Moderator: Carleas
Jayson wrote:And how would we be able to determine if the entire universe has conscious thought unto itself?
What would that conscious thought look like?
What are we looking for as a sign of conscious thought in the universal being?
Jayson wrote:So there's no means to verify the neural activity of a thing which is around us at all times.
Jayson wrote:OK, then what kind of behavior of the movement of the universe does this give us?
Jayson wrote:Does it predict the nature of how the universe enteracts in some manner, considering we are asserting a function to it that has an executive motive?
Abstract wrote:It would seem there is really no way of being sure anything thinks, rather than just being some sort of automation...
There would not be a means of arriving at definitive behavior of a thing which you yourself are a part of. in other words any calculation you did would be subject to alteration by that larger set, and thus of a uncertain probability.
It lends to the idea that by some alteration resultant of that thing we came into existence. and it would be imaginable that we came into existence well known if we are fully a part of that thing which has an infinite capacity of recognition. As such it would become evident that many events would have a reason and would be lending to something...although it would be hard to assert what those events were actually lending to...unless you then perhaps realized that they may not be lending to a particular finite result with regards to our perception of what will be but rather some thing beyond any capacity we had to recognize, or be sure of.(in other words we fart and think it smeels bad, it might see a fart and what it results in every living moment afterword, but might at the same time not simply recognize the event of the fart as all events relating to its coming of existence and passing and results...) But then you can begin to question why it is that such a thing might allow certain things to happen like say a religious text, or the idea of there being one God to pervade to the degree it has especially when it is somewhat evident that it could exist and have a hand in such. Which then lends to the idea that there may be some truth of sorts to the texts, and perhaps everything really in so far as having a purpose, and that there may be some level of care it has for us otherwise why would we be thinking of it. and ultimately you could assert that anything with such a capacity to be aware of all that it is and within would be capable of foreseeing all that happened and arranging that things happened in a manner that was best...
Jayson wrote:Abstract wrote:It would seem there is really no way of being sure anything thinks, rather than just being some sort of automation...
It's rather simple to determine whether neurological function is taking place with executive command.
We do so daily.
I know, you'll cite certainty again. I don't care.
For all intents and purposes, we can successfully determine executive capacity in a functioning neural network.
Jayson wrote:There would not be a means of arriving at definitive behavior of a thing which you yourself are a part of. in other words any calculation you did would be subject to alteration by that larger set, and thus of a uncertain probability.
Why should uncertainty stop us at this point versus any other since everything is uncertain to you anyway?
Accepting uncertainty in everything, by what process would we calculate?
What would we be accounting for?
Jayson wrote:It lends to the idea that by some alteration resultant of that thing we came into existence. and it would be imaginable that we came into existence well known if we are fully a part of that thing which has an infinite capacity of recognition. As such it would become evident that many events would have a reason and would be lending to something...although it would be hard to assert what those events were actually lending to...unless you then perhaps realized that they may not be lending to a particular finite result with regards to our perception of what will be but rather some thing beyond any capacity we had to recognize, or be sure of.(in other words we fart and think it smeels bad, it might see a fart and what it results in every living moment afterword, but might at the same time not simply recognize the event of the fart as all events relating to its coming of existence and passing and results...) But then you can begin to question why it is that such a thing might allow certain things to happen like say a religious text, or the idea of there being one God to pervade to the degree it has especially when it is somewhat evident that it could exist and have a hand in such. Which then lends to the idea that there may be some truth of sorts to the texts, and perhaps everything really in so far as having a purpose, and that there may be some level of care it has for us otherwise why would we be thinking of it. and ultimately you could assert that anything with such a capacity to be aware of all that it is and within would be capable of foreseeing all that happened and arranging that things happened in a manner that was best...
That might help someone that is concerned with such questions.
But what does it offer someone that doesn't have a problem with good or bad things happening, nor cares about divine purposes?
Abstract wrote:I would say that there is no way of being certain that neuroligical events, or having what seems to be a brain constitutes thought...but this is not so significant... the question might be why does something have to have what looks like our brains in order to think?
Consider looking at our brains from a perspective such that you perceived them as all the moving atomic structures; protons, neutrons, electrons, and maybe even deeper instances...would that seem vary different then perceiving such as all those galaxies and parts within the known universe on the typical macro scale...it surely would have a difference but this suggests that perception of the thing with respect to certain qualities is a larger decider with respect to recognition of what that thing may be...
There are means of asserting probable reactions of course...as is shown by science...but there isn't exactly a guarantee that the pattern won't be changed such as to alter the validity of any predictive behavior we might arrive at...As for now though it would seem the best thing is to open the mind..everything is effectively a coincidence it depends on how you look at it and how far you look back in order to assert the cause...which domino you blame in other words (in a possibly relatively endless stream of dominoes...relative to us at least...)(one person says it is because bob hit the glass with the bar, the other says the glass broke because bars have a high density and capacity to resist alteration of molecular consistency...or something like that) The thing I would look for is just when you personally recognize something as being coincidental, or having an odd number of correlations, the fact that something was recognized as a coincidence by yourself, is often the biggest sign. in other words looking in with respect to what is outside often helps.
