I don't really dream. :(
This is as much as I could remember from my dream of myself sitting and thinking..
Consciousness is -variability-, movement in a string, ups and downs, flips of switches..
For such chaos to exist and be definable, the opposing nature of equivalently perfected -order- must also exist..
-----note, I wrote (perfected order) not Perfect order.. one is a direction, the other is an undefinable finality.. they are different..
Now, If we step back and look at our inclinations.. All of that variability, Everything we think and do is in service of making ourselves BIGGER..
Inevitably, what does getting really really big accomplish.. -Gravitational collapse-.. What could be More Orderly than singularity state.
So it seems natural and fitting, that our variability compels us towards this perfected-order upon collapse.
However, the state of absolutely perfect order can not be maintained or even allowed to be reached because it would then become undefined wholly by itself..
Which is why ultimate collapse is the precise moment of ultimate explosion..
_A_PROCESS_ must exist to convert from order to variability, this process makes up the fundamental laws of the universe.. we only currently know it as something that seems to link and apply to everything.. something like our understanding of entropy in terms of inclusiveness.
So if humans continue to grow, to reproduce, and eventually transcend beyond goopy flesh, beyond individuality.. We will still conceivably consistently increase in matter size and density.. because that's really all we know how-to-do.. and seem to want-to-do
Sigh..... thinking and doing seems most likely purposeless.... the meaning of life is the Latency between convergence states of the universe....
Even if the variability is truly random, that is to say, yea, man has a choice in HOW he meets his destiny.. the Ultimate destiny remains the same.. hit-restart
Sigh.... We may as well try to jump into black holes, since it is the surest, most efficient and fastest way to become part of ---Massive---.. and that's what's going to happen anyway..
I guess if we must exercise choice in efficiency, we should jump into the largest black hole that we detect..
aghhh....Show Image(http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/eating-me-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862501)
I'm not sure I read you correctly..
You're saying I possess some element completely detached from physical reality??
Consciousness is an Abstraction only by feel. .but it IS a real object, which one can touch, feel, and alter..
You cannot gain MORE consciousness without a physical upgrade of the brain..
And that's exactly what evolution does for us..
We breed more people because parallel processing is energy efficient..
We are now entering the computer era to transition our intellectual faculties into a more durable, persistent system..
If you extrapolate this.. it GETS BIGGER..
The humans did not become clever by a method.. humans became clever because our neocortex Physically GREW LARGER..
I am not an independent construct.. I am a member of the parallel processing team.
and Together, we've done nothing but get bigger..
I can't see that there's anything to any pursuit, be it wealth, intellect, or transcendence, which does not simply involve MORE SPACE for more processes..
It must be really weird to be tp4tissue.
It must be really weird to be tp4tissue.
It must be really weird to be tp4tissue.It must be really weird to be tp4tissue.
quoted twice for true truth...
a more accurate description would be that Tp4 is merely further down the rabbit hole..It must be really weird to be tp4tissue.It must be really weird to be tp4tissue.
quoted twice for true truth...
There's no conclusive proof as to indeterminacy..
You can not make those claims about consciousness as if you know it.. You do not..
My personal inclination is towards -the electrochemical machine-
But I don't reject the possibility that there could exist MAGIC. which is essentially what you're proposing..
Conceptually, if a universe was a machine completely without magic, then the complementary all-magic universe must exist..
Old philosophers were no better at understanding the world as anyone today. we simply have not invented the tools to do so..
Following philosophies.. on this subject, it's difficult to gauge what that means, because no one can choose to perfectly emulate any pre-existing occurrence be it material or conscious. There is uniqueness in frame analysis, but our total awareness level is too narrow to even begin to tap into what one would presume to be the universal ether..
I call it that, it's a mere place holder..
I find your interpretations flawed and self serving.. you want to extract a point-of-reference out of what may be an infinite continuity.. slap a label on it and move on.. that's not what it is, and certainly not the end of it.
The identity of a child.. pre-existing.. well.. each rock is pre-existing and they are as far as we can tell completely unique.. Your child's uniqueness and personality is neither more complex nor at all rare..
