The post below highlights a number of interesting concepts. ... Our total reality and total existence are beautiful and meaningful . . . . We should judge reality by the little which we truly know of it. We have concluded that the awareness is the finest and greatest item in this world based on the practical analysis here itself. If the practical experience is neglected, the logic will lose its basis... Now I will also quote Gödel and Chopra for their very helpful comments on this difficult discussion: It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness.
- See more at: http://www.chopra.com/ccl/what-is-cosmic-consciousness#sthash.qAGM6TT1.dpufNow all of this is according to the "philosophical viewpoint" of the most brilliant mathematician of the 20th century: The world is rational.
Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).
There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems.
There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
There is incomparably more knowable a priori that is currently known.
The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly one-dimensional.
Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
Formal rights comprise a real science.
Materialism is false.
The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
Concepts have an objective existence.
There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.
I now present more fascinating and salient quotes from this mathematical genius: "The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit." Positivists decline to acknowledge any a priori knowledge. They wish to reduce everything to sense perceptions. Generally they contradict themselves in that they deny introspection as experience. … They use too narrow a notion of experience and introduce an arbitrary bound on what experience is …
One bad effect of logical positivism is its claim of being intimately associated with mathematical logic. As a result, other philosophers tend to distance themselves from mathematical logic and therewith deprive themselves of the benefits of a precise way of thinking. What I call the theological worldview is the idea that the world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. Source: http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.htmlWhy would awareness come from nothing and return to nothingness? Would it not make more sense to say that awareness comes from a sort of non-awareness and returns to non-awareness in a cycle? What is so difficult about accepting the possibility of another existence under conditions of material non-being? And the endlessness of these cycles? What is so funny about all of this talk of "scientific proof" is that skeptics apply different standards of proof for parapsychological research and mainstream science. I strongly advise anyone to browse the spiritual development site to discover the facts behind skeptical misdirection, eminent researchers, etc. I too wish that others will understand the debate, so I am putting forward the facts. One final fact I want to mention: For any authority, the final stage is experience, which alone gives validity... Matter does not force upon us a belief and neither does science have much to say about death; we know for sure that it is a miracle to be alive if indeed the true home of our minds is annihilation (i.e. non-existence or nothingness). Gödel agrees that simple mechanism cannot yield the mind, and that the mind did not arise in the Darwinian manner. That home which gave birth to... mind "out of nowhere" (can be) described as both "pre-existing" (quantum fields) and "nothingness" (an absence of any thing), but it cannot be both! If it were, then our existence would be scientific proof of a miracle.  ... The standard dogma is that consciousness emerges from complex computation among brain neurons and synapses acting like ‘bits’ and switches; I will point you to four reasons given by Hammeroff for doubting the standard dogma; the implication is that the brain is acting more like a receiver of consciousness than a generator of counsciousness; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/darwin-versus-deepak-whic_b_7481048.html |
|
|
|
The post below highlights a number of interesting concepts but was originally posted in a location where it was unlikely to be read or properly appreciated. ... Our total reality and total existence are beautiful and meaningful . . . . We should judge reality by the little which we truly know of it. We have concluded that the awareness is the finest and greatest item in this world based on the practical analysis here itself. If the practical experience is neglected, the logic will lose its basis... Now I will also quote Gödel and Chopra for their very helpful comments on this difficult discussion: It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness.
- See more at: http://www.chopra.com/ccl/what-is-cosmic-consciousness#sthash.qAGM6TT1.dpufNow all of this is according to the "philosophical viewpoint" of the most brilliant mathematician of the 20th century: The world is rational.
Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).
There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems.
There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
There is incomparably more knowable a priori that is currently known.
The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly one-dimensional.
Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
Formal rights comprise a real science.
Materialism is false.
The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
Concepts have an objective existence.
There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.
I now present more fascinating and salient quotes from this mathematical genius: "The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit." Positivists decline to acknowledge any a priori knowledge. They wish to reduce everything to sense perceptions. Generally they contradict themselves in that they deny introspection as experience. … They use too narrow a notion of experience and introduce an arbitrary bound on what experience is …
One bad effect of logical positivism is its claim of being intimately associated with mathematical logic. As a result, other philosophers tend to distance themselves from mathematical logic and therewith deprive themselves of the benefits of a precise way of thinking. What I call the theological worldview is the idea that the world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. Source: http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.htmlWhy would awareness come from nothing and return to nothingness? Would it not make more sense to say that awareness comes from a sort of non-awareness and returns to non-awareness in a cycle? What is so difficult about accepting the possibility of another existence under conditions of material non-being? And the endlessness of these cycles? What is so funny about all of this talk of "scientific proof" is that skeptics apply different standards of proof for parapsychological research and mainstream science. I strongly advise anyone to browse the spiritual development site to discover the facts behind skeptical misdirection, eminent researchers, etc. I too wish that others will understand the debate, so I am putting forward the facts. One final fact I want to mention: For any authority, the final stage is experience, which alone gives validity... Matter does not force upon us a belief and neither does science have much to say about death; we know for sure that it is a miracle to be alive if indeed the true home of our minds is annihilation (i.e. non-existence or nothingness). Gödel agrees that simple mechanism cannot yield the mind, and that the mind did not arise in the Darwinian manner. That home which gave birth to... mind "out of nowhere" (can be) described as both "pre-existing" (quantum fields) and "nothingness" (an absence of any thing), but it cannot be both! If it were, then our existence would be scientific proof of a miracle. ... The standard dogma is that consciousness emerges from complex computation among brain neurons and synapses acting like ‘bits’ and switches; I will point you to four reasons given by Hammeroff for doubting the standard dogma; the implication is that the brain is acting more like a receiver of consciousness than a generator of counsciousness; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/darwin-versus-deepak-whic_b_7481048.html |
|
|
|
Religion is not synonymous with dependence.