Well the books if accurate representations as affected to be by the All...do suggest Heaven and Hell..which it would seem perfectly possible for any "Everything" to self alter such as to allow the existence of...
I would ask do you have the capacity to prevent your mode of thought from being altered such that you do care?
Be that in say a place like Hell, or even on earth..say if certain parts of the brain were altered...
Jayson wrote:C, on the other hand...if the universe is at some level a brain of a god, then it has a the most plagued amount of tumors and is on course for critical complications to neural processes if any were found.
Brains don't do well when things inside of them start smashing violently together, or exploding; even on the quark level.
Jayson wrote:I don't really accept coincidence.
In my view, there is no such thing.
Just because I don't believe in gods, why should that mean I immediately think everything is random?
Jayson wrote:Well the books if accurate representations as affected to be by the All...do suggest Heaven and Hell..which it would seem perfectly possible for any "Everything" to self alter such as to allow the existence of...
I would ask do you have the capacity to prevent your mode of thought from being altered such that you do care?
Be that in say a place like Hell, or even on earth..say if certain parts of the brain were altered...
Not all religious texts account for heavens and hells.
Jayson wrote:And even those that do disagree on what these things are in concept; radically.
The differences are so vast, in fact, that it is somewhat an error to conceptually consider them by the same name to indicate the same form.
Jayson wrote:For instance, the universe of heaven to Mormons includes becoming gods through multiple layers of heaven, yet only has one layer of hell.
Counter to this, Dante outlines only one layer of Heaven yet accounts for nine layers of hell.
Jayson wrote:Conversely, Scientology, Hinduism, and some forms of Buddhism account for a re-birthing process.
And in that, Scientology accounts for a means by which Earth is the domain of man without any such concept of Heavens or Hells meanwhile Hinduism and the forms of Buddhism that share Hindu reincarnation concepts essentially aim for oblivion of a sort whereby the reincarnation (unlike Scientology) is considered a thing you don't want as much as you want to be released from reincarnation.
Then there is Jainism which asserts the perpetual cycle of things until you transcend the gods and become over them in what you require; you do not control the gods, but you are beyond them.
Then there is spiritual Taoism which has you aiming to evaporate into pure forces of nature and ether of sorts.
And then we have standard mainstream Christianity and Judaism, which disagree on Heaven and Hell.
In Christianity, on the protestant side, you just go to heaven or hell; done.
In Orthodoxy, you go to limbo for repentance and (depending on the view) will wait until judgment day (something exclusive to Judeo-Islamic derived religions) before ascending to heaven if you have repented and hell if you have not.
Judaism, on the other hand, has a very ambiguous and unstated account of Heaven where half of Judaism believes in a reincarnated Earth (essentially) as the "heaven" and the other think of it somewhat, but not quite, like the Christian heaven. Very little is discussed on hell other than a place where you basically cease to exist in some form, with possibly some rather terrible punishments just prior to evaporation.
This idea of heaven and hell dichotomy is by no means a universal religious concept.
By and large, most religions do not have such a thing.
That may seem odd to say today because we are so saturated with one branch of religion around the world which popularizes that idea in a mass array of forms, but the truth of the matter is that if you tally up all the world's religions over time and currently present; the amount of them accounting for a heaven and a hell are quite few by comparison to those that do not.
So if I went by the basis of the mean of religious collective, I would have to say that the texts tell me that there is no such thing as a heaven or hell.
Now, if you mean to refer to only Judeo-Islamic derived traditions...then I don't care.
If there is a heaven or hell, I'll deal with that after this life is done.
Right now, I have this life; not that one.
I'm not going to spend this life focusing on some possible next life.
I have better things to give unto my soul here than an emptiness of this world for the next.
Jayson wrote:Basically sounds like to you, a purpose beyond your own design is something that you need so to make sense of existing.
Jayson wrote:So it would seem to me that gods only really serve to provide you with that end.
A singularity solution to the reason for everything.
Jayson wrote:True, but a person isn't required to answer that question.
Jayson wrote:It's not so much about who doesn't come to the issue.
It's that arriving at the issue, a person can find that there's no need to actually consider it to live.
Jayson wrote:Interestingly, I never actually had an interest in answering that question.
Honestly.
I was never looking to answer that at all.
Other people forced me into conversations on the issue, and I never really had much to say regarding it.
It seemed implausible to answer with any quality of certainty considering how vast of an expanse the question covers, and also seemed, to me at least, to be the least of anything that does occur as requiring an answer in life.
I grew up in a Christian upbringing, but when others were focusing on what they got out of Jesus, I was more focusing on what the told actions of Jesus meant if I removed what everyone said we got from him.
