The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

[Jayson]

Placeholder for the discussion.

[Abstract]

If you ever believed in God what were the key ideas that made you not believe? Which I guess is what you meant by trans-theism

If you haven't ever believed what are the key reasons?

[Jayson]

I never believed in an entity figure deity.
I was raised Christian, so the ideology of what I felt was early on expressed in my comprehension as "God", but this concept was extremely vague and only really served to be a label of what I felt in spiritual emotion.
What I felt was the concept of breathing, but as an emotion. A lesser version of catching your breath, or sighing. The sensation your body has during these moments.
I still do feel this way.

The difference is that I no longer have a lacking for what this is as a name and therefore do not shuffle it off to an abyss named "God".
The only reason I ever considered myself to believe in "God" was by the assertion that I felt something beyond what I could explain that was from that which is beyond myself, but not able to be seen as to where it is coming from.

That mystery has no more mystery to it and therefore is no longer named "God".

[Abstract]

I never believed in an entity figure deity.
I was raised Christian, so the ideology of what I felt was early on expressed in my comprehension as "God", but this concept was extremely vague and only really served to be a label of what I felt in spiritual emotion.

Part of the problem i often see is that people have an idea for what God is that may not be accurate, and then say that they don't believe in God.
In other words different definitions.

What do you think the word God means?

You say you didn't believe in an "entity figure deity". What do you mean by deity? I would think God is not exactly a figure, but then what do you mean by figure? As for an entity, i would think entity basically means a "thing" typically associated with intelligence. I would think that God is a thing, but intelligence may not be applicable, for if one is to say he is All-knowing (for example) then in being all knowing he would know what he would have thought ahead of time, as such he wouldn't actually exactly be a 'thinking" thing, perhaps a knowing thing but not so much one that thinks at least not in so far as we do, or would think of thinking, for thinking requires considering, altering state of mind, and such and it would seem that an all knowing thing wouldn't process as such, or really process at all...It might rather purely act...

What I felt was the concept of breathing, but as an emotion. A lesser version of catching your breath, or sighing. The sensation your body has during these moments.
I still do feel this way.

Are you certain that feeling wasn't merely a result of your subconscious, or even to some degree your conscious, trying to find some thing to relate to and justify the existence of God, fr which you had no clear to-you-understandable idea of?

The difference is that I no longer have a lacking for what this is as a name and therefore do not shuffle it off to an abyss named "God".

what is the name? or thing...

And as for the other thing, i would say that God is more likely to seem like an abyss to those who don't have any clear to-them-understandable idea as to what God might be.
Such seems like saying you thought God was a non-thing (non-existent) and thus associating/attributing things to him seemed illogical.
But that's odd in that in such a case you would be assuming that God was not existent in order to arrive at the conclusion that God was not...?

That mystery has no more mystery to it and therefore is no longer named "God".

Maybe part of the problem here is thinking that God is mysterious.
Say as I suggested that God is The everything, or as the bible and Qur'an say God is ever-present. One would be unlikely to see that God exists if God was and had always been there to begin with. Like one's own smell they don't smell it because they are used to it. it is only when there is a change or abnormal alteration, say one works out and gets sweaty, that they then recognize that their body can even have a smell.

[Jayson]

Part of the problem i often see is that people have an idea for what God is that may not be accurate, and then say that they don't believe in God.
In other words different definitions.

What do you think the word God means?

I think it means something different to many cultures.
I have found no single definition and to me it means nothing.
And if I have the wrong definition, none, then what definition do you offer me for God?

You say you didn't believe in an "entity figure deity". What do you mean by deity? I would think God is not exactly a figure, but then what do you mean by figure? As for an entity, i would think entity basically means a "thing" typically associated with intelligence. I would think that God is a thing, but intelligence may not be applicable, for if one is to say he is All-knowing (for example) then in being all knowing he would know what he would have thought ahead of time, as such he wouldn't actually exactly be a 'thinking" thing, perhaps a knowing thing but not so much one that thinks at least not in so far as we do, or would think of thinking, for thinking requires considering, altering state of mind, and such and it would seem that an all knowing thing wouldn't process as such, or really process at all...It might rather purely act...

Pantheism then is your form.
Universe and God are one.

Supreme Sentient Master Being is one term that I commonly use to identify the concept the standard Sunday Pew goer considers "God".
Here, I took a short cut and said "entity figure deity".

Are you certain that feeling wasn't merely a result of your subconscious, or even to some degree your conscious, trying to find some thing to relate to and justify the existence of God, fr which you had no clear to-you-understandable idea of?

Yep. Because I still have it and I use it.

what is the name? or thing...

Existential reverence.

And as for the other thing, i would say that God is more likely to seem like an abyss to those who don't have any clear to-them-understandable idea as to what God might be.
Such seems like saying you thought God was a non-thing (non-existent) and thus associating/attributing things to him seemed illogical.
But that's odd in that in such a case you would be assuming that God was not existent in order to arrive at the conclusion that God was not...?

No. I don't think that way.
I think in intuitive modes when dealing with spirituality; not critical modes.
I let myself feel and try to identify what it is that I feel.
The only thing I was getting was existential reverence and early on I had no idea what the hell that was so I classed that as God.
Eventually I figured out that what I felt wasn't a separate thing like a god of any kind, but a sense of existential reverence connecting me conceptually to all that is and it to me.

You may say that's a god.
I do not.

Maybe part of the problem here is thinking that God is mysterious.

I don't see any problem.
I don't care to have a god, even if a god showed up and said "howdy".
I'd just wave and say "howdy" back and move on.
It wouldn't change what I value spiritually one bit.

Say as I suggested that God is The everything, or as the bible and Qur'an say God is ever-present. One would be unlikely to see that God exists if God was and had always been there to begin with. Like one's own smell they don't smell it because they are used to it. it is only when there is a change or abnormal alteration, say one works out and gets sweaty, that they then recognize that their body can even have a smell.

Again though, that's Pantheism.
All is God, God is All.

If so, then again...I really haven't any need for that kind of god.
That's just the same as saying the universe exists and all made of the same atomic stuff.
OK, neat.
Practical application? None.

[Abstract]

I think it means something different to many cultures.
I have found no single definition and to me it means nothing.
And if I have the wrong definition, none, then what definition do you offer me for God?