"I am working from the premise of a pre-existing identity which is revealed through life. You seem to be working from the premise of no pre-existing identity, your consciousness simply a product of your physical makeup and environment."
---------- I do not see how a pre-existing identity revealed through life conflicts with it being the consequence of physical makeup and environment..
what is this thread :confused: :confused: :confused:
what is this thread :confused: :confused: :confused:
it's a tp thread... it's exactly as is expected of him...
what is this thread :confused: :confused: :confused:
it's a tp thread... it's exactly as is expected of him...
I'm gonna read what he's saying, I'm going in.
You are letting emotions get the best of you.. Why is hopelessness and meaninglessness a problem. I've myself accept the abyss and remain quite content.. I don't seek to create my own meaning.. I've already exclaimed that my belief leans toward determinacy.
Your presumption about what one must do in such a state of hopelessness is also questionable. If I am to accept all occurrences as arbitrary, then diversion from the one path is impossible.
You are letting emotions get the best of you.. Why is hopelessness and meaninglessness a problem. I've myself accept the abyss and remain quite content.. I don't seek to create my own meaning.. I've already exclaimed that my belief leans toward determinacy.
Your presumption about what one must do in such a state of hopelessness is also questionable. If I am to accept all occurrences as arbitrary, then diversion from the one path is impossible.
Why do we have to 'accept the abyss'? Isn't the point of life to create your own story, to what you want it to be? Your consciousness has the ability to choose between two things. While one may argue that those choices are predestined, and you're just given the illusion of choice, that's still more interesting than accepting the abyss, aka doom.
Speaking from experience, I believe that the human consciousness/sub-consciousness is able to create, and get out of hopelessness.
(I may not have read properly)
You are letting emotions get the best of you.. Why is hopelessness and meaninglessness a problem. I've myself accept the abyss and remain quite content.. I don't seek to create my own meaning.. I've already exclaimed that my belief leans toward determinacy.
Your presumption about what one must do in such a state of hopelessness is also questionable. If I am to accept all occurrences as arbitrary, then diversion from the one path is impossible.
There certainly is an abstract form of a rock.. Think of a rock.. there it is.. an abstract rock.. and it perfectly conforms with your soul-concept..
You assume independence to suit your fancy and make a point, yet offer no evidence as to why that is possible.
Our awareness and our body are dependent. just as.. if there hadn't been this big earth rock beneath you, we would not be ass-parked..
The flaw in mentality here is to limit oneself to mere application of mind. Extraction of reference being the ONLY THING that mind is capable of, does not qualify it to discern reality.
Physical makeup has neither a beginning nor an end.. It's only too human to presume so.. Systemless-ness (abyss) allows for consequential identity and the perceptual field of pre-existence, which is a far better fit than the endless swipes and nibbles of looking-out.
:confused:
Im not sure Im on the same page but I just wanted to chime in to say its the uncertainty that gives our life meaning. Simply knowing what will happen tomorrow, next month or few years down the road will be boring. Its like sitting at the front or end of the rollercoaster, sitting on the end is more exciting/thrilling.
That being said, whether or not the destination is same or different for everyone, its the JOURNEY to the destination that counts.
Its the journey that we remember and look forward to.
Of course I'm conflating the physical and the abstract.
Abstraction is what consciousness is. whether this consciousness extends through a Universal Machinery the size of the universe, OR is analyzed in segments limited to a human-frame, it still requires a computational mechanism.
The abstract does not independently exist of physical systems. Continuously History demonstrates that previous abstractions were merely interplay between hard to detect physical forces and systems.
Your beliefs only make you real to youself.. it does not make you real to me.. As far as I am concerned. The center of the universe may as well be Tp4.. It'd make no difference because @ my current Mass, I am not spec-ed to grasp much beyond that..
I don't disagree that faith, hope, and love exist as constructs.. I am saying they are born upon walking the same domino path.. There is no grand plan with a separate endings.. There is but 1 end..
Since they come from the same place as anything else, they must too conform to the reality that was set in motion.
You've churned out ceaselessly new distracting terms that you have no patience to resolve. They're but noise.. and it is the one song you hear..
I suggest listening to the abyss as I have.. and in the void, find reason..
