14 of 14
14
In God’s Image
Posted: 24 August 2015 06:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 196 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2015-08-17
Write4U - 24 August 2015 02:17 AM

@KevinOsborne,

We have no disagreement at all (see post 181). Each person lives in his own reality, but we can functionally come to concensus of what that reality is for US. Once this is understood, perhaps we may become more “respectful” of other’s views.

But here we are talking about products of the mind which are nor physical but holographic (metaphysical) and have very little to do with the Reality of the Universe, because we can see and experience only a tiny part of what and how things really happen in physical reality.

If you have not read my previous posts, see my point of view.(see post 156)

Being respectful is responding to posts with trick images? We don’t agree on what a viewpoint is or how this place is put together, which is fine with me. Pointing that out isn’t disrespectful in my book. You are entitled to yours. However if you are required some undefined respect I’m happy to let you go on your way.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2015 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 197 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  135
Joined  2013-05-31
Write4U - 24 August 2015 05:00 AM
brmckay - 17 August 2015 08:36 AM

@Write4U #161

Some thoughts and questions:

- What is the nature of awareness? (in it’s uncompounded sense)*
- How is uncompounded awareness different than uncompounded mathematical function?

It depends on your interpretation of “awareness”. Is a computer aware? Yes, but not in an abstract sense, it is purely packets of information being transported via the mathematical function. In that sense, one might say the computer is Pseudo-intelligent.

- If mathematical function is latent, why not awareness? (This by the way, pretty much equates to the Sanskrit terms Prakriti and Purusha?)

I submit that the term awareness has two application; One, a pure Metaphysical mathematical connectivity. Two, a Self-Awareness which is not purely mathematical, but also has Motive, and Emotional issues. 

- In “truth” (as in Infinitude of Singularity), are not mathematical function and awareness non-differentiated?
- Theistically, Brahman and Atman are about as neutral and non-anthropomorphic as it gets.  Brahman being, entirety-centric, and Atman, human-centric non-differentiation.  They in turn are not different, one from the other and equate to “truth”.
- To remain an atheistic humanist, must one continue the tradition of anthropomorphizing God? (it would seem so from your arguments)

I hope I can be more objective than that. I truly appreciate the deep insights contained in those works. A lot of them seem to understand the difficulty of presenting common symbols in their formalization of their scripture. I donlt dismiss scripture. I say they are mathematically incorrect, even as the metapohorical message is valid.

(Emphasis was added by me.)

I still have not understood your rational for excluding experience (i.e.sentience) and it’s various by-products from “reality”.

Is it because the mathematical function cannot interpret experience?  Please forgive me if you have already covered this;  I am fast reaching the limits of my comprehension.  Can the mathematical function interpret it’s own implicit and explicit existence?

Your conclusion about the royal flush anecdote of course, only indicates a preferred frame of reference.  It does not actually remove Purusha from the equation.

Perhaps, but the fact remained that all potentials in my environment placed me at that table, at that time, sitting in that seat, drawing a once in a century hand. But it had nothing to do with me, as a personal favor from a higher Sentience.  I was merely the lucky final selections of all potentials which resulted in my extraordinary position?  It was a Function of Natural Selection , another timeless property of the wholeness.

(Note: I have highlighted a distracting anthropomorphic imposition.)

Are “the Function of Natural Selection” and the “Mathematical Function” both latent characteristics of “truth” along with “potential”? The pantheon is growing.  Are they real?  If so, why not a “function” of Self awareness?

I submit that the Implication, which forms and emerges out of all the potentials present at that space/time coordinate in a chronological order along the timeline which is created during the transition of potential to function which is causal to expression in physical reality. To make happen what in fact does happen. The dreamlike image of what is “determined” to become reality, The Implicate.

To me this sounds a like a mathematical function, not the function of a god as anyone has expressed before.

