Reality
14 views
Skip to first unread message
bjdowling
Apr 10, 2008, 12:33:06 PM4/10/08
to "Minds Eye"
Reality I see all around me seems to consist of where a person is in
their mind and body at the time. It is shaped by those given the
ability to do so. bjdowling
their mind and body at the time. It is shaped by those given the
ability to do so. bjdowling
Vamadevananda
Apr 10, 2008, 1:01:33 PM4/10/08
to "Minds Eye"
That's a tough one for you, Pat ! It calls for ability, which brings
free will into play ... the will to gain ability comes with a choice.
free will into play ... the will to gain ability comes with a choice.
Pat
Apr 10, 2008, 1:18:37 PM4/10/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 10 Apr, 18:01, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a tough one for you, Pat ! It calls for ability, which brings
> free will into play ... the will to gain ability comes with a choice.
>
will, then that free will has been predetermined. And that which
predetermines is, forever, free to do as it will. ;-)
> On Apr 10, 9:33 pm, bjdowling <bjmos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Reality I see all around me seems to consist of where a person is in
> > their mind and body at the time. It is shaped by those given the
>
> - Show quoted text -
ornamentalmind
Apr 10, 2008, 8:36:55 PM4/10/08
to "Minds Eye"
***rolls eyes in confusion***
Is this teleology?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Is this teleology?
Pat
Apr 10, 2008, 8:52:13 PM4/10/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 11 Apr, 01:36, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ***rolls eyes in confusion***
>
> Is this teleology?
>
If there is such a thing as free will, who gave it to you? If
you never had a choice about having or accepting free will, then you
KNOW that your free will was, in fact, predetermined. If, however,
you remember being offered a choice about whether or not you wanted
free will, then that would stand as evidence against that. But, I
don't think you'll be arguing that point.
Now, that covers the possibility of actual free will NOT the
possibility of a will that appears free. Irrespective of the
possibility that free will may only be an appearance of freedom, for
the sake of argument, even if free will actually exists, it has been
predetermined that we have it and, as such, stands as evidence that
predeterminism is at work in the universe. But, that governor that
doled out said 'free will', the Predeterminator, must be free to do
so. So, free will is predetermined and that which predetermines is
forever free to do as it will.
Although, if free will is only an appearance of freedom, then we
can also infer that predeterminism is at work in the universe. SO,
irrespective of our views on the actual existence of a free will, we
can deduce that predeterminism is present in the system.
ornamentalmind
Apr 10, 2008, 9:17:15 PM4/10/08
to "Minds Eye"
I interpret that as a 'yes'. :-)
Pat
Apr 10, 2008, 9:45:02 PM4/10/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 11 Apr, 02:17, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I interpret that as a 'yes'. :-)
>
strikes you as teleological? It seems purely deductive reasoning to
me.
Vamadevananda
Apr 11, 2008, 12:58:45 AM4/11/08
to "Minds Eye"
Predeterminism is just a point of view. I find it dangerous, Pat !
About choice ... I can see one here and now, and exercise my free
will at it. Why should anyone " offer " to me my own free will ?
My free will is not about appearance at all. Let me address it from
your theory ...
God alone has free will. God alone is. I am. So, I am nothing but God.
So, I have free will.
What does your theory say to this straight and simple reasoning,
Pat ? Unless, your theory is recommending that I should not dare to
state that I am God !
About choice ... I can see one here and now, and exercise my free
will at it. Why should anyone " offer " to me my own free will ?
My free will is not about appearance at all. Let me address it from
your theory ...
God alone has free will. God alone is. I am. So, I am nothing but God.
So, I have free will.
What does your theory say to this straight and simple reasoning,
Pat ? Unless, your theory is recommending that I should not dare to
state that I am God !
Pat
Apr 11, 2008, 3:56:42 AM4/11/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 11 Apr, 05:58, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Predeterminism is just a point of view. I find it dangerous, Pat !
>
> About choice ... I can see one here and now, and exercise my free
> will at it. Why should anyone " offer " to me my own free will ?
>
> My free will is not about appearance at all. Let me address it from
> your theory ...
>
> God alone has free will. God alone is. I am. So, I am nothing but God.
> So, I have free will.
>
> What does your theory say to this straight and simple reasoning,
> Pat ? Unless, your theory is recommending that I should not dare to
> state that I am God !
>
free will. But, of course, you let the cat out of the bag. For me,
predeterminism is another word for 'cause and effect'. When
discussing 'self' in a universe of one actor, though, we arrive at a
loss for a difference between the two.
ornamentalmind
Apr 11, 2008, 5:41:38 PM4/11/08
to "Minds Eye"
perhaps you don't see predetermination and teleology as the same/
similar.
similar.
Pat
Apr 11, 2008, 11:03:23 PM4/11/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 11 Apr, 22:41, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> perhaps you don't see predetermination and teleology as the same/
> similar.
>
would seem to be a personal choice. Which one is truly the guidepost
is anyone's guess. They, cause and effect, are two ends of one rope.
I call the rope predeterminism, yet I note it's ends. I see teleology
as a philosophical view that holds that the effect is what requires a
cause rather than the effect simply being the result of the cause.
Predetermination, in my view, doesn't necessarily imply teleology nor
does it rule it out.
ornamentalmind
Apr 12, 2008, 1:34:24 AM4/12/08
to "Minds Eye"
Interesting.
Using your words here, "I call the rope predeterminism, yet I note
it's ends.", do you see anything beyond said ends? In other words, do
you see anything else? If so, what? Does it interact with the rope?
etc.
I guess to me that teleology needs both 'ends' as I see it. However,
rather than a rope, I use the term cycle. (s)
Further: "I see teleology as a philosophical view that holds that the
unless you can suggest an effect w/o a cause or vice versa.
"Predetermination, in my view, doesn't necessarily imply teleology nor
does it rule it out."
Do you see them as being different? I guess so based on your earlier
words.
Of course, I'll give you your own definition here, but see little
point in what I see as an artificial discrimination.
Thanks for the interaction.
Using your words here, "I call the rope predeterminism, yet I note
it's ends.", do you see anything beyond said ends? In other words, do
you see anything else? If so, what? Does it interact with the rope?
etc.
I guess to me that teleology needs both 'ends' as I see it. However,
rather than a rope, I use the term cycle. (s)
Further: "I see teleology as a philosophical view that holds that the
effect is what requires a cause rather than the effect simply being
the result of the cause."
I don't see how this is anything other than a chicken/egg issue,
the result of the cause."
unless you can suggest an effect w/o a cause or vice versa.
"Predetermination, in my view, doesn't necessarily imply teleology nor
does it rule it out."
words.
Of course, I'll give you your own definition here, but see little
point in what I see as an artificial discrimination.
Thanks for the interaction.
ornamentalmind
Apr 12, 2008, 3:05:03 AM4/12/08
to "Minds Eye"
Vamadevananda
Apr 15, 2008, 2:24:50 AM4/15/08
to "Minds Eye"
Predeterminism ... in the context of events in human life ... the
resolved, patient, focussed, skillful, persevering and brave hearts
make it happen, Pat, regardless of the " rope " that might have led
them to their present condition. Men do change their fate, in fact,
and realise one of their own choosing ; there's nothing to
philosophise about that fact !
resolved, patient, focussed, skillful, persevering and brave hearts
make it happen, Pat, regardless of the " rope " that might have led
them to their present condition. Men do change their fate, in fact,
and realise one of their own choosing ; there's nothing to
philosophise about that fact !
Vamadevananda
Apr 15, 2008, 2:27:08 AM4/15/08
to "Minds Eye"
I would say, OM, when teleological, the effect powers its own cause !
chazwin
Apr 15, 2008, 3:52:03 AM4/15/08
to "Minds Eye"
There is a problem with "given" the ability to do so. It is the heart
of the given which speaks volumes against "free" will. As this ability
is given (god or by experience and motivation), it means that the
actions that are taken are determined by that which gives.
of the given which speaks volumes against "free" will. As this ability
is given (god or by experience and motivation), it means that the
actions that are taken are determined by that which gives.
chazwin
Apr 15, 2008, 3:55:55 AM4/15/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Apr 10, 6:18 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 Apr, 18:01, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's a tough one for you, Pat ! It calls for ability, which brings
> > free will into play ... the will to gain ability comes with a choice.