... Your consciousness has the ability to choose between two things. While one may argue that those choices are predestined, and you're just given the illusion of choice, that's still more interesting than accepting the abyss, aka doom.
Speaking from experience, I believe that the human consciousness/sub-consciousness is able to create, and get out of hopelessness.
(I may not have read properly)
Bowji.. I'm still slightly angry about samsung data migration software.. and since you're the only confirmed internet corean I no, I am holding you responsible...Show Image(http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/embarrassed3-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862502)
Consciousness doesn't create anything..
Nothing is either created or destroyed..
An abstraction is the fringe of what any form of consciousness is capable of.. and that consciousness is derivative of a physical system. It is but one form of energy reaction.
There's no conclusive PROOF of this ur right.. They have not totally disproved magic, which is the same as to say they have not totally disproved anti-everything..
There has been however numerous studies done by brain surgeons by placing electrodes directly on patient's brain, while their head was literally open..
The result was conclusive in various ways when certain areas of the brain associated with specific processing was disrupted.. the patients could remember 1 type of memory or perform 1 type of calculation, but not others... This is again, not a PROOF in the metaphysical sense, but it's certainly convincing enough definitively say, at least humans are pretty -un-magical-..
--Levels of awareness:--
I know people love levels.. and just as everyone wants to be middle-class, it's in most cases NOT true..
Even if I could Imagine a -level 5- awareness.. I can not say for myself that it exists. because it requires external proof, of which I can not be SURE is real..
Lvl 5, as it is defined, can not be proven to oneself..
and if you argue that your LEAP OF FAITH is enough to get you there.. Then you are not self aware at all.. you're just moth to a flame..
No none of those things are creation.. They are natural conclusions by repetitiously following simple patterns..Interesting...
Complexity is an illusion..
Turning off the computer DOES mean the User disappears.. the User requires the computer, as much as the computer requires the User..In your worldview which only allows the physical, sure, but not in mine that is larger and includes the possibility of having something to hope for.
When you turned away from GH or turned off your computer.. I have no assurance that you still exist.. I can not even tell if you're the same person talking to me right now..
I can assume those things on -faith-, doesn't make them real..
What life is based on, vs what life is, vs the limit of what consciousness can detect, vs what consciousness can appreciably detect OF LIFE...
You are mixing all of these things together based ONLY on faith.. realize how vapid such notions may be, if anything it's too little, on in extremes it may even be nothing.
You've got your whole comprehension pegged on imaginary..
The beginning of the Ergonomics board is oneself..
From within, we assemble the simple philosophies to which we live by and appropriate as necessary.
When it comes to physical movements, we use our hands and consume energy to complete work.
The antithesis of ergonomica is any option that either reduces the amount of work completed or increases the rate of consumed energy per sustained unit of work..
For example, when a standard rectangular keyboard inevitably causes RSI, our productivity drops or even cease.. This directly decreases the amount of work completed.
When a standard keyboard is inefficient in layout it requires more energy to do the same work..
So the philosophy followed as in all other endeavors is an optimization of performance to energy ratio..
This aspect, while principally illusory, as equivalent exchange can not be violated, is a pillar of modern living.
So now, why does life want to maintain itself in such a fashion, teetering in this wobbly construct.
If we limit the scope of our analysis to size of our solar system.. we can proceed thusly..
The sun.. outputs an ocean of radiated energy.. the Earth is but a luke warm pebble in this sea.. As those radiated waves hit the earth.. The buildup of energy on the surface and its interactions creates life..
So what is biological life.. turns out, we're just friction.. An inefficiency in the all consuming entropy.
Relative to the total amount of energy exchanged by the sun into the rest of the empty pockets of the solar system.. we are quite insignificant..
In the HUGE sea, we're on a pebble, which was hit by a wave, which caused the pebble surface to warm up ever so slightly, such that the patterns upon crystal lattices were replicated and mildly BARELY sustaining..
It's human hubris to over estimate our importance. but in truth, we are but our mass. The energy that we ourselves store, and PRESUME to generate, is actually just radiation that was already passing by..
It's as if the shrimp on a boat claims to have invented the ocean...