I am referring to when the State co-opts the religion such as Constantinople. Recently the Vatican had to play ball with the elites as they were threatened to be shut off from the financial system. Also the individual is helpless (because they are ideologically invested) when the State uses the religion for an evil end, such as the Spanish Inquisition. I agree with you on that point. However, this is an argument for the seperation of church and state as well as an argument against specific religions that are organized with ridged and centralized top down leadership rather then an argument against religion in general. It is likely no coincidence that the Protestant reformation appears to mark the approximate dividing line between the prior Middle Ages and the subsequent scientific revolution and Enlightenment. |
|
|
|
Well now that was a long post. An interesting read. I agree with some of what you wrote there and disagree with other points. Below are a few highlights.
... government and religion are synonymous with collective dependence, psychological control, and thus enabling corruption by those are handed the power by these collectivized paradigms.
Summarizing my prior post upthread, the Bible and the government are both centralized paradigms, where the collective depends on each other. We need decentralized paradigms where the individual is empowered.
...
If we do evil, we increase our risk greatly of being destroyed within this life.
...
I too fell into this psychological trap of believing Christianity because of my idealism and desire to belief in an order that protects good from evil. But my understanding has become refined and more astute (I believe although I am willing to entertain counter logic that is worthy).
Religion is not synonymous with dependence. In fact I would argue that the opposite is true. Henning Webb Prentis, Jr., described the importance of religion when he described what would later come to be called the Tytler cycle. Speech By Henning Webb Prentis, Jr: "Paradoxically enough, the release of initiative and enterprise made possible by popular self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within. Again and again after freedom has brought opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent, the incompetent and the unfortunate grow envious and covetous, and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the Golden Calf of economic security. The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more." It is no coincidence that the critical ingredient Prentis links with freeing humanity from bondage is spiritual strength. It is that same strength that when cast aside for selfishness, apathy, and hedonism facilitates societies decline into dependency and bondage. ...you will not stop the State from spiraling into the abyss, because the majority is going to demand expropriation. You can't suddenly change the situation of the majority. The majority has no other option and all the (political or even violent) fighting you do can't give them another option.
The economic reality and trajectory was written into stone decades ago. It can't be altered. The economic reality is what it is.
My advice to everyone is pay off all your debt because in a deflationary collapse that is underway (see oil under $50 today!) the government can take your assets and leave you with debt to pay but no assets to pay with. And debtor's prisons are returning. Even though I was reduced to near pauper, I prioritized paying off my credit card debts in 2014 and did pay $20,000 of it off for less than $10,000 by accepting best offers for negotiated settlement. I only have about $2000 of debt remaining (except that my ex took out a $25,000 student loan recently and I don't know if the USA will try to pin that on me).
Also radically reduce the risk to unjust IRS audits and assessments, because these will become more common.
Also radically reduce the risk to lawsuits, because these will become more common as westerners get desperate.
Then the next priority is to align your vocation with the Knowledge Age and so you have income even during global economic collapse and your skills are transportable to any location you might choose to move to as the chaos takes form.
