Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
......the question of 'Inner essense' arises. Why should there be one? Aside from a human emotional need to have some kind or pattern, order or meaning beyond just the way it works?
The feelings and impulses we get - why should they be any more than that? We might (after such points) get the usual appeal to unknowns, and the very familiar sneering at the limitations of science, but they really are the most reliable we have, and the Intuitive has not produces anything I can recall other than a clutch or faiths, clults, loonies and charlatans.
certainly this is a stance a person can take and hold.
"there is no inner essence"
"why should there be one"
"there is just the way it works"
"why should there be any more than that (more than what is on the surface)"
"intuition produces nothing except "cults and loonies and charlatans" "
my observation is that based on your posts, your behavior appears consistent with your views as stated above. that the inner reality (of anything) is so un-important to you, that you carry it to the point of denying it even exists.
This a profoundly difficult idea for most people to grasp, and I could be just plain wrong about this, but I think that experience plays a critical role in createing "actuality". Reality = Potentiality + Actuality. QM seems to be teaching us that actuality is dependent, in some strange way, on observation. As John Wheeler says, we live in a "participatory universe." The fact that we have to observe the an electron in order for that electron to have a determinate spin, or to have taken a determinate path, etc., does not mean that the electron is just an illusion. Prior to observation, some properties of the electron were indeterminate - i.e., "potential". Observation triggers actualization - i.e., the shift from potential to actual. The determinate/actual is rooted in the indeterminate/potential, but which is "more real"? I say that the indeterminate/potential is not "more real" than the determinate/actual (or vice versa). The realms of Actual and Potential are both "Real" but only actual things (i.e., things with determinate properties) "actually exist".
This brings us to the classic theist/atheist split. Theists essentially claim that the realm of Potential is Conscious/Intelligent and "creates" the realm of Actuality for a purpose. Maybe they are right, but I suspect that the transition from Potential to Actual is something more like a roughly rule-governed "Natural Law" type of process (indeed, a process that I suspect serves as the basis for what we call the "principles of self-organization.")
In light of what I just said above, I would put it this way: I prefer to study what I suspect are the Natural Laws/Principles by which Potentials become Actuality. And qualia, BTW, are real and actual.
from Gaylen: This a profoundly difficult idea for most people to grasp, and I could be just plain wrong about this, but I think that experience plays a critical role in creating "actuality". Reality = Potentiality + Actuality. QM seems to be teaching us that actuality is dependent, in some strange way, on observation. As John Wheeler says, we live in a "participatory universe." The fact that we have to observe the an electron in order for that electron to have a determinate spin, or to have taken a determinate path, etc., does not mean that the electron is just an illusion. Prior to observation, some properties of the electron were indeterminate - i.e., "potential". Observation triggers actualization - i.e., the shift from potential to actual. The determinate/actual is rooted in the indeterminate/potential, but which is "more real"? I say that the indeterminate/potential is not "more real" than the determinate/actual (or vice versa). The realms of Actual and Potential are both "Real" but only actual things (i.e., things with determinate properties) "actually exist".
(again, I find your use of the words "reality" "real" "potentiality" "actuality" "determinate" and "actualization" to cause confusion (for me and perhaps others as well) so I am seeking to choose words for common ground, common usage, and increased understanding:
Direct experience plays a critical role in creating what we see around us.
Direct inner experience = "qualia" = thoughts, feelings, perceptions, dreams, visions, focus
What we see around is affected by our act of observing
"what we focus on we become"
"thoughts become things choose the good ones"
what we focus on (in thought, in feeling, in desire, in yearning) causes changes in what happens around us and affects "physical reality"
...This a profoundly difficult idea for most people to grasp, and I could be just plain wrong about this, but I think that experience plays a critical role in creating "actuality". Reality = Potentiality + Actuality.
no, it is not profoundly difficult.
many many people not only grasp it, but they use it routinely to affect outcomes.
even everyday folks. (especially everyday folks.)
thought + feeling = reality
focused thought + combined with a strong feeling = physical reality is changed or affected
certainly if it is a "new idea" to someone then it can be difficult for them to grasp because it can have profound and far-reaching implications.
but it is not difficult.
and it is not new. it has been around and understood and used for ages.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-08-2017 at 08:03 PM..
so you're OK with the "essence of you" being in lots of different bodies, driving lots of different cars.
yes, i agree.
even in a simultaneous fashion (all at the same time) instead of a linear fashion (sequential life time one after another)
yes, i agree.
(because only in ordinary reality does time actually "exist". In non-ordinary reality, in the inner essence, time does not exist at all. Everything is happening all at once. Most people can't really hold or grasp that concept but it sounds like you're OK with it, so let's go with it. It is more accurate.)
each body life car you are driving has its own local memory bank that is stored on a personal U: drive. it is your "ordinary reality."
