolution - not a single explanation that explains CHANGE - beginning with the very first change - the one that itself, created the beginning...

The explanations I have seen have all involved the use of reverse causality in the best of cases, which is a rather odd way of going about it because a cause is something that creates a change and not an effect.

For example, Exactly where was the laws that we call the thermodynamic laws of chemistry stored, when there was no such thing as Chemistry. Where were all of the laws of organic chemistry housed before there was an organism?

We are surrounded by a system composed of objects that cannot compose...

The "Serenity Prayer" of AA talks about CHANGE, yet it seems that so many intelligent people do not realize that the power to Novel CHANGE, involves a Higher Power...

God has given us life itself as a freely given gift. The 'God-given Rights' spoken of, really come from the hands of our fellow men - no matter what the Founding Fathers said... It is the condemnation of our species, that we cannot freely give to our fellow men, the rights to be fully human...

So point to the hypocrites instead of to the Saints, there certainly outnumber the Saints and perhaps they are fair examples of the man-made religions. However, There has been no Christian who has ever practiced Christianity perfectly - except Christ Himself. The wise among us know that for most, to put on the mantle of Christ is very much like a Chimp putting on a suit and tie...


BTW- for those who did not check out the link I posted... The point is that Christians can perceive the 'metaphysical' dots changing colors and atheists cannot, on the Grand Scale of Being, many cannot perceive Changing only the after the fact changes.

In this life thermodynamically only a being with proper understanding of conscienceless could last longer in a humanoid form or ascend to another plan of existence in a Star Trek Like fashion.

In Tibet some monks 70 in age can create steam with wet blankets on their backs in winter in 4 mile high mountains.

Jesus hood is available to anyone who is willing to accept a true definition of the term as implied by Jesus.

Jesus was / is a common name of attaining and is described in many religions.

...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.

 

[Black Rose]

Being able to put words to something does not encompass what it is. Try explaining color to someone born blind. The definition of something has nothing to do with it's this-ness

This has so much meaning I cannot express it in words.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxKiZfQcX8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1br-hDJlH24&feature=channel_video_title

 

[Jah]

Why worship.....?
Let's leave it at that.



(The book of Job is a tale of how good it is to submit. All in all, not a tale I would wish my children to aspire towards. )


The tale of the before....
I loathe those.
The assumption that there is thought before the thinker.
Imagination before the Imagining.
The platonic concept of the Ideal.

Like we're pursuing the essence of Chair when we make chairs.
That there is a Chair-shaped Hole in the universe that we are deemed to fill.


It is remnants of childish concepts of the world.
The sharpness of sticks is so that animals may scratch themselves.



Then enters the Zen-master, wielding an ax, who chops the chair into bits and asks you where the chair is now.

The point is, you're getting the label mixed up with the object. The index, as we call it.
Water is not water.... but it is. (this is also one of those Zen, things. Cute, but sort of profound when you realize what they try to say.)



The Gods are, as we learn through our current mystics, concepts.
Beings, of a sort, who consist of information.

Chew on the the phrase; Memetic Entities.


I'm not saying there are no Gods. Not in the sense I understand their existence. It is a being that dwells in the heads of mortals. Like Dreams, Thoughts, Goals and Meanings. Persistent Buggers, and complex systems of thought that hound people effectively. Though these are not actuators, they have no force in themselves.

Every single facet of "God" is thus an individual impression, and expression, of the concepts that You contain and associate with the collective title.



Now; this brings us to what.
We have a contained concept of what God "is", and, considering the lack of physical manifestation, it is probably the most accurate description I can get at at present moment, that is; I'm not going to go too much deeper into these concepts at present hour.


Of course, you can argue, This does not exclude a "super-natural" entity, that guides and directs these individual representations of itself. (Much in the same way that I now am directing and influencing your Image of "Jah", and the Memetic Entity that you'll argue with, a sort of reflection of your thoughts and concepts of what I am/Jah (neat, huh?). And you even contain at least one of those entities based on yourself.) (This should also cover the concept of God Within.)

But by definition, the Super-natural is beyond/above the natural. (strictly; the prefix meta- means beyond or deeper, while Super- means above or higher.) and is thus impossible to measure, rendering all discussion of it meaningless, in the sense that we cannot verify it.




And as a side-order;
Buddha's words were: All is suffering.
All happiness leads to inevitable sadness as it goes away.