Anonymint's advice was correct but incomplete. When you couple a mechanism of progressive and increasing dependency (socialism) with a fundamentally unsustainable financial system (fractional reserve fiat) the probable result is a system who's declared role is helping the poor but who's insolvency dictates policies geared towards sterilization. Such a result requires a certain degree of cognitive dissonance and a government who believes it is helping you while it works to ensure you do not reproduce. Toxicity of the Modern World In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley envisioned a future where the masses were rendered infertile and controlled with pleasure and drugs. Is that the world we live in now? Anyone over that age of 25 may not realize how far traditional courtship and dating has been undermined by modernity. The tinder generation is being conditioned to swipe right on their onscreen app and meet up later for random sexual gratification. This phenomena has been described by Vanity Fair as nothing less than a dating apocalypse. In Colorado long acting implantable contraceptives which a render women infertile for up to 10 years and require a doctor’s visit to remove have been implanted in 26% of young women age 15-24 as of 2013. In 2015 an advisory body to the US Department of Health and Human Services recommended that Medicaid examine how often doctors are using “most effective” or “moderately effective” contraception. Only contraception deemed “highly effective” or “moderately effective” (Long acting implantable or long acting injections) would be included in the proposed measurement. Doctor’s with a low percentage of young patients using such contraception would presumably be rated as giving lower quality care. We appear to be living in a “Utopia” of declining fitness and capability. An age of existential exhaustion manifested by an ageing, hedonistic society characterized by declining marriage, and near zero children. Add to this data the very real possibility of more direct government action. The Catholic church in Kenya has accused the government of secretly injecting young women with an anti-fertility vaccine disguised as a tetanus vaccine. Either the Catholic bishops are lying or the Kenyan government is. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/01/19/kenyan-bishops-call-for-no-more-tetanus-vaccines-until-further-tests/The situation can be looked at abstractly as the sudden and dramatic restoration of extreme selective pressure on mankind. Unlike our ancient history when we were subjected to violence, starvation, and disease the new pressure comes in the form of dependence, hedonism, and sterilization. As a species we have never been subjected to this kind of pressure before and are likely to be highly susceptible. Halting the reimposition of selective pressure is economically impossible and perhaps even inadvisable for it is the restoration of selective pressure that will ultimately prevent 'mouse utopia'. Astute individuals can avoid 'government help' by actively working to avoid dependency a task that will become increasingly difficult with time. Intellectual adaptability alone is not enough. It is also necessary to resist the decadence, hedonism, and social decay peddled by modernity. In Atheism and Health I argued that faith provides the best chance of success but other strategies may also be viable. Socialism will burn itself out gradually over time. Until it does the best course of action is avoidance of the inferno. It is the ashes of socialism that will pave the way for the knowledge age outlined in The Rise of Knowledge. When dealing with the proponents of socialism the proper emotion is not anger but pity. |
|
|
|
Socialism cannot be stopped for the reasons briefly touched on in Understand Everything Fundamentally. Attempts at education will also fail in the short term because the fundamental economic forces favor socialism. Socialism is pushing us towards centralized global government which while inefficient is decisively more efficient then multiple feuding centralized nations. The evolution of the social contract appears to be a progressive climb to higher potential energy systems with increased degrees of freedom. The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism advanced into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. I suspect that in the future republics will be consumed by world government, world government will evolve into decentralized government, and decentralized government will finally mature into a shared consensus among individuals with limited or no government.
Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity.
In my multiple debates with Anonymint I recall one instance when he decisively got the better of me. It was a discussion regarding socialism and I was arguing it should be opposed. His handle was iamback at the time. In what way are these mutually exclusive? Provided one does not neglect personal decentralized self-sufficiency why shouldn't a rational actor in our current environment also participate in the local collective and attempt to restrain said collective. To do otherwise is to yield the floor to those who will make decentralized self-sufficiency more difficult to achieve.
Because you will waste time and effort that could have been used to actually achieve it without being slave (dependent) on what the State does. And you will not stop the State from spiraling into the abyss, because the majority is going to demand expropriation. You can't suddenly change the situation of the majority. The majority has no other option and all the (political or even violent) fighting you do can't give them another option. The economic reality and trajectory was written into stone decades ago. It can't be altered. The economic reality is what it is. My advice to everyone is pay off all your debt because in a deflationary collapse that is underway (see oil under $50 today!) the government can take your assets and leave you with debt to pay but no assets to pay with. And debtor's prisons are returning. Even though I was reduced to near pauper, I prioritized paying off my credit card debts in 2014 and did pay $20,000 of it off for less than $10,000 by accepting best offers for negotiated settlement. I only have about $2000 of debt remaining (except that my ex took out a $25,000 student loan recently and I don't know if the USA will try to pin that on me). Also radically reduce the risk to unjust IRS audits and assessments, because these will become more common. Also radically reduce the risk to lawsuits, because these will become more common as westerners get desperate. Then the next priority is to align your vocation with the Knowledge Age and so you have income even during global economic collapse and your skills are transportable to any location you might choose to move to as the chaos takes form. Anonymint's advice was correct but incomplete. When you couple a mechanism of progressive and increasing dependency (socialism) with a fundamentally unsustainable financial system (fractional reserve fiat) the probable result is a system who's declared role is helping the poor but who's insolvency dictates policies geared towards sterilization. Such a result requires a certain degree of cognitive dissonance and a government who believes it is helping you while it works to ensure you do not reproduce. Toxicity of the Modern World In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley envisioned a future where the masses were rendered infertile and controlled with pleasure and drugs. Is that the world we live in now? Anyone over that age of 25 may not realize how far traditional courtship and dating has been undermined by modernity. The tinder generation is being conditioned to swipe right on their onscreen app and meet up later for random sexual gratification. This phenomena has been described by Vanity Fair as nothing less than a dating apocalypse. In Colorado long acting implantable contraceptives which a render women infertile for up to 10 years and require a doctor’s visit to remove have been implanted in 26% of young women age 15-24 as of 2013. In 2015 an advisory body to the US Department of Health and Human Services recommended that Medicaid examine how often doctors are using “most effective” or “moderately effective” contraception. Only contraception deemed “highly effective” or “moderately effective” (Long acting implantable or long acting injections) would be included in the proposed measurement. Doctor’s with a low percentage of young patients using such contraception would presumably be rated as giving lower quality care. We appear to be living in a “Utopia” of declining fitness and capability. An age of existential exhaustion manifested by an ageing, hedonistic society characterized by declining marriage, and near zero children. Add to this data the very real possibility of more direct government action. The Catholic church in Kenya has accused the government of secretly injecting young women with an anti-fertility vaccine disguised as a tetanus vaccine. Either the Catholic bishops are lying or the Kenyan government is. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/01/19/kenyan-bishops-call-for-no-more-tetanus-vaccines-until-further-tests/The situation can be looked at abstractly as the sudden and dramatic restoration of extreme selective pressure on mankind. Unlike our ancient history when we were subjected to violence, starvation, and disease the new pressure comes in the form of dependence, hedonism, and sterilization. As a species we have never been subjected to this kind of pressure before and are likely to be highly susceptible. Halting the reimposition of selective pressure is economically impossible and perhaps even inadvisable for it is the restoration of selective pressure that will ultimately prevent 'mouse utopia'. Astute individuals can avoid 'government help' by actively working to avoid dependency a task that will become increasingly difficult with time. Intellectual adaptability alone is not enough. It is also necessary to resist the decadence, hedonism, and social decay peddled by modernity. In Atheism and Health I argued that faith provides the best chance of success but other strategies may also be viable. Socialism will burn itself out gradually over time. Until it does the best course of action is avoidance of the inferno. It is the ashes of socialism that will pave the way for the knowledge age outlined in The Rise of Knowledge. When dealing with the proponents of socialism the proper emotion is not anger but pity. |
|
|
|
Awareness arises from non-awareness: the fetus clearly isn't aware during most time of the gestation, until at least the central neurological system is built. Then, slowly, develops some basic elements of awareness. And, after being born, acquires full awareness.