There is also a shared S: drive where all the files from all your individual life times are uploaded and stored.
you can only get to the shared S: drive when you are between life times (for those who use that model.) Or through "non ordinary reality." Or through having friends who can access and read some files on your S: drive
i would also add that in addition to the yous that are driving around in different cars bodys lifetimes,
in physical bodies
there are also essences of you having adventures not in a physical body.
in non-ordinary reality, which superficial science is at this time incapable of exploring, there are many worlds and planes of existence that you explore and participate in and live in without a physical body. The essence of you does not require a physical body.
the essence of you does not require a physical body to have all those wonderful qualia qualitative experiences: thinking, perceiving, music, emotions, dreams, visions, designing, creating, singing, learning, teaching. When you are you without a physical body you have access to everything on the S: shared drive. So you can see and know what all the different yous are doing. The physical human brain is not equipped to handle this viewing of all the yous at once. It would be like having 293 radio stations all playing at once at full volume, you couldn't make sense of any of them, you wouldn't be able to function your brain would overload.
The essence of you does not require physical body? whats your reasoning to make that claim?
certainly this is a stance a person can take and hold.
"there is no inner essence"
"why should there be one"
"there is just the way it works"
"why should there be any more than that (more than what is on the surface)"
"intuition produces nothing except "cults and loonies and charlatans" "
my observation is that based on your posts, your behavior appears consistent with your views as stated above. that the inner reality (of anything) is so un-important to you, that you carry it to the point of denying it even exists.
You're not far wrong in seeing how I tick, but of course you see not believing until persuasive evidence is produced as "Denying'.
It is rather the believer who denies the logical mandate of not knowing - not believing until you do - in favour of what they feel is true.
I think that beats it for indoctrinated Faith but it is still faith rather than reason, and I just do reason and give my reasons. I am quite happy for you - and Mystic, whose Faith seems very much the same faith in Feelings,- to have your faiths. I just do the Atheists thing; I say why I don't buy it.
Not that you are selling, just telling. That's why I don't see the non -religious believers as a problem. You are not peddling organized religion.
no, it is not profoundly difficult.
many many people not only grasp it, but they use it routinely to affect outcomes.
even everyday folks. (especially everyday folks.)
thought + feeling = reality
focused thought + combined with a strong feeling = physical reality is changed or affected
certainly if it is a "new idea" to someone then it can be difficult for them to grasp because it can have profound and far-reaching implications.
but it is not difficult.
and it is not new. it has been around and understood and used for ages.
Yes. This is what fascinates me now about the 'religion' debate - or "Study" is perhaps the better word.
The evidence of the debate "What" is over. Religions do not come up with the goods.
the "How" the rhetoric, apologetics and methods of argument are understood. You saw Khalid's wriggling and evasions not long ago. That's what I mean.
The "Why" of Faith is something few have touched on, though individual Faith gives many clues. I think it is an evolved survival instinct, both for individuals and groups. The self confidence that helps people succed whether footballers or Generals is Faith, whether in God or their own destiny.
Godfaith in a group makes them very strong and that's why the place of an individual within that group is identified by identity -symbols and bolstered by Faith in the group. God is with them as a group, not just as individuals.
Thus the casting out of the members who don't toe the line. That odd situation where it doesn't matter if you don't believe, but you absolutely must pretend that you do. The joined at the hip relation between flag and religion is a major symptom of how this works, The powerful but often uneasy link between ruler and priest is seen in everything from the OT to the recent presidents. If they rule in the way the religious leaders like, God is with him, as well as the Senate. If he doesn't, the Christian Flag is hoisted over the national flag. The Government is no longer ruling in accordance with the wishes of God.
We saw it once before her in the 17th century. The king was not ruling in accordance with what the Church had become, and there was civil war.
You're not far wrong in seeing how I tick, but of course you see not believing until persuasive evidence is produced as "Denying'.
It is rather the believer who denies the logical mandate of not knowing - not believing until you do - in favour of what they feel is true.
I think that beats it for indoctrinated Faith but it is still faith rather than reason, and I just do reason and give my reasons. I am quite happy for you - and Mystic, whose Faith seems very much the same faith in Feelings,- to have your faiths. I just do the Atheists thing; I say why I don't buy it.
Not that you are selling, just telling. That's why I don't see the non -religious believers as a problem. You are not peddling organized religion.
its not who you see as the problem or not. It that you think its ok to change how the universe works to stop the people you don't like. so you push a belief based on what you don't know because you think you know the root of the problem. yet, you don't? you don't understand.