I would offer that many of the qualities are uncertain, but for God to be relevant, he has to be the highest or ultimate, and he must also be all knowing.
If he is not the ultimate then that would suggest there being something beyond or higher than him that was more powerful and thus worth more concern.(I'm just using "him" as a convenience..)
And if he doesn't know all then he couldn't be a good judge, or best judge of anything.
The interesting thing is that some of the other qualities often suggested follow from this.
For if God knows everything he can predict all that will happen, as such as long as he is capable of doing something he can cause the smallest alteration and know exactly how it would butterfly-effect into any particular thing, as such he would technically be all powerful ( not to say capable of necessarily doing anything we can think of but anything that is possible...what ever that may be...)
As to how I think he knows everything, that is a complicated matter:

But think of this, If The Everything exists, regardless of one needing to call it God, that universe, if finite, would be complex enough to at least allow humans to exist and think in it. So, even if finite as a whole you might think that the universe, though we recollect things as moving galaxies, may actually be a process of advanced alterations that are complex overall enough to result in some form of thought for the whole. And If The Everything/universe is infinite then it is infinitely complex and thus actually infinitely more complex than our own brain, while even containing ours and maybe others brains, one would then think it might only be logical that something of such Grand complexity, though viewed by us as simply moving and altering mass, may overall result in thought. And again of course that which is the all or The Everything or in similar meaning the Universe, would be Ultimate...

What you said is problematic though, "I have found no single definition and to me it means nothing." For that is actually what I realize, rather i am trying to ask what particular things do you think are surely not possible and why, so that I might then concur or express how your logic as to why they aren't possible might be otherwise, if perhaps you take the logic a step further.

All along i am one to realize that none of this is absolute, it is simply to me that it seems logical and thus highly likely.

Pantheism then is your form.

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary I would not always concur with that word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantheism

"pan·the·ism
noun \ˈpan(t)-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of PANTHEISM
1
: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2
: the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire) "

Part 1: I guess, though I would say that if God created the laws then the laws and forces of the universe are an extension of his self in so far as his field of affect extends.
So I might say all single-God religions say this but they just don't deduce the relation or Amalgamation of Effector and Affected. (might have those words backwards..always get them mixed up...)
For example scientists say a particle doesn't touch another particle their magnetic fields prevent this. but i would say their magnetic fields touch! Thus the thing itself does touch other things. The actuality of the thing is not a matter of the physical that we refer to by what we see or how light bounces off, but rather all the pervading aspects of that thing.

As for part 2; i would think that the idea of alternate Gods is useless as one could simply rely on the highest, or rather I mean that all things including those things referred to as separate Gods would all form a greater better whole. but I surely recognize that from almost any path one can arrive at an understanding of God. As I personally did so as a result of my pursuits primarily outside of any theistic atmosphere.

Universe and God are one.

Depends on one's definition of Universe, But i would say that if you mean the All or The Everything then that is most likely.
I reserve that despite the logic that The Everything should include God somehow or be God that it is possible that i am wrong, or not close enough to the point, God could be beyond logic and/or beyond the All/Everything.

Supreme Sentient Master Being is one term that I commonly use to identify the concept the standard Sunday Pew goer considers "God".
Here, I took a short cut and said "entity figure deity".

I'd say supreme in so far as being more in at least some/many ways. but it is possible nonetheless that we humans are important and in someway essential to the whole...IDK
Sentient: as i explained that would seem likely as well as necessary to the idea.
Master: perhaps in being capable of controlling but unlikely to be such as to imply we are slaves.
:: For God, being capable of what he is, probably wouldn't need slaves for anything. you might say for enjoyment, but if he knows everything then he already knows how the thing would be enjoyed and thus would not be interested in anything in particular, like that.

Plus it would seem to me that if God is the All or otherwise, that he would be Good by definition simply because anything he did would be Good, or the best, as he could make that the case... and why wouldn't he? and if it is Good for The All, it would seem to be good for all, and anything he did would be good for himself, or so it would seem.
Plus the fact that Good exists in our world seems as if evidence that God is good. For if God was evil there would be no need for God to have made Good exist...

what is the name? or thing...

Existential reverence.

I'm not sure what your personal definition of that is but i would take it that the idea is that you make your own meaning in life, in other words meaning is subjective?
I actually thought that all too for a very very long time. It makes a lot of sense.
As for that being a feeling if I am interpreting your meaning right, that doesn't make sense to me anymore exactly as normally feelings are caused externally, that would suggest you arrived at personal meaning from an outside source?



It would seem that we recognize ourselves as defined purely by our body and mind, and for some soul.
But I would say we are a product of our environment.
Without sensory input from when we were children we would not be able to do anything, without a world to function in we would not be able to do anything, without other people we would not be able to enjoy socializing. As such it would seem your environment, as in all things that are things outside of your self, is in constant effect on you and thus has made you what you are, and continues to, but you also have an effect on your environment, and naturally that effect can return upon you (i.e. if you used up all the nonrenewable resources you would have a harder time producing electricity)

No. I don't think that way.
I think in intuitive modes when dealing with spirituality; not critical modes.

Why do you think that intuition is say better than logic?
Especially considering it required logic to conclude that such would be a good idea in the first place.
Or is that what you are saying?

I let myself feel and try to identify what it is that I feel.

Yet to recognize or derive any thought from a feeling one must have been taught by the external.
Nonetheless feelings are important to go by, but not necessarily all feelings. Some logic is needed to determine whether a feeling is valuable or not, or even to determine if it is a feeling at all really.
For example anger is normally not good.

And i would think that trusting in a feeling for which you recognize no cause is not really any different than believing in God.
you might say there is a cause: my self. but then do you recognize how it is that feeling arrived, what exterior things might have caused it if any, what thing from yourself resulted in it, or even what thing or multitude of things externally caused it, if that is the case?

The only thing I was getting was existential reverence and early on I had no idea what the hell that was so I classed that as God.
Eventually I figured out that what I felt wasn't a separate thing like a god of any kind, but a sense of existential reverence connecting me conceptually to all that is and it to me.

I think i understand existential, And i know what reverence is in itself. But I can't say i am sure what the two words together mean... maybe reverence as in likening of/looking up too, existential one's own feelings...so maybe you mean you look up to or better yet highly respect your own feelings, or you are in awe of yourself... IDK?

You may say that's a god.
I do not.

I might say such is impacted by God but not exactly in any way purely God.

Maybe part of the problem here is thinking that God is mysterious.

I don't see any problem.

It might be a problem in so far as that is not an actual denial of the existence. just an assertion that it is hard to understand or something...

Say as I suggested that God is The everything, or as the bible and Qur'an say God is ever-present. One would be unlikely to see that God exists if God was and had always been there to begin with. Like one's own smell they don't smell it because they are used to it. it is only when there is a change or abnormal alteration, say one works out and gets sweaty, that they then recognize that their body can even have a smell.

Again though, that's Pantheism.
All is God, God is All.

Rather than considering the thought, it seems that what you did there is you defined it with a word that it would seem you already dismiss. (But that may be a big assumption on my part) With regards to the If condition I would think the idea wasn't particularly lacking in logic... And I'm not sure that is Pantheism as it is more about presence then actual being of the things or All.