To me the overall effect demonstrated by what has emerged, suggests quite clearly God.  Though not “a god”

My point is the Potential Condition exhibits the exact same creative abilities of any god, but it does so only from the dynamics of transmission of fundamental packets of information, through an efficient mathematical function, which always and timelessly existed in pure abstract qualities of the wholeness.  They are simply the laws of nature of infinity (or something profound like that), but for these functions to be able to emerge simultaneously with the change, they must have been latent abilities of the pre-existing condition, made visible to us in a limited range of observable detail as reality. There are particles penetrating through steel as if it doesn’t even exist.

IMO, the scientific quest for “knowledge about” has just begun, whereas the spiritual quest for “personal relationship with” seems to have stagnated for lack of unexplainable (holy) miracles, which otherwise might have reinforced your belief in a sentient personal relationship to God (whatever that may mean).

I challenge all Theists to actually create a holographic image of God inside your mind. How does this mental image appear to you in human terms. Close your eyes and “see” God. What do you see”.

(Emphasis added by me.)

I won’t be able to help you with this exercise. For me, It represents a “straw man” type of scenario.

The understanding that I work from, and have been trying to convey here, is that ideas and mental images are always finite and relative.  The personal sense of “self” (or ego),  is also an abstraction.  An idea.  Finite and relative.

I would say that the goal of knowing “truth” cannot be approached from within the limitation of the body/mind complex.  I would also say that the body/mind complex is not a “true” limitation.

You would say that through the mathematical function we can understand the “real”, but must relegate our “experience” (i.e. sentience), to some other place than the “real”.  As I understand you, It (i.e. experience), is not included in the “universe”.

I would say that experience is “real” and that the Universe (i.e. Wholeness) includes our “personal sense of self”, our actions and thoughts, just as it includes the phenomena of light and the motion of stars.

Since the infinitude of the origin, is ever present and eternal, it can only be through it’s own nature that it may be known. 

The difference between our views is that you emphasize a limited and abstracted understanding of the parts via mathematical description.

I emphasize experience of original nature via Self realization.

I’m wondering what Bohm would say?  Or, Krishnamurti?

Please forgive if this may sound intrusive, but I promise to respect the image, (any image) from volunteers, with an sincere effort to compare it in my own mirror neural network to something I can identify with and at least empathize with.
Which I beliee I have already demonstrated in my viewpoinys on Deism.

* (Note: One could substitute Self for “awareness” aka Purusha.  This, for me, makes the analogy more accurate and versatile.  But these are just words after all. Go with whatever gives you the sense of it.)

But a self caused sentient (aware) causaility, seems “highly improbable” to me, IMO. By the law of Heirarchical orders, Potential would have to have existed before the self caused mathematical causality, could have “Become into Being” .
That seems pure logic to me.

Unless “Potential” is a root characteristic of “Awareness” as it is “Experience” or “Function”.

My definition of God is simply, all of it.  And we have both said something similar:

Write4U:They are simply the laws of nature of infinity (or something profound like that)

brmckay:The emergent characteristics of infinitude.

[ Edited: 25 August 2015 05:55 AM by brmckay ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2015 06:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 198 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7995
Joined  2009-02-26

@brmckay,

I think we are in general agreement.
IMO, Potential is a common denominator of all that exists at all levels of the universal hierarchy, in that it must be present for anything to happen at all.

It is a simple formula,  all that exists, has existed and will exist in any form is (must be) preceded by potential. If the potential for something does not exist there can be no IMplication of what is to become reality (in any form).

The Word that theists use for the exact same condition is God, I call it Potential. There is no difference in function, just a different Word.

The one difference is that the function of Potential is observable and well defined, whereas the function of God cannot be observed or defined AND it is presumed to be purposefully motivated.  IMO, this is the only difference and causes a fatal flaw in the proposition of a sentient (by human standards) God.

