What if HE's wrong? | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
ijonspeches
...and 177 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614371
Today 17
Topics 127560
  
 
Messageboard index
What if HE's wrong?
 

offline xeno on 2002-12-30 23:08 [#00496007]
Points: 63 Status: Regular



god is a state of mind.


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2002-12-30 23:10 [#00496009]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #00496000



i'm going to sleep fleet... tired and sick(!). i assure
i'll be back to elaborate on chaos.


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2002-12-30 23:23 [#00496018]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker



I'm hitting the sack too.

Cheers and g'nite jupitah, tits, skyfarmer, john-boy,
mary-ellen, Jesus-boy, Cthulhu, etc.


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2002-12-30 23:26 [#00496021]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #00496001



you're right: imperfection can't exist without perfection.


 

offline skyfarmer from a bigger, more complex and tun (Russia) on 2002-12-31 05:23 [#00496275]
Points: 1112 Status: Addict | Followup to fleetmouse: #00496018



Cthulhu fhtagn, motherfucker (c) G.T.


 

offline Netlon Sentinel from eDe (Netherlands, The) on 2002-12-31 05:45 [#00496306]
Points: 4736 Status: Lurker



well God has certainly earned a bit of my respect by
becoming a member


 

offline glass_eater from a blind nerves area (Switzerland) on 2002-12-31 05:47 [#00496308]
Points: 4904 Status: Regular



Cthulhu fhtagn, thats right


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2002-12-31 08:54 [#00496503]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker



you're right: imperfection can't exist without
perfection.


I think you've got that precisely backwards. Perfection
can't exist without imperfection.

By enumerating the qualities of an imperfect entity, you
make the negative image of the perfect entity form in your
mind.

If you do that with enough imperfect entities, you will be
able to abstract the general idea of perfection, a process
somewhat akin to linear regression or curve-fitting.

So the genesis of the idea of perfection lies in the
imperfect. God is an abstract entity that forms in a matrix
of mind.


 

offline Cheffe1979 from fuck (Austria) on 2002-12-31 09:06 [#00496505]
Points: 4630 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #00496503



there is a error in that statement, i hope i can express
myself with my weak english:

the 'curve fitting' idea needs one tacit assumption you have
not mentioned. it must be in principle possible to gain a
'mental picture' of something that is in the world, i.e. you
need mental notions, and to connect them, you need words,
and, to form a thought you need some sort of a language.
language is the basics of all mental processes, you can't
think of anything that cannot be expressed in any language,
ie. you cant think anything 'unthinkable'. just as any idea,
the 'general idea' of 'perfection' is, as you say it,
constructed by the way we use the word, but it does not have
anything to do with the real world.



 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2002-12-31 09:22 [#00496512]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to Cheffe1979: #00496505



language is the basics of all mental processes, you can't
think of anything that cannot be expressed in any language,
ie. you cant think anything 'unthinkable'.


Language is not a set of iron rules beyond which the mind
cannot reach. That is why language changes and evolves. If
you look at English, the differences between old, middle and
modern English are staggering.

Hell, if you look at the differences between English in
different districts in the same city at the same time, the
differences are staggering. Why? Because language is the
product of the mind, not vice versa. Okay, there's some
feedback where your ideas are informed by language, but mind
is primary. The grey goo in our skulls existed before spoken
and written language.

just as any idea, the 'general idea' of 'perfection' is,
as you say it, constructed by the way we use the word, but
it does not have anything to do with the real world.


I think it has much to do with the real world. When we talk
about perfect architecture, music, or what have you, we mean
that these things are "perfect" because the authors of them
understood the world enough to manipulate it into particular
forms.

I'm not saying that cultural biases and linguistic biases
are irrelevant - far from it! - I'm just saying that, though
what we think and perceive is coloured and informed by both
nature and nurture, it's not dissociated from reality. We're
here because our ancestors evolved the ability to make
accurate judgements about the world they lived in, after
all.


 

offline Cheffe1979 from fuck (Austria) on 2002-12-31 09:34 [#00496521]
Points: 4630 Status: Lurker



Language is not a set of iron rules beyond which the
mind
cannot reach. That is why language changes and evolves. If
you look at English, the differences between old, middle
and
modern English are staggering.

perfectly true. but mind still is the product of
language in a sense, to put it differently: all possible
thoughts and sentences are the language, mind is
nothing more cause you can't think of anything not in
terms of a langauge.

i don't say that we can't make accurate judgements. what i
say is that language is primary, since it is the border of
our mental world.
read 1984? destroying the language of the resistance kills
them finally



 

offline Cheffe1979 from fuck (Austria) on 2002-12-31 09:35 [#00496523]
Points: 4630 Status: Lurker



to be continued


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2002-12-31 09:40 [#00496530]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to Cheffe1979: #00496521



Where do new ideas come from? Where do new words come from?


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2002-12-31 09:41 [#00496532]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to Cheffe1979: #00496523



to be continued

Cheers! :-)



 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-01-10 18:42 [#00509909]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker



fleetmouse,
i think you mentioned (don't want to go back and read, but
wanted to reply) the arguement that the experience that i
defined as the original source of the god concept (i don't
claim to be a theist or an atheist, mind you all) is
internal. if you believe in physics then there is no real
separation between internal and external (unless you believe
there is a separation between the soul and the physical
world or that there is a reality beyond this one, which is
seems--correct me if i'm wrong--that you don't believe in
such). all is one, not just in the mystical sense. every
unit of matter/energy affects every other instantaneously
through the forces (to visualise you could think if it as
strings attatched). for every "internal" experience that
occurs there is the corresponding brain function and
alteration in your bio-chem, as well as alteration in the
vibration of your physical existence and the entire
universe... not just over time but instantaneously. your
every mind function affects every single matter/energy unit
in the universe. every little thought and emotion. yet
every thing your brain does is product of the universe by
the same principle. your brain follows the same physical
laws as does all and the nuerological and hence
psychological and spiritual happenings are a simply a
function of nature. you are simotaneously and spontaneously
the product of the entire universe as well as the creator.
this does not prove god, nor do i care to prove god, but
internal experience is not un real, irrational or
insignificant... on the contrary it is the product of
natural phenomenon.


