Evidence, anyone? (moral, Matthew, reject, truth)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Would you please do me a big favor, Arq? When you make these blanket unsupported statements about my views (and you do it quite frequently) would you please preface them with "In your opinion"? You can NOT, on the one hand, acknowledge you do NOT have the requisite knowledge or understanding to rebut my views, but at the same time pretend that you CAN evaluate whether or not someone else has effectively shown them to be erroneous. It is quite irritating. Thanks in advance. QED!!! This is a perfect example of your lack of understanding of the implications of the very things you say about our reality. The amusing "Mystic doctrine" is the very thing missing from the materialist and scientific descriptions of the actions that power our reality precisely BECAUSE they refuse to consider the concept of God. Their failed intent is to describe even the actions of life using the same dead and unconscious actions and reactions to avoid engaging the concept of God. God is the PRINCIPLE that animates everything in our reality but will remain unnamed by science because if they state that our reality itself is conscious, that reveals God.Says the man who admittedly does NOT understand nor have the requisite knowledge to understand, hopefully for the last time without the mandatory IMO preface. For the millionth time, emergence is an observation NOT an explanation and is equivalent to "God poofed it into existence" but with a new name "Emergence."

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

No, chum. I have done enough work to debunk you and others have done the same. It is not just 'my opinion'. You have been sussed.

This unreasoning hubris can only be responded to by MLK's words: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

[sylvianfisher]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

In the universe, there are only natural processes and that's it.

What we may like to call creation - such as a dam built by a beaver - is the result of millions of years of evolution that produced an animal that can make such a thing.

Evolution is nothing but natural processes.

This is not a trick question but I am pursuing a line of thought:

Would you say that you are I cannot be creating our conversation here any more than the beaver created the dam?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This unreasoning hubris can only be responded to by MLK's words: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

As Bruckner said to Brahms at their edgy meeting "At least that's something we agree on."

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

You wrote "contain" and "contained" in your response. I still infer that you are promoting a separation of sorts, something akin to "The universe ends where you begin", if you cannot say that the universe consists of many things, including pockets of self-awareness among the rest of its vastness.
Your analogy of the house suggests to me that you believe the universe is a shell and not it's contents? Did you mean to say that? What's left to call the universe if you/we select from it the things it contains? Just to be cute, I'll say here that I have a hunch that when I tell people I am going home, that I am going back to my house, I think it's a safe bet that listeners infer at some level that I mean not just the structure but everything in it as well. I don't think they bother to envision an empty house.
I am not a software developer but I suspect that the term "software program" refers to all of its contents and not just some portions of its data but not others?
Well, you know, I have freckles on my face. I contain freckles. I see a good basis there to refer to me as a freckled person or as a person with freckles and no one ever decides this means that all of me is a freckle. I think it does not undermine anything to say that the universe has seven billion pockets of self-awareness to it. Pockets of consciousness. As a characteristic of it. Now, if I were to simply state that the universe has consciousness, to say it just like that, I think that does imply to most people that I said the universe itself has consciousness to its totality, everywhere. I wouldn't mean that. Yet, I can say I have freckles but no one infers I am freckles everywhere. Language is touchy, but of course the difference here lies in the fact that the parameters of freckledom have already been uniformly defined in most people's minds so they know how to think about it regardless of which way I say that I have or contain freckles.
So, can I offer to you that a characteristic of the universe is that it has self-awareness in it? Does that wording dishonor your perspective?

I admire your tenacity in explaining this, Sylvian. you should take a cue from Gaylenwoof's outstanding efforts and not place too much faith in penetrating these concrete minds without some sort of intellectual jackhammer.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

Your analogy of the house suggests to me that you believe the universe is a shell and not it's contents? Did you mean to say that? What's left to call the universe if you/we select from it the things it contains?

The universe is a word we use to describe everything that is perceivable. Conceptually, it's a container. Literally, in terms of set theory, it is the set of everything. It's an abstraction more than a location or a structure. So in that sense, no, I don't see the universe as literally an empty shell. I return to my metaphor of the human body. Your body (and mine -- nothing personal here!) contains a startling amount of bacteria, protozoa, viruses, prions, etc. But the property of "you" called "alive" has nothing to do with them. The property of "you" called "conscious" has nothing to do with them (and would have nothing to do with them even if they were just as sentient as you). Your body, and the living things within it, live or die, are aware or unaware, independently of each other. Your consciousness doesn't derive from them.