-Namu Amida Butsu. as they say in Japan



There are many transgressions through form. This is the Process. (Tao)
And accepting what things "are" (I know, we should use "seems" instead, but E-prime never took off) is also part of the process.

You can go through all the levels, from the individual atom, through the chemistry, the cell, the organism, the living being, the ecosystem, the planet (Gaia is a poetic way of describing this one), the solar system, the galaxy..... etc. and at all levels you can name the individual.
You can conceptually limit this and call it One. or you can realize this is also just a process.




We'll get into Confucianism when we get older:
"Man is Buddhist in Good times,
Taoist in Bad,
and Confucian in old age."



I apologize for the long winded posts, but I'm very unsure where to cut it, so I hope you find something in there that will drive this conversation further.

 

[Black Rose]

Why worship.....?
Let's leave it at that.

Glory is in victory.

Inspiration in worship.

A Buddha commits not suicide as it is pointless and so is worship except for emotion and communication.

(The book of Job is a tale of how good it is to submit. All in all, not a tale I would wish my children to aspire towards. )

But this is and has happens to people who have no method of escape from pain.

Pain can give no answers to its existence other than a thought guided to why or who is responsible even if no one is.

The tale of the before....
I loathe those.
The assumption that there is thought before the thinker.
Imagination before the Imagining.
The platonic concept of the Ideal.

All are one, thought and thinker not separate.

Like we're pursuing the essence of Chair when we make chairs.
That there is a Chair-shaped Hole in the universe that we are deemed to fill.

A statue is but stone cast off the block but all possibilities lay within.

It is remnants of childish concepts of the world.
The sharpness of sticks is so that animals may scratch themselves.

To assume otherwise is crude as it is but one way to scratch.

Then enters the Zen-master, wielding an ax, who chops the chair into bits and asks you where the chair is now.

In the past but not the present or future.

What is time?

The point is, you're getting the label mixed up with the object. The index, as we call it.
Water is not water.... but it is. (this is also one of those Zen, things. Cute, but sort of profound when you realize what they try to say.)

As my communication skills lack I say I do not mix up label by intent.

The Gods are, as we learn through our current mystics, concepts.
Beings, of a sort, who consist of information.

Chew on the the phrase; Memetic Entities.


I'm not saying there are no Gods. Not in the sense I understand their existence. It is a being that dwells in the heads of mortals. Like Dreams, Thoughts, Goals and Meanings. Persistent Buggers, and complex systems of thought that hound people effectively. Though these are not actuators, they have no force in themselves.

Every single facet of "God" is thus an individual impression, and expression, of the concepts that You contain and associate with the collective title.

That is the experience of you being one with God as I am one with you by my word bring about thought that patterns the same in both of us.

Now; this brings us to what.
We have a contained concept of what God "is", and, considering the lack of physical manifestation, it is probably the most accurate description I can get at at present moment, that is; I'm not going to go too much deeper into these concepts at present hour.

A square has no physicality, it is of the essence of God.

Of course, you can argue, This does not exclude a "super-natural" entity, that guides and directs these individual representations of itself. (Much in the same way that I now am directing and influencing your Image of "Jah", and the Memetic Entity that you'll argue with, a sort of reflection of your thoughts and concepts of what I am/Jah (neat, huh?). And you even contain at least one of those entities based on yourself.) (This should also cover the concept of God Within.)

As I said above so to bellow in this paragraph(Alchemy phrase intended)

But by definition, the Super-natural is beyond/above the natural. (strictly; the prefix meta- means beyond or deeper, while Super- means above or higher.) and is thus impossible to measure, rendering all discussion of it meaningless, in the sense that we cannot verify it.

circle is a meta, chair is a meta, As a soul I am awareness.

I have a past present and future, circle is beyond time but not space

Before Moses I am - Jesus,

The Burning bush does not burn because bush is meta and burning is within time.

And as a side-order;
Buddha's words were: All is suffering.
All happiness leads to inevitable sadness as it goes away.

-Namu Amida Butsu. as they say in Japan

Peace is happiness not hedonism.

There are many transgressions through form. This is the Process. (Tao)
And accepting what things "are" (I know, we should use "seems" instead, but E-prime never took off) is also part of the process.

Things are not things, that is meta.

A house is verb not a noun because of existing in time it will decay.

You can go through all the levels, from the individual atom, through the chemistry, the cell, the organism, the living being, the ecosystem, the planet (Gaia is a poetic way of describing this one), the solar system, the galaxy..... etc. and at all levels you can name the individual.
You can conceptually limit this and call it One. or you can realize this is also just a process.