If you are talking about how life evolves from simple matter, we still don't now the exact mechanism, even if we are close. But ignorance isn't evidence of god existence.
I wonder if you realize the consequences of the revelation of beliefs like yours. Try to say you believe in reincarnation (it seems what you mean with "Awareness is continuous and cyclical") on a job interview.
....
Consequences is one of my interests. Bringing up religion in a job interview is likely a bad as is talking about politics. I wonder if you realize the consequences of a belief system like yours? I argued elsewhere that the consequences over the long term are far more profound and substantial than many realize. |
|
|
|
Two things that don't fit in the same universe:
1. evolution;
2. homosexuality;
... except if there is corruption of the system, and law-breaking of foundational physics.
That is equivalent to saying that color-blind people don't fit in the same universe... everyone is different in some way... get over yourself asshole Just because a character trait doesn't increase sperm count or whatever your standard is... does not make it wrong, it only makes you wrong... and a bigot Humm I usually stay far away from this particular topic. However, I have been reading recently about the beliefs of the Chabad Jews a subgroup of group of Orthodox Jews. They have an interesting approach to the issue. http://m.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/663504/jewish/Do-Homosexuals-Fit-into-the-Jewish-Community.htmDo Homosexuals Fit into the Jewish Community?
By Bronya Shaffer
Question:
According to Jewish law, how should a person react to homosexual feelings? Do homosexuals fit into the Jewish community?
Answer:
You ask about feelings and law. But feelings do not fall within the domain of law. A person feels what a person feels. Then he has the power to decide whether he will act upon those feelings or… not. This is the human experience: desire, longing, wanting…and the law. Part of our development from childhood to adulthood is creating for ourselves a moral compass. Something that's internal. That which tells us right from wrong. And that moral compass is comprised of myriad components, but must be firmly grounded, always, in a system of values.
For Jews, the all-encompassing system is Torah law. Torah law governs every single part of living. And from the body of Torah law emerges a system of values - general, societal and personal. Sometimes, it's easy; we feel an affinity, for example, to the laws of tzedaka, or we feel a strong connection to the laws of Shabbat or brit milah. And sometimes, we feel something quite the opposite - we feel estranged or disconnected or personally deeply at odds with a law.
We feel what we feel. Some feelings we can change, and some we can't. Sometimes what we feel is subject to modification, and sometimes it's not. Totally and unequivocally not. And yet, the law is absolute.
As much as we know about human sexuality, we don't yet know enough. We're all, as individuals and as a society, still learning. In the last half century, we've come a long way in our understanding of human sexuality, and in redefining a cultural moral code. Some of what we've come to accept as a society is long, long overdue. And some of what we've come to accept undermines the very dignity of human sexuality. But, we're learning.
We do know this, though: we know that among other sexual behaviours, Torah law expressly forbids the specific act of male homosexuality.
And we do know this: Torah law forbids bigotry; homophobia is prohibited.
And we do know this: too many Jewish girls and boys, Jewish women and men, have suffered too much for too long. And we know that most of that suffering is caused by the environment around them. We do know this: when we become judges of another person, we behave contrary to Torah law.
And we do know this: A Jew belongs in a Jewish environment. Each of us, struggling or not, needs to be in a truly Torah-observant environment. And each of us is responsible for that environment - each of us is responsible for what we bring to that environment. When we bring ignorance, or cruelty or self-righteous judgment of others, we contribute to the sullying of a true Torah environment. When we bring the most ideal principles of ahavat Yisrael, respect for every individual, recognition of each individual's personal relationship with G‑d...when we bring the best of our humanity, as expected by Torah ideals, we contribute to a Torah environment that is healthy and wholesome.