>
> I'll draw your attention to the word 'seems'. If we have free
> will, then that free will has been predetermined. And that which
> predetermines is, forever, free to do as it will. ;-)
made me a person so skeptical? Why would god give me the desire, and
then punish me for wanting to express the desire; why would he make me
a person that demands and seeks after the truth and yet gives me an
ideology that demands that I suspend my disbelief in order to accept
on faith that which I find unacceptible: his existence?
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 9:33 pm, bjdowling <bjmos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Reality I see all around me seems to consist of where a person is in
> > > their mind and body at the time. It is shaped by those given the
> > > ability to do so. bjdowling- Hide quoted text -
>
chazwin
Apr 15, 2008, 3:57:37 AM4/15/08
to "Minds Eye"
If you have a toenail on your big toe, then who ave it to you?
Ummmm - there seems to be a presumption here...
Ummmm - there seems to be a presumption here...
chazwin
Apr 15, 2008, 4:01:41 AM4/15/08
to "Minds Eye"
Determinism is a word that concerns a process, as is predetermination,
and free will.
Teleology is not directly related as this is a word that refers only
to the final cause in the process: that which is the reason BY DESIGN
of the consequence of that process.
Determinism/free-will is an argument about the process, teleology is
an argument about the result.
and free will.
Teleology is not directly related as this is a word that refers only
to the final cause in the process: that which is the reason BY DESIGN
of the consequence of that process.
Determinism/free-will is an argument about the process, teleology is
an argument about the result.
chazwin
Apr 15, 2008, 4:03:19 AM4/15/08
to "Minds Eye"
> Interesting.
> Using your words here, "I call the rope predeterminism, yet I note
> it's ends.", do you see anything beyond said ends? In other words, do
> you see anything else? If so, what? Does it interact with the rope?
> etc.
> I guess to me that teleology needs both 'ends' as I see it. However,
> rather than a rope, I use the term cycle. (s)
>
> Further: "I see teleology as a philosophical view that holds that the
> effect is what requires a cause rather than the effect simply being
> the result of the cause."
> I don't see how this is anything other than a chicken/egg issue,
> unless you can suggest an effect w/o a cause or vice versa.
>
> "Predetermination, in my view, doesn't necessarily imply teleology nor
> does it rule it out."
Such an idea has to encourage a telos, as predetermination means that
> Using your words here, "I call the rope predeterminism, yet I note
> it's ends.", do you see anything beyond said ends? In other words, do
> you see anything else? If so, what? Does it interact with the rope?
> etc.
> I guess to me that teleology needs both 'ends' as I see it. However,
> rather than a rope, I use the term cycle. (s)
>
> Further: "I see teleology as a philosophical view that holds that the
> effect is what requires a cause rather than the effect simply being
> the result of the cause."
> I don't see how this is anything other than a chicken/egg issue,
> unless you can suggest an effect w/o a cause or vice versa.
>
> "Predetermination, in my view, doesn't necessarily imply teleology nor
> does it rule it out."
the future is known, and this implies that it is in the mind of a
designer.
Pat
Apr 15, 2008, 4:29:25 AM4/15/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 15 Apr, 08:55, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 6:18 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Apr, 18:01, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's a tough one for you, Pat ! It calls for ability, which brings
> > > free will into play ... the will to gain ability comes with a choice.
>
> > I'll draw your attention to the word 'seems'. If we have free
> > will, then that free will has been predetermined. And that which
> > predetermines is, forever, free to do as it will. ;-)
>
> Except, one has to ask - if I am "free" to accept Him, then why has he
> made me a person so skeptical? Why would god give me the desire, and
> then punish me for wanting to express the desire; why would he make me
> a person that demands and seeks after the truth and yet gives me an
> ideology that demands that I suspend my disbelief in order to accept
> on faith that which I find unacceptible: his existence?
>
>
atheists as a reality check. Nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism,
but, when you're God, a healthy skepticism results in atheists. All
you have to do is be the best atheist you can be and God will be proud
of you. Not that that would matter to you, but, hey, that's His
way. ;-)
ornamentalmind
Apr 15, 2008, 3:48:24 PM4/15/08
to "Minds Eye"
Chaz, very cogent clarification about Determinism/free-will vs
teleology.
Thanks!
teleology.
Thanks!
Vamadevananda
Apr 16, 2008, 1:29:39 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
Most of your responses here, Pat, are clearly without base.
Next, you will say God pisses when it rains and has an upset stomach
when a volcano erupts. The truth of the matter is : you do not know
God, much less whether he is a schizophrenic !
Next, you will say God pisses when it rains and has an upset stomach
when a volcano erupts. The truth of the matter is : you do not know
God, much less whether he is a schizophrenic !
Chris Jenkins
Apr 16, 2008, 1:31:10 AM4/16/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
I can find absolutely nothing wrong with this philosophy whatsoever. :)--
Support Small Businesses. Or, at least mine:
http://flmediasolutions.com/support
Support Small Businesses. Or, at least mine:
http://flmediasolutions.com/support
chazwin
Apr 16, 2008, 5:57:54 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
Your obfuscation, dissimulation, revision, voltefaces, diversions,
digressions, and continual re-alignment of your definitions of "god",
in order to try to keep a semblance of your misplaced faith in a non-
existent entity astounds me to such a degree that I truly wonder at
the future of mankind whilst such bizarre and unconscionable false
sophistry continues. For I would that it were only you: sadly it is
not.
Your god is: a tinkerer when it comes to "creation"; a madman when it
comes to assessment of his/her/its behaviour; has no personality when
it suits you; has a personality when it does; is nothing; is
everything... In short you are a confused and sad little puppy.
Is it not time to give up on this fantasy of yours?
digressions, and continual re-alignment of your definitions of "god",
in order to try to keep a semblance of your misplaced faith in a non-
existent entity astounds me to such a degree that I truly wonder at
the future of mankind whilst such bizarre and unconscionable false
sophistry continues. For I would that it were only you: sadly it is
not.
Your god is: a tinkerer when it comes to "creation"; a madman when it
comes to assessment of his/her/its behaviour; has no personality when
it suits you; has a personality when it does; is nothing; is
everything... In short you are a confused and sad little puppy.
Is it not time to give up on this fantasy of yours?
Pat
Apr 16, 2008, 6:53:55 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 16 Apr, 06:29, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most of your responses here, Pat, are clearly without base.
>
> Next, you will say God pisses when it rains and has an upset stomach
> when a volcano erupts. The truth of the matter is : you do not know
> God, much less whether he is a schizophrenic !
>
that. That said, if God's consciousness is split amongst ours, is
that anything less than a form of schizophrenia? As to whether or not
I know god or anything about God, that's a personal relationship
between that entity and myself and not one that is truly able to be
probed by analysis of a tongue-in-cheek comment to one who couldn't
care less about the nature of such a relationship anyway. Lighten up,
Vam; God takes a piss when we take a piss. And, especially, when we
take the piss. ;-)
Pat
Apr 16, 2008, 7:00:07 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 16 Apr, 10:57, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your obfuscation, dissimulation, revision, voltefaces, diversions,
> digressions, and continual re-alignment of your definitions of "god",
> in order to try to keep a semblance of your misplaced faith in a non-
> existent entity astounds me to such a degree that I truly wonder at
> the future of mankind whilst such bizarre and unconscionable false
> sophistry continues. For I would that it were only you: sadly it is
> not.
>
> Your god is: a tinkerer when it comes to "creation"; a madman when it
> comes to assessment of his/her/its behaviour; has no personality when
> it suits you; has a personality when it does; is nothing; is
> everything... In short you are a confused and sad little puppy.
>
> Is it not time to give up on this fantasy of yours?
>
more than that. What difference does it make to you anyway? If
you're happy without God, why isn't that good enough for you? Your
Anti-God swanking could be seen as a form of attempted atheist
proselytation. Why not just start knocking on people's doors and
trying to convert them? Neither your fantasy (sic) or mine can be
proven; why should I convert to your fantasy?
Pat
Apr 16, 2008, 7:32:15 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
> Most of your responses here, Pat, are clearly without base.
>
> Next, you will say God pisses when it rains and has an upset stomach
> when a volcano erupts. The truth of the matter is : you do not know
> God, much less whether he is a schizophrenic !
>
Sorry, but the more I think about that, the more it bugs me.