So life.. is the friction built up on earth as it floats in a sea of radiation.. life is a slight warming-effect..
This perfectly and succinctly explains humanity and its endeavors (including ergo keyboards).. we are the friction in the way of and sustained by solar winds..
It's been a natural consequence, not a choice..
----
Your world view vs Tp4's
Tp4's world view is all encompassing.. but it recognizes its limitations and its own relative SIZE..
Your world view is narrow, as it forces everything through a single antagonizing phenomenon.. that being there is magic.... and you can 't prove otherwise... This is the same pin hole used by all religions to stop people from having to think further. and Though I can see that your brain works.. you're not really letting it be free..
----
Reality is perceptual.. NO it is not..
Reality is physical, and using those physical detectors, we estimate portions of reality, and COMPUTE a abstract model of what MIGHT BE, using a physical processors, the brain.
----
Basing your life on evidence..
How silly.. A sufficiently complex forgery can fool all of your senses.. Total trust as in -being fully convinced- is NOT possible, because an abstraction in our computational framework will only approach but never be the real thing..
You can measure for an eternity, and it will still fall short, because you've measured it with a stick built with only the PARTS of what you're attempting to measure.. it will never be long enough... EVER..
Oobly, I am happy to bring enlightenment to even just one person..
You're welcomeShow Image(http://s4.postimage.org/1gjeekm04/th_187.gif)
You're refusing to see the Ends to our Means..
You earn money.. why.. what does anyone do with money, that doesn't ultimately GROW population..
I am not speaking about money as the paper itself.. but what it leads to.. From the richest down to the poorest.. It does one thing in the end..
Because we're locked into this very simple cycle of growth.. and all innovation is to maintain that growth..
Let's look at something far fetched.. Server technology.. M0re processing power.. thicker pipes..
What drives consumer bandwidth use.. Oh Facebook.. Why use facebook.. so you can chat up girls.. oh why chat up girls.. you see where this is going..
I believe in what I believe in.. But it remains unconfirmed.. no amount of evidence can COMPLETELY-confirm a belief..
Just because I can reach out and touch something, does not make it real.. I've never met you.. you could be a product of my imagination.. an elaborate ploy devised to fool me, as I live in a human zoo.. I can't prove otherwise, because the system is bigger than I am.. I can never fully know it..
--Everything in the human experience--.. You put too much value in humans, I believe this is great disservice you've imposed upon your extrapolations..
I can not walk, I can only perceive myself walking.. this ground beneath me is perceptibly solid, but is it REALLY.. I can not say for sure..
You live and think on anecdotes and assumptions that you can not confirm..
The world, our brains may very well be analogue.. But computation is NOT.. we do not and can not understand analogue.. we ARE analogue.. The fish in the water..
I've already explained cutting the cake prior.. You're forcing segmented definitions which you hold as truths out of a continuous system.. A line is a line, you pick a point, that point is unreal. you need a leap of faith, an approximation, a coordinate. but that coordinate is not real, and it is not part of the system, we lack the ability to truly describe what a point is.
So what you've ultimately done is cut something blindly..
Now who's got the contradiction.. You have ur all purpose faith, yet somehow it doesn't apply for that new rambling of yours, and suddenly -you do not see how it could be any other way-..
Faith is approximation, and accepting faith, is accepting limitations.. However, that does not alter what Faith is.. Faith is nothing..
Now who's got the contradiction.. You have ur all purpose faith, yet somehow it doesn't apply for that new rambling of yours, and suddenly -you do not see how it could be any other way-..
Faith is approximation, and accepting faith, is accepting limitations.. However, that does not alter what Faith is.. Faith is nothing..
Now you're just spouting words that have no meaning. Seriously, what part of what I've said is so hard to understand? Please point out the contradiction in my statements.
Faith is not approximation, but choosing to believe. My point is that EVERYBODY has and exercises faith and has been doing so from birth. Without it you cannot function effectively. It's part of the intrinsic process of making sense of our personal universe.
Now who's got the contradiction.. You have ur all purpose faith, yet somehow it doesn't apply for that new rambling of yours, and suddenly -you do not see how it could be any other way-..
