The Re-educational All-Purpose Religion/Philosophy Topic. (hell, quote, Biblical, God)

[MysticPhD]

I'm baaaaaaaack. . . . after having been "spanked" (deservedly) by one of our excellent moderators. They are the best . . . hard-working, fair, and eminently tolerant . . . given the way these fora tend to escalate. These topics have to be some of the more difficult to moderate. I'm sorry I apparently contributed to making it necessary . . . I do tend to get carried away sometimes. I will use the following post/reply example to illustrate the fundamental problem these topics can pose for the philosophically-minded . . . like me..

Originally Posted by jackmccullough

As is par for the course, this comment is utterly meaningless.

This thread is to serve more than one purpose . . . only two of which are to enable me to answer the above types of ignorant posts and to avoid getting infracted for hijacking using the Off Topic criterion.

Originally Posted by june 7th

Good afternoon, everyone!
We really do need to keep this one ON TOPIC (please re-read the OP, if need be) along with dispensing with the personal attacks and sarcasm, okay?
Thanks,
~June

All too frequently . . . answers to inane outright dismissals require re-education of the fundamentals necessary to address the topic intelligently. Those attempts to provide a broader perspective and information base seem to fall afoul of the TOS off topic problem. However, I shall use this thread under the assumption that (theoretically) . . . I cannot hijack my OWN thread.

I have been known to succumb to the use of subtle sarcasm due to extreme personal annoyance provoked by the lack of intelligent thought exhibited by all sides in these conversations . . . but I do try diligently to avoid personal attacks. Posts have standing all their own regardless who wrote them. Those who identify too closely with their posts and take personal offense or perceive personal attack where there is none . . . need to get a life. Lack of knowledge is no one's fault . . . there is far too much of it to know . . . so ignorant posts are just that. Lack of effort and superficial depth of thought IS a personal choice made based on individual abilities and interests. As such they are deserving of criticism, IMO.

Now to the above inanity. Meaninglessness . . . as in the instant case . . . can be highly dependent upon one's ability to discern meaning. What is so meaningless about the idea that the "spiritual fossil record" provides evidence of our spiritual evolution? You seem not to have difficulty accepting that it contains physical fossils (bones) of our physical development. Are you suggesting that the evolution of our mental constructs has no possible connection to the DNA of the brain?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by rifleman

You can't just "see" through a telescope that the Earth's spherical. It takes some calculations.

Back when God had less amazing things to take credit for (a simple solar system, a simple Earth, simple lifestyles, no knowledge of microbiology, DNA, meteors, gravity, magnetism, etc.) it was a lot easier for the religious to reasonably believe and thus claim that He was at the helm.

Now that we know it's all significantly more complex (endlessly so, possibly) than the illiterate biblical authors could possibly have imagined with an apparently infinite universe, we also see that there's a lot more to life and the universe than some simplistic viewpoint allows. The claims for what God has achieved are ever-less plausible and ever-more convenient but irrational.

What we do have is a self-operating system, functioning because of a set of fairly stable and universal laws of sub-molecular, macro-molecular and gravitational interactions which naturally allow for many different variants and forms. The observable existence of a highly variable but consistent universe operating according to those laws makes a lot more sense than one guy trying to imagine it all and to create it for the sole benefit of an Earth-bound human race.

Will you never abandon your strawman God, rifleman . . . to retain the fiction that your God ("Nature") . . . a "self-operating system, functioning because of a set of fairly stable and universal laws of sub-molecular, macro-molecular and gravitational interactions which naturally allow for many different variants and forms. The observable existence of a highly variable but consistent universe operating according to those laws" . . is NOT a God. You have expanded the complexity and enormity of the scope of your God and still maintain it is WHAT? What is a "self-operating system"? Why on earth would you believe God exists for the sole benefit of the human race and NOT vice versa? Which cluster of cells in YOUR body is unimportant to YOU?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by SpidrAkirE

Many of the posts mention the mind's connection to the brain. I, personally, don't think this connection is as point blank. I would say the mind is more like a composition of thoughts (conscious, subconscious and unconscious), awareness, personality, spirit, energy and consciousness.

Originally Posted by Konraden

Your explanation leaves a lot to be desired. I'll agree that the mind is a "nut-shelling" of phenomenons, like awareness, personality, spirit, energy, and consciousness, but these phenomenons themselves need their own explanation. Are they products of the brain (as I would put forth), or something more--something that exists outside of the brain that influences or interacts with the brain?

Originally Posted by SpidrAkirE

Well, energy is distinct in itself. Without energy, nothing would exist.
Spirit is energy and not reliant on the body.
Personality, a combination of spirit and body, developed through experiences and interactions with the material world.
Have you ever read Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials Trilogy? It gives a pretty interesting understanding of consciousness.
And awareness of awareness is what separates humans and animals (so we assume). This is again an interaction and combination of spirit and body.