[Jayson]

Abstract;

In this response I'm going to respond to primary points that I think move towards my thinking on the matter more than not.
Meaning, I'm not going to inline quote and respond to each individual point.
I could, but it wouldn't mean anything.
For instance, the vast majority of your first quote and response hasn't much in it that is tangibly effective beyond thought exercises.
When it comes to spirituality, I work very pragmatically personally.
If it hasn't any direct and applicable tangent, then it is of no use for me to agree or disagree with in any regard.
I could go through if you really want, but the discussion wouldn't be a good representation of my actual thinking on the matter as I haven't a bone in me that concerns over the concept of infinite matters of metaphysics.

So, with that; here's how my mind thinks on the matter (which I believe is what you are after ultimately):

And if he doesn't know all then he couldn't be a good judge, or best judge of anything.

Why do I need there to be a judge of existence?

i am trying to ask what particular things do you think are surely not possible and why, so that I might then concur or express how your logic as to why they aren't possible might be otherwise

A sentient thing running the entirety of all of existence is not something that I just say is not really all that practically logical at this point; I more rest on that even if it were the case; it has no direct affect upon my person either way.

See, while the first part of that sentence is what many would focus on; honestly, I find it more to the point to focus on the second.
Even if someone proves how that could be logical in an extremely exhausting, and most likely theoretical, manner, the point would still remain that the affirming conclusion would not actively change anything on the ground level.

I wouldn't have any net gain in any reactive manner, nor a net loss.
It would be as if we proved the logical likelihood of advanced alien life as seen on Star Trek.

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary...

The first is the common.
The second is rarely used and would be misunderstood in most cases if used for the second definition.

Plus it would seem to me that if God is the All or otherwise, that he would be Good by definition simply because anything he did would be Good, or the best, as he could make that the case... and why wouldn't he? and if it is Good for The All, it would seem to be good for all, and anything he did would be good for himself, or so it would seem.
Plus the fact that Good exists in our world seems as if evidence that God is good. For if God was evil there would be no need for God to have made Good exist...

If there is a god of some kind; I don't really care if they are good or bad.
They are a god in that idea.
By default, that indicates that what they want is far more powerful than what any other thing wants.
If they suck, tough.
Sucks living in Afghanistan, but...well...there you have it; people do.

People generally just want gods to be nice because the idea of a god that isn't would suck.
Personally, I don't care either way.

Again, if they are good or bad; there's going to be no difference to how things are ticking in life on this Earth as if they do exist then obviously whichever way they bend is already in play and I'm good with what is here; elated even. All of it.

I'm not sure what your personal definition of that is but i would take it that the idea is that you make your own meaning in life, in other words meaning is subjective?

No.

Existential
2. grounded in existence or the experience of existence

Specifically; the latter of that, "experience of existence", which defines existentialism.

Reverence
1. blah, blah : especially : profound adoring awed respect

Profound adoring awed respect (and gratitude) for this experience of existing as a human being.

It is the conceptual sense of connection for myself to all that is not me.

It would seem that we recognize ourselves as defined purely by our body and mind, and for some soul.
But I would say we are a product of our environment.
Without sensory input from when we were children we would not be able to do anything, without a world to function in we would not be able to do anything, without other people we would not be able to enjoy socializing. As such it would seem your environment, as in all things that are things outside of your self, is in constant effect on you and thus has made you what you are, and continues to, but you also have an effect on your environment, and naturally that effect can return upon you (i.e. if you used up all the nonrenewable resources you would have a harder time producing electricity)

I hold four principle relationships of being human.

You and yourself
You and others
You and inanimate objects
You and existing

The fourth is where metaphysical concepts of gods would slide in by relating existing to the second form of relationship of an "other" that can be interacted with in some caliber of logic and reason in a relationship of behavior; even if not personified.

For myself, the fourth has no connection to the second in a sense of a god (sentient ultimate).
Instead, it relates to all previous three as that which is made up of those recursively.

Environment is a mix of all of this, but commonly thought of by most as the last three.

Why do you think that intuition is say better than logic?

I don't.
I didn't say that I don't use any logic.

I was stating that I pay attention to my emotions first as that is where sense begins in regards to spirituality.
If I want to know what I am touching, the first thing I pay attention to is my skin as it is the sense for touch.
I then apply reason after the fact.

With spirituality, I start at what I feel and meditate on the emotion without name.
Just the physical sense of it.
I let that expand and rest.
After that has been seated well in my body and my body has had time to experience that emotion at length; I then begin meditating upon what my body has felt by sifting through conceptual labels; as one does tasting (salty, no, zesty, yes, spicy, yes, hot, no, peppery, yes, sweet, somewhat, etc....) until you put your finger on what it is.
Doing so is easy once you hit the mark because once you utter the right reference for yourself, your body leaps as easily as it does when you figure out what that taste was.

Also, the emotions that I am speaking of are about two layers below an emotion like Anger.
They are below intuition.
It is where such emotions rest as existential depression or gratitude rests.
What drives general disposition in emotion.

This is why I use intuition.
Because intuition is right above such emotional senses, and so serves as an elevator up to to cognitive layers (since neurology has verified the functional use and real existence of intuition as an important and highly accurate source of decision making regarding implicit input of the senses to the cognitive level; basically, if you don't overtly pay attention to it, then you lack a label and your implicit memory recorded it. Intuition is the part of your brain and central nervous system that processes those implicit recalls and transfers them into simplified impulse decisions to the cognitive neurology.)
It would be far, far more difficult to attempt to shoot straight from cognitive reason down below intuition and dig out a raw sense of primary existential emotion from your body due to the nature of our neurological markup and its relation to our tactile biology*.
(*tactile biology is a term I use to refer to the peripheral nerves, muscle tissue, cellular level of that area, and skin layers combined. )

I am not suggesting that intuition is better, nor that reason is better.
I use both for their specific uses; I do not use just one or the other.
They are both my tools, and I use both extensively.

It might be a problem in so far as that is not an actual denial of the existence. just an assertion that it is hard to understand or something...

You missed the rest of that; it's a grouped answer. Let me rephrase.

I don't see any problem regarding gods, because I don't care to have a god.
Even if a god showed up and said "howdy", I'd just wave and say "howdy" back and move on.
It wouldn't change what I value spiritually one bit.

Rather than considering the thought, it seems that what you did there is you defined it with a word that it would seem you already dismiss. (But that may be a big assumption on my part) With regards to the If condition I would think the idea wasn't particularly lacking in logic... And I'm not sure that is Pantheism as it is more about presence then actual being of the things or All.

We could remove the word and I would still hold the same.
I only offered the word to let you know that the idea of an all is god, god is all is an established theology.

I'm not saying there is no god.
I don't believe in a god, true.
But I'm not saying there isn't one.

Most importantly, I'm saying I don't actually care if there is a god, gods, or not.