But you take it one step further, you push a belief statement (boogey man religion) based on what you don't know thinking that what you know is enough to deny anything. change science because you don't understand. lmao. and you can't understand me. It's like talking to a dog and seeing his ears pop up and head set 1/2 cocked.
My problem with you, and your sect of atheism, is that you peddle your version of a god claim. You are not peddling "how the universe works" first and anti-religion second. You are flat out changing, modifying, or warping "how the universe works" to peddle your belief about religion.
its just, well, small. like a group of teenagers fighting over "team colors".
Yes. This is what fascinates me now about the religio debate - or Study is perhaps the better word.
The evidence of the debate what is over. Religions do not come up with the goods.
How the rhetoric, apologetics and methods of argument are understood. You saw Khalid wriggling and evasions not long ago. That;s what I mean.
The Why of Faith is something few have touched on, though individual Faith gives many clues. I think it is an evolved survival instinct, both for individuals and groups. The self confidence that helps people succed whether footballers or Generals is Faith, whether in God or their own destiny.
Godfaith in a group makes them very strong and thats why the place of an individual within that group is identified by identity -symbols and bolstered by Faith in the group. God is with them as a group, not just as individuals.
Thus the casting out of the members who don;t toe the line. That odd situation where it doesnt matter if you don;t believe, but you absolutely must pretend that you do. The joined at the hip relation between flag and religion is a major symptom of how this works, The powerful but often uneasy link between ruler and priest is seen in everything from the OT to the recent presidents. If they rule in the way the religious leaders like, God is with him, as well as the Senate. If he doesn't, the Christian Flag is hoisted over the national flag. The Government is no longer ruling in accordance with the wishes of God.
We saw it once before her in the 17th century. The king was not ruling in accordance with what the Church had become, and there was civil war.
I have no desire to discuss any of these: religion, apologetics, rhetoric, football players; generals, priests, God, groups, identity symbols, faith, casting out of members, flags, rulers, the OT, presidents, pretending to believe, the Senate, the Crstian flag, destiny, religious leaders, evolution, the wishes of God, government, kings, the Church, or civil war. I'll leave those topics to others with an interest in them to discuss.
Self confidence and beliefs are pertinent because they touch upon how our inner reality (which is our qualitative direct experiences including beliefs thoughts feelings focus vision goals desire yearning) can and do affect and change the physical reality around us.
Instinct could be relevant but only if we can go beyond superficial shallow views and actually distinguish between instinct and intuition and survival and intellect. That would require a willingness and ability to look inward and explore the inner reality of each of those within us and how they appear and operate in our life.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-09-2017 at 09:50 PM..
.... I think that experience plays a critical role in creating"actuality". Reality = Potentiality + Actuality. QM seems to be teaching us that actuality is dependent, in some strange way, on observation. ... I suspect that the transition from Potential to Actual is something more like a roughly rule-governed "Natural Law" type of process (indeed, a process that I suspect serves as the basis for what we call the "principles of self-organization.")
.... I prefer to study what I suspect are the Natural Laws/Principlesby which Potentials become Actuality. And qualia, BTW, are real and actual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
....
Intuition may be the only thing that actually produces anything new. Scientific understanding describes what is already there and makes advancements by manipulating the physical. Intuition produces something entirely new that didn't exist before.
"qualia" are real
i agree
they are an "inner reality" (thoughts, beliefs, feelings, perceptions, emotions, ideas, yearning, desires, goals, intuition)
and no one can verify them except the one person having them (you); however yes they are real
they also have a direct impact and effect on "outer reality" that which is around us that IS able to be verified by others and measured and described by science.
i also agree there are "laws and principles" that govern how "potential becomes actual" this is known as "creating" or "creativity" and it results in a "creation." I don't know if that's what Gaylen means by "principles of self-organization" or not but it sounds like it to me.
Back of everything physical, before something physical comes into form in the "external outer reality" it first starts in the "inner reality." Every physical house starts with a thought of a house. The thought precedes the form. therefore the "inner reality" is not only real, but it is very powerful.
So to understand "creating" and the "laws and principles" that govern how potential becomes actual, we have to become conversant with inner reality, our own inner world.
if someone chooses to only consider the external, and chalks up all of "inner reality" to just "chemicals in the brain" but not worthy of exploration, consideration, education, or participation, then their understanding remains superficial, not going beneath the surface of that which is external.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-09-2017 at 10:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but it is still faith rather than reason, and I just do reason and give my reasons. I am quite happy for you - and Mystic, whose Faith seems very much the same faith in Feelings,- to have your faiths. I just do the Atheists thing; I say why I don't buy it.
the warlord and the eitch -doctor
because you don't understand. lmao. and you can't understand me. It's like talking to a dog and seeing his ears pop up and head set 1/2 cocked.