Sentience (as in human sentience) is not a property of the universe, it is an emergent property in living things. But a mental image has no substance, it is an emergent mental construct, a variable mental hologram, requiring a physical brain. Just as music requires an physical instrument to be produced, but when the music stops, it no longer exists except as a faint memory in our brain, but not outside our brain (in the universe).

Of course we can say that as humans are part of the universe, everything a human does or thinks is part of the universe, but that would only be a fleeting moment, dependent on the activity of the thinker/musician, emerging, then dissolving.  What I think is not produced by a universal mind, but is an emergent product of my perceptions and mental processes, which are at best relative to truth, but not necessarily Truth in Reality.

IMO, if you cannot create a mental image of your “firmly” held belief, then how do you relate to your belief in a (any) God,
the Word which you choose to use. I prefer to identify the exact same “condition” with the word Potential and we can certainly relate to that concept in every facet of our lives.

The only question that remains is our personal relationship with the Word. You may believe you can communicate and influence your God. I do not believe the function of the greater universal Potential and its expression in reality can be influenced, except at very, very small levels, such as in a testing laboratory, in order to test the functions of potential in our reality.
In a theist world, the testing laboratory is ritualized mental exercises in a church or temple. Do you believe prayers have an influence on a universal God?

As Carlin said, what about God’s grand design? Can it change by wishing (praying) it to be different?

[ Edited: 24 August 2015 06:38 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2015 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 199 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7995
Joined  2009-02-26
KevinOsborne - 24 August 2015 06:44 AM
Write4U - 24 August 2015 02:17 AM

@KevinOsborne,

We have no disagreement at all (see post 181). Each person lives in his own reality, but we can functionally come to concensus of what that reality is for US. Once this is understood, perhaps we may become more “respectful” of other’s views.

But here we are talking about products of the mind which are nor physical but holographic (metaphysical) and have very little to do with the Reality of the Universe, because we can see and experience only a tiny part of what and how things really happen in physical reality.

If you have not read my previous posts, see my point of view.(see post 156)

Being respectful is responding to posts with trick images? We don’t agree on what a viewpoint is or how this place is put together, which is fine with me. Pointing that out isn’t disrespectful in my book. You are entitled to yours. However if you are required some undefined respect I’m happy to let you go on your way.

Apparently, you did not understand the reason for my posting the optical illusions, which I thought were pertinent to the discussion and not intended to fool or trick anyone. But if you feel that my posts were “dishonest” in some way, that is not my problem, but yours.

I seems from the tone of your reply that our discussion has just now deteriorated from a dispassionate (objective) discussion to a subjective emotional one. And out of respect for your relative viewpoint, I shall end my participation here.

Be well, Kevin.

[ Edited: 24 August 2015 06:44 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2015 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 200 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  135
Joined  2013-05-31
Write4U - 24 August 2015 06:06 PM

@brmckay,

I think we are in general agreement.

Probably not so much.  The point of divergence remains significant.

IMO, Potential is a common denominator of all that exists at all levels of the universal hierarchy, in that it must be present for anything to happen at all.

It is a simple formula,  all that exists, has existed and will exist in any form is (must be) preceded by potential. If the potential for something does not exist there can be no IMplication of what is to become reality (in any form).

Hierarchically speaking, ‘potential’ is preceeded by infinitude.  That means that there is no actual limit to “potential”, so the term itself becomes ‘something extra’.  It is as intangible as the emergent characteristics of ‘mind’.  (Isn’t this what Occam’s razor is about?)

The Word that theists use for the exact same condition is God, I call it Potential. There is no difference in function, just a different Word.

The one difference is that the function of Potential is observable and well defined, whereas the function of God cannot be observed or defined AND it is presumed to be purposefully motivated.  IMO, this is the only difference and causes a fatal flaw in the proposition of a sentient (by human standards) God.

You have merely circumvented the intangible characteristic to allow your paradigm credence.  It is equivalent to the ‘fatal flaw’ referred to above.