Meaning, I was more interested in his motive to compassion when among people, and the weight that was said to be upon his shoulders as it would occur emotionally to him more than I was interested in what I got out of the deal in the sense of some divine salvation.
Likewise, in life, I've never been interested in the grand metaphysical questions, but instead the pragmatic questions that allow for an increase in understanding our own self and the world in which we find ourselves.
To me...gods just seemed to be far off in the distance and doing their own thing so much so, that even if they did exist, there would be no direct result to assuming that one has been able to discern anything about them.
Jayson wrote:No...not really.
I quite honestly never even considered the question until a church teacher brought it up as a rhetorical question that implied proof that evolution was incorrect since it could not answer the question of origin.
And as soon as he asked that question, the only thing that popped into my head was, "What? That firstly makes no sense at all, and secondly...who cares? That is just so far into the abyss and unrelated to right now."
Jayson wrote:The only other thing that has ever come about from that question to me is to reflect that people are far too hung up on the wrong portion of life.
And don't spend your time lookin' around
For something you want that can't be found
When you find out you can live without it
And go along not thinkin' about it
I'll tell you something true
The bare necessities of life will come to you
Jayson wrote:We value based on emotion; that's how humans work.
That's basic neurology.
Pure rationality can only tell you what is better of some options in regards to a form of logic or another.
But it doesn't place a value on anything.
With that in mind, I'll try to explain as best as I can.
Short version: I had no emotional pull that there was a value with a return in greater volume than the investment one puts into the question of origin of all of existence ever.
Or to be more precise (as emotion doesn't work that articulately to arrive at an actual argument like that): I never had an emotional push to move towards that direction.
It should be probably explained that from what I have gathered from others through life, I'm a bit odd in that regard.
Right now is easily contained for me.
For instance, the Zen practice of not thinking...that takes very little effort for me. I don't think about a single thing quite often naturally.
Akin to this, when I was about 5 years old I was told to be home at 12.
I came home at 12:40 something and was in trouble.
I didn't understand why fully until about two years later. To me, "12" meant anything prior to "1".
It never occurred to me that 12 meant 12:00 and not 12:01-12:59.
You could say that was due to being a kid, but on the other hand; that kind of "missing the point" still exists with me today.
There is just something in the way in which I process on the acumen side that simply does not grasp the same things as other people appear to regularly.
So when I mean that it simply doesn't strike me...it simply doesn't.
Instead, I am more struck by what everyone else is doing in response to that question; always have been.
I liken it to being the guy standing at a football game.
There's two teams worth of fans cheering and everyone is looking at the game between the two sides; barking for their favorite to win with grand emotion.
On the other hand, to me, the game going on never drew my eye. It was as if I had been looking at grass on the side of the road while riding in a car.
What stuck out as the spectacle to me has always been the fans cheering; watching how they move, act, react to and back to what takes place on that grass field.
So to me, I stand around just saying, to those that ask, that the real beauty and magic is being missed by most as they go into the big 'ol heat of everything.
The true beauty isn't the game taking place, at least not to me, but the grand array that takes place in response to what is hoped for and believed to be the case.
The first thing I read that clicked in value wasn't the Bible, or anything like it.
The first thing that clicked was a little fictional novel called Siddhartha.
Because in that book was a character that focused on now and drove himself endlessly to find the meaning of now.
That was the first time I had a light bulb click on and felt that I understood exactly what was meant by the ideas therein.
In the question of whether gods exist, my first answer is always, I don't care; the more important question is what it does for you if they do or don't.
That is what I see.
But when pushed, my answer is secondly, I don't think it's likely that gods do exist.
But I don't mean that answer as anything that should affect anyone else's belief that they do or don't.
I would rather leave the world just as confused and torn about that question as it was before I showed up.
And I would because I like what it does and what it produces in humans with that question being something that they struggle with.
While I think there are far more readily tangible things to focus on, and encourage many to focus on the other aspects of life relating directly to their relationship from their self back to their self; I don't mind for one moment that many are focused on gods.
I only wish that the many that focus on gods would allow for a bit more than just gods than they commonly do.
At some point, I believe people should be able to find rest in what their relationship is with the gods; either way; and move on to other relationships in life. Not stick on gods and stay there until they die.
So my interest in the matter of gods has always been an interest in the fans of gods.
Strangely...I relate to these words from a silly kids cartoon called Jungle Book:And don't spend your time lookin' around
For something you want that can't be found
When you find out you can live without it
And go along not thinkin' about it
I'll tell you something true
The bare necessities of life will come to you
"why am I me, as i am now, where i am now, when I am now, and not in some other form of existence with the same perception of I?"
Buddhism is something I was attracted to for a long time.
Closing the mind to distractions is good too...though paying attention to what distractions are there can be interesting...And one might find that should they fade far enough away from what they consider "distractions" they become jaded...bored...and wish for a return to things that many say are "distractions"...but i see you seeing this anyways...(for example i think we have already agreed that sadness or crying is not always a distraction...loss of it can be quite boring...without less what seeming is more...)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users