(That was fun to write up ) I am most definitely not saying that this is fact. It is just how I understand it all and am very aware that people would disagree. Personally, a completely physical, structure-of-the-brain explanation doesn't make sense. Either way, I'm pretty happy with this version!

The misunderstanding about what is and is not On Topic about this discussion of the Mind suggests that a move to my Re-education Philosophy thread would be a good idea. If there is actually any real interest in pursuing an understanding of it, that is.

SpidrAkirE is correct about his basic dualism . . . but the understanding of energy/matter by both he and Konraden is lacking. As I said in a post that was deleted as off topic:

The materiality/immateriality (energy/matter) issue is a non-issue. NOTHING is material . . . everything is some complex standing wave form of vibratory energy event in quantum time (like traffic jams). Like all standing waves their "permanence" is illusory. "Particles" are vibratory energy events.

The Rayleigh principle:

. . . an individual 'particle' is a whole train of waves of different frequencies which together form a wave packet. The velocity of these packets is a function of the waves comprising it.

Bachelard:

. . . From criticism delivered by wave mechanics, it follows that the particle has no more reality than the composition that manifests it. There are temporal events at the very foundation of its existence.

Eddington:

. . . to recognize h (Planck's constant) is to deny subjective indeterminacy and accept objective indeterminacy. . . The suggestion is that an association of exact position with exact momentum can never be discovered by us because there is no such thing in Nature.

A material particle thus loses its character of a substantial entity existing in space and enduring through time. It is revealed as simply that which we identify when we perform a particular process event in time called "measurement," or observation.

James Jeans:

. . . Events must be treated as the fundamental objective constituents, and we must no longer think of the universe as consisting of solid pieces of matter which persist in time, and move about in space. . . . Events and not particles constitute the true objective reality.

Bertrand Russell:

. . . The events that happen in our minds are part of the course of nature, and we do not know that the events which happen elsewhere are of a totally different kind.

The universe is comprised of vibratory energy events (including us) whose apparent permanence is a spherical standing wave phenomenon of the transient vibratory components. None of this changes our Macro experiences in the middle world of sensory perceptions. The interactions of theses "vibratory events" are no less real or consequential. It is still not wise to walk off the roof of a twelve story building or step in front of a speeding truck, etc.

Our Mind is as Konraden suggests . . . the composite product of our brain ("nutshelling"). He is incorrect in assuming it is not a real composite comprised of a form of vibratory energy at the square of the speed of light and exists in the universe at large (universal field). We only experience it in its "in-process" state . . . not its ultimate state. But as a "transceiver" . . . our brain is in contact with both the recordings of our prior "in-process" states (memories) and the cumulative ultimate state (Spirit). They influence each other.

[Ryrge]

Before anything else, I agree with you completely about re-education, I will add that we should insist on continuing education.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

[...]

All too frequently . . . answers to inane outright dismissals require re-education of the fundamentals necessary to address the topic intelligently. Those attempts to provide a broader perspective and information base seem to fall afoul of the TOS off topic problem. However, I shall use this thread under the assumption that (theoretically) . . . I cannot hijack my OWN thread.

I have been known to succumb to the use of subtle sarcasm due to extreme personal annoyance provoked by the lack of intelligent thought exhibited by all sides in these conversations . . . but I do try diligently to avoid personal attacks. Posts have standing all their own regardless who wrote them. Those who identify too closely with their posts and take personal offense or perceive personal attack where there is none . . . need to get a life. Lack of knowledge is no one's fault . . . there is far too much of it to know . . . so ignorant posts are just that. Lack of effort and superficial depth of thought IS a personal choice made based on individual abilities and interests. As such they are deserving of criticism, IMO.

[...]

You say:

All too frequently . . . answers to inane outright dismissals require re-education of the fundamentals necessary to address the topic intelligently. Those attempts to provide a broader perspective and information base seem to fall afoul of the TOS off topic problem. However, I shall use this thread under the assumption that (theoretically) . . . I cannot hijack my OWN thread.

I have been known to succumb to the use of subtle sarcasm due to extreme personal annoyance provoked by the lack of intelligent thought exhibited by all sides in these conversations . . . but I do try diligently to avoid personal attacks. Posts have standing all their own regardless who wrote them. Those who identify too closely with their posts and take personal offense or perceive personal attack where there is none . . . need to get a life. Lack of knowledge is no one's fault . . . there is far too much of it to know . . . so ignorant posts are just that. Lack of effort and superficial depth of thought IS a personal choice made based on individual abilities and interests. As such they are deserving of criticism, IMO.

I invite you to find a word that is synonymous to intelligence, intelligent, intelligently, which will not set off alarms of insulting people here who to my impression do not want to be intelligent.

But I always remind them that I am taking intelligence as understood in IQ tests.


What about the word understanding, not very exact I fear.


What about mental acuity, better?





Ryrge

[Gplex]

I would reply, but after what happen before, I'm not replying to any post taken from other threads, on topic or not.