Why should I care about that if I do not?

[Abstract]

And if he doesn't know all then he couldn't be a good judge, or best judge of anything.

Why do I need there to be a judge of existence?

I think the idea isn't so much a matter that you need say a judge, but rather that in order to exist period you need The Everything. Weather you refer to it as God or not, but I am a bit interested in what you think regarding my particular idea about how The Everything thinks evidently due to its complexity...Regardless of whether you believe it or not.

See, while the first part of that sentence is what many would focus on; honestly, I find it more to the point to focus on the second.
Even if someone proves how that could be logical in an extremely exhausting, and most likely theoretical, manner, the point would still remain that the affirming conclusion would not actively change anything on the ground level.

Why/How not?

Sucks living in Afghanistan, but...well...there you have it; people do.

Many situations aren't as bad if you were born into them.
Part of the problem with our culture is we enjoy our "luxuries" and don't realize that others live happily without them. (Just like our ancestors)
We tend to think they "need" them, "deserve" them, and so we should use any means to "bring" those things to them.

I'm not sure what your personal definition of that is but i would take it that the idea is that you make your own meaning in life, in other words meaning is subjective?

No.

Existential
2. grounded in existence or the experience of existence

Specifically; the latter of that, "experience of existence", which defines existentialism.

Reverence
1. blah, blah : especially : profound adoring awed respect

Profound adoring awed respect (and gratitude) for this experience of existing as a human being.

It is the conceptual sense of connection for myself to all that is not me.

That sounds more logical, to me at least...

I hold four principle relationships of being human.

You and yourself
You and others
You and inanimate objects
You and existing

I might amalgamate all those.

Why do you think that intuition is say better than logic?

I don't.
I didn't say that I don't use any logic.

I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't use logic at all but that you seem to be saying that your feelings are better (not that you are, I saw what you said below and that your don't see one as better), but the feelings seem to be more easily altered by outside forces, than logic itself.(I mean in order to alter logic, given a logical person, you have to use logic, whereas that may not be the case the other way around or to the same degree at least) Nonetheless i too wouldn't say one is better than the other as they both serve important purposes....

I was stating that I pay attention to my emotions first as that is where sense begins in regards to spirituality.

I wouldn't say spirituality is purely a part of the emotions. What you said seems to indicate that emotions are somehow directly related to the spiritual, but I would say they are more like a function of the body and the subconscious, such that listening to them might be like unto listening to aspects of the self that are largely influenced by habits, some good some bad, or influenced by the conditions you have grown up in, which when listened to could be listening to irrational things...But I would concur that they do connect with the spiritual. but I think that all things may in someway. But then I do wonder if there is some order of connection...IDK

If I want to know what I am touching, the first thing I pay attention to is my skin as it is the sense for touch.
I then apply reason after the fact.

and yet your skin touches your muscles and nerves which touch your brain which touches your thought, why associate touch specifically with the part of your self which seems external due to the fact that light bounces off of it?

With spirituality, I start at what I feel and meditate on the emotion without name.
Just the physical sense of it.
I let that expand and rest.
After that has been seated well in my body and my body has had time to experience that emotion at length; I then begin meditating upon what my body has felt by sifting through conceptual labels; as one does tasting (salty, no, zesty, yes, spicy, yes, hot, no, peppery, yes, sweet, somewhat, etc....) until you put your finger on what it is.
Doing so is easy once you hit the mark because once you utter the right reference for yourself, your body leaps as easily as it does when you figure out what that taste was.

I do this too, but I also try to take into consideration what exterior things (events, people, places, etc...) might have caused that feeling. Then it becomes quite interesting when you have a feeling that doesn't seem to have any correlation with any exterior thing. Or even a thought or word that pops into your head without any seeming cause, when you can't even see how your subconscious would have produced such...though that is harder to be sure of, for words would seem to be more closely related to the subconscious, and thus possibly more susceptible to external influences..maybe... Another thing i find odd is when I find myself using a word that I have no idea what it means, and then I look it up and find that it is Ridiculously perfect, even poetic. but then I'm careful not to take too much meaning out of all of that as it is easy to misinterpret things like that, because just because you don't recognize the influence doesn't mean there isn't an influence and doesn't mean the influence is a good one. it is best to tell the tree by its fruit. Consider it, give it time, and if it seems to be good then it might be fair to trust...

Also, the emotions that I am speaking of are about two layers below an emotion like Anger.
They are below intuition.
It is where such emotions rest as existential depression or gratitude rests.
What drives general disposition in emotion.

I don't know that one can assert a definite level that these things may exist on relative to each other... I mean how would you know that these feelings you are listening to are not at the same point as say any negative feeling?

(since neurology has verified the functional use and real existence of intuition as an important and highly accurate source of decision making regarding implicit input of the senses to the cognitive level; basically, if you don't overtly pay attention to it, then you lack a label and your implicit memory recorded it. Intuition is the part of your brain and central nervous system that processes those implicit recalls and transfers them into simplified impulse decisions to the cognitive neurology.)

How did neurology show this?

And How do you know when a feeling is an intuition?

What if the idea of reliance on intuition is being shown valuable so as to allow for easier manipulation by means of making one listen more to things that arise from say commercials, or movies that have caused positive relations to certain things from birth? (conspiracy-ish I know)(but such seems actually possible so what is to say it is not being done whether intentionally or simply because we aren't aware we are doing it to ourselves?)

I only offered the word to let you know that the idea of an all is god, god is all is an established theology.

Mine might be different in thinking that I might say, "All things as a whole is God, and God is all things as a whole." so as not to imply that God is say any part within....IDK

[Jayson]

I am a bit interested in what you think regarding my particular idea about how The Everything thinks evidently due to its complexity...Regardless of whether you believe it or not.

I think it's a possibility.
For comparison, I also think that it is a possibility that M-Theory is the way existence works, membrane dimensions, and time travelling black holes.

Do I think any of these things rather likely?
Not in the slightest.

You could ask me why, but then again, your idea doesn't really supply much in prediction to respond to.
" if finite as a whole you might think that the universe, though we recollect things as moving galaxies, may actually be a process of advanced alterations that are complex overall enough to result in some form of thought for the whole. "
(infinite just expands on this)

That's really just a conjecture of entertaining thought; a fancy.
What can we do from this point?
Not really anything.

Even if someone proves how that could be logical in an extremely exhausting, and most likely theoretical, manner, the point would still remain that the affirming conclusion would not actively change anything on the ground level.

Why/How not?