Faith is approximation, and accepting faith, is accepting limitations.. However, that does not alter what Faith is.. Faith is nothing..
Now you're just spouting words that have no meaning. Seriously, what part of what I've said is so hard to understand? Please point out the contradiction in my statements.
Faith is not approximation, but choosing to believe. My point is that EVERYBODY has and exercises faith and has been doing so from birth. Without it you cannot function effectively. It's part of the intrinsic process of making sense of our personal universe.
No no.. I understand perfectly.. It is Oobly whose mind refuse to open..Show Image(http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/embarrassed3-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862502)
Faith is an approximation because it is a concept that rides on top of consciousness..
Consciousness itself is an approximation, so is faith.. Making sense of my personal universe does not depend on faith.
By simply being in the universe, you have sense of the universe.. But because consciousness, perceptibly is a very incomplete analysis of said universe.. it and all its conclusions are nothing and unreal.
Now who's got the contradiction.. You have ur all purpose faith, yet somehow it doesn't apply for that new rambling of yours, and suddenly -you do not see how it could be any other way-..
Faith is approximation, and accepting faith, is accepting limitations.. However, that does not alter what Faith is.. Faith is nothing..
Now you're just spouting words that have no meaning. Seriously, what part of what I've said is so hard to understand? Please point out the contradiction in my statements.
Faith is not approximation, but choosing to believe. My point is that EVERYBODY has and exercises faith and has been doing so from birth. Without it you cannot function effectively. It's part of the intrinsic process of making sense of our personal universe.
No no.. I understand perfectly.. It is Oobly whose mind refuse to open..Show Image(http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/embarrassed3-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862502)
Faith is an approximation because it is a concept that rides on top of consciousness..
Consciousness itself is an approximation, so is faith.. Making sense of my personal universe does not depend on faith.
By simply being in the universe, you have sense of the universe.. But because consciousness, perceptibly is a very incomplete analysis of said universe.. it and all its conclusions are nothing and unreal.
Well, I guess since conciousness is an approximation and thought requires conciousness then all the thoughts you've written in this thread are nothing and unreal and I will disregard them.
/thread.
...
So short sighted..
Just because something is unreal , does not mean you disregard them..
...
.. It is Oobly whose mind refuse to open..
... accepting faith, is accepting limitations..
... applying disproportionate belief in it.. THAT is the problem..
Is money real or just a concept?
This dream clearly means you are seeking a penis in the butt.
I am making perfect sense.
You're trying to affirm your beliefs including the act of believing through improper means.
Because the Faith you know is not a- real-thing in this universe, it can not be acted upon, or in any way represent any portion of reality.
That does not alter the fact that faith is a-thing, that it-exists.. but as is consciousness, they're both placeholder variables.
Everything is reactive.
That includes thought. since all events cascade from the origin.
Act implies choice and selection, because you can not choose, you can not act..
Faith being a consequence of physical systems is a thing that may exist.
What would happen happens with or without faith/ belief as a concept.. but faith and belief as their physical counterparts setting the next domino in motion is possible..
The problem is you are mixing the magical idea of faith, of which is a departure from our current reality with the current reality..
Your faith is magical.. and it can not influence reality because magic as defined can only run in parallel.. If the streams cross, then the stream is neither magic nor non magic.. Even if this is a possibility, we could not perceive such a universe given the current limitation of our binary processing system.
I've read precisely what you've written.. And I break it down to your intentions, because in that way, I can understand what you're attempting to accomplish...
You deride my writing and logic.. Everything that ever occurs is rational and happens as it should have.. I am rational independent of your capability to understand me
It is possible within the perceived universe to define its opposite.. this is a necessary condition for existence.. But that doesn't mean the realities of said opposites can cross.
The thing is, you don't have proof that faith doesn't affect the world in a metaphysical point of view.I agree.
In that case, you don't know how anything works, except the fact that you're alive and that *something* is causing you to do things and we call it 'free will' as people don't like it when things aren't named.It's outside the scope of our limited means to comprehend our entire universe, but when we start to gain evidences telling us what something is like we can conclude that that thing most likely exists. Existence is a requirement of character, something must exist in order for its properties to be measured. Often we postulate the existence of something based on discovering some aspect of it, some part of what it is "like", such as dark matter.