[Ryrge]

What is your general objective for this re-education in religion and philosophy?


May I suggest the objective of instilling intelligent thinking.


And what is intelligent thinking?


Here I go again:

Intelligent thinking is that kind which is scored in IQ tests.

And what are the factors of intelligence as understood in IQ tests?


What about the following as some factors comprising intelligence as understood in IQ tests:

[ Not in any order of importance, but every factor here is important. ]

1. Capacity and habit of seeing the biggest picture of a situation, an event.

2. Capacity and habit of seeking the causes of things to their ultimate efficient and purposive agency.

3. Capacity and habit of curiosity to discern order, pattern, repetitions in things, situations, events.

4. Capacity and habit of unearthing motivations in human actions.

5. Capacity and habit of speculating on the world that is not accessible to the senses by reasoning and imagination.

And what is the fruit of intelligence as comprising the above some factors making up intelligence?

To arrive at solutions to problems in the world outside the mind as also in the world within the mind, successfully, quickly, and with the most minimum investment of time and effort and trouble.

Anyway, addressing the author of this thread:

What is your general objective for the re-education of posters here in matters of religion and philosophy?

My suggestion, for the instillment of intelligent thinking in posters here.




Ryrge

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Gplex

I would reply, but after what happen before, I'm not replying to any post taken from other threads, on topic or not.

That is why I created this thread, Gplex . . . to avoid any such hijacking or off topic nonsense. The only way to avoid that is to take posts that might lead to such reactions to a "safe harbor." Importing posts to this safe harbor to enable broader discussion cannot be a violation of the TOS cross posting ban . . . But I would appreciate a moderator ruling on it. I will ask.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

What is your general objective for this re-education in religion and philosophy?
May I suggest the objective of instilling intelligent thinking.
And what is intelligent thinking?
Here I go again:

Intelligent thinking is that kind which is scored in IQ tests.

And what are the factors of intelligence as understood in IQ tests?
What about the following as some factors comprising intelligence as understood in IQ tests:
[ Not in any order of importance, but every factor here is important. ]

1. Capacity and habit of seeing the biggest picture of a situation, an event.

2. Capacity and habit of seeking the causes of things to their ultimate efficient and purposive agency.

3. Capacity and habit of curiosity to discern order, pattern, repetitions in things, situations, events.

4. Capacity and habit of unearthing motivations in human actions.

5. Capacity and habit of speculating on the world that is not accessible to the senses by reasoning and imagination.

And what is the fruit of intelligence as comprising the above some factors making up intelligence?

To arrive at solutions to problems in the world outside the mind as also in the world within the mind, successfully, quickly, and with the most minimum investment of time and effort and trouble.

Anyway, addressing the author of this thread:

What is your general objective for the re-education of posters here in matters of religion and philosophy?

My suggestion, for the instillment of intelligent thinking in posters here.
Ryrge

This is the place to SHOW such intelligent thinking and reasoning by providing it . . . NOT criticizing others for a lack of it. Your emphasis on others' thinking is inappropriate and ill-focused. This is the thread where you can display the very thing you champion without fear of off topic hijacking or cross posting infractions or . . . whatever. It is not the place to carp about its lack in the forum.

[Gplex]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

That is why I created this thread, Gplex . . . to avoid any such hijacking or off topic nonsense. The only way to avoid that is to take posts that might lead to such reactions to a "safe harbor." Importing posts to this safe harbor to enable broader discussion cannot be a violation of the TOS cross posting ban . . . But I would appreciate a moderator ruling on it. I will ask.

We where on topic before, what makes you think this time round will be any different...

[rifleman]

The first problem is that we run into a case of severe hypocrisy on the part of the spiritually inclined. They insist that the very existence of the present universe demands that it must have been "created". You know, in order to exist at all? And yet they also insist it was "created" out of, simply put, NOTHING. Yet they also protest that the Big Bang requires the condensation of material out of NOTHING, and that's somehow a big stumbling block for them.

And yet they simultaneously stumble over the very simple problem inherent in their own God. The measurable, physical materials He uses to fabricate this physical universe had to have also come from a previous existence or form.

Is it conceivable that we simply lack the God-given intelligence to imagine a universe unending, with no beginning and no end? That there may be some "AHA!" epiphany moment in our distant future? Because, for now, we also cannot conceive of "infinity": if an observable thing's physically here, it must therefore have dimension, a beginning, we're told. If otherwise, if things that didn't exist can be "created" by force of lonely intelligence, then why not also by some reconstitution of proto-matter in the form of a Big Bang.

(The Big Bang seemingly started at the Point of Singularity, which by some simple calculations taken from Hubble's measurements, is identifiable in the universe. The point from which everything is moving away now.)

Yes, I know; that's a simplistic perspective, but it also makes some sense. Does it all have to be indecipherable metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, or are we allowed some elements of simple logic as well?