What it does is what it Is

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:16 pm

You have already typecast me. Please refrain from posting in this thread.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:28 pm

Can anyone honestly say, given the far reach of human understanding, that science can accurately explain all there is to know of the human condition? To say so would suggest an arrogance not even acceptable by major scientists. This sort of thinking is more characteristic of Dawkins, not by Einstein.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."--Einstein. This aptly apples to Dawkins" assertions of religion--blindness. So we get to the point where we are asked to believe dasein, conflicting goods and how what we believe an afterlife will be as affecting this life are the sole possible ways of interpreting existential awareness or are the only ways one can speak of the here and now human condition. Surely, such descriptions smack of poverty of the intellect or at best spiritual blindness.
My purpose is not to waste time persuading the blind how to see. It is in espousing the freedom of thought available in human potential and natural possibility.
These are not abstract concepts, but here and now realizations.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:49 pm

Ierrellus wrote:You have already typecast me. Please refrain from posting in this thread.


Come on, don't stop there. If you want my disturbing reactions to the spiritual/intellectual contraptions you sustain in posts like this...

Can anyone honestly say, given the far reach of human understanding, that science can accurately explain all there is to know of the human condition? To say so would suggest an arrogance not even acceptable by major scientists. This sort of thinking is more characteristic of Dawkins, not by Einstein.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."--Einstein. This aptly apples to Dawkins" assertions of religion--blindness. So we get to the point where we are asked to believe dasein, conflicting goods and how what we believe an afterlife will be as affecting this life are the sole possible ways of interpreting existential awareness or are the only ways one can speak of the here and now human condition. Surely, such descriptions smack of poverty of the intellect or at best spiritual blindness.
My purpose is not to waste time persuading the blind how to see. It is in espousing the freedom of thought available in human potential and natural possibility.
These are not abstract concepts, but here and now realizations.


...gone forever, ask me to steer clear of everything that you post here at ILP.

That way you can avoid altogether the points I raise here:

No, I inevitably turn discussions of God and religion into exchanges regarding the actual behaviors that people choose on this side of the grave given that which they believe or would like the fate of "I" to be on the other side of the grave.

Or to discussions of theodicy.

Or the efforts of those who do believe in a God or a No God religious path to at least make an attempt to demonstrate to us how they demonstrate to themselves that what they believe "in their head" can be demonstrated to in fact be true. Especially given that there are hundreds and hundreds of conflicting paths out there...and with so much at stake.

Finally, discussions that revolve around the chief component of own philosophy here: the role that dasein plays in forming individual points of view about God and religion.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Feb 27, 2021 1:21 pm

Iamb,,
Yes. Please steer clear of everything I post at ILP since it only encourages your regurgitation of your personal beliefs. I've heard them ad nauseum. My philosophy is not so much concerned with the other side of the grave as with what we can think here and now about our future on this Earth. Besides I see reincarnation as a more moral human outcome than the old reward and punishment afterlives.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby iambiguous » Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:32 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Iamb,,
Yes. Please steer clear of everything I post at ILP...


No problem. [-o<
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:54 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:Iamb,,
Yes. Please steer clear of everything I post at ILP...


No problem. [-o<

Free at last! Free at last! Great God Almighty---free at last!
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:41 pm

God is physical in acts of creative evolution, metaphysical in projections of becoming.
God is the situation and its cause. Without God there would be nothing.
God is present in one's awe of Nature's bounty and beauty.
God is also present when two or more people of good will come together in one accord.
God is present in the hunger for righteousness.
God is present in experience of God, about which words fail.
God is unconditional, universal Love.
Last edited by Ierrellus on Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:24 pm

duplicate
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:21 pm

The part strives to reunite with the Whole. The God within is a part of the God outside the body of consciousness. Reclamation is God's desire. Spiritual masters recognize the longing for completion as evidence of God's inner Self, the God within. Creation separates to reunite. The individual eye (I) is a part of the whole vision.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Tue May 25, 2021 12:19 pm

Dawkins VS Paley--where do you stand?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Fri May 28, 2021 12:30 pm

Has anybody here read about "the blind watchmaker"?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby encode_decode » Fri May 28, 2021 1:24 pm

.

Ierrellus wrote:Has anybody here read about "the blind watchmaker"?

Yes, a long time ago.

.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Sat May 29, 2021 2:01 pm

encode_decode wrote:.

Ierrellus wrote:Has anybody here read about "the blind watchmaker"?

Yes, a long time ago.

.[/quote}
So you have no opinion now on God as designer of all that exists? Dawkins trumps Paley only among those who have limited views of science.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby encode_decode » Sat May 29, 2021 2:28 pm

Ierrellus wrote:So you have no opinion now on God as designer of all that exists? Dawkins trumps Paley only among those who have limited views of science.

I don't think Dawkins is a stupid man but he is ignorant of many philosophical subjects. The meaning of stupid is different to many people, however. I told you before, more simply that, I think he is a troll.

I would say that he has damaged his own reputation.

I have my own belief on creation, that I am sure Dawkins would happily argue with me about, but I would not spend any time on it because I don't think I would get any benefit out of it.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Sun May 30, 2021 2:19 pm

Creation by random reactions of certain chemicals, perpetuated by fortuitous advances through evolution, is an idea that suffers from lack of an answer to the inevitable, moral question--"Why." This is a question a child might ask. Whereas the child might be satisfied with the answer How, an adult needs needs to hear about the Why. Evolution without purpose suggests humans without purpose. But humans are meaning addicts, which is why the Why persists. That God did it, regarding Creation and Evolution, leaves the question Why. Science is good at telling us how. Religion is supposed to tell us why. Can the two be complementary?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Jun 03, 2021 12:26 pm

encode_decode wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:So you have no opinion now on God as designer of all that exists? Dawkins trumps Paley only among those who have limited views of science.