Because..."there's going to be no difference to how things are ticking in life on this Earth as if they do exist then obviously whichever way they bend is already in play "

Same reasoning. My understanding of some large complex network of super-massive-universe-being, the universal turtle in which we ride the back of, makes no difference to what is here right now.
I'm drinking coffee and chatting on the computer. My daughters are building with constructs and watching their morning edition of Wiggles.
My wife is sleeping in to catch up on rest. The weather outside is slightly overcast. It's Saturday. Poorly made kimchi still tastes like shit. I still have duplicates of the same negative report on my credit to battle off. And I still taste the morning air in my lungs with wetting salivation of loving the briskness.

Nothing changes.
It would be more effective if Santa Clause were real than if the universal being were real.

I hold four principle relationships of being human.

You and yourself
You and others
You and inanimate objects
You and existing

I might amalgamate all those.

That's the idea.

I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't use logic at all but that you seem to be saying that your feelings are better

No.
But you already know what you want spiritually. Each person does.
It just takes longer for you to catch up to the names of what you spiritually sync with.

but the feelings seem to be more easily altered by outside forces, than logic itself.

Good.

I wouldn't say spirituality is purely a part of the emotions. What you said seems to indicate that emotions are somehow directly related to the spiritual, but I would say they are more like a function of the body and the subconscious, such that listening to them might be like unto listening to aspects of the self that are largely influenced by habits, some good some bad, or influenced by the conditions you have grown up in, which when listened to could be listening to irrational things...But I would concur that they do connect with the spiritual. but I think that all things may in someway. But then I do wonder if there is some order of connection...IDK

No; it is not exclusively emotions, nor are these emotions the caliber in which we think of emotions such as sadness, anger, love, or the like.
They are the undercurrent of emotion akin to the undercurrent of a wave. Standard emotions are more like the white caps cresting on the top of the wave.
Of course there are irrational concepts at this level; almost everything there is irrational - literally.
The only way you can state them to be rational at all is by stating that they have a circuit which has a logic unto itself for function.
Aside from this, by common terms of rational and irrational, they are irrational.
This is why meditation is required; to pull them up to cognition where reasoning can be applied.

Let me put it another way.
You have instinct to move in reflex. It is irrational.
You can learn how to evoke this reflex, meditate upon them in practice, and then control the function to a degree whereby reflex has now been altered by training that you decided through reason.
Thereby, instead of simply reflexively moving without controlled form; you can now reflexively react with greater precision to the event practiced.

Similarly, you can reshape your spiritual emotions.

why associate touch specifically with the part of your self which seems external due to the fact that light bounces off of it?

In the example I gave, simply because if I am discussing heat, then the first to encounter that will be the skin.
We are not Vulcans. The first thing that picks up will not be logic. The first thing that will pick up is our implicit responses.

I do this too, but I also try to take into consideration what exterior things (events, people, places, etc...) might have caused that feeling. Then it becomes quite interesting when you have a feeling that doesn't seem to have any correlation with any exterior thing. Or even a thought or word that pops into your head without any seeming cause, when you can't even see how your subconscious would have produced such...though that is harder to be sure of, for words would seem to be more closely related to the subconscious, and thus possibly more susceptible to external influences..maybe... Another thing i find odd is when I find myself using a word that I have no idea what it means, and then I look it up and find that it is Ridiculously perfect, even poetic. but then I'm careful not to take too much meaning out of all of that as it is easy to misinterpret things like that, because just because you don't recognize the influence doesn't mean there isn't an influence and doesn't mean the influence is a good one. it is best to tell the tree by its fruit. Consider it, give it time, and if it seems to be good then it might be fair to trust...

Of course.
Ergo; meditation, not simply going with.

I don't know that one can assert a definite level that these things may exist on relative to each other... I mean how would you know that these feelings you are listening to are not at the same point as say any negative feeling?

They are both.
How do you identify them?
Your body can tell you the difference between a negative and a positive.
We have different electrochemical responses to those extremes.
One, in strong form, makes you sick nearly immediately.
The other, in strong form, causes a euphoria.
There are many degrees between them.

As to the definite layering; I can't.
I can only state that spiritual emotions that I am referring to are below intuition on a layering of cognition.
And I can only state that because of what intuition is: an implicit processor.
Long term implicit emotions are one of the things that would be processed by the implicit processor and served over to the explicit processor in translation of simple impulses.

How did neurology show this?

They ran experiments in which people were told to pay attention to material information directly and later recall answers regarding that material.
Then ran experiments in which people were told to play a game while material information was shown indirectly behind their point of focus (the game) and later asked to recall answers regarding that material.
The second test results were equal to, and in some cases (not by a large margin) higher than, the results of the first test.

This is one way it was shown.
The other is still running in an active lab pretty regularly in which they can predict what your answer will be by monitoring where your brain is shuffling energy around. Every time your brain transfers energy to the wrong sections of the brain for the type of problem at hand; they can tell you are going to get the answer wrong before you even start your answer.

In cases of intuitive answering, implicit recall, the answers fair as founded as explicit recall and again, in some conditions it is superior than explicit recall.
It doesn't mean intuition is the way to go; it means that at some functions, intuition is the better tool. Ergo, why we have it in the first place.

And How do you know when a feeling is an intuition?

How do I know, or how does neurology know?
Neurology knows because it knows where intuition pops up in the brain and can easily monitor such events.
I know because if it is not something I specifically paid attention to with cognition; then we are talking about intuitive response; implicit recall.

What was the color of the shirt of the man on the sidewalk 2 hours ago next to Moore St. and Vine Cir.?
Unless you specifically noticed this person and targeted them with your direct attention, you are then working off of implicit recall; intuition.

Not to be confused with instinct.

conspiracy-ish I know

Yes it is.

Mine might be different in thinking that I might say, "All things as a whole is God, and God is all things as a whole." so as not to imply that God is say any part within....IDK

OK.

[Abstract]

That's really just a conjecture of entertaining thought; a fancy.

i find all ideas to be merely conjectures...

some people begin by saying:
x=x...

I begin by saying

If x=x...

Even if someone proves how that could be logical in an extremely exhausting, and most likely theoretical, manner, the point would still remain that the affirming conclusion would not actively change anything on the ground level.

Why/How not?

Because..."there's going to be no difference to how things are ticking in life on this Earth as if they do exist then obviously whichever way they bend is already in play "

Same reasoning. My understanding of some large complex network of super-massive-universe-being, the universal turtle in which we ride the back of, makes no difference to what is here right now.
I'm drinking coffee and chatting on the computer. My daughters are building with constructs and watching their morning edition of Wiggles.
My wife is sleeping in to catch up on rest. The weather outside is slightly overcast. It's Saturday. Poorly made kimchi still tastes like shit. I still have duplicates of the same negative report on my credit to battle off. And I still taste the morning air in my lungs with wetting salivation of loving the briskness.

Nothing changes.
It would be more effective if Santa Clause were real than if the universal being were real.

It wouldn't change things assuming it didn't just come into existence, such as to be a thing that doesn't change things.