>
> Next, you will say God pisses when it rains and has an upset stomach
> when a volcano erupts. The truth of the matter is : you do not know
> God, much less whether he is a schizophrenic !
>
That's quite an indictment that I don't know God. I think we agree
about God within about 95% (perhaps, even up to 98%) and, where we
differ, is, in my opinion, down to our personal experiences and
neither of us are qualified to disregard the other's experiences. I'm
quite happy to admit that I'm, in no way, omniscient, and, therefore,
my understanding of the entirety of the universe is bound to have some
limits. But those limits are only different than yours, not less
valid.
The truth of the matter is that my understanding of God comes
from my experiences and reflections. I've been shown things that no
other has. And that applies to everyone.
Sorry if I seem perturbed, but that too is a truth.
Nevertheless, I know your heart is in the right place and you only
wish to reprove me. I just think you read my statement and gave it
your own context rather than the context that was intended. My
intended audience doesn't accept the premiss in the first place, so I
felt little harm in adding a slightly humourous response to a question
that would have been answered better by self-reflection.
Lee
Apr 16, 2008, 7:33:30 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
Chaz said:
'Except, one has to ask - if I am "free" to accept Him, then why has
He(God) hasn't, you are free to be who and what you want to be, if you
question that is because you choose to.
Your desires are yours, to take or to leave, God does not punish.
You are free to choose or reject God.
'Except, one has to ask - if I am "free" to accept Him, then why has
he made me a person so skeptical? Why would god give me the desire,
and then punish me for wanting to express the desire; why would he
make me a person that demands and seeks after the truth and yet gives
me an ideology that demands that I suspend my disbelief in order to
accept on faith that which I find unacceptible: his existence?'
and then punish me for wanting to express the desire; why would he
make me a person that demands and seeks after the truth and yet gives
me an ideology that demands that I suspend my disbelief in order to
He(God) hasn't, you are free to be who and what you want to be, if you
question that is because you choose to.
Your desires are yours, to take or to leave, God does not punish.
You are free to choose or reject God.
Lee
Apr 16, 2008, 7:38:49 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
Umm no I don't agree with that.
If I give my child a sandwhich, he may eat it or not dependant on his
whim.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
If I give my child a sandwhich, he may eat it or not dependant on his
whim.
Vamadevananda
Apr 16, 2008, 7:42:37 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
However forcefully you may say that, and I can hardly have anything to
say to any personal relationship you might have with God, what you say
about God publicly, on this thread, does not make sense.
It would appear the same to you, if you were not so attached to your
own thoughts in this regard. The thought seems to claim you and thus
closes your mind around itself. Try re - reading your own posts, as if
someone else has written it.
Get real, Pat ! We all know you have ideas about God, but ideas are
not knowledge, much less truths.
say to any personal relationship you might have with God, what you say
about God publicly, on this thread, does not make sense.
It would appear the same to you, if you were not so attached to your
own thoughts in this regard. The thought seems to claim you and thus
closes your mind around itself. Try re - reading your own posts, as if
someone else has written it.
Get real, Pat ! We all know you have ideas about God, but ideas are
not knowledge, much less truths.
chazwin
Apr 16, 2008, 8:32:46 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 16 Apr, 12:38, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Umm no I don't agree with that.
>
> If I give my child a sandwhich, he may eat it or not dependant on his
> whim.
hungriness is greater than his motivation to reject the sandwich then
he will eat. If he refuses it is because he is who is his. But one
thing is for sure he cannot escape his own motivation.
His whim is determined by his experience and nature which casues him
to choose one way or another.
chazwin
Apr 16, 2008, 8:35:12 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 16 Apr, 12:00, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Apr, 10:57, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Your obfuscation, dissimulation, revision, voltefaces, diversions,
> > digressions, and continual re-alignment of your definitions of "god",
> > in order to try to keep a semblance of your misplaced faith in a non-
> > existent entity astounds me to such a degree that I truly wonder at
> > the future of mankind whilst such bizarre and unconscionable false
> > sophistry continues. For I would that it were only you: sadly it is
> > not.
>
> > Your god is: a tinkerer when it comes to "creation"; a madman when it
> > comes to assessment of his/her/its behaviour; has no personality when
> > it suits you; has a personality when it does; is nothing; is
> > everything... In short you are a confused and sad little puppy.
>
> > Is it not time to give up on this fantasy of yours?
>
> Or, like Vam, you took a tongue-in-cheek comment as something
> more than that. What difference does it make to you anyway? If
> you're happy without God, why isn't that good enough for you? Your
> Anti-God swanking could be seen as a form of attempted atheist
> proselytation. Why not just start knocking on people's doors and
> trying to convert them? Neither your fantasy (sic) or mine can be
> proven; why should I convert to your fantasy?
content. You make fantastic claims, and fantastic claims require
fantastic evidence of which you have none.
For me there is nothing to prove, but I cannot idly stand aside and
allow lies to go unchallenged.
chazwin
Apr 16, 2008, 8:38:08 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 16 Apr, 12:33, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Chaz said:
>
> 'Except, one has to ask - if I am "free" to accept Him, then why has
> he made me a person so skeptical? Why would god give me the desire,
> and then punish me for wanting to express the desire; why would he
> make me a person that demands and seeks after the truth and yet gives
> me an ideology that demands that I suspend my disbelief in order to
> accept on faith that which I find unacceptible: his existence?'
>
> He(God) hasn't, you are free to be who and what you want to be, if you
> question that is because you choose to.
creator. Then He is not god.
> Your desires are yours, to take or to leave, God does not punish.
> You are free to choose or reject God.
Pat
Apr 16, 2008, 9:16:08 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 16 Apr, 12:42, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However forcefully you may say that, and I can hardly have anything to
> say to any personal relationship you might have with God, what you say
> about God publicly, on this thread, does not make sense.
>
> It would appear the same to you, if you were not so attached to your
> own thoughts in this regard. The thought seems to claim you and thus
> closes your mind around itself. Try re - reading your own posts, as if
> someone else has written it.
>
> Get real, Pat ! We all know you have ideas about God, but ideas are
> not knowledge, much less truths.
>
with other things and couldn't really give a toss about what I write
or how others read it. I suspect we all have ideas about God that are
not knowledge, much less truths. And you seem as attached to yours as
you think I am to mine. If I could get real, I would. At the moment,
I don't find a lot about my own reality to want to dwell on for very
long. To be honest, I feel that curtain of depression setting in and,
I feel, my recent writings have probably been affected by that. I'm
the kind of person that works best when part of a team or group and,
now that I've been on my own for over a year, I'm tiring. For all my
philosophy, I still succomb to human frailty at times. My physical
tension is at an all-time high. Try to forgive my lapses, I just lost
an old friend over the weekend and her death has not settled well with
me.
Lee
Apr 16, 2008, 9:23:47 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
> Then you are saying that god did not make me - then he is not the
> creator. Then He is not god.
No I am saying you cannot blame God for your own thoughts and
> creator. Then He is not god.
feelings.
> How are you to know what is on god's mind? Are you so arrogant?
something you are sure does not exist? That makes no sense, hence I
say you are just trying to wind me up.
Lee
Apr 16, 2008, 9:26:42 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
Duhuh! Yes that is true of us all, we are all products of our
experiances.
How does that show that his actions are determined by me?
I gave the sandwich, what he does with it is not determined by me, I
only determined that he has in his possetion, a sandwhich.
experiances.
How does that show that his actions are determined by me?
I gave the sandwich, what he does with it is not determined by me, I
only determined that he has in his possetion, a sandwhich.
archytas
Apr 16, 2008, 10:03:43 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
What if it's a shit sandwich?
Lee
Apr 16, 2008, 10:06:42 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
Well besides the fact that I would not give my child a shit sandwhich,
it is still his choice as to what to do with it.
it is still his choice as to what to do with it.
bjdowling
Apr 16, 2008, 11:30:42 AM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
Atheists and believers I see as being two sides of the same coin, one
obsession. Today the evolution ideal has fallen apart due to physics
itself. Thermodynamics and the first law of should have been the
first to be answered, but now it is still the unanswerable question.
Matter than appeared from nowhere demands an explanation, without one,
we currently have only one other possibility, it was created by a mind
we do not understand. Why would He want atheists? Well None of can
know the answer, but we can question. Understanding based on search
and loss is greater than that from belief alone. Because we do not
know, beliefs of billions should be casually dismissed because of.