Or perhaps your question is in regard to how we should react to the homosexual feelings of others? Or how we should react to someone who eats on Yom Kippur? Or someone who longs for the relationship with a man other than her husband? On this, the classic work known as the Tanya provides strong advice: Consider what it means to have such burning passions for forbidden fruit. Consider the day to day fierce and relentless battle demanded to conquer such passions. And then ask yourself, "Do I ever fight such a battle on my own ground?"
The Tanya continues to illustrate the many areas in which all of us can improve by waging at least a small battle on our own ground.
On your question concerning community: A Jew belongs within a Jewish community. There are no application forms and no qualification requirements. He's Jewish—that's where he belongs. Period. We all have our challenges, our shortcomings, our feelings...and our failures in battle as well...and with all that, we are a community of Jews.
|
|
|
|
I'm linking to the OP in my upcoming crowdfunding campaign. An excerpt from the rough draft is quoted below:   I like the logo and this is a cause I am comfortable supporting. Please let us know when you launch this. I will make an investment. |
|
|
|
On Iterative functions. they are either deterministic stable, or chaotic unstable and are immune to randomness in inputs. I could accept that the wiring of the brain creates an Iterative Function system that its attractor-functor is the conciousness. But it's emergence would still be a predetermined by the wiring, not by quantum randomness.
Also take note also that no quantum feedback is possible. Ie the brain cannot receive states in superposition, in effect that means that conciousness cannot get quantum input only classical. Any states in superposition are within the brain itself. So that kinda breaks the iterative reduction process because the reduction has already happened by the sensors (at least for external input).
I think I am nearing the limits of what I can contribute to this discussion. My background in quantum mechanics is not currently sufficient to fully understand the proposed orchestrated objective reduction model of consciousness discussed upthread and I have no working experience with iterative function systems and attractor-functions. Until I have time to read more and better understand these issues I am going to leave your conclusions above unchallenged.  |
|
|
|
Instead of spontaneous generation ex nihilo, I postulate REVERSAL OF POTENTIAL AND CYCLES:
POSTULATE NO. 1: All bodies are continuous. They never cease. They merely reverse their potential TWICE in every CYCLE of their eternal journey within and beyond the range of your sensing by compressing into visibility and then expanding into their invisible seed-recordings.
POSTULATE NO. 2: All bodies are expressed in cycles. A cycle is a continuous two-way spiral journey from the expanded condition of a body to its opposite compressed condition and back again to its expanded condition. A most familiar example of a cycle is DAY and NIGHT. Each is the opposite half of the other, such as one's breathing.
So why not choose cycles as the explanation, especially since it is far simpler than creation ex nihilo? Even if you were to conclude (somehow) that something (awareness) arose from nothing, how would you know for sure that this is the case?
Here is a neat little physics experiment that POSTULATE NO. 1 brought to mind Where does light go when it is 'destroyed' by destructive interference? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RRi4dv9KgCg |
|
|
|
POSTULATE NO. 1: All bodies are continuous. They never cease. They merely reverse their potential TWICE in every CYCLE of their eternal journey within and beyond the range of your sensing by compressing into visibility and then expanding into their invisible seed-recordings.
POSTULATE NO. 2: All bodies are expressed in cycles. A cycle is a continuous two-way spiral journey from the expanded condition of a body to its opposite compressed condition and back again to its expanded condition. A most familiar example of a cycle is DAY and NIGHT. Each is the opposite half of the other, such as one's breathing.
So why not choose cycles as the explanation, especially since it is far simpler than creation ex nihilo? Even if you were to conclude (somehow) that something (awareness) arose from nothing, how would you know for sure that this is the case?
Here is a neat little physics experiment that POSTULATE NO. 1 brought to mind Where does light go when it is 'destroyed' by destructive interference? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RRi4dv9KgCg |
|
|
|
Furthermore, the only natural meaning of Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9 and Numbers 14:18, is that also my sons, my grandsons, my great-grandsons and also their children, will burn eternally in hell also, only because of me, no matter how good and religious they are.
This may be your personal belief but you should know that there is an entire religion that believes something entirely different. Calling your interpretation the only natural meaning is an error. http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/choosing-judaism/inspiration/belief-in-heaven-is-fundamental-to-judaism/
Contrary to the Greek and Christian view of eternal damnation in Hades or Hell, the “punishment” of Sheol, as described in the Jewish Scriptures, is temporary.
Judaism’s view of hell more closely resembles purgatory. However, the pain the soul experiences is not physical. It has been compared to psychological anguish, shame and healing upon reviewing the history of one’s life in a body, and how it wasted opportunities to serve God. This may explain why people who have near death experience often claim their entire life flashed in front of them.
...
Anyway, if you are morally comfortable with all my quotes on the Torah (see the updated version), sorry, but you are the living proof of the evil consequences of your religion. Your religious education was able to isolate you from all the moral advances humankind made in 3,000 years.
Actually I don't really have a religion at the moment other then generally theist. I am not Jewish and did not have the benefit of a formal religious education. I am a former atheist which is why I responded to your post. Everyone has a different path to take in life. In the later posts of the Atheism and Health thread I explained my path and the logic that led me to reject athiesm as false. I wish you good fortune on your journey. |
|
|
|
http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Huge-leak-reveals-deep-corruption-linked-to-offshore-accounts-450146#article=6017OTE0NTUwM0RERkE2RjVGREZBRUQ2RUI3NUZEODVEMDc=German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung said it received a cache of 11.5 million leaked documents from the law firm's database, and shared them with more than 100 other international news outlets as well as the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).