I don't think Dawkins is a stupid man but he is ignorant of many philosophical subjects. The meaning of stupid is different to many people, however. I told you before, more simply that, I think he is a troll.

I would say that he has damaged his own reputation.

I have my own belief on creation, that I am sure Dawkins would happily argue with me about, but I would not spend any time on it because I don't think I would get any benefit out of it.


Maybe others would benefit from hearing your ideas about creation.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:45 pm

Ierrellus wrote:1.Genetic evolution is deterministic and creative.
2. The experience of genetic evolution translates into myth.
3. A prevalent myth from experience of genetic evolution is the existence of God.

4. A prevalent myth from experience of genetic evolution is the existence of Micky Mouse.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:50 pm

Ierrellus wrote:4. Myths of evolutionary experience provide survival for the organism by furnishing an accurate recognition of the internal and external sameness of matter. We eat what we are composed of.

False
5. There is no internal need devoid of an external source for meeting that need.

False. I need a sex-robot indistinguishable from a real woman, except that she never says no. Sadly no such thing exists. Same as God. Peopl think they need an answer to the meaning of the universe, so they just imagine one.
6. The need for existence of a God is satisfied by the personal nature of a creative and deterministic Force. There is a spiritual hunger.


You have things exactly backwards. Real needs, rather than just whimsical ideas, are only present because they already exist in nature, otherwise no natural selection would have required them.
God is not a need, anymore than a sexbot is a need.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby promethean75 » Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:51 pm

"I need a sex-robot indistinguishable from a real woman, except that she never says no."

I have a sex bot and when the batteries are low, she'll say 'not tonight honey I'm tired' in a creepy male Taiwanese accent. You'd think they at least make a sexy female voice. I dunno maybe I got the settings wrong.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:16 pm

Sculptor,
If you are trying to derail this thread by demeaning its ideas or simply by opposing them, you have done a good job; and you will have followers.
About eating-- we take in the same chemicals of which we are composed--proteins, vitamins, etc. If we did not do so we would not exist for long as living beings.
The hunger for God from within us is a Schweitzer idea. I doubt you have read him.
But here I'm giving you more respect by responding than you have given me by posting.
Last edited by Ierrellus on Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:22 pm

From having eyes, we are able to imagine and to build cameras. Because we have vocal cords and ears, we are able to build radios and tvs. Because we have brains, we can imagine and build computers. " Our creativity is our image of God"==Nicholas Berdyaev
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:12 pm

promethean75 wrote:"I need a sex-robot indistinguishable from a real woman, except that she never says no."

I have a sex bot and when the batteries are low, she'll say 'not tonight honey I'm tired' in a creepy male Taiwanese accent. You'd think they at least make a sexy female voice. I dunno maybe I got the settings wrong.

Trolling.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:27 pm

Seriously, if you are an atheist or nihilist, this thread is not for you.
The Op pertains to the idea that God is active in the creative determinism of evolution, hence knowable. Perhaps I have failed here in explaining how consciousness derives from evolution. All can see that it does. But I believe God is evident in what we can see of this universe, evident in continuous creativity and maintenance.
It will not do to simply tell me this is a false perspective; tell me why you believe that.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Ierrellus » Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:18 pm

Apologies to Sculptor. I just get bent out of shape by quick denials that seem to be not too well thought out. You do present an interesting objection to the evolutionary problem of what consciousness can imagine.
Anthropomorphism--that we see things in limited human terms. For example, nature includes rats. Except for human imagination, it does not contain rats that speak and wear clothes like Mickey Mouse. And yet that creative imaginary rodent has brought pleasure to many.
Is this how we see God?
Do we impose human characteristics on an otherwise unknowable Universe? Call it God?
That would be the case were it not for evolution, which affects our perspective of reality from deep within experience.
In a similar vein I'm interested in E. O. Wilson's refutation of Thomas Nagel's "What It's Like To Be A Bat" in "Consilience."
How that fits in here-- Can we know what it's like to be a God? Wilson examined well what it's like to be a bee.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: What it does is what it Is

Postby Vittorio » Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:34 pm

Indeed, it is an interesting question that all traits are held to have been maximized by evolution to effectively deal with reality, but not perspective. Somehow, perspective seems to be the one arbitrarily random trait developed in any animal.

On the other hand, as your illustrious self must know, older religious traditions held humans to have a metaphysical trait that separated them from the rest of creation. So, considering the mismatch of the above perspective with scientific rigor, perhaps it is more likely attributable to this older religious tradition than scientific skepticism of teleology in evolution.

The question of teleology in evolution must be scientifically explorable in regards to whether yes or no, but the question itself is held as, one might say, heretical. It is not as if methods to falsify answers and theories for them either way could not be devised.

I see Dawkins was mentioned earlier, and one interesting thing about his perspective was the admissal of the chemecial-genetic mechanisms on one hand and the phenotypical expressions on the other, and the hint that they are reflections rather than causes of eachother. There seem to be many today who hold the existence of mechanical action in evolution itself to bar any investigation of what it is a mechanical action of. As if, for example, understanding that there is a mechanics to levers itself disproves that, in fact, a lever can move a thing.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users