The finitely infinite version of potential, remains an encapsulated, and therefor a relative understanding.  Useful within it’s sphere, but necessarily partial and anthropomorphic. The concept of it does not acknowledge the unbounded and absolute nature of the ‘true’.

Sentience (as in human sentience) is not a property of the universe, it is an emergent property in living things.

This is the ‘preferred framework’ I mentioned earlier.  I would suggest that it is akin to an optical illusion.  Consider the possibility that sentience is the emergent characteristic of infinitude and that what you describe as emergent from the brains of living beings, is an abstracted sense of localized sentience.  In spiritual circles, the overly specialized ramification of this is often referred to as ‘ego’.  Or, the ‘false self’.

But a mental image has no substance, it is an emergent mental construct, a variable mental hologram, requiring a physical brain. Just as music requires an physical instrument to be produced, but when the music stops, it no longer exists except as a faint memory in our brain, but not outside our brain (in the universe).

What is gained by excluding the intangible?  It certainly does not lead one to ‘truth’. 

I would have to point out, that the absolute intangibility of infinitude, makes the fleeting and ephemeral dreams of man as heavy as lead.

Of course we can say that as humans are part of the universe, everything a human does or thinks is part of the universe, but that would only be a fleeting moment, dependent on the activity of the thinker/musician, emerging, then dissolving.  What I think is not produced by a universal mind, but is an emergent product of my perceptions and mental processes, which are at best relative to truth, but not necessarily Truth in Reality.

‘Truth’ is foundation as well as the manifestation;  Entirety.  The parsings of science and religion only pay homage, and most certainly do not circumvent or supplant ‘truth’.

That homage that we pay, can be inadvertent or intentional.  It makes no difference to the Truth.  The effects manifest as experience.  The potential of that, is unbounded.

IMO, if you cannot create a mental image of your “firmly” held belief, then how do you relate to your belief in a (any) God,
the Word which you choose to use. I prefer to identify the exact same “condition” with the word Potential and we can certainly relate to that concept in every facet of our lives.

It is not clear to me how or why you arrive at this conclusion. 

The only question that remains is our personal relationship with the Word. You may believe you can communicate and influence your God. I do not believe the function of the greater universal Potential and its expression in reality can be influenced, except at very, very small levels, such as in a testing laboratory, in order to test the functions of potential in our reality.
In a theist world, the testing laboratory is ritualized mental exercises in a church or temple. Do you believe prayers have an influence on a universal God?

Potential is infinitude.  But not the linear kind as in a set of possibilities.  I think that this must be what you envision, and it explains the exclusion of the intangible from your version of the Universe.

As Carlin said, what about God’s grand design? Can it change by wishing (praying) it to be different?

Even in the relative primitivity of my (and presumably your) experience, reality is wonderfully malleable.  George’s too.  He must be talking about something else.

[ Edited: 25 August 2015 08:41 AM by brmckay ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2015 04:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 201 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7995
Joined  2009-02-26
brmckay - 25 August 2015 08:35 AM
Write4U - 24 August 2015 06:06 PM

@brmckay,

I think we are in general agreement.

Probably not so much.  The point of divergence remains significant.

At what point do we diverge?  That the concept of infinite potential is a common denominator of everything and is the scientific equivalent of God which is also presented as a common denominator of everything?

IMO, Potential is a common denominator of all that exists at all levels of the universal hierarchy, in that it must be present for anything to happen at all.

It is a simple formula,  all that exists, has existed and will exist in any form is (must be) preceded by potential. If the potential for something does not exist there can be no Implication of what is to become reality (in any form) and therefore does not become reality.

Hierarchically speaking, ‘potential’ is preceeded by infinitude.  That means that there is no actual limit to “potential”, so the term itself becomes ‘something extra’.  It is as intangible as the emergent characteristics of ‘mind’.  (Isn’t this what Occam’s razor is about?)

Question: is infinitude a static or a dynamic condition?