The files reveal the offshore holdings 140 politicians from around the world, including 11 heads of state. The effects of the financial activities are allegedly aimed at illegal activity such as tax fraud, money laundering and sanctions evasion.
...
Ramon Fonseca, the director of the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, specialized in setting up offshore companies, said in a telephone interview with Reuters that his firm had suffered a successful but "limited" hack.
He said that all of the firm's clients have been notified of "this problem," arguing that the firm has been caught up in an international anti-privacy campaign.
"We believe there's an international campaign against privacy. Privacy is a sacred human right (but) there are people in the world who do not understand that and we definitely believe in privacy and will continue working so that legal privacy can work," he said.
From upthread: I agree wealth will increasingly seek to hide by moving into tax havens in other countries. It will also be increasingly hunted. Pressure applied in the name of shutting down tax havens will be one more tool to drive political consolidation and weaken the nation state. Those running from the tax man will increasingly be identified, caught and punished. Options for legal evasion like you mentioned above will be shut down or restricted to a even narrower elite.
Tax havens that survive will likely be rare and limited to select jurisdictions where citizenship is hard to obtain. These areas are likely to be funded by income taxes (there will likely be no escape for wage earners anywhere)
In these havens citizens will likely be exempt from inheritance, capital gains, and wealth taxes. This will allow the billionaire class to safely run their interests from afar.
|
|
|
|
...
3) I'm appalled by your attempt to justify the quoted passage of the Exodus.
What is written there is beyond any justification under current Ethics. It seems your problem is only with the punishment of the third and forth generation, no problem with the kids being punished by the sins of their parents, even if they believe in the "right god" and are good persons.
I think the current disastrous birth rate rate on western countries has little to do with religiosity. The reason is economic: people don't need to have children, the state/corporation pays their pension (until it soon goes bankrupt, then they will start having babies again).
Anyway, god won't punish only the atheists, but also believers on other gods. And those have been on the earth for more than 50,000 years. There would be plenty of generations to punish.
I don't see the point on debating the clear immorality of main rules of the Torah. If you can't see it on your own, you seem to live in a world with no modern individual rights.
Thanks the entire article helps I read it over. I agree that in this one study with by far the largest participating group being very young Muslim children 43% that religious children scored lower on the dictator game (the measure of altruism used) then the non religious individuals from those same countries. However, I do not find the study to be particularly compelling. From the study itself it appears that religious children judge interpersonal harm as more serious aka more mean then non-religious children. Post hoc Bonferroni-corrected paired comparisons showed that children in Muslim households judged interpersonal harm as more mean than children from Christian (p < 0.005) and non-religious (p < 0.001) households, and children from Christian households judged interpersonal harm as more mean than children from non-religious households(p < 0.01). Should we conclude from this that non-religious children are more likely to cause interpersonal harm to other children? No that would be silly we are talking about 8 year old children here. A far more likely scenario is that when eight year old children are raised in a religious environment they learn about sin and absolute standards of right and wrong and being eight they do not yet know how to rationally apply those standards properly to the outside world. This interpenetration is consistent with all of the religious studies on altruism in adults which more or less uniformly show a strong correlation between altruism and religion. I do not think you understood my argument on the Exodus passage. A simple substitution may help demonstrate my point take the following statement. for I, forbid the daily injection of heroin because doing this, punishes the children for sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who defy this prohibition. Setting religion entirely aside is the statement above a true one? Well daily heroin injection very well may kill you and thus preventing the third and fourth generation from ever existing so that counts. If it does not kill you it is highly likely to damage you in some way either economically or mentally thus impacting the way you raise your children and at least indirectly damaging them as well. Indeed the damage from such a destructive habit is likely to propagate through multiple generators either directly or indirectly. The Exodus statement does not have to be read as that of a vengeful god looking to punish innocent children. It can alternatively be interpreted as a plea for people to not to harm themselves and their future descendants. Exodus 20:5-6 (also Dt 5:9) I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. 4) Your theory on the Brain's role as a transmitter is precisely what I criticize.
You didn't explained how we lose conscience when the brain is injured/hill and why when the brain recovers we can't remember anything. If it was a transmitter, we should remember everything during the black out of the brain. It should be only an interruption of the "transmission".
Waves can be suppressed and for the period of time they are suppressed it is as if the wave does not exist at all. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKrvTA4SKVU |
|
|
|
Hi Trading. I see you have put a lot of thought and time into this recent post. I have reached a different conclusion. I have highlighted some areas were I believe your arguments to be flawed. Argument #1: Religion has negative social consequencesOne can only believe this argument if one fails to objectively look at the data. The study you cited is behind a paywall so i could only read the abstract but just from that I can see that you have not presented it in an unbiased fashion. Your own citation claims that children in religious households have more more empathy and sensitivity for justice then children in non-religious households. If you want to examine the real data on the social consequence of religion I would direct you to Pascals Renewed Wager which is not behind a paywall. This is a review paper which highlights the overwhelming evidence that not only are the very religious happier they do better on virtually all health metrics. I formalized this argument further in my thread Atheism and Health. The reality is I have yet to see a single study where atheist (of any stripe) outperform the very religious on any health metric. Argument #2 Basing ones life and morality on religion is places it on absurd groundsBut if you try to live your life based on experience and scientific knowledge, why are you willing to base your philosophy of life and morality based on such absurd grounds?