But I at least think all things exist in so far as they have an affect, and understanding what does exist most often lends to other understandings, yet ultimately we often function the same while believing or thinking of things in a different way, and as such it may not be so important how one understands as that one understands enough to lend to that which is most important to lend to.

And of course, I personally think of things in the manner that a Sentient Ultimate (as you nicely rephrased) is affecting things
and thus plays a role in the whole
such that in recognition of such i find a form of logical progression that seems suited to functioning the best, at least for myself.

It just takes longer for you to catch up to the names of what you spiritually sync with.

It is an interesting matter to attempt to think without the use of names or words, and then even images...

No; it is not exclusively emotions, nor are these emotions the caliber in which we think of emotions such as sadness, anger, love, or the like.
They are the undercurrent of emotion akin to the undercurrent of a wave. Standard emotions are more like the white caps cresting on the top of the wave.
Of course there are irrational concepts at this level; almost everything there is irrational - literally.
The only way you can state them to be rational at all is by stating that they have a circuit which has a logic unto itself for function.
Aside from this, by common terms of rational and irrational, they are irrational.
This is why meditation is required; to pull them up to cognition where reasoning can be applied.

Makes sense, I might say everything may hold some irrationality, as in order to know logic is sufficient we use logic...

Let me put it another way.
You have instinct to move in reflex. It is irrational.
You can learn how to evoke this reflex, meditate upon them in practice, and then control the function to a degree whereby reflex has now been altered by training that you decided through reason.
Thereby, instead of simply reflexively moving without controlled form; you can now reflexively react with greater precision to the event practiced.

Makes sense mostly, although actually controlling the reflex seems contradictory, but I think I see what you mean if i look past the "names" or words:
By practicing the reflex one is controlling the effectiveness and quickness of it?

Similarly, you can reshape your spiritual emotions.

Interesting thought, but how would such be good?
Almost sounds dangerous.
Do you mean alter the way the spiritual impacts you to elicit emotions, or alter the way your emotions react to the spiritual, or what...I don't know I grok this?

In the example I gave, simply because if I am discussing heat, then the first to encounter that will be the skin.
We are not Vulcans. The first thing that picks up will not be logic. The first thing that will pick up is our implicit responses.

(the non-emotional idea with regards to Vulcans I could logically argue with them...it would be interesting...)

The skin may be the first part of the self to encounter the heat so long as one considers the self as within the aspect which is defined by what we see is our boundary.

As to the definite layering; I can't.
I can only state that spiritual emotions that I am referring to are below intuition on a layering of cognition.
And I can only state that because of what intuition is: an implicit processor.
Long term implicit emotions are one of the things that would be processed by the implicit processor and served over to the explicit processor in translation of simple impulses.

After other discussions I've had, I think the idea of really being able to arrive at a definite layering of any aspect of the things mental is not really possible anyways.
When we think about possibilities we don't literally think such and such is 73.444455556567% possible some can but only after other thoughts and it won't be perfectly accurate and thus uncertain. What we tend to do it would seem is just say thing x is more likely than thing y and thing z more likely than that, and i guess it goes the same when leveling any ideas...Rather one might say we relate rather than definitively level.

They ran experiments in which people were told to pay attention to material information directly and later recall answers regarding that material.
Then ran experiments in which people were told to play a game while material information was shown indirectly behind their point of focus (the game) and later asked to recall answers regarding that material.
The second test results were equal to, and in some cases (not by a large margin) higher than, the results of the first test.

This makes sense now that i have thought more about it.

But the study would seem to suggest that having commercials in the back ground on tv, or at the side of a web page, might be quite functional at what some might then call "subliminal" coercion.

Might I quote you i might use this in other arguments, and do you know of a reference to this, like a Wikipedia article or something?

This is one way it was shown.
The other is still running in an active lab pretty regularly in which they can predict what your answer will be by monitoring where your brain is shuffling energy around. Every time your brain transfers energy to the wrong sections of the brain for the type of problem at hand; they can tell you are going to get the answer wrong before you even start your answer.

I would like to be tested by that, might you know how I could arrange such? Or have any idea how i might find the place doing that and/or contact them.

In cases of intuitive answering, implicit recall, the answers fair as founded as explicit recall and again, in some conditions it is superior than explicit recall.
It doesn't mean intuition is the way to go; it means that at some functions, intuition is the better tool. Ergo, why we have it in the first place.

I would think intuition would be better for dealing with things which have pervaded the human condition the longest, where as logic would be better for dealing with more recent actualities.

Socializing though is an example where both are needed, as while socializing has been around longer than we have been considered human, the logical mind of others is more associative with the here and now and so in more need of logical relation. Whereas when buying a house, we have used houses for a very long time in our culture, it would seem better to go by how it makes you feel then how it looks or what logical arguments the seller suggests, though of course some logic is needed to insure appropriate expenditure (of course there would seem to always be a mixture of logic and feeling in action): and one might even recognize logic behind this as how it makes you feel will tell you the comfort you will have in it, and comfort/good-feeling with regards to where you live the most is highly conducive to functioning in all sorts of things, especially studying, i do believe.

[Jayson]

i find all ideas to be merely conjectures...

Some are quite a bit more useful than others.

But I at least think all things exist in so far as they have an affect, and understanding what does exist most often lends to other understandings, yet ultimately we often function the same while believing or thinking of things in a different way, and as such it may not be so important how one understands as that one understands enough to lend to that which is most important to lend to.
...
such that in recognition of such i find a form of logical progression that seems suited to functioning the best, at least for myself.

OK, the most important thing for me to lend to is not discerning gods in an actuality thesis.

It is an interesting matter to attempt to think without the use of names or words, and then even images...

Yep.

as in order to know logic is sufficient we use logic...

We actually don't have a choice. Our prefrontal cortex necessitates this behavior.

Makes sense mostly, although actually controlling the reflex seems contradictory, but I think I see what you mean if i look past the "names" or words:
By practicing the reflex one is controlling the effectiveness and quickness of it?

If you train one particular motion, then your entire system becomes bias to using it as the implicit and explicit muscle, tissue, and neurological memory have an efficient method of response in store.
Basically, you can narrow the range.

Take the block in fighting.
By training a block many times, you can effectively ingrain your reflex to an attack to a degree range of the ideal block motion.

The same thing is true with psychology, and in so being true with psychology, true in neurology and that also means in spirituality.
Which we already know.
Cults use this feature to subversive measures.
Many religious practices use it for goals towards some concept of raising such as enlightenment or righteousness.

Expanded more next.

Interesting thought, but how would such be good?
Almost sounds dangerous.
Do you mean alter the way the spiritual impacts you to elicit emotions, or alter the way your emotions react to the spiritual, or what...I don't know I grok this?