So ... the universe isn't conscious because billions of humans are. It would be more consistent to hypothesize that billions of humans are conscious because the universe is ... but there is no way I know of to test that theory, so it's a moot point to me.

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

I am not a software developer but I suspect that the term "software program" refers to all of its contents and not just some portions of its data but not others?

Conceptually most modern software consists of blueprints called classes which can have instances created as needed when the program is run. Classes can be specified as either in inheritance relationships or in containership relationships. I wasn't trying to stretch the metaphor so far as to stand in for the universe so much as I was pointing out the concept of containership, that it's different from inheritance, and that the direction of inheritance is the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting anyway.

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

So, can I offer to you that a characteristic of the universe is that it has self-awareness in it? Does that wording dishonor your perspective?

That's better, although I would say actually that a characteristic of the universe is that it has self-aware beings within it. Self-awareness is an attribute (to varying degrees) of living things. It is not a thing-in-itself that exists independently of living beings. Self-awareness is not an attribute of the set of all things, only of the subset of living things.

I think what it boils down to is that you are laboring to divorce self awareness from living beings and I am not buying that idea for a the same reason I would not buy the notion that the universe has hair because there are beings within it that have hair. It is a category error.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I admire your tenacity in explaining this, Sylvian. you should take a cue from Gaylenwoof's outstanding efforts and not place too much faith in penetrating these concrete minds without some sort of intellectual jackhammer.

Originally Posted by mordant

The universe is a word we use to describe everything that is perceivable. Conceptually, it's a container. Literally, in terms of set theory, it is the set of everything. It's an abstraction more than a location or a structure. So in that sense, no, I don't see the universe as literally an empty shell. I return to my metaphor of the human body. Your body (and mine -- nothing personal here!) contains a startling amount of bacteria, protozoa, viruses, prions, etc. But the property of "you" called "alive" has nothing to do with them. The property of "you" called "conscious" has nothing to do with them (and would have nothing to do with them even if they were just as sentient as you). Your body, and the living things within it, live or die, are aware or unaware, independently of each other. Your consciousness doesn't derive from them.

It never seems to cross mordant's mind that what he says about our configuration is analogous to the greater reality as well. Our collective human consciousness stands in relation to the myriad entities within reality as our individual consciousness does to the many entities that comprise an individual human being.

So ... the universe isn't conscious because billions of humans are. It would be more consistent to hypothesize that billions of humans are conscious because the universe is ... but there is no way I know of to test that theory, so it's a moot point to me.

Bingo!

That's better, although I would say actually that a characteristic of the universe is that it has self-aware beings within it. Self-awareness is an attribute (to varying degrees) of living things. It is not a thing-in-itself that exists independently of living beings. Self-awareness is not an attribute of the set of all things, only of the subset of living things.

Mordant will continue to retain his "separateness" despite any and all efforts to dissuade him from it. Like all of us, his conditioning is as a separate creature WITHIN something called our reality. The idea that he is simply an integral component of the greater reality is too foreign to his intellect.

I think what it boils down to is that you are laboring to divorce self awareness from living beings and I am not buying that idea for a the same reason I would not buy the notion that the universe has hair because there are beings within it that have hair. It is a category error.

QED!

[sylvianfisher]

Originally Posted by mordant

That's better, although I would say actually that a characteristic of the universe is that it has self-aware beings within it. Self-awareness is an attribute (to varying degrees) of living things. It is not a thing-in-itself that exists independently of living beings. Self-awareness is not an attribute of the set of all things, only of the subset of living things.

I will note that you prefer that the universe as a container is to contain smaller containers that contain the self-awareness!

Originally Posted by mordant

I think what it boils down to is that you are laboring to divorce self awareness from living beings and I am not buying that idea for a the same reason I would not buy the notion that the universe has hair because there are beings within it that have hair. It is a category error.

Well, in that model I was promoting, yes I was not allowing self-awareness or free will or consciousness. But, I felt in these last few messages with you that I was trying to understand your model, not mine. (Since the time of my post where I wrote in parentheses that I was setting aside my model to chat about yours.) Still, I may have tried to understand yours while unwittingly biased with thoughts of mine.

I see your model includes something called a category error. Is that a thing? Imposing upon your graciousness, I'll guess at what it might mean and I'll play a bit here, knowing that if you do define it for me, it may make my playfulness be completely wrong (and possibly regrettable!). Here goes:

The universe has galaxies. The universe has stars. The universe has planets. The universe has these things. Are we not of the habit to accept these statements? I think we are. I know I was taught these things. No category error here, sir?

Let's zoom in with our huge space telescope/microscope (conveniently positioned somewhere in our solar system) to look just at good old Earth, out of all of the planets. What do we now see?

We see the universe has oceans. The universe has clouds. The universe has rivers and lakes. The universe has these things. Can't recall any teacher ever stating it quite that way in school but oh well. Anyway... with saying those statements, do I run into your category error yet?

Let us zoom in yet closer, down to street level. What do we see?

The universe has ice cream and street parades. And balloons! And people. The universe also has hair! quelle horreur! LOL.

Yes, Virginia, the universe has hair!

The universe has these things. Here is where I ran into your category error, you said.

Zooming in a whole lot more closer at the above oceans, clouds, rivers, lakes, ice cream, street parades, people, and hair, we now see molecules and atoms in them. The universe has molecules and atoms. The universe has these things. I could easily see my teachers saying that without flinching. Is there a category error in saying the universe has molecules and atoms? Having zoomed down to the molecules and atoms in the hair, has the previous category error been rescinded?

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

It fits people who believe in ancient religious superstitions very well doesn't it?

[sylvianfisher]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Interesting read..have you met our Poster Arach?

Thanks. And no, I have met no one. I recall your username as having responded to one of my posts in a different thread last month, but that's all.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Personally speaking I have a method for deciding how much of the gospels to believe. It does leave a few tricky questions, but it says there was a Jesus, but not a Christ. So, while I don't deny your experience - as I do not deny NDE's, I may question what it signifies.

I'd be curious to hear of your method, if you are ok to share it here, but which might open you up for criticism, but not from me.

I am not apt to conclude too much from my experience. The amount that I can conclude from it is quite sufficient.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Not a lot of evidence there,one way or the other, but the correct thing to do when the evidence is lacking is to reserve belief, not to pick a favourite preference and claim it is true on Faith.

On an interpersonal level when a situation summons me to take a belief when evidence is lacking, I may decide that staying neutral is not the "correct" thing and will believe in the person or what they said, and stand by that person without proof, and may do this out of faith in and/or love for that person. How I can do that for a person might relate to how I can do that for a Higher Power. Or vice-versa. Of course, YMMV.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I also have a bit of an issue with the lamenting of loss of nobility of humans by saying that they are made of the same stuff as rocks. Does Einstein or Beethoven lose the nobility of their best because they are the same stuff as same ass-scratcher that never did anything useful?

Well, my godless "swirl" model (to finally tag it with a name, a descriptor I had used early on) is supposed to recognize all notions that we see but explain them in physical terms. So, within that model, I would have to say that our assignment of nobility to Einstein and Beethoven but not to the ass-scratcher is as real a physical thing and cannot be voided just as I had said that a belief in God in that godless model was a real and physical thing and cannot be voided. Separate from all of that, and within a certain reincarnation model to which I subscribe, respect for others is an expression of divine beauty and can be doled out to both the Einsteins and the ass-scratchers, not necessarily based on the individual recipient's merit. That idea, no surprise, doesn't conflict with me as a Christian.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

If anything understanding the staggering complexity of mere dirt molecules ennobles it as it does all nature.

I love your statement here. Truly, one is gobsmacked at what is before us.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It never seems to cross mordant's mind that what he says about our configuration is analogous to the greater reality as well. Our collective human consciousness stands in relation to the myriad entities within reality as our individual consciousness does to the many entities that comprise an individual human being. Bingo!

That is as near uncomprehending quotemining as makes no difference. Mordant wasn't saying that was a reasonabe conclusion but it made as much sense (not much) as the hypothesis Sylvian semed to be proposing.

Mordant will continue to retain his "separateness" despite any and all efforts to dissuade him from it. Like all of us, his conditioning is as a separate creature WITHIN something called our reality. The idea that he is simply an integral component of the greater reality is too foreign to his intellect.QED!

But instead of understanding Mordant's post (or even Sylvian's) you find something that looks similar to the sort of stuff you post and shout "Bingo!".

I needn't go on with the rest of your post - I'll leave it to Mordant to defend himself, and Sylvian will either earn something and will suss you out even as Matadora and Shiloh are doing right now (on Transitionals ), or will simply sink back into Faith - belief, in which case good luck with peddling him your product.