Most atheist content themselves with attacking religion without truly and honestly considering where atheism logically takes you. Every once in a while you encounter an honest and thoughtful atheist. I had the honor of debating one of these recently. These are his comments on the matter. At its most pure and fundamental level knowledge is faith and faith is knowledge. This is the essential difference between theism/spiritualism and nihilism, it is the question of epistemology, of what is knowledge. I know that this equation of knowledge with faith is false or at least self-defeating. I agree, atheism is false, but that it is false exactly to the extent that its still not absolute nihilism. It is because people still think of the world in an essentially spiritualistic way, that they fear nihilism and it is because they are still spiritualists, that they have something to fear from nihilism. But to know there is no intrinsic value is the knowledge required to know what value in general is, how to create it and improve it. By having faith in intrinsic value, one is abandoning the quest for knowledge of value, and thus any chance of progress. It is accepting the world as it is, barbaric and unjust. Spiritualists believe in writings on the wall only because they still live behind one. As a nihilist I think higher of people that, like CoinCube, know the reasons for their belief, no matter how false, than of those that believe blindly and quote inspirational posters as the basis of their belief. On this point nihilnegativum and I are in agreement. Atheism takes you logically and inexorably into nihilism and this is a treacherous foundation both for a philosophy or life or morality. Argument #3 Religious books are full of immoral thingsSome of those are so hideous that they can't seriously be considered the word of a god.
For instance, "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me". Exodus, 20.5. This horrible statement is part of the Ten Commandments! And it's stated also in Exodus 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9; Numbers 14:18.
The examples are innumerable: acceptance of slavery, death penalty for the most banal deeds, sexual discrimination, killing of gays, etc. But a decisive one is enough to dismiss the Bible as a "sacred" source of moral precepts.
One wonders exactly how the third and fourth generation of those who hate God are punished. Does God punish these innocent children directly or is he warning us that by rejecting him and embracing sin we are harming ourselves and our future children. One wonders if the worst punishment that can be inflected on the third and fourth generations is to deny them the opportunity to exist at all? As it appears that there is not a single current or historic non-religious group that has maintained reproductive replacement levels on the communal level perhaps this warning is a sound one. Regarding slavery in the Old Testament Rabbi Tzvi Freeman discussed this issue extensively as I highlighted here. Argument #4 Consciousness does not survive death and the brain creates consciousnessOn the issue of the "soul", taking in account the recent research on the brain, doesn't make sense to say that the human brain, that is the most complex system we know on nature, doesn't create the conscience. The evidence we have point clearly in the positive sense, even if there are still much investigation to be done on the issue ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Neural_correlates). If that wasn't the case, we couldn't explain why your "soul" is affected by a trauma to the brain. Why when we pass out, our "soul" passes out too... How dare you to believe that your "soul" will survive the death of your brain based on what we know? This depends on how one looks at consciousness. I argued in my recent discussion on Consciousness that consciousness should not be looked at as arising from the brain but instead as propagating through it. |
|
|
|
When you're hungry enough, you'll eat anything. During the siege of Leningrad, I would certainly expect people who were starving to eat that. As long as it has some semblance of food, you can eat it, right?
Here is a short but interesting youtube video that shows the battle lines in Europe each day of WWII. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOVEy1tC7nk |
|
|
|
I thought your first priority is getting out of medical school debt, before worrying about preserving wealth you don't yet have
...
Largest in numbers I think will be India. Largest in monetary value probably China. I understand it adds a skill, I just worry about the exclusionary emphasis. I ponder you may be top-down planning your children's interests too much. Why not learn Latin, Spanish, and Chinese. I was taught Latin and French in high school.
...
Believing in what can't be falsified is a delusion. One can't make a rational assessment of what they can't measure.
...
Yep getting out of debt is the higher priority but I do have a very modest position in Bitcoin the operative word being modest. It's relatively effortless for young children to pick up a second language at a young age so it's logical to teach them one. Chinese is not the only choice. As you mentioned Spanish is also probably a good choice. My goal is to give my children the broadest and deepest set of tools I can. What they do with those tools will be their decision. ... All of metaphysics is essentially assumptions that cannot be falsified. To call metaphysics a delusion is very similar to calling all knowledge a delusion. Better to call such things a priori assumptions or non falsifiable theory. What is the relationship between science and metaphysics?