Continuing,

It means that you can control your existential emotions that are long term emotional cycles, rather than short term as the cognitive emotions are.
Let's say that you feel generally displaced and separated from your own reality; you feel despondent and unable to connect.
Let's also say that this is not in response to any one direct thing, but instead simply seems to have risen softly over time.

Now, this spiritual emotional state will change which cognitive emotions you will have, as well as augment your reason since your amygdala is processing higher towards this spiritual emotion.
Thereby, any reason, which requires processing through the amygdala, will be slanted in this sense.

If you want to control your slanting, your spiritual emotion, then you can through evocation of your sense of existing in existence, and your relationship to that.
Different religions approach this issue in different manners. Some approach by using modules which supply an understanding of harnessing a strength. Some offer a release. Some offer transition. And others offer transcendence.
There are many, many more such concepts; these are but a few common examples.

The focal is that you can effectively control your impression of existing with existence and back unto yourself by a vast array of modules heavily found in spiritual adoptions.

Even the simplest of things can facilitate this; no more than a pencil dot on a sheet of paper in some cases. In others, merely one tiny idea.
And in some unique cases, nothing; turning everything off without trying to turn everything off.

Can it be dangerous?
Absolutely; ergo the Cult concept previously mentioned.
Does that mean it shouldn't be used? No.
Under that logic, I should never use fire either.

Most things in nature have their uses, overuses, and abuses.

The skin may be the first part of the self to encounter the heat so long as one considers the self as within the aspect which is defined by what we see is our boundary.

Works for me.
Either way, doesn't matter; you get the idea.

After other discussions I've had, I think the idea of really being able to arrive at a definite layering of any aspect of the things mental is not really possible anyways.

9 levels of hell, and there order; I am not outlining.

But the study would seem to suggest that having commercials in the back ground on tv, or at the side of a web page, might be quite functional at what some might then call "subliminal" coercion.

Yep, but really; that doesn't much matter.
You don't actually lose to your subconscious that easily because your conscious choice trains your subconscious into a kind of behavior - like a parent - and so your subconscious ends up adhering to your conscious satisfaction concepts most of the time.

Might I quote you i might use this in other arguments, and do you know of a reference to this, like a Wikipedia article or something?

Quote Gerard P. Hodgkinson. He's the one that did all the hard work.
http://nif-dev-web.nbirn.net/about/publ ... uition.pdf

I would like to be tested by that, might you know how I could arrange such? Or have any idea how i might find the place doing that and/or contact them.

Sure,
Contact Dr. John-Dylan Haynes
Read up on it in this PDF.
http://www.socialbehavior.uzh.ch/teachi ... 08_ext.pdf

I would think intuition would be better for dealing with things which have pervaded the human condition the longest, where as logic would be better for dealing with more recent actualities.

Not at all.
Intuition is actually best used with things foreign.
It is best used in things known, but poorly recalled by explicit memory.
Intuition is essentially implicit memory, and works by motive through simple sensory impulse in a near binary manner of either/or as its relay to the active and aware cognition.

That is useful pretty much daily.
If I throw a basketball at your face, your intuition will be what commands the logic of that instance.

The rest was pretty on par.

[Abstract]

OK, the most important thing for me to lend to is not discerning gods in an actuality thesis.

what do you mean by "actuality thesis"?

as in order to know logic is sufficient we use logic...

We actually don't have a choice. Our prefrontal cortex necessitates this behavior.

Or so we might deduced by logic.

Take the block in fighting.
By training a block many times, you can effectively ingrain your reflex to an attack to a degree range of the ideal block motion.

The same thing is true with psychology, and in so being true with psychology, true in neurology and that also means in spirituality.
Which we already know.
Cults use this feature to subversive measures.
Many religious practices use it for goals towards some concept of raising such as enlightenment or righteousness.

It might sometimes be best not to be habituated to a specific response, so as to alter intuitively with respect to the given situation, as no situation is exactly the same. Though at least some training is needed either way.
As Rumi said In order to be cleaned it must be wet and the dried.
In fighting it is best to first learn the more common responses, or to simply practice certain ones, over time a fighter learns many styles, and then the next fighter learns to be loose of habit and respond in accordance to attack, opened to new methods of response by the self and the other.

9 levels of hell, and there order; I am not outlining.

According to Dante right?

Sure,
Contact Dr. John-Dylan Haynes
Read up on it in this PDF.
http://www.socialbehavior.uzh.ch/teachi ... 08_ext.pdf

Thanx

I would think intuition would be better for dealing with things which have pervaded the human condition the longest, where as logic would be better for dealing with more recent actualities.

Not at all.
Intuition is actually best used with things foreign.
It is best used in things known, but poorly recalled by explicit memory.
Intuition is essentially implicit memory, and works by motive through simple sensory impulse in a near binary manner of either/or as its relay to the active and aware cognition.

My thinking was along the lines that many feelings arise due to a longtime association of something with a common occurrence.
But then I recognize the power of the non-conscious/non-higher-awareness to interpolate amazing things based on connections it makes.

[Jayson]

what do you mean by "actuality thesis"?

Determining the classification of a thing's actual relationship with existing.

and then the next fighter learns to be loose of habit and respond in accordance to attack, opened to new methods of response by the self and the other.

I refer to this currently as the way of the reacting spirit, and it strives to outline exactly how to purposefully accomplish this.

According to Dante right?

That was the reference, yep.

Thanx

np.

But then I recognize the power of the non-conscious/non-higher-awareness to interpolate amazing things based on connections it makes.

Yep.

[Abstract]

Determining the classification of a thing's actual relationship with existing.

So it would seem implied that you simply don't believe that if God existed that it would have any impact on anything.
I would think that in order to exist a thing must have some impact.
For example if it did exist and as a result others believed in it that would have an impact...

I refer to this currently as the way of the reacting spirit, and it strives to outline exactly how to purposefully accomplish this.

Each being varies as to what may progress them, few if any processes are suited for all.

[Jayson]

Determining the classification of a thing's actual relationship with existing.

So it would seem implied that you simply don't believe that if God existed that it would have any impact on anything.

No.

So it would seem implied that you simply don't believe that if God existed that it would have any impact on you.

Yes.

I would think that in order to exist a thing must have some impact.

If a god or gods exist in any fashion, then they already do.
If they already do, then they are already accounted for in the system of the universe and my acceptance or lack of acceptance of their presence makes no difference to their impact on reality.
And if by some far stretched chance my disbelief or belief does matter on such a grand scale for their account of existence, then my state of disbelief is already accounted for in the system as it stands and poises with no direct need of change.

For example if it did exist and as a result others believed in it that would have an impact...

86%+ of the world's population (~6.02 Billion, OK; probably more around 5 to 5.5 Billion once we remove non-theist forms of Buddhism) already believe gods exist in some fashion.
If the gods do exist, then you showing a logical conclusion of how they could exist won't have any variance on that statistical effect and impact that is already present.