I submit that “infinitude” is a generic term for an abstract “condition” that does not exclude the concept of “a condition of infinite potential”.

IMO, by Ockham’s razor the definition of an infinitude of pure Potential is the perfectly reduced Prime Causality for reality. I submit that the additional concept of a sentient, motivated God is the “something extra”, in that it introduces sentience, which apparently (in science) is no longer a necessary aspect of Prime Causality.

Bohm identifies the “infinitude” as a pure (dynamic) energetic “zero state” condition which he termed “insight intelligence” or a state of “pure potential”, in which Implications (specific potentials) form, which eventually become expressed in our reality. This process has to be a mathematical function, and not a product of a sentient mind. One might say, “a pseudo intelligent mathematical function”, which negates the need for an intentional and purposeful creative action, and a God.

By definition Potential is “That (the condition) which may become reality”, which means that infinite potential for becoming reality is perfectly equivalent to the concept of an infinite God with an inherent ability to create reality, sans sentience.

I think we can agree that from the human perspective we do live in a reality. So the question of causality rests on two possibilities; an implaccable process from pure potential to reality, or an intentional creation of reality which circumvents the entire process of potential becoming expressed in reality altogether.

While the latter may sound the least complicated, the notion of “intention” actually begs many more questions than it solves.

The Word that theists use for the condition named God, I call it Potential. There is no difference in function, just a different Word. Two Words, one an undefined intangible, the other a well defined latent ability, a common denominator of all that is known.

The one difference is that the function of Potential is observable and well defined as an inherent latency of everything, whereas the function of God cannot be observed or defined AND it is presumed to be purposefully motivated.  IMO, this is the only difference and causes a fatal flaw in the proposition of a sentient (by human standards) God.

You have merely circumvented the intangible characteristic to allow your paradigm credence.  It is equivalent to the ‘fatal flaw’ referred to above.

Why do you presume that infinite Potential needs be encapsulated and is just a property of the “intangible” you speak of?

The finitely infinite version of potential, remains an encapsulated, and therefor a relative understanding.  Useful within it’s sphere, but necessarily partial and anthropomorphic. The concept of it does not acknowledge the unbounded and absolute nature of the ‘true’.

Yes it does. You are changing the goal posts with “finitely infinite”, whatever that means.
The unbounded and absolute nature of truth can certainly be “infinite potential” as being “That which may become reality.”  It seems you are trying to extend this concept to an infinite intangible which is somehow sentient but which does not promise any dynamic action at all, unless you employ circular reasoning, or perhaps intense prayer.

What if Truth (infinitude) is a static zero state condition without potential? Could that be considered a Prime Causality or just a static condition?
Now consider Truth being a dynamic zero state condition of “timeless pure potential”. Which of the two seems more effective?

IMO, whatever there is, it must be dynamic and therefore must have been preceded by the potential for dynamism.

Sentience (as in human sentience) is not a property of the universe, it is an emergent property in living things.

This is the ‘preferred framework’ I mentioned earlier.  I would suggest that it is akin to an optical illusion.  Consider the possibility that sentience is the emergent characteristic of infinitude and that what you describe as emergent from the brains of living beings, is an abstracted sense of localized sentience.  In spiritual circles, the overly specialized ramification of this is often referred to as ‘ego’.  Or, the ‘false self’.

And how would a sentient infinitude work? Entanglement? Exchanging discrete packets of information? Random Chaos or a self-ordering (self-similar) fractal unfolding of spacetime itself? It’s all accomplished trough an implaccable mathematical process.

But a mental image has no substance, it is an emergent mental construct, a variable mental hologram, requiring a physical brain. Just as music requires an physical instrument to be produced, but when the music stops, it no longer exists except as a faint memory in our brain, but not outside our brain (in the universe).

What is gained by excluding the intangible?  It certainly does not lead one to ‘truth’.