Agreed

We'll get into Confucianism when we get older:
"Man is Buddhist in Good times,
Taoist in Bad,
and Confucian in old age."

Mind has not an age and is not limited to years but the wisdom from within.

My soul is old with deep contemplation beyond my years but skill with others or there systems lack in familiarity.

I apologize for the long winded posts, but I'm very unsure where to cut it, so I hope you find something in there that will drive this conversation further.

Yes it has.

 

[Black Rose]

@Jah

Also super means super like super man.

If God is super natural it it nature with extra potency(intelligence vs rocks)

 

[Jah]

Haha, yes. Nietzsche ?

The next evolutionary step.
The super-man. Übermensch.


By the way, the wave at Confucian was not meant as the next step.

Wise man Confucius say:
Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day.


Somehow I suspect you've done far too much mysticism. You're going Crowley on me.
It's not that I mind, but a typical result of this is either paranoia or general incredulity.

The mind is not without it's shell.
The thought is not without the thinker.

Thus; Thinker Dies, Thought Dies. (Unless passed on to other thinker, Like Socrates today, or Jesus, both thoughts here today, though both Thinkers Dead and gone.)



See, we can all play the mystical game in life. The vague sense of grasping at reality outside.

But still, it's not helping.
None but the Ego, the "I am" inside, benefit from this, as the feelings and subjective "truth" is incommutable, and thus irrelevant for those outside the Thinker.

The thought is fragile and hard to share, and requires hours of kicking and molding in order to strip away, in order to make it possible to share.
The subjective then is useless, unless it leads to something subjectively universal, a commutable Thought, which is resilient to mutation. A thought which has it's roots firmly graspable and which is testable and verifiable.

God is no such thing.
Thus we cannot speak of One God, as there are an infinite amount of different facets, each as incomparable as the next, and none rooted in the verifiable external world, separate from Thinkers.

 

[Black Rose]

Haha, yes. Nietzsche ?

The next evolutionary step.
The super-man. Übermensch.

To be satisfied with what you know contradicts this:

The thought is fragile and hard to share, and requires hours of kicking and molding in order to strip away, in order to make it possible to share.
The subjective then is useless, unless it leads to something subjectively universal, a commutable Thought, which is resilient to mutation. A thought which has it's roots firmly graspable and which is testable and verifiable.

Zathera was satisfied with his level wisdom and being an out cast with no sharing required for his satisfaction.

He seeks no more but I do and I wish to be perfected from desire and doubt as he was simultaneousness.

My journey has not needed as him intellectuality.

Life has purpose we give to it. I hate Nihilism.

To be perfected is not to relinquish hope but to accept the journey as is.

By the way, the wave at Confucian was not meant as the next step.

Wise man Confucius say:
Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day.

That is a way of existential freedom.

Somehow I suspect you've done far too much mysticism. You're going Crowley on me.
It's not that I mind, but a typical result of this is either paranoia or general incredulity.

I have admiration for Edgar Cayce not Crowley.

Crowley was evil and proud of it.

The mind is not without it's shell.
The thought is not without the thinker.

Thus; Thinker Dies, Thought Dies. (Unless passed on to other thinker, Like Socrates today, or Jesus, both thoughts here today, though both Thinkers Dead and gone.)

But a rebirth / resurrection is possible if time is reversible.

See, we can all play the mystical game in life. The vague sense of grasping at reality outside.

But still, it's not helping.
None but the Ego, the "I am" inside, benefit from this, as the feelings and subjective "truth" is incommutable, and thus irrelevant for those outside the Thinker.

Thinker? What is thought? Truth guilds the seeker to share wisdom with the unenlightened.

As wisdom is the pure experience of knowing part of the true reality.

The thought is fragile and hard to share, and requires hours of kicking and molding in order to strip away, in order to make it possible to share.
The subjective then is useless, unless it leads to something subjectively universal, a commutable Thought, which is resilient to mutation. A thought which has it's roots firmly graspable and which is testable and verifiable.

Great endurance is required to last this test to gain wisdom in helping others.

God is no such thing.
Thus we cannot speak of One God, as there are an infinite amount of different facets, each as incomparable as the next, and none rooted in the verifiable external world, separate from Thinkers.

The Absolute is and forever will be in existence eternity as it exists in eternity.

Totality of All Reality is God / Brahman.

All is intentionality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman