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.
That is just a term for the mass audience that refers to the unmeasurable aspects of Reality. Correct. That is why I use the EM-like reference but for all intents and purposes our consciousness and 95+% of our Reality is not directly measurable using our "working observer interface."
again its funny to me. The more we dissect what you are saying the more your position lines up with science. A lot of what you say would hold up in court. I bet you might even get a hung jury on calling it god.
Obviously you know, I am just saying for readers (that's why some shun me, if they read it they think it might do something, like educate them). I don't agree with everything you say. I am utterly confused as to why you think emergence is "magic". But you make it crystal clear where its your personal opinion.
As I see it, you have a very difficult time understanding how anyone could reconcile within their own minds what you consider to be patently absurd ideas. You seek assiduously to query those who accept what you consider patently absurd ideas to try to discern what on earth could possibly account for such irrational acceptance. Your only concession to the inexplicable existence of the phenomenon is your Cement Theory (otherwise know in academic circles as Gestalt Theory).
Very disappointing to see this comment from you...
I did my very honest best to address each and every one of your comments in this thread in the most straightforward way I know how, and yes to distill your ideas to the essential point(s) where they are different from mine. I call them points of disconnect. Mystic calls them "patently absurd ideas," and you jump on the bandwagon of taking the conversation off the rails too. Why?
I didn't go to the trouble I did only to have my thoughts thrown under Mystic's bus like this. I truly thought you were better than this, could do better than this.
Can't discuss your ideas further in light of my questions, reason and logic? Fine. I know how this can be very trying and tiring for some. No need to return, but to suggest I don't understand your ideas is a cop out. You caught my attention, because someone said you had your stuff together. I thank you for accepting my invitation to discuss my Ten Truths, and I thank you for doing such a good job there to a point. To the point of where our thinking more specifically is difficult if not impossible to reconcile. That's more the starting point for me though it takes a bit to get there. For others that's where the thinking inevitably comes to a stop. For reasons pretty plain to recognize.
Still, for me, the exercise is healthy and however it may turn out, we are all free to judge as we will. As always, of course.
Past, present and into the future, I will readily and honestly have this sort of discussion with anyone who is similarly interested in "comparing notes" for the sake of determining what can be reconciled or not, what are good, bad or absurd ideas or not. What is rational or not, and why. The truth as best we can determine. For you, me or anyone else to consider in light of what is brought to the discussion either way.
Very disappointing to see this comment from you...
I did my very honest best to address each and every one of your comments in this thread in the most straightforward way I know how, and yes to distill your ideas to the essential point(s) where they are different from mine. I call them points of disconnect. Mystic calls them "patently absurd ideas," and you jump on the bandwagon of taking the conversation off the rails too. Why?
I didn't go to the trouble I did only to have my thoughts thrown under Mystic's bus like this. I truly thought you were better than this, could do better than this.
Can't discuss your ideas further in light of my questions, reason and logic? Fine. I know how this can be very trying and tiring for some. No need to return, but to suggest I don't understand your ideas is a cop out. I thank you for accepting my invitation to discuss my Ten Truths, and I thank you for doing such a good job there to a point. To the point of where our thinking more specifically is difficult if not impossible to reconcile.
Still, for me, the exercise is healthy and however it may turn out, we all judge as we will.
Past, present and into the future, I will readily and honestly have this sort of discussion with anyone who is similarly interested in "comparing notes" for the sake of determining what can be reconciled or not, what are good, bad or absurd ideas or not. What is rational or not, and why. The truth as best we can determine. For you, me or anyone else to consider in light of what is brought to the discussion either way.
I believe we had a pretty good dialogue, LearnMe. I just don't think there is a great deal I could say at this point that would add to our conversation. You do seem to believe that there is little merit to faith when it comes to finding truth and that unless one person's personal experiences can be replicated by anyone else, they are unreliable. I feel strongly that this is not the case, and yet I do not have the ability to explain why. The funny thing is that Mystic's personal experiences have led him to follow a very different path than where mine have led me, and we have frequently found ourselves at odds with one other. We appear, however, to agree on two points (Mystic can correct me if I'm wrong): (1) Our spiritual experiences have made us what we are; we cannot deny them, regardless of how little sense they make to other people. (2) In the end, our paths will come together and a single, universal truth will be made known to all people. If his experience has led him to one personal truth and mine have led me to a different personal truth, it's not going to matter in the end. What's going to matter is whether or not we have learned to love.
You have asked me the same question a couple of time; basically it was, "Where does this leave us?" I have answered that it leads us to an impasse. How many more posts do you think it would take for me to convert you to my way of thinking or for you to convert me to yours? I just don't think it's going to happen -- ever. That doesn't mean that we must see one another as the enemy, but it does mean that no matter how long we were to talk about "truth," we would never come to believe that we can arrive at it in the same way. We are both approaching the question of how we can find "truth" from two completely different angles. You're going to continue to insist that science is the answer, and I'm going to continue to insist that it isn't. I actually have a great appreciation for what science can teach us, but I also believe that God can teach us things science can't. You want me to be able to explain why I feel this way, but I simply can't. When I was a child, someone asked me how I would explain what "salty" tasted like. I couldn't do it. Many years later, I heard someone make a similar statement concerning how one would explain to someone else what an orgasm feels like. Again, it's not something that can be explained. This knowledge can only come from experience. When God speaks to you, you may not hear any audible sound, but you know He's told you something you ought to pay attention to.
I don't want to end our discussion with bad feelings, but I've come to a place where I don't believe we're going to accomplish anything more by continuing to talk about it.
I believe we had a pretty good dialogue, LearnMe. I just don't think there is a great deal I could say at this point that would add to our conversation. You do seem to believe that there is little merit to faith when it comes to finding truth and that unless one person's personal experiences can be replicated by anyone else, they are unreliable. I feel strongly that this is not the case, and yet I do not have the ability to explain why. The funny thing is that Mystic's personal experiences have led him to follow a very different path than where mine have led me, and we have frequently found ourselves at odds with one other. We appear, however, to agree on two points (Mystic can correct me if I'm wrong): (1) Our spiritual experiences have made us what we are; we cannot deny them, regardless of how little sense they make to other people. (2) In the end, our paths will come together and a single, universal truth will be made known to all people. If his experience has led him to one personal truth and mine have led me to a different personal truth, it's not going to matter in the end. What's going to matter is whether or not we have learned to love.
You have asked me the same question a couple of time; basically it was, "Where does this leave us?" I have answered that it leads us to an impasse. How many more posts do you think it would take for me to convert you to my way of thinking or for you to convert me to yours? I just don't think it's going to happen -- ever. That doesn't mean that we must see one another as the enemy, but it does mean that no matter how long we were to talk about "truth," we would never come to believe that we can arrive at it in the same way. We are both approaching the question of how we can find "truth" from two completely different angles. You're going to continue to insist that science is the answer, and I'm going to continue to insist that it isn't. I actually have a great appreciation for what science can teach us, but I also believe that God can teach us things science can't. You want me to be able to explain why I feel this way, but I simply can't. When I was a child, someone asked me how I would explain what "salty" tasted like. I couldn't do it. Many years later, I heard someone make a similar statement concerning how one would explain to someone else what an orgasm feels like. Again, it's not something that can be explained. This knowledge can only come from experience. When God speaks to you, you may not hear any audible sound, but you know He's told you something you ought to pay attention to.
I don't want to end our discussion with bad feelings, but I've come to a place where I don't believe we're going to accomplish anything more by continuing to talk about it.
No worries or hard feelings. Just a little disappointment is all...