What is gained by including an intangible? What is the point of science, if it results in an unknowable “intangible”?
It seems to me that an intangible aspect of the infinitude is a preferred framework to justify an Intangible God. So how does one perceive an intangible God? 

I would have to point out, that the absolute intangibility of infinitude, makes the fleeting and ephemeral dreams of man as heavy as lead.

Very poetic, but that begs the question; Why?

Of course we can say that as humans are part of the universe, everything a human does or thinks is part of the universe, but that would only be a fleeting moment, dependent on the activity of the thinker/musician, emerging, then dissolving.  What I think is not produced by a universal mind, but is an emergent product of my perceptions and mental processes, which are at best relative to truth, but not necessarily Truth in Reality.

‘Truth’ is foundation as well as the manifestation;  Entirety.  The parsings of science and religion only pay homage, and most certainly do not circumvent or supplant ‘truth’.

And therefore Truth must be sentient?
Talking about an unsupported extraordinary claim. Do you propose that scripture scientifically supports the notion of an intangible Truth, or is it just wishful thnking in the direction of greater satisfaction?

That homage that we pay, can be inadvertent or intentional.  It makes no difference to the Truth.

Then what is the purpose of paying homage?

  The effects manifest as experience.

Yes, subjective experience of sentient organisms.

The potential of that, is unbounded.

That does not follow at all, IMO. We can just as well start with unbounded (infinite) potential. Try to see Potential as an abstract quality. That which precedes Truth.

IMO, if you cannot create a mental image of your “firmly” held belief in an “intangible” God, then how do you relate to that intangible God (the Word which you choose to use).

I prefer to identify the exact same “condition” with the word Potential and we can certainly relate to that concept in every facet of our lives as well as in all things.  “That which may become reality”.
It is not clear to me how or why you would prefer an intangible God over the known quality Potential. 

The only question that remains is our personal relationship with the Word. You may believe you can communicate and influence your God. I do not believe the function of the greater universal Potential and its expression in reality can be influenced, except at very, very small levels, such as in a testing laboratory, in order to test the functions of potential in our reality.
In a theist world, the testing laboratory is ritualized mental exercises in a church or temple. Do you believe prayers have an influence on a universal God?

Potential is infinitude.  But not the linear kind as in a set of possibilities.

Pure Potential is not linear, it is chaos.

I think that this must be what you envision, and it explains the exclusion of the intangible from your version of the Universe.

You are right, this is exactly how I see it.  And I would argue that in the condition of pure infinite potential (metaphysical chaos) there is no sentience, intangible or otherwise.
The linear process starts with the first ordering of a “field” within the intangible chaos of infinite potentials, an Implicate.

As Carlin said, what about God’s grand design? Can it change by wishing (praying) it to be different?

Even in the relative primitivity of my (and presumably your) experience, reality is wonderfully malleable.

I agree, as long as the malleability remains within the mathematical framework. There are no miracles.

George’s too.  He must be talking about something else.

No, Carlin knew exactly what he was talking about. He just presented it in verbal caricature, but that did not make it less profound in principle.

I wish someone would explain that the phrase “man was created in god’s image” is a metaphor and does NOT bestow man any special status over all the other things that were also created in God’s image (That which did become reality). and least of all, sentience, which can be shown to be an emergent quality of neural complexity.

[ Edited: 25 August 2015 05:46 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2015 05:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 202 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7995
Joined  2009-02-26

This is what caused man to become “in the image of God”. A simple but “mind altering” mutation:

All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor’s chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

[ Edited: 25 August 2015 05:52 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2015 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 203 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  135
Joined  2013-05-31

@Write4U post #201

I think it should be quite clear that we are not on the same page about some aspect of the subject.

This may relate to my use of the word ‘sentience’, and your unwillingness to interpret it in the eternal context as I intended.  From now on I will try to stick with the more accurate term; “Self’.  This would de-emphasize the issues of “intention” and “will”, which have confused things so far.  Those characteristics, only being “potential” in the non-relative or absolute condition.