I refer to this currently as the way of the reacting spirit, and it strives to outline exactly how to purposefully accomplish this.

Each being varies as to what may progress them, few if any processes are suited for all.

I'm not delusional.
I don't expect anything I do to fit everyone.
Hell, I don't want it to.
All it will be attempting to do is reduce the rigidity of form so that the modules are more adaptable to each person as they want them for their body and mind's fitting, if they so want to use a given module.

[Abstract]

So it would seem implied that you simply don't believe that if God existed that it would have any impact on you.

Yes.

I would think you are wrong there, as so long as something exists it impacts everything. For if it impacts anything that thing impacts something that impacts something that impacts eventually you and all other things.

And if by some far stretched chance my disbelief or belief does matter on such a grand scale for their account of existence, then my state of disbelief is already accounted for in the system as it stands and poises with no direct need of change.

That would seem only to be the case so long as you thought it would only matter that you always believed, i tend to think that in most these things what is important is that you believe at a point before one is simply made to know.( in fact I tend to think making kids know is very wrong...) And while I can see how simply believing doesn't seem to be relevant, it might be in so far as in understanding it makes it easier to do things that are right though they may seem not fun, eventually to the extent that they begin to seem fun simply in that they are right. Of course what others think are right most often seem illogical to others.

variance on that statistical effect and impact that is already present.

There would be variance, but i think what you mean is that the effect would be insignificant relative to the whole, but I believe every little bit counts.

I'm not delusional.
I don't expect anything I do to fit everyone.
Hell, I don't want it to.
All it will be attempting to do is reduce the rigidity of form so that the modules are more adaptable to each person as they want them for their body and mind's fitting, if they so want to use a given module.

I didn't intend to imply I thought you were delusional, though I see that you may not be implying that you thought I did.

[Jayson]

I think in summation, this is apt.

i think what you mean is that the effect would be insignificant relative to the whole

Except, I would change that to:
"i think what you mean is that the effect would be insignificant relative to you"

Let's say that you could prove gods exist to me.
Now, then you would have to prove that I should care that they exist.

Let me put it another way.
M-Theory proposes that there is an 11th dimension.
If you could prove to me that the 11th dimension exists, then you would also have to prove to me how that matters to me since I don't interact with the 11th dimension in any way directly or indirectly in which my belief in it existing will grant me any added leverage for the control that I personally have over reality.

[Abstract]

Well the first thing i would suggest is subsiding the Idea of "proof" in the sense of there being something that is 100% probable.
There is always the possibility that something, or someone is wrong about something no matter what it is.
Even though math deals with 100% possibilities it does so hypothetically through hypothetical situations.

We arrive at most things, including math, by logic:

"In order to prove the overall validity of logic one must use logic, and such a method, of proving a thing by assumption of that thing, is shown to be a fallacy by logic." Quoting my self from elsewhere.

But that can be a minor thing...And I'm not sure that you would disagree.
But I would suggest that it would not be a matter of "proving" God exists or that God matters but of showing you that it is highly likely that he does and that it would/should matter to you.

This is a very hard thing to do.
I might start with this:

What does end mean, to you?
And what have you witnessed ending?

Start with the end.

[Jayson]

What does end mean, to you?

A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually.

And what have you witnessed ending?

It would be a far shorter list to cite what I haven't witnessed ending.
That would be pretty easy; not one thing.

I don't know, however, what you specifically mean by the word "end".
There are roughly 15 to 20 different meanings of that word.

[Abstract]

What does end mean, to you?

A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually.

And what have you witnessed ending?

It would be a far shorter list to cite what I haven't witnessed ending.
That would be pretty easy; not one thing.

I don't know, however, what you specifically mean by the word "end".
There are roughly 15 to 20 different meanings of that word.

It is good that you don't allow yourself to prescribe to simply one definition of a thing...

i should have said based on your definition what have you witnessed ending?


"A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually."
How do you know what the limit of a thing is?

[Jayson]

i should have said based on your definition what have you witnessed ending?

Then again, it would be easier to ask the opposite question of what I have NOT witnessed ending: Not one thing .

"A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually."
How do you know what the limit of a thing is?

That depends on which kind of end is being described and what condition a thing is in.
For instance, I know the end of a ball because it has a skin that is visible as the properties of being a ball and to which can be observed in interacting with other things by the limitation of that skin which defines its shape.

Or, I can know the end of my meal because the plate is now empty and my belly is full; therefore indicating the properties identifiable as the end of the meal.

[Abstract]

i should have said based on your definition what have you witnessed ending?

Then again, it would be easier to ask the opposite question of what I have NOT witnessed ending: Not one thing .

"A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually."
How do you know what the limit of a thing is?

That depends on which kind of end is being described and what condition a thing is in.
For instance, I know the end of a ball because it has a skin that is visible as the properties of being a ball and to which can be observed in interacting with other things by the limitation of that skin which defines its shape.

Or, I can know the end of my meal because the plate is now empty and my belly is full; therefore indicating the properties identifiable as the end of the meal.

Ultimately what I am getting at is that it would seem to me that what most people think of as an end is not accurate. Things don't cease to be all that they are, unless you define them to be something specifically finite. And it would seem then that when something ends it is more a matter of perceiving an alteration in the state of a thing such that it is no longer recognizable as what it was. Would you agree?

[Jayson]

Yes, and no.
Yes, in the sense of matter and energy within a system. What you described is the physical truth of the matter.

No, in the sense of what counts as an identity of a thing to the human consciousness.
If I cut off my hand and burn it to ashes, I don't say that my hand still exists.
Yes, it does according to physics, but effectively to the identification of function being my hand; it does not.

[Abstract]

Yes, and no.
Yes, in the sense of matter and energy within a system. What you described is the physical truth of the matter.

No, in the sense of what counts as an identity of a thing to the human consciousness.
If I cut off my hand and burn it to ashes, I don't say that my hand still exists.

i believe that might be my point that the idea of ending is a matter of perception/consciousness, it only ends so long as it we/you don't recognize what we/you thought of as it.
The hand when cut off may not be there by our recollection but all that it was continues to have an affect, the seeming absence of it would be a continuously altering aspect of our lives.
Rather it would seem what really ended was a particular state.
What I am getting at is that what typically happens is just a matter of change/alteration, end is just a type of alteration/change?
So what I might then ask is have you ever seen anything actually stop changing, rather than it just seem like it has?

[Jayson]

So what I might then ask is have you ever seen anything actually stop changing, rather than it just seem like it has?

No, that would be a physics impossibility.
If any single thing stopped changing, regardless how small, every law of physics would shatter to pieces and the universe would implode faster than observation could notice.