Lack of this relationship says nothing about what will be but there
may be something to cause and effect in all of this God is using in
our lives, still ahead. All a believer can truly base his belief on
is his own experience otherwise it is the same old arguement. Pat,
I'm sorry for your loss and glad for your faith. bjdowling
obsession. Today the evolution ideal has fallen apart due to physics
itself. Thermodynamics and the first law of should have been the
first to be answered, but now it is still the unanswerable question.
Matter than appeared from nowhere demands an explanation, without one,
we currently have only one other possibility, it was created by a mind
we do not understand. Why would He want atheists? Well None of can
know the answer, but we can question. Understanding based on search
and loss is greater than that from belief alone. Because we do not
know, beliefs of billions should be casually dismissed because of.
Lack of this relationship says nothing about what will be but there
may be something to cause and effect in all of this God is using in
our lives, still ahead. All a believer can truly base his belief on
is his own experience otherwise it is the same old arguement. Pat,
I'm sorry for your loss and glad for your faith. bjdowling
frantheman
Apr 16, 2008, 12:23:50 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
Well, Neil, you know that they say life is like a shit sandwich - the
more bread you've got, the less shit you've got to eat! :-)
more bread you've got, the less shit you've got to eat! :-)
Pat
Apr 16, 2008, 12:43:24 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 16 Apr, 16:30, bjdowling <bjmos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Atheists and believers I see as being two sides of the same coin, one
> obsession.
seriously.
>Today the evolution ideal has fallen apart due to physics
> itself. Thermodynamics and the first law of should have been the
> first to be answered, but now it is still the unanswerable question.
> Matter than appeared from nowhere demands an explanation, without one,
> we currently have only one other possibility, it was created by a mind
> we do not understand. Why would He want atheists? Well None of can
> know the answer, but we can question.
son, I suspect. The further afield one comes to greet Him, the
happier He is for the return.
>Understanding based on search
> and loss is greater than that from belief alone. Because we do not
> know, beliefs of billions should be casually dismissed because of.
> Lack of this relationship says nothing about what will be but there
> may be something to cause and effect in all of this God is using in
> our lives, still ahead. All a believer can truly base his belief on
> is his own experience otherwise it is the same old arguement. Pat,
> I'm sorry for your loss and glad for your faith. bjdowling
>
Pat
Apr 16, 2008, 12:46:28 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
government was late this week, I've had to do with the small favour of
relying on my parents' birthday gift of Kool-Aid. It stains the
tongus but keeps the blood glucose levels up.
chazwin
Apr 16, 2008, 1:33:17 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
The point is clear. If god is omnipotent, and all the other omni-s as
claimed then he is responsible for everything, because he knew even
before i was born that I would die a sinner. If he is creator then he
knows, and knew, and will know, how I have been, how I am , and how I
will be. There is no getting around this one. He created an atheist to
die in hell - do you think I give a fuck?
Bu the logical is unavoidable.
chazwin
Apr 16, 2008, 1:35:24 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
> Duhuh! Yes that is true of us all, we are all products of our
> experiances.
> How does that show that his actions are determined by me?
>
> I gave the sandwich, what he does with it is not determined by me, I
> only determined that he has in his possetion, a sandwhich.
I see - you have got the wrong end of the stick that I was waving at
> experiances.
> How does that show that his actions are determined by me?
>
> I gave the sandwich, what he does with it is not determined by me, I
> only determined that he has in his possetion, a sandwhich.
another person.
chazwin
Apr 16, 2008, 1:36:38 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 16 Apr, 15:06, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Well besides the fact that I would not give my child a shit sandwhich,
> it is still his choice as to what to do with it.
matter - but that does not make it "free".
chazwin
Apr 16, 2008, 1:49:30 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
> Atheists and believers I see as being two sides of the same coin, one
> obsession. Today the evolution ideal has fallen apart due to physics
> itself. Thermodynamics and the first law of should have been the
> first to be answered, but now it is still the unanswerable question.
> Matter than appeared from nowhere demands an explanation, without one,
> we currently have only one other possibility, it was created by a mind
> we do not understand.
BZZZT wrong an at least 2 counts.
> obsession. Today the evolution ideal has fallen apart due to physics
> itself. Thermodynamics and the first law of should have been the
> first to be answered, but now it is still the unanswerable question.
> Matter than appeared from nowhere demands an explanation, without one,
> we currently have only one other possibility, it was created by a mind
> we do not understand.
1) no one is saying that matter appeared from nowhere. If you are
referring to the big bang it all started with a small superdense
volume of matter which may well have always been in existence.
2) And your "solution" if we can laughingly call it that, is no
solution at all. Since we do not have a single example of a "mind"
creating matter then it is utter folly to suggest this. Then the next
problem would be to discover where this mind came from. This is a much
more complicated and unattainable quest, for every example we have of
a mind at work involved that the mind is generated by grey matter.
There is no reason to suppose that a mind can exist without a brain.
The other problem is that the evidence points to the fact that all
consciousness has arrived very late in the history of the universe and
then only after millions of years of evolution.
Why would He want atheists? Well None of can
> know the answer, but we can question. Understanding based on search
> and loss is greater than that from belief alone. Because we do not
> know, beliefs of billions should be casually dismissed because of.
thing and all use unreliable and different methods to determine what
they call the truth to build their fantasy.
Atheism is growing for good reasons.
bjdowling
Apr 16, 2008, 2:36:05 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
Religious, trained,irrational belief only speaks to these things
neither negating or proving when it closed its books so long ago to
critical thinking or inquiry. It is not their beliefs but that they
do somehow in something beyond themselves. A belief in hell is the
most irrational of all but that it satisfies wrongly a need for
justice. bjdowling
neither negating or proving when it closed its books so long ago to
critical thinking or inquiry. It is not their beliefs but that they
do somehow in something beyond themselves. A belief in hell is the
most irrational of all but that it satisfies wrongly a need for
justice. bjdowling
Pat
Apr 16, 2008, 3:25:44 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
accepting one dogma over others. There is no Hell. An eternal
punishment offers no chance for learning and would be counter-
productive to an overall growth of consciousness. So where does that
leave atheists? The same place as any of the rest of us. Your desire
to be damned is a curious one.
Pat
Apr 16, 2008, 3:34:45 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 16 Apr, 18:49, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 16 Apr, 16:30, bjdowling <bjmos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Atheists and believers I see as being two sides of the same coin, one
> > obsession. Today the evolution ideal has fallen apart due to physics
> > itself. Thermodynamics and the first law of should have been the
> > first to be answered, but now it is still the unanswerable question.
> > Matter than appeared from nowhere demands an explanation, without one,
> > we currently have only one other possibility, it was created by a mind
> > we do not understand.
>
> BZZZT wrong an at least 2 counts.
> 1) no one is saying that matter appeared from nowhere. If you are
> referring to the big bang it all started with a small superdense
> volume of matter which may well have always been in existence.
> 2) And your "solution" if we can laughingly call it that, is no
> solution at all. Since we do not have a single example of a "mind"
> creating matter then it is utter folly to suggest this. Then the next
> problem would be to discover where this mind came from. This is a much
> more complicated and unattainable quest, for every example we have of
> a mind at work involved that the mind is generated by grey matter.
> There is no reason to suppose that a mind can exist without a brain.
> The other problem is that the evidence points to the fact that all
> consciousness has arrived very late in the history of the universe and
> then only after millions of years of evolution.
>
know living things by their awareness of their environment. We know
plants are aware of their surroundings and interact inteligently with
their environment, yet none of them have a single shred of grey
matter. It's awareness that matters and not grey matter. And
awareness comes in many degrees. A 'mind' is but only one construct
for awareness. And even THAT comes with varying degrees of awareness.
chazwin
Apr 16, 2008, 6:27:47 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
So it seems that you are an atheist (for the common god) and a skeptic
too.
It might do you well if you allowed Lee to make his own answers as you
are missing the point.
chazwin
Apr 16, 2008, 6:32:02 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
It's awareness that matters and not grey matter. And
> awareness comes in many degrees. A 'mind' is but only one construct
> for awareness. And even THAT comes with varying degrees of awareness.
the universe. Now you are saying that the mind of god can operate with
less than a plant.