 

offline bryce_berny from chronno (Canada) on 2003-01-10 19:15 [#00509925]
Points: 1568 Status: Lurker



wow, I didnt realise that theologists disguised themselves
as electronic music fans


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2003-01-10 20:13 [#00509949]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to jupitah: #00509909



For practical purposes, let's admit that there are some
experiences that are not valid--that have no objective
reality.

A guy I know had a psychotic episode in which he
believed--he KNEW--that he was the spawn of the devil. He
almost caused great harm to himself and another person.

Are you going to tell me that his experience was not just
the product of internal brain chemistry, that there was some
objective validity to his delusion?

To adapt Plato's cave allegory, let's say the cave is our
skulls and the shadows on the cave wall are our sensory
input. If the shadows on our cave walls have no relationship
to the real world then we are fucking crazy insane nutso
buddy.

And this whole idea that everything in the universe is
instantaneously interrelated--no. Didn't they just prove
that gravity travels at the speed of light? And at certain
distances and weaknesses of influence the effects are
negligible, otherwise astrology wouldn't be nonsense.

BTW please use paragraphs!!! That was a real hunkin heap of
writing you posted. It's easier to read when you break it up
some.


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-01-11 23:11 [#00511149]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker



i wouldn't say it wasn't a product of internal brain
chemistry, but the brain chemistry is a product of something
which is a product of something.

and yes, everything is interrelated. in many cases your
gravitational and electromagnetic influence on distant
galaxies might be negligible (thought never zero), but real
systems experience domino chaos affect. over time, subtle
or "negligible" affects can become enormous. these are
simply unconscious, but whos to say that your state of mind
doesn't alter these unconcsious subtle influences?

btw, what is it exactly that makes body motion different
from telekinesis? in terms of physics, there is none,
right? if you answer that free will is an illusion i will
have difficulty taking you seriously.


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2003-01-12 09:26 [#00511335]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to jupitah: #00511149



i wouldn't say it wasn't a product of internal brain
chemistry, but the brain chemistry is a product of something
which is a product of something.


Exactly, which is why objective, measurable evidence is of
greater importance than what goes on in J. Random Noggin.

and yes, everything is interrelated. in many cases your
gravitational and electromagnetic influence on distant
galaxies might be negligible (thought never zero), but real
systems experience domino chaos affect. over time, subtle or
"negligible" affects can become enormous. these are simply
unconscious, but whos to say that your state of mind doesn't
alter these unconcsious subtle influences?


Very well. Now propose a means of determining if those
effects are actually happening, and if they are, why.
Otherwise it's meaningless conjecture.

btw, what is it exactly that makes body motion different
from telekinesis?


One is fantasy.

in terms of physics, there is none, right? if you answer
that free will is an illusion i will have difficulty taking
you seriously.


Whether or not free will is an illusion is immaterial. We
have no choice but to act as though we have free will. It's
like proposing that the entire universe was created ten
minutes ago with the perfect illusion of age and memory:
it's a fun mind game but meaningless in the long run.

What I am trying to stumble towards, I think, is this
statement: ETERNALLY UNDECIDABLE PROPOSITIONS ARE
MEANINGLESS BYPRODUCTS OF OUR SYNAPTIC FUNCTION.

Unless you can make meaningful, testable statements about
like groovy vibes and cosmic forces, what is the point of
gassing on about it other than to hone ideas for a cracking
fantasy novel?


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-01-12 17:22 [#00511797]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #00511335



"propose a means of determining if those
effects are actually happening, and if they are, why.
Otherwise it's meaningless conjecture. "

according various chaos theory, backed by studies (some of
which can be read in the book 'chaos'), chaos is in fact
reality.

"one is fantasy"

in terms of physics, could you give me an answer? there is
an answer.

"Whether or not free will is an illusion is immaterial. We
have no choice but to act as though we have free will. It's
like proposing that the entire universe was created ten
minutes ago with the perfect illusion of age and memory:
it's a fun mind game but meaningless in the long run."
i don't see the connection. as for menaingless, speak for
yourself. free will is more real than anything you know.
it is the first, primary knowledge. will exerted on the
hand to form a fist is real. maybe you just don't want to
bother thinking about it--i don't blame you--but the fact is
that consciousness and will are real and not in conflict
with science if one is willing to take a mature
consideration of a reality that is more complex than a
physicist would have you believe. to you it is a fun mind
game. to me it's much more than the mind.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-01-12 17:48 [#00511811]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to BILE: #00494473 | Show recordbag



Just a stranger on the bus/trying to make his way home...


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2003-01-12 19:15 [#00511879]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to jupitah: #00511797



I'm confused. I don't even know what we're arguing about any
more.

Is telekinesis real? Is there evidence of it? And what does
it have to do with chaos theory? Are the tiny vibrations in
your brain like the butterfly's wing that starts a hurricane
on the other side of the world?


 


Messageboard index