Metaphysics has 2 questions: "What's out there?" and "What is it like?"
The problem happens due to the fact that both the answers transcends what people can comprehend, and we do that in opposites. You can think that something is bad, because it's the opposite of good, and vice versa. If you think about it enough, you can understand that this is the basis of how we understand things.
We cannot know what's out there, and we cannot know what its like, as both answers transcend this duality, which is out of our comprehension.We can know some of what's out there and some of the characteristics of those things we do perceive. Faith is always involved, though, as the component that allows us to accept what we perceive and move on from merely gathering evidence to acting on it. If we didn't believe the moon was there we could not have landed people on it, for instance.
Therefore, this 'faith' is the closest thing that you can comprehend, of the answer to these two metaphysical questions. This faith, can also be whatever the person desires it to be.
I can't believe i actually seriously replied to a tp thread. help i've finally done it
The thing is, you don't have proof that faith doesn't affect the world in a metaphysical point of view. In that case, you don't know how anything works, except the fact that you're alive and that *something* is causing you to do things and we call it 'free will' as people don't like it when things aren't named.
Metaphysics has 2 questions: "What's out there?" and "What is it like?"
The problem happens due to the fact that both the answers transcends what people can comprehend, and we do that in opposites. You can think that something is bad, because it's the opposite of good, and vice versa. If you think about it enough, you can understand that this is the basis of how we understand things.
We cannot know what's out there, and we cannot know what its like, as both answers transcend this duality, which is out of our comprehension.
Therefore, this 'faith' is the closest thing that you can comprehend, of the answer to these two metaphysical questions. This faith, can also be whatever the person desires it to be.
So.... From the delay in response I assume tp is formulating something epic that needs a lot of preparation?Show Image(http://vadakkus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Jim-Carry-Bruce-Almighty-Computer-scene.jpg)
Or just lost interest?Show Image(http://img.wonderhowto.com/img/original/88/24/63494708373998/0/634947083739988824.jpg)
Or coming around to my way of thinking, maybe?Show Image(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/99/9977a742ae11c3b4cfcba022ba244f8f79d5e9c758772e93b18552440f2281b6.jpg)
My faith is to allow for the possibility that, the connection between the two is that they are NOT connected..
does it look like this
(Attachment Link)
i spent 5 minutes of my **** talent for you to go "nawh" :'(does it look like this
(Attachment Link)
nawh.. I haven't had an FPS dream since highschool.. didn't get into any serious FPS since then..
i spent 5 minutes of my **** talent for you to go "nawh" :'(does it look like this
(Attachment Link)
nawh.. I haven't had an FPS dream since highschool.. didn't get into any serious FPS since then..
By order of post..
I disagree with the entire premise..
Even if existence occurs simultaneously with interactivity.. the perception of it must come after, EVEN if the perception itself is formed simultaneously..
So using the scientific method is futile. What's in question is not detection or analysis.. It is simply whether or not that-there-such-exist.. Analysis is already too late to say anything about what may have happened in the realm prior to existence.. BOTH of which may or may not have existed..
non-connection IS a connection..
There is the perceptible, the non-perceptible, the something-ceptible..
As far as "we've" studied and been able to work with, it's only been perceptible and non-perceptible... a binary system of processing..
This something-ceptible is the missing element that keeps slipping by you.
I am not a multiverse or universe supporter..
That notion is wholly pointless.. a multiverse is a silly approximation of a whole.. To have a whole, there has to exist the possibility of half.. that's the entire concept
But we can not know for sure that possibility exist, because we can not know for sure ANYTHING at all, because knowing for-SURE would mean a Whole-Whole and that is undefined..
So, any mental notion of half or faith in half is again the result of binary processing. N-th order elements may exist, both incomprehensible and undetectable.. as those properties may very well be the ones exclusively defined or undefined by such elements.
___________
We may or may-not interact with the world around us.. It may be perceptibly so, but I don't know for sure..