You are seriously confused here. Your objection is wholly specious!
ornamentalmind
Apr 16, 2008, 7:40:02 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
I don't know about plants and consciousness for sure. I searched the
web some and yet again, it may come down to an argument based on
differing semantical realities. This is one reason I find, as
interesting as it is, such argumentation is always based on the
limited subjective/relative view and ignores the rest of what it is to
be a human.
This is one reason I appreciate the, in general, non ad-hom atmosphere
here.
I find it difficult to watch argumentation in which both views appear
to be talking past the other. Seldom do I learn unless I ask questions
and/or at least come from a point of empathy.
Of course, there is the difficulty of the medium. One useful thing it
provides, to me at least, is an opportunity to contemplate what I post
prior to revealing it. This, one would hope, allows for less
unexamened and reactive rhetoric. One of the main difficulties I see
is that we don't have the time/space to make a clear, all inclusive
argument. This is one of the reasons, in general, I make shorter posts
and interject stuff. Sorry to those of you who are group purists when
it comes to this stuff.
A specific thing that shorter posts can result in is 'truth by fiat'
and/or misunderstanding at least.
And, all in all, I'll continue to post here. At least until I get a
life! :-O
> You are seriously confused here. Your objection is wholly specious!- Hide quoted text -
web some and yet again, it may come down to an argument based on
differing semantical realities. This is one reason I find, as
interesting as it is, such argumentation is always based on the
limited subjective/relative view and ignores the rest of what it is to
be a human.
This is one reason I appreciate the, in general, non ad-hom atmosphere
here.
I find it difficult to watch argumentation in which both views appear
to be talking past the other. Seldom do I learn unless I ask questions
and/or at least come from a point of empathy.
Of course, there is the difficulty of the medium. One useful thing it
provides, to me at least, is an opportunity to contemplate what I post
prior to revealing it. This, one would hope, allows for less
unexamened and reactive rhetoric. One of the main difficulties I see
is that we don't have the time/space to make a clear, all inclusive
argument. This is one of the reasons, in general, I make shorter posts
and interject stuff. Sorry to those of you who are group purists when
it comes to this stuff.
A specific thing that shorter posts can result in is 'truth by fiat'
and/or misunderstanding at least.
And, all in all, I'll continue to post here. At least until I get a
life! :-O
Valtermar
Apr 16, 2008, 7:48:30 PM4/16/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Pat, sorry for the loss.
Do you still work on some computer programming, at home, just for the fun of
it?
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1328 - Release Date: 13/3/2008
11:31
archytas
Apr 16, 2008, 8:20:06 PM4/16/08
to "Minds Eye"
I knew there wa a joke in there Francis - but had forgotten it. The
quality of the sandwich could influence the decision. We'll have the
matter cracked when we know what the butty thinks.
quality of the sandwich could influence the decision. We'll have the
matter cracked when we know what the butty thinks.
Pat
Apr 17, 2008, 1:58:36 AM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 17 Apr, 00:48, "Valtermar" <valter...@engeplus.com.br> wrote:
> Pat, sorry for the loss.
>
> Do you still work on some computer programming, at home, just for the fun of
> it?
>
professionally. I enjoy solving problems, but the kind of problems I
enjoy solving aren't those that can be easily done at home with
Delphi. ;-)
Pat
Apr 17, 2008, 2:08:42 AM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
completely unaware that it's their source of energy. Give up, Chaz,
before you even go down that line. Even an amoeba can tell the
difference between that which is food and that which is not food.
Deciduous trees are aware of the relative amount of heat and light
and, so, shed their leaves and/or bud new leaves when the conditions
warrant it. All living things react intelligently with thier
environment; that IS awareness.
> It's awareness that matters and not grey matter. And
>
> > awareness comes in many degrees. A 'mind' is but only one construct
> > for awareness. And even THAT comes with varying degrees of awareness.
>
> You were positing not any ordinary mind but a mind capable of creating
> the universe. Now you are saying that the mind of god can operate with
> less than a plant.
> You are seriously confused here. Your objection is wholly specious!
higher level than the kind we have access to, much less the kind of
awareness a plant has. My point is that awareness comes in degrees
depending on the configuration of the energy involved. Your response
lacks any real depth of thought, either deductive or inductive. Your
general speciousness is wholly objectionable, but, I expect, that's
part of your charm. ;-)
Pat
Apr 17, 2008, 2:14:21 AM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 17 Apr, 00:40, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't know about plants and consciousness for sure. I searched the
> web some and yet again, it may come down to an argument based on
> differing semantical realities. This is one reason I find, as
> interesting as it is, such argumentation is always based on the
> limited subjective/relative view and ignores the rest of what it is to
> be a human.
>
that they have human-like consciousness. I believe that the
complexity of the material interface allows for those living entities
with a more complex interface to have access to higher forms of
awareness. For us, we call our type 'consciousness'; but, I don't
think for a moment that our consciousness is the highest form of
awareness in existence. And we have proof, in the difference between
plant and animal life, that there are, indeed, varying levels of
awareness.
Pat
Apr 17, 2008, 2:38:42 AM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
> So it seems that you are an atheist (for the common god) and a skeptic
> too.
> It might do you well if you allowed Lee to make his own answers as you
> are missing the point.
to be run by your desires. I'll make my points when and where I want
to whether or not you approve or agree. It might do you well to
recognise that simple fact.
Lee
Apr 17, 2008, 5:10:44 AM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
Yep I make your right Chaz, God did create you and knows how you will
end up. However do you not assume a lot when you tell me that you
know you will die a sinner and got ot hell(a place neither you or I
belive in)(so again trying to wind me up huh)when in reality you just
cannot know what you will do in the future.
end up. However do you not assume a lot when you tell me that you
know you will die a sinner and got ot hell(a place neither you or I
belive in)(so again trying to wind me up huh)when in reality you just
cannot know what you will do in the future.
Lee
Apr 17, 2008, 5:27:39 AM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
Heh you see faith claims all of us at some points in our lives.
1) How do you know that, can you please prove it?
2) It's no more ludicrus than the idea that particles can just pop
into existance anywhere at any time.
1) How do you know that, can you please prove it?
2) It's no more ludicrus than the idea that particles can just pop
into existance anywhere at any time.
Lee
Apr 17, 2008, 5:33:38 AM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
Uhuh does too.
How can it be that the ability to invoke ones will is not free?
Will is the power of chosing ones own actions, that in and of itself
denotes that it is free, the power to chose is the freedom to chose.
How can it be that the ability to invoke ones will is not free?
Will is the power of chosing ones own actions, that in and of itself
denotes that it is free, the power to chose is the freedom to chose.
Chris Jenkins
Apr 17, 2008, 7:22:36 AM4/17/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Plants have an extensive awareness, and what's more, a modicum of communication. Plants a distance away from insect invasions begin buffering defenses upon "smelling" the defenses of their neighbors. There are multiple examples of this.
Here's one from a quick google showing that trees knew when another tree had been physically damaged, and began issuing repair material within itself, in anticipation of a similar attack.
Support Small Businesses. Or, at least mine:
http://flmediasolutions.com/support
Lee
Apr 17, 2008, 7:39:09 AM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
Meh well explain it then, offer towards me the right end of the stick.
Pat
Apr 17, 2008, 9:11:42 AM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 17 Apr, 12:39, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Meh well explain it then, offer towards me the right end of the stick.
>
to offer. You may only be offerred the end that the other has. ;-)
Pat
Apr 17, 2008, 9:20:55 AM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 17 Apr, 12:22, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Plants have an extensive awareness, and what's more, a modicum of
> communication. Plants a distance away from insect invasions begin buffering
> defenses upon "smelling" the defenses of their neighbors. There are multiple
> examples of this.
>
in doubt of the awareness of any living thing. He says that 'we know
plants are NOT aware of their environment.' As for me, photosynthesis
alone is proof against that. I can only assume that he's based his
belief on the dubiosity of the fact that mandrakes scream when they're
pulled from the ground. ;-)
> Here's one from a quick google showing that trees knew when another tree had
> been physically damaged, and began issuing repair material within itself, in
>
> http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/762.html
>
And if that's not an intelligent reaction to one's environment,
what is?
ornamentalmind
Apr 17, 2008, 2:56:14 PM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
What sort of problems do you work with? Internal ones?
ornamentalmind
Apr 17, 2008, 3:04:11 PM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
Some day, I may have time to read Peter Tomkins' book, The Secret Life
of Plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants
I did like his "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" a lot!