1) I responded to just about all your comments I think. Suggesting where the discussion could go forward, but you didn't seem to look back. Seems you were more interested in bringing the discussion to an end, and again that's okay. I was from the beginning interested to know if you could bring something "new to the party" different from others. If you are done, you are done. I get it. Been there done this many times before.
Still curious if you might answer the questions I asked in my comment #326 as a parting gift before you go...
2) When I ask the question, "where does this leave us," I am trying to point out where the reason and logic we are BOTH using disconnects. I know the inevitable default that comes from people of faith. Why they call it "faith" after all, but I am always looking for logic, reason or explanation that goes beyond the same old. What I may be missing. So I ask, and I take the discussion as far in that direction as I can, because I want to reconfirm I'm not missing anything new.
Reminds me a lot of many an experience during my professional career. Some see only the problem when I would see many an opportunity instead...
No worries or hard feelings. Just a little disappointment is all...
1) I responded to just about all your comments I think. Suggesting where the discussion could go forward, but you didn't seem to look back. Seems you were more interested in bringing the discussion to and end, and again that's okay. I was from the beginning interested to know if you could bring something "new to the party" different from others. If you are done, you are done. I get it. Been there done this many times before.
Still curious if you might answer the questions I asked in my comment #326 as a parting gift before you go...
2) When I ask the question, "where does this leave us," I am trying to point out where the reason and logic we are BOTH using disconnects. I know the inevitable default that comes from people of faith. Why they call it "faith" after all, but I am always looking for logic, reason or explanation that goes beyond the same old. What I may be missing. So I ask, and I take the discussion as far in that direction as I can, because I want to reconfirm I'm not missing anything new.
Reminds me a lot of many an experience during my professional career. Some see only the problem when I would see many an opportunity instead...
I would say this post confirms my earlier observations and Katz's agreement with it. This is the epitome of "assiduously questing" to understand how what you are convinced are "patently absurd ideas" are reconciled. QED
I would say this post confirms my earlier observations and Katz's agreement with it. This is the epitome of "assiduously questing" to understand how what you are convinced are "patently absurd ideas" are reconciled. QED
Well yes, of course, yet another way to put it...
Already pointed out how you love to do this. Need we simply repeat ourselves?
Or better yet, should I come up with some equally creative way to describe your comments? Could have plenty of fun with that if I was similarly inclined.
What I have written about Katz's comments are there in plain black and white for anyone to consider -- verbatim. "Assiduous" is fairly accurate I might add. The "patently absurd ideas" are your words and quite rich.
I stand by my words in any case, and again I am glad to discuss them further with anyone who cares to continue the discussion any further, in a civil mature manner.
Here's hoping for more of that tomorrow and less as you are more inclined...
Thank you. My own. Originally developed decades ago when I wore a younger man's clothes, after formal study of the world religions. More recently revised as a result of my experience sharing them in this forum. An experience that I can only describe as "good, bad and ugly," given how some people seem to appreciate what I'm trying to explain while others take great exception to these truths and/or my want to share them.
Any exception taken to these "Ten Assertions" is probably based on the complete lack of cited science supporting them. Isn't science your ultimate arbiter of truth? Most of them seem somewhat reasonable prima facie, but others are unsupportable. The lack of substantiation renders them all mere assertions.
Any exception taken to these "Ten Assertions" is probably based on the complete lack of cited science supporting them. Isn't science your ultimate arbiter of truth? Most of them seem somewhat reasonable prima facie, but others are unsupportable. The lack of substantiation renders them all mere assertions.
Yes, I agree.
Also, there are so many references to religion in the "Truths" that it comes off as a list of reasons not to believe in God, rather than a 'rational' approach for accurately assessing reality. I'd like to see a version of the 'Ten Truths' that makes no mention of God or religion. I'm wondering what would remain.
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.
Again, it's not something that can be explained. This knowledge can only come from experience. When God speaks to you, you may not hear any audible sound, but you know He's told you something you ought to pay attention to.