Metaphysics and science try to explain what there is in the world. How are they related? Traditionally metaphysics is “a priory” whereas science is “a posteriori” i.e. metaphysics is non-empiric while science is empiric. Two modern views about the nature of metaphysics are:
i) Metaphysics is prior to science and to empiric knowledge (E.J. Lowe (1998)), i.e. metaphysics do not tells what there is but what is possible. It is science job to discover which one among all possibilities is the actual one. Science without the help of metaphysics cannot tell what is possible unless science become metaphysics.
ii) Metaphysics and science go together in search of knowledge. This position (Putnam (1992)) states that metaphysics is possible but only when understood as “a posteriori” activity, i.e. the division between science and metaphysics is not that one is empiric and the other “a priori”. Metaphysics goes side by side with science. While science deals with specific situations, metaphysics deals with general matters, e.g. While a scientist talk about “nature laws”, a metaphysicist will study what are the characteristics that make a statement to qualify as a law. In this way metaphysics is -like everything else- “a posteriori”, but with a peculiar abstract character.
|
|
|
|
Also the big paradox about consciousness is that you have to use consciousness to explain it, and that is circular logic.
What's your opinion on that?
That it will be very difficult for us to ever fully understand consciousness. I posted a link to an interesting video series earlier https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBt_yfGKpUPart one is just hard science of QM and theoretical physics and is quite good. Part 2-3 gets much more into opinion and philosophy. The world view presented there matches up fairly well to your current model RealBitcoin. |
|
|
|
"What you see with your eyes and interpret with your mind, is that the outside world or the inside world?"
My answer:
It is neither the outside world nor the inside world for this is a false dichotomy.
It has to be one or the other othwerise, you deny that inside and outside world exists. If consciousness arises from the brain as a property of matter, then there is no inside world, and everything is deterministic. If counsciousness is separate from matter and exists in another plane, then there is no outside world, and only what is experienced exists. So which one is it?
To view consciousness as arising from the brain is an oversimplification stemming from a flawed conceptualization. Instead the brain should be viewed as a medium or functional scaffolding for consciousness to propagate itself. As there is no coherent boundary dividing biology and not-biology all matter can essentially be viewed in this manner.
Sure but that is what your theory says that it arises from quantum phenomena inside your brain cells, which is in some way part of the brain, and when the brain dies consciousness dies. This means that it's 100% tied to the material world, even if you add interesting words like quantum to it.
Orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’) proposes that consciousness consists of a sequence of discrete events, each being a moment of ‘objective reduction’ (OR) of a quantum state. The theory suggests conscious experience is intrinsically connected to the fine-scale structure of space–time geometry, and that consciousness may be deeply related to the operation of the laws of the universe.
I still dont believe science can explain this because it is still full of circular logic. You are using now consciousness to explain consciousness, doesn't that seem weird to you? Not to mention totally illogical.  I do not believe this is a mutually exclusive choice and would argue it is a false dichotomy. As I stated above consciousness may not so much arise from matter as propagate through it. Think of an ordered series of ripples traveling across a body of water. If we disrupt the medium those ripples are traveling through by removing the water or walling it off the ripples will cease. This outcome does not require us to assume these ripples spontaneously 'arise' from the water. Instead it simply means that the ripples require the water to propagate themselves. Our consciousness requires a far more ordered medium then a body of water to propagate. If we destroy the brain consciousness ceases. Destroying the medium disrupts the ripples. To determine if consciousness is deterministic requires us to examine the mechanism the ripples use to propagate. Orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’) proposes that consciousness consists of a sequence of discrete events, each being a moment of ‘objective reduction’ (OR) of a quantum state. Orch OR is based in objective collapse theory which is one of the five main theoretical offshoots of quantum mechanics. The others are pilot-wave theories, the Copenhagen interpretation, many-world interpretations and modal interpretations. Objective collapse theory is indeterministic thus if Orch OR theory is correct consciousness is likely indeterministic with regards to traditional causality. All attempts to understand consciousness must by necessity use consciousness to try and explain consciousness. |
|
|
|
"What you see with your eyes and interpret with your mind, is that the outside world or the inside world?"
My answer:
It is neither the outside world nor the inside world for this is a false dichotomy.
It has to be one or the other othwerise, you deny that inside and outside world exists. If consciousness arises from the brain as a property of matter, then there is no inside world, and everything is deterministic. If counsciousness is separate from matter and exists in another plane, then there is no outside world, and only what is experienced exists. So which one is it? I do not believe this is a mutually exclusive choice and would argue it is a false dichotomy. As I stated above consciousness may not so much arise from matter as propagate through it. Think of an ordered series of ripples traveling across a body of water. If we disrupt the medium those ripples are traveling through by removing the water or walling it off the ripples will cease. This outcome does not require us to assume these ripples spontaneously 'arise' from the water. Instead it simply means that the ripples require the water to propagate. Our consciousness requires a far more ordered medium then a body of water to propagate. If we destroy the brain consciousness ceases. Destroying the medium disrupts the ripples. To determine if consciousness is deterministic requires us to examine the mechanism the ripples use to propagate. Orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’) proposes that consciousness consists of a sequence of discrete events, each being a moment of ‘objective reduction’ (OR) of a quantum state. Orch OR is based in objective collapse theory which is one of the five main theoretical offshoots of quantum mechanics. The others are pilot-wave theories, the Copenhagen interpretation, many-world interpretations and modal interpretations. Objective collapse theory is indeterministic thus if Orch OR theory is correct consciousness is likely also indeterministic with regards to traditional causality. All attempts to understand consciousness must by necessity use consciousness to try and explain consciousness. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