On Apr 17, 4:22 am, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Support Small Businesses. Or, at least mine:http://flmediasolutions.com/support- Hide quoted text -
of Plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants
I did like his "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" a lot!
On Apr 17, 4:22 am, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Plants have an extensive awareness, and what's more, a modicum of
> communication. Plants a distance away from insect invasions begin buffering
> defenses upon "smelling" the defenses of their neighbors. There are multiple
> examples of this.
>
> Here's one from a quick google showing that trees knew when another tree had
> been physically damaged, and began issuing repair material within itself, in
> *anticipation *of a similar attack.
> communication. Plants a distance away from insect invasions begin buffering
> defenses upon "smelling" the defenses of their neighbors. There are multiple
> examples of this.
>
> Here's one from a quick google showing that trees knew when another tree had
> been physically damaged, and began issuing repair material within itself, in
Pat
Apr 17, 2008, 3:16:37 PM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 17 Apr, 19:56, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What sort of problems do you work with? Internal ones?
>
between religions and, of course, internal ones.
Valtermar
Apr 17, 2008, 7:01:48 PM4/17/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Ah! OK. :-)
archytas
Apr 17, 2008, 7:51:50 PM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
It's easy to get soppy about awareness. Plants don't really have it
in my view, though Cris is right and there are lots more examples.
John Wheeler once said even the sun wouldn't shine if there was
nothing to receive its radiance. There are lots of bits and pieces in
biology where stuff is responsive, but come on, half the people living
in our streets aren't 'aware'. Bacteria, of course, have been much
better genetic engineers than us for eons.
> Delphi. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
in my view, though Cris is right and there are lots more examples.
John Wheeler once said even the sun wouldn't shine if there was
nothing to receive its radiance. There are lots of bits and pieces in
biology where stuff is responsive, but come on, half the people living
in our streets aren't 'aware'. Bacteria, of course, have been much
better genetic engineers than us for eons.
Pat
Apr 17, 2008, 11:09:37 PM4/17/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 18 Apr, 00:51, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> It's easy to get soppy about awareness. Plants don't really have it
> in my view, though Cris is right and there are lots more examples.
agreeing that plants have awareness) and plants not really have
awareness in your view? Seems a bit of a conundrum to me.
> John Wheeler once said even the sun wouldn't shine if there was
> nothing to receive its radiance.
is a bit silly. to me, that's the same argument as the sound a tree
makes if it falls and no one is around to hear it. The tree does what
it does (transferring some of its energy into sound) whether or not
there is a listener and the sun does what it does whether or not
there's anything depending upon it. Although, if you want to get
intricate with the argument, there may be an entanglement issue when
an object is dependent upon another. Thus one of the big mystical
aspects of QM.
>There are lots of bits and pieces in
> biology where stuff is responsive, but come on, half the people living
> in our streets aren't 'aware'. Bacteria, of course, have been much
> better genetic engineers than us for eons.
>
> On 18 Apr, 00:01, "Valtermar" <valter...@engeplus.com.br> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ah! OK. :-)
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pat" <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>
> > To: ""Minds Eye"" <Mind...@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:58 AM
> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Reality
>
> > On 17 Apr, 00:48, "Valtermar" <valter...@engeplus.com.br> wrote:
> > > Pat, sorry for the loss.
>
> > > Do you still work on some computer programming, at home, just for the fun
> > > of
> > > it?
>
> > No. I gain little pleasure from programming. I do it only
> > professionally. I enjoy solving problems, but the kind of problems I
> > enjoy solving aren't those that can be easily done at home with
> > Delphi. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
chazwin
Apr 18, 2008, 3:12:36 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
time please realise that I am free to ignore you, rather than waste my
time trying to set you straight on what is was that we were talking
about, and not what you THINK we were talking about.
I was just giving you a bit of friendly advice, no need to get upset.
chazwin
Apr 18, 2008, 3:14:44 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Apr 17, 10:10 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Yep I make your right Chaz, God did create you and knows how you will
> end up. However do you not assume a lot when you tell me that you
> know you will die a sinner and got ot hell(a place neither you or I
> belive in)(so again trying to wind me up huh)when in reality you just
> cannot know what you will do in the future.
"ironic" point I was making: it is a necessary condition of the
omnipotent god that HE KNOWS what my future is. Get it?
>
> On Apr 16, 6:33 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 Apr, 14:23, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Then you are saying that god did not make me - then he is not the
> > > > creator. Then He is not god.
>
> > > No I am saying you cannot blame God for your own thoughts and
> > > feelings.
>
> > > > How are you to know what is on god's mind? Are you so arrogant?
>
> > > Yes, I am. But how can you call me arrogant for my belifes about
> > > something you are sure does not exist? That makes no sense, hence I
> > > say you are just trying to wind me up.
>
> > No - its called irony.
> > The point is clear. If god is omnipotent, and all the other omni-s as
> > claimed then he is responsible for everything, because he knew even
> > before i was born that I would die a sinner. If he is creator then he
> > knows, and knew, and will know, how I have been, how I am , and how I
> > will be. There is no getting around this one. He created an atheist to
> > die in hell - do you think I give a fuck?
chazwin
Apr 18, 2008, 3:24:17 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Apr 17, 7:14 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Apr, 00:40, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know about plants and consciousness for sure. I searched the
> > web some and yet again, it may come down to an argument based on
> > differing semantical realities. This is one reason I find, as
> > interesting as it is, such argumentation is always based on the
> > limited subjective/relative view and ignores the rest of what it is to
> > be a human.
>
> I only posit that plants have awareness of their environment, not
> that they have human-like consciousness. I believe that the
> complexity of the material interface allows for those living entities
> with a more complex interface to have access to higher forms of
> awareness. For us, we call our type 'consciousness'; but, I don't
> think for a moment that our consciousness is the highest form of
> awareness in existence.
> And we have proof, in the difference between
> plant and animal life, that there are, indeed, varying levels of
> awareness.
The evidence we do have of consciousness point to the fact that the
less complex the living thing, the less consciousness is in evidence.
Thus a dolphin is demonstrably highly consciouss due to its behavour
and amazing awareness of its surroundings, whereas a blind worm,
relying on touch sense alone, keeps bumping into things to find its
way, and again a plant having limited reaction and "awareness" of its
environment has more than a rock but less than a dolphin or worm.
The next question would be whether or not a billiard ball or a rock -
any inanimate object has the slightest awareness at all.
Thus according to all the evidence we have - and the very definitive
essence of the entire concept of "consciousness" and "awareness" we
that we posses suggest in the strongest possible terms that inanimate
matter has none of these qulaities.
TO suggest otherwise is an extra-ordinary claim, requiring extra-
ordinary evidence. What is yours?
chazwin
Apr 18, 2008, 3:30:40 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Apr 17, 12:22 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Plants have an extensive awareness, and what's more, a modicum of
> communication. Plants a distance away from insect invasions begin buffering
> defenses upon "smelling" the defenses of their neighbors. There are multiple
> examples of this.
>
> Here's one from a quick google showing that trees knew when another tree had
> been physically damaged, and began issuing repair material within itself, in
> communication. Plants a distance away from insect invasions begin buffering
> defenses upon "smelling" the defenses of their neighbors. There are multiple
> examples of this.
>
> Here's one from a quick google showing that trees knew when another tree had
> been physically damaged, and began issuing repair material within itself, in
> *anticipation *of a similar attack.
I think that "anticipation" is an anthropomorphism. As would be the
word "know". But in a sense the tree "knows" that it has been attacked
and puts resin into production, this heals the wound. This is not
consciousness in the same way that deciding to place a plaster on a
would is for a human. It is more like an automated response like the
way a scab forms over a cut; you do not have to be aware of the cut,
nor ordr your body to form the scab. It is simply in the nature of
blood to clot when expose to air, in much the same way as milk curdles
or a billiard ball moves in a predictable direction when hit.
There is no anticipation.
What we have here is evidence of evolution, not consciousness.
chazwin
Apr 18, 2008, 3:32:16 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Apr 17, 1:20 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I knew there wa a joke in there Francis - but had forgotten it. The
> quality of the sandwich could influence the decision. We'll have the
> matter cracked when we know what the butty thinks.
>
> On 16 Apr, 17:23, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 Apr., 16:03, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:> What if it's a shit sandwich?