Self: the infinitely dynamic potential of infinitude. The (non-anthropomorphized) ground of all being. 

Finite Infinities:  The prime numbers;  The even numbers;  Every number except ‘2’;  Conditions with the latent potential to exist, excluding the intangible ones (like thought and imagination);  All sentient life instances of localized self awareness, except the one called Write4U, etc. 

Infinite Infinity:  There is only one.  We’ve been calling it the ‘true’.

At this point the whole thing is getting overworked to the extreme.  Perhaps if you grant me the above adjustments, we can conclude that we are indeed on the same page.  The difference being in what we view as important.

I’d say it is time to give it a rest.

[ Edited: 27 August 2015 12:27 PM by brmckay ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2015 02:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 204 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7995
Joined  2009-02-26

“brmckay”

@Write4U post #201,

I think it should be quite clear that we are not on the same page about some aspect of the subject.

This may relate to my use of the word ‘sentience’, and your unwillingness to interpret it in the eternal context as I intended.  From now on I will try to stick with the more accurate term; “Self’.  This would de-emphasize the issues of “intention” and “will”, which have confused things so far.  Those characteristics, only being “potential” in the non-relative or absolute condition.

Self: the infinitely dynamic potential of infinitude. The (non-anthropomorphized) ground of all being.

A rock is a “self”, is it sentient?  One might argue that a mathematical condition is a “self”, is it sentient?

Finite Infinities:  The prime numbers;  The even numbers;  Every number except ‘2’;  Conditions with the latent potential to exist, excluding the intangible ones (like thought and imagination);  All sentient life instances of localized self awareness, except the one called Write4U, etc.

Prime numbers are part of Mathematics, are they a subset of sentience? 

Infinite Infinity:  There is only one.  We’ve been calling it the ‘true’.

Who has been calling this true? Why the redundancy? We can call it a “self” but is it sentient?

Yes, the single truth contained in your above definitons is that they all indentify a “condition”. All other perceived implications of “sentience” sound like subjective interpretations to me.

At this point the whole thing is getting overworked to the extreme.  Perhaps if you grant me the above adjustments, we can conclude that we are indeed on the same page.  The difference being in what we view as important.

I’d say it is time to give it a rest.

Not quite yet,

I do agree, the thing is becoming overworked, but only as a result of interpretation of definitions (which seems odd to me)

It would help if you cited links to the definitions you are posting so I can see in what context you are using these terms.

For instances “sentience”.  I use the common definition:

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as “qualia”). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

I have already shown “qualia” in a previous post.
Are you proposing the universal sentience is capable of “suffering”? If so, that would argue for an emotional God, no?

I prefer the term “implaccable function”. Seems to me a simpler (preferable) concept. And it is a “self”, but is it sentient?

[ Edited: 27 August 2015 03:21 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2015 07:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 205 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  135
Joined  2013-05-31

@Write4U post #204

The following was in my mailbox yesterday morning.  I was going to include it in the last post, but thought it was a too blunt, and bound to be taken wrong anyway.

Now it seems to be just the thing.

Lao Tsu (Tao Teh Ching) - As the meaning of Tao was lost among humanity, it was replaced with intelligence. Along with intelligence came hypocrisy.”

Adieu.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2015 12:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 206 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7995
Joined  2009-02-26
brmckay - 28 August 2015 07:59 AM

@Write4U post #204

The following was in my mailbox yesterday morning.  I was going to include it in the last post, but thought it was a too blunt, and bound to be taken wrong anyway.

Now it seems to be just the thing.

Lao Tsu (Tao Teh Ching) - As the meaning of Tao was lost among humanity, it was replaced with intelligence. Along with intelligence came hypocrisy.”

Adieu.

In principle I have no problem with Taoism. And I also agree that the concept of a motivated Intelligence as the creative source leads to hypocrisy. See, we do agree in principle.

Be well.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
14 of 14
14