___________
Non-Connection is conditional upon the fact that a connection does not exist.. That itself is a connection with a term other than the elements in play..
There is no contradiction.. because complete non-connection is not possible, as is complete-anything..
Thus there will always be connections, thus non-connection is a connection to something..
____________
You are unable to separate perceptible and possibly-perceptible.. there fore your attempts at creating this silly cutoff is futile..
My segmentation is much more clear and distinct, and workable.
_________
If I knew of what was outside of my universe, I wouldn't bother having these dreams..
Possibly perceptible is indistinguishable from perceptible..
...
All of your efforts and examples are only correct in the most narrowest of sense, that they are correct TO us..
...
Your reality is not applicable, it is only fiction..
I have to add that I am rather tired of the anti-theist atmosphere present in most intellectual circles, as if belief in God is reserved for idiots who don't (or can't) think, when the truth is that the theist position is more logical and has more supporting evidence in cosmogeny, cosmology, philosophy, biology and information theory among others, than the atheist position. Even putting aside the evidence, theism should at least be allowed as a possible intelligent option, simply because it IS possible, nothing in science or logic disallows it or makes it less tenable.
Being alive is a result of being pre-thought by the Creator and attached to a physical shell.
We know nothing until we become aware of and interact with Him. Then we can know who we are because He thought us, knows our identity completely and can be interacted with.
Free to think, having a solid absolute reference point, loved and at peace.
As I said before, what people believe as 'God' is past our capabilities to understand; beyond duality.
As I said before, what people believe as 'God' is past our capabilities to understand; beyond duality.
We cannot fully understand Him, I agree:
"Your [infinite] knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high above me, I cannot reach it." - Psalm 139:6
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8
However, we can, through interaction, get to know parts of His nature and character. Just as we can know parts of the nature and character of anything else we can interact with.
As I said before, what people believe as 'God' is past our capabilities to understand; beyond duality.
We cannot fully understand Him, I agree:
"Your [infinite] knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high above me, I cannot reach it." - Psalm 139:6
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8
However, we can, through interaction, get to know parts of His nature and character. Just as we can know parts of the nature and character of anything else we can interact with.
Hubris... through and through...
God is big, as I mentioned, likely as large as slightly greater than half the universe..
You wish to know god.. silly humans...
Even assuming we are ourselves but a piece of god, to KNOW GOD.. come the ff on.. there isn't enough material to process KNOW-ing GOD, without simply BEING GOD..
In chasing simply KNOWING is a flaw, as it will forever remain incomplete.
I dream of red heads every night.my my
Ultimately there is no difference between knowing-god and being-god..
Assuming your arbitrary split, as long as you are of equivalent size, you will possess equivalent understanding.. at the very least equivalent capacity to understand should the need arise..
So then it comes down to , how much matter is enough to say, that's god..
I say approaching half the universe..
Ultimately there is no difference between knowing-god and being-god..
Assuming your arbitrary split, as long as you are of equivalent size, you will possess equivalent understanding.. at the very least equivalent capacity to understand should the need arise..
So then it comes down to , how much matter is enough to say, that's god..
I say approaching half the universe..
Again you're making the assumption of complete knowledge vs partial knowledge. Complete knowledge, or even the possibility for complete knowledge is not a pre-requisite for partial knowledge.
To know tp is not the same as to be tp. Even if we to ever become "equivalent" to God (which we cannot because we will always be smaller), we would not be the same, just have the same abilities. We would still have individual "consciousness" / personality / identity.
Also, you're again making the assumption of the necessity of the physical for understanding / knowing. As I've shown, God is necessarily non-physical, yet he completely "knows" us. Knowledge is therefore not dependent on the physical, therefore knowledge is not dependent on the size of anything in the physical.
This is in line with the concept of the pre-existing self which does not need a physical form to exist.
...
THe point is.. KNOWING and BEING are not different, because KNOWING is physical..
COMPLETE understand vs Partial Understanding.. THat is no different than BEING part of or BEING all of..
...
Because every attempt to test it would involve the use of an approximation.. we could not produce a concrete understanding.. and thus.. in a completely indiscernible world.. there was NEVER a complete or an incomplete.. At best, it just is..