>
> > Well, Neil, you know that they say life is like a shit sandwich - the
Lee
Apr 18, 2008, 4:34:14 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
Nope I don't see any irony there at all.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lee
Apr 18, 2008, 4:36:38 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
Indeed them chip butty's well they smell of chips, ohhh ohh and
butter. Chip butty, yummy! Damn now I'm hungry.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
butter. Chip butty, yummy! Damn now I'm hungry.
chazwin
Apr 18, 2008, 7:38:37 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
Are you an American?
chazwin
Apr 18, 2008, 7:39:42 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 18 Apr, 09:36, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Indeed them chip butty's well they smell of chips, ohhh ohh and
> butter. Chip butty, yummy! Damn now I'm hungry.
To each his own , I suppose.
Lee
Apr 18, 2008, 9:01:14 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
Heh no you know I'm not, I'm a true Brit. Which is to say I'm a
mongral, I have some Irish, Indian, a splash of NZ in my blood
thankee.
mongral, I have some Irish, Indian, a splash of NZ in my blood
thankee.
Pat
Apr 18, 2008, 11:06:16 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 18 Apr, 08:24, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 7:14 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Apr, 00:40, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know about plants and consciousness for sure. I searched the
> > > web some and yet again, it may come down to an argument based on
> > > differing semantical realities. This is one reason I find, as
> > > interesting as it is, such argumentation is always based on the
> > > limited subjective/relative view and ignores the rest of what it is to
> > > be a human.
>
> > I only posit that plants have awareness of their environment, not
> > that they have human-like consciousness. I believe that the
> > complexity of the material interface allows for those living entities
> > with a more complex interface to have access to higher forms of
> > awareness. For us, we call our type 'consciousness'; but, I don't
> > think for a moment that our consciousness is the highest form of
> > awareness in existence.
>
> Despite having no evidence that this is so?
>
> > And we have proof, in the difference between
> > plant and animal life, that there are, indeed, varying levels of
> > awareness.
>
> But to get back to what we were actually talking about.
> The evidence we do have of consciousness point to the fact that the
> less complex the living thing, the less consciousness is in evidence.
> Thus a dolphin is demonstrably highly consciouss due to its behavour
> and amazing awareness of its surroundings, whereas a blind worm,
> relying on touch sense alone, keeps bumping into things to find its
> way, and again a plant having limited reaction and "awareness" of its
> environment has more than a rock but less than a dolphin or worm.
> The next question would be whether or not a billiard ball or a rock -
> any inanimate object has the slightest awareness at all.
> Thus according to all the evidence we have - and the very definitive
> essence of the entire concept of "consciousness" and "awareness" we
> that we posses suggest in the strongest possible terms that inanimate
> matter has none of these qulaities.
> TO suggest otherwise is an extra-ordinary claim, requiring extra-
> ordinary evidence. What is yours?
>
things stating that there were demonstrable degrees of awareness. You
seem to agree with me 100%, yet still want to argue about it by trying
to find something more in what I said.
Lee
Apr 18, 2008, 11:11:02 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
Chip butty man!
Pat
Apr 18, 2008, 11:12:27 AM4/18/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 18 Apr, 08:14, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 10:10 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > Yep I make your right Chaz, God did create you and knows how you will
> > end up. However do you not assume a lot when you tell me that you
> > know you will die a sinner and got ot hell(a place neither you or I
> > belive in)(so again trying to wind me up huh)when in reality you just
> > cannot know what you will do in the future.
>
> Yes - I don't know what is in my future, that is clear. But the
> "ironic" point I was making: it is a necessary condition of the
> omnipotent god that HE KNOWS what my future is. Get it?
>
>
gives God the knowledge of what your future is. But that says nothing
about your assumptions regarding Hell. Hell is an invention of men
used to control behaviour and God has no interest in that. He would
rather you be true to yourself, even if that means disregarding Him,
in my opinion.
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 6:33 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 16 Apr, 14:23, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Then you are saying that god did not make me - then he is not the
> > > > > creator. Then He is not god.
>
> > > > No I am saying you cannot blame God for your own thoughts and
> > > > feelings.
>
> > > > > How are you to know what is on god's mind? Are you so arrogant?
>
> > > > Yes, I am. But how can you call me arrogant for my belifes about
> > > > something you are sure does not exist? That makes no sense, hence I
> > > > say you are just trying to wind me up.
>
> > > No - its called irony.
> > > The point is clear. If god is omnipotent, and all the other omni-s as
> > > claimed then he is responsible for everything, because he knew even
> > > before i was born that I would die a sinner. If he is creator then he
> > > knows, and knew, and will know, how I have been, how I am , and how I
> > > will be. There is no getting around this one. He created an atheist to
> > > die in hell - do you think I give a fuck?
> > > Bu the logical is unavoidable.- Hide quoted text -
>
Abdullah Abd' Badi
Apr 19, 2008, 2:00:10 AM4/19/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
On 4/18/08, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think that "anticipation" is an anthropomorphism. As would be the
word "know". But in a sense the tree "knows" that it has been attacked
and puts resin into production, this heals the wound. This is not
consciousness in the same way that deciding to place a plaster on a
would is for a human. It is more like an automated response like the
way a scab forms over a cut; you do not have to be aware of the cut,
nor ordr your body to form the scab. It is simply in the nature of
blood to clot when expose to air, in much the same way as milk curdles
or a billiard ball moves in a predictable direction when hit.
There is no anticipation.
What we have here is evidence of evolution, not consciousness.
Chaz, how on earth can you reconcile your first statements with your last. If something reacts in a specific and responsive way to something 'other than' then that would have to be described as at least a base awareness in its most fundamental sense. What you describe are different layers of consciousness... some higher and more complex than others.
I think most 'humans' do not like to be linked in any way with the natural world. What we have here is evidence of the evolution of consciousness.archytas
Apr 19, 2008, 5:16:58 AM4/19/08
to "Minds Eye"
Chip butties are pretty ultimate proof there can be no god. How could
anything so good do so much harm in the best of all possible worlds?
Welcome to the Barkers Club Lee.
On 19 Apr, 07:00, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> world. What we have here is evidence of the evolution *of *consciousness.- Hide quoted text -
anything so good do so much harm in the best of all possible worlds?
Welcome to the Barkers Club Lee.
On 19 Apr, 07:00, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:
Abdullah Abd' Badi
Apr 19, 2008, 6:01:28 AM4/19/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Is that a british 'thing'? That went right over my head! :)
archytas
Apr 19, 2008, 6:55:05 AM4/19/08
to "Minds Eye"
One might describe the chip butty as greasy fried potatoes on greasy
bread - but this would be to miss the point. My Auntie Madge made the
best ones - I used to call on my way home from school. She used more
butter than my Mum and less salt. Essentially, the warm butter should
reach the mouth first so as to avoid it spilling on the shirt and the
chips should be not quite hot enough to singe the mouth.
On 19 Apr, 11:01, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bread - but this would be to miss the point. My Auntie Madge made the
best ones - I used to call on my way home from school. She used more
butter than my Mum and less salt. Essentially, the warm butter should
reach the mouth first so as to avoid it spilling on the shirt and the
chips should be not quite hot enough to singe the mouth.
On 19 Apr, 11:01, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is that a british 'thing'? That went right over my head! :)
>
>
Pat
Apr 19, 2008, 8:20:14 AM4/19/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 19 Apr, 11:01, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is that a british 'thing'? That went right over my head! :)
>
Yes, a 'chip' is a thicker and larger 'french fry' and a 'butty'
>
implies a sandwich that has buttered bread. It's difficult to buy pre-
made sandwiches in the UK that DON'T have buttered bread.
chazwin
Apr 19, 2008, 9:26:18 AM4/19/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Apr 19, 7:00 am, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 4/18/08, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think that "anticipation" is an anthropomorphism. As would be the
> > word "know". But in a sense the tree "knows" that it has been attacked
> > and puts resin into production, this heals the wound. This is not
> > consciousness in the same way that deciding to place a plaster on a
> > would is for a human. It is more like an automated response like the
> > way a scab forms over a cut; you do not have to be aware of the cut,
> > nor ordr your body to form the scab. It is simply in the nature of
> > blood to clot when expose to air, in much the same way as milk curdles
> > or a billiard ball moves in a predictable direction when hit.
> > There is no anticipation.
> > What we have here is evidence of evolution, not consciousness.
>
> Chaz, how on earth can you reconcile your first statements with your last.
> If something reacts in a specific and responsive way to something 'other
> than' then that would have to be described as at least a base awareness in
> its most fundamental sense.
Rubbish!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think that "anticipation" is an anthropomorphism. As would be the
> > word "know". But in a sense the tree "knows" that it has been attacked
> > and puts resin into production, this heals the wound. This is not
> > consciousness in the same way that deciding to place a plaster on a
> > would is for a human. It is more like an automated response like the
> > way a scab forms over a cut; you do not have to be aware of the cut,
> > nor ordr your body to form the scab. It is simply in the nature of
> > blood to clot when expose to air, in much the same way as milk curdles
> > or a billiard ball moves in a predictable direction when hit.
> > There is no anticipation.
> > What we have here is evidence of evolution, not consciousness.
>
> Chaz, how on earth can you reconcile your first statements with your last.
> If something reacts in a specific and responsive way to something 'other
> than' then that would have to be described as at least a base awareness in
> its most fundamental sense.
When a stone is thrown at a glass window, and the window cracks: we
would not say that the glass has become "aware" of the stone.
If I thow a stone a dog, and it make a whelping noise, and then comes
to hell: we DO say that the dog has become aware of the stone.
What you describe are different layers of
> consciousness... some higher and more complex than others.
> I think most 'humans' do not like to be linked in any way with the natural
chazwin
Apr 19, 2008, 9:33:33 AM4/19/08
to "Minds Eye"
consciousness", yet the only examples you have are from know living
things.
My statment demonstrated the entire specturm of know consciousness.
I also take acception to you assertion that plants have awareness.
they can respind to their environement, but this in not to say they
are "aware" of what they are doing.
chazwin
Apr 19, 2008, 9:34:07 AM4/19/08
to "Minds Eye"
frantheman
Apr 19, 2008, 10:38:53 AM4/19/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 19 Apr., 11:16, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Chip butties are pretty ultimate proof there can be no god. How could
> anything so good do so much harm in the best of all possible worlds?
>
conscious nutrition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Mars_Bar
:-) *** feeling the arteries clog just by thinking about it ***
Francis
Pat
Apr 19, 2008, 10:43:44 AM4/19/08
to "Minds Eye"
you are aware of what you are doing. Awareness is internal, as I note
mine. I cannot be so sure, though, of yours. I extrapolate that you
are and, so I, equally, extrapolate that to other living things.
archytas
Apr 19, 2008, 9:09:48 PM4/19/08
to "Minds Eye"
Even the Scots have had the decency not to produce the deep-fired chip
butty Francis - not even in Glasgow.
butty Francis - not even in Glasgow.
Pat
Apr 20, 2008, 12:20:50 AM4/20/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 20 Apr, 02:09, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Even the Scots have had the decency not to produce the deep-fired chip
> butty Francis - not even in Glasgow.
>
tempura-coated Mars bar butty. One of the only places where, if you
complain, they kiss you. ;-)
archytas
Apr 20, 2008, 9:10:41 AM4/20/08
to "Minds Eye"
After this you will have to sit next to Socrates at the dinner party
Chaz. Francis and I will be away in Glasgie seeing if an Irishman can
survive after ordering a tempura-coated Mars bar. Chip butties just
don't work with fries, do they?
On 16 Apr, 10:57, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your obfuscation, dissimulation, revision, voltefaces, diversions,
> digressions, and continual re-alignment of your definitions of "god",
> in order to try to keep a semblance of your misplaced faith in a non-
> existent entity astounds me to such a degree that I truly wonder at
> the future of mankind whilst such bizarre and unconscionable false
> sophistry continues. For I would that it were only you: sadly it is
> not.
>
> Your god is: a tinkerer when it comes to "creation"; a madman when it
> comes to assessment of his/her/its behaviour; has no personality when
> it suits you; has a personality when it does; is nothing; is
> everything... In short you are a confused and sad little puppy.
>
> Is it not time to give up on this fantasy of yours?
>
> On Apr 15, 9:29 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Apr, 08:55, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 6:18 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 10 Apr, 18:01, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That's a tough one for you, Pat ! It calls for ability, which brings
> > > > > free will into play ... the will to gain ability comes with a choice.
>
> > > > I'll draw your attention to the word 'seems'. If we have free
> > > > will, then that free will has been predetermined. And that which
> > > > predetermines is, forever, free to do as it will. ;-)
>
> > > Except, one has to ask - if I am "free" to accept Him, then why has he
> > > made me a person so skeptical? Why would god give me the desire, and
> > > then punish me for wanting to express the desire; why would he make me
> > > a person that demands and seeks after the truth and yet gives me an
> > > ideology that demands that I suspend my disbelief in order to accept
> > > on faith that which I find unacceptible: his existence?
>
> > My stock answer to that is that God is schizophrenic. He uses
> > atheists as a reality check. Nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism,
> > but, when you're God, a healthy skepticism results in atheists. All
> > you have to do is be the best atheist you can be and God will be proud
> > of you. Not that that would matter to you, but, hey, that's His
> > way. ;-)
>
> > > > > On Apr 10, 9:33 pm, bjdowling <bjmos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Reality I see all around me seems to consist of where a person is in
> > > > > > their mind and body at the time. It is shaped by those given the
> > > > > > ability to do so. bjdowling- Hide quoted text -
Chaz. Francis and I will be away in Glasgie seeing if an Irishman can
survive after ordering a tempura-coated Mars bar. Chip butties just
don't work with fries, do they?
On 16 Apr, 10:57, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your obfuscation, dissimulation, revision, voltefaces, diversions,
> digressions, and continual re-alignment of your definitions of "god",
> in order to try to keep a semblance of your misplaced faith in a non-
> existent entity astounds me to such a degree that I truly wonder at
> the future of mankind whilst such bizarre and unconscionable false
> sophistry continues. For I would that it were only you: sadly it is
> not.
>
> Your god is: a tinkerer when it comes to "creation"; a madman when it
> comes to assessment of his/her/its behaviour; has no personality when
> it suits you; has a personality when it does; is nothing; is
> everything... In short you are a confused and sad little puppy.
>
> Is it not time to give up on this fantasy of yours?
>
> On Apr 15, 9:29 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Apr, 08:55, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 6:18 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 10 Apr, 18:01, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That's a tough one for you, Pat ! It calls for ability, which brings
> > > > > free will into play ... the will to gain ability comes with a choice.
>
> > > > I'll draw your attention to the word 'seems'. If we have free
> > > > will, then that free will has been predetermined. And that which
> > > > predetermines is, forever, free to do as it will. ;-)
>
> > > Except, one has to ask - if I am "free" to accept Him, then why has he
> > > made me a person so skeptical? Why would god give me the desire, and
> > > then punish me for wanting to express the desire; why would he make me
> > > a person that demands and seeks after the truth and yet gives me an
> > > ideology that demands that I suspend my disbelief in order to accept
> > > on faith that which I find unacceptible: his existence?
>
> > My stock answer to that is that God is schizophrenic. He uses
> > atheists as a reality check. Nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism,
> > but, when you're God, a healthy skepticism results in atheists. All
> > you have to do is be the best atheist you can be and God will be proud
> > of you. Not that that would matter to you, but, hey, that's His
> > way. ;-)
>
> > > > > On Apr 10, 9:33 pm, bjdowling <bjmos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Reality I see all around me seems to consist of where a person is in
> > > > > > their mind and body at the time. It is shaped by those given the
> > > > > > ability to do so. bjdowling- Hide quoted text -
chazwin
Apr 20, 2008, 9:45:04 AM4/20/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Apr 20, 2:10 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> After this you will have to sit next to Socrates at the dinner party
> Chaz. Francis and I will be away in Glasgie seeing if an Irishman can
> survive after ordering a tempura-coated Mars bar. Chip butties just
> don't work with fries, do they?
battered Mars Bar but think I will - just once - before I die. Maybe
the last thing I do. Me and Socrates can order 2 in with a couple of
pints of hemlock.
chazwin
Apr 20, 2008, 9:45:37 AM4/20/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Apr 19, 3:38 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr., 11:16, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:> Chip butties are pretty ultimate proof there can be no god. How could
> > anything so good do so much harm in the best of all possible worlds?
>
> What about the ultimate Scottish answer to cholesterine and calorie-
> conscious nutrition?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages