Nothing vs Everything

[KingMerv00]

And might I suggest determinism is what proceeds from the quantum act of free will? Or, at least this would be compatible with a wholly dualistic system. In other words the initial cause would be God which, is based upon free will ... or, God's Love.


Is there anything intelligent about the act of moving an object from point A to point B? Well, it all depends on what precedes the act that determines this, for example if it involves moving my hand which requires my will in order to so. That's an indication of intelligence. However, just because an event doesn't occur at the "conscious level," does not suggest that it or, any event for that matter (universally speaking), does not occur at the subconscious level. In other words the Universe may very well be working at the level of a subconscious mind. Remember Jung's, collective unconscious? So, in answer to your question, I don't know? But then again that's not to say we're barking up the wrong tree? ...

(Emphasis mine.)

Thank you. It's ok not to know something.

 

[Iacchus]

(Emphasis mine.)

Thank you. It's ok not to know something.

That's okay too, because I haven't given it much thought ... yet. Albeit you might want to check out my link on the collective unconscious.

 

[Z]

You know something, I really don't care what you have to think. Since you have so clearly demonstrated your total lack of respect towards me in the past. Why should it make a difference now?

You're right - I have no respect for you. As far as I'm concerned, you're a lunatic. You're basing your life on dreams, which mean nothing.

What does that have to do with a valid refutation of your discussion? Other than that you don't like being refuted.

Besides, as I've explained elsewhere, I'm not responding for your benefit. I'm not interested in what you think. I'm responding for the benefit of other readers who might be reading this, so that they don't buy your hogwash wholesale.

Don't like me replying to your posts? Then don't post here.

 

[Iacchus]

You're right - I have no respect for you. As far as I'm concerned, you're a lunatic. You're basing your life on dreams, which mean nothing.

That's the end of the discussion I'm afraid.

 

[Mercutio]

That's the end of the discussion I'm afraid.

Too bad--you could have chosen instead to defend your method of knowing, and to critically examine it along with your criticisms of ZD's method of knowing. That's how we progress...

 

[Iacchus]

Too bad--you could have chosen instead to defend your method of knowing, and to critically examine it along with your criticisms of ZD's method of knowing. That's how we progress...

No, not if I have to continually respond to someone else's insults.

 

[Z]

You know, up until you brought up the issue of respect, I refrained from insults.

Now, get this straight: when you post on this forum, if I have something to say that disagrees with you, I will say it. Or, for that matter, if I agree with you. I do this not for your benefit, but for others.

I have stayed out of most of your threads lately, because you don't usually say anything even interesting. But in this case, you caught my attention, and I spoke. If you don't like that... too bad. You're welcome to post on any of the dozen or so other forums you pollute with your exhalations.

If this ends the discussion, I can only say that is a good thing, since you don't 'discuss' anything. You don't even think. You just wink, nod, ask rhetorical questions, and pretend to be wise.

You'd have a better time sticking to numerology.

 

[Mercutio]

No, not if I have to continually respond to someone else's insults.

The insults are there because you do not support your ideas. To use the insults as an excuse not to back up your ideas puts the cart before the horse.

 

[hgc]

So what is your point about the holes in swiss cheese then?

From an economic vantage, it's a wash, since cheese is sold by weight and is porous (little holes in addition to big holes). But from the existential standpoint, it's a sanixaflix.

 

[Iacchus]

The insults are there because you do not support your ideas. To use the insults as an excuse not to back up your ideas puts the cart before the horse.

I can understand why we might jest with each other out of fun, but no, the insults don't need to be there.

 

[Iacchus]

From an economic vantage, it's a wash, since cheese is sold by weight and is porous (little holes in addition to big holes). But from the existential standpoint, it's a sanixaflix.

Is that word even in the dictionary?

 

[Iacchus]

Ahh gentle participants, you have experiance the irrelevent fog of obfuscation that is Iaachus. A person who is incapable of direct answers or writng a sentence that does not end with a question mark. He is like a frightened boxer that dances just outside of his arm's reach, never commiting to a punch. All bluster, but no substance.

He refuses definition, because to commit to a definition means that he has to actually think about what he is talking about.

The definition is defined by the experience. And that's something I can't do for you.

 

[KingMerv00]

The definition is defined by the experience. And that's something I can't do for you.

If everyone defines things based on our experiences, then wouldn't we all have different definitions?

Do you think we share a common objective universe or all definitions are equally valid?

 

[Iacchus]

If everyone defines things based on our experiences, then wouldn't we all have different definitions?

Do you think we share a common objective universe or all definitions are equally valid?

If you haven't experienced what chocolate tastes like, what's the point in my trying to explain it you? Wouldn't it be better if you could taste if for yourself?

 

[Dr Adequate]

If you haven't experienced what chocolate tastes like, what's the point in my trying to explain it you?

If defining what you're talking about is on a par with trying to explain what chocolate tastes like, then WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU TRYING TO DO IT? Get a grip, man.

 

[Iacchus]

If defining what you're talking about is on a par with trying to explain what chocolate tastes like, then WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU TRYING TO DO IT? Get a grip, man.

So, is there any particular reason why I should take your word for it? You do realize of course that we are what we experience. So, even if we do attempt to communicate with each other, what does it mean if we can't understand and/or see it for ourselves? Which applies to more than just of taste of chocolate by the way. It applies to everything.

 

[hgc]

Is that word even in the dictionary?

It's in the Pseudo-Philosopher's Handbook. Look in the chapter on Nothing vs Everything.

 

[Donks]

So, what is it about the Universe that serves to "remind it" (a memory) what is? Why doesn't the Universe become all convoluted and turn into something else in other words?

This makes no sense at all. You might as well write a random string of words next time.

Yeah, but this is exactly what you were getting at.

Good to know you're psychic. Of course you're wrong, but that was a given from the start.

What am I an encyclopedia?

Nope. I simply asked you to define terms that you already used, back up assertions that you already made. As uruk pointed out, you refuse to define any terms, answer any questions. Your arguments are always the same: a play on words that you seem to think sound all impressive and irrefutable, but that doesn't stand up to even the most cursory examination.

 

[Ratman_tf]

If defining what you're talking about is on a par with trying to explain what chocolate tastes like, then WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU TRYING TO DO IT?

Attention.

 

[Kopji]

Iacchus

Yes, but don't you see how it can provide for the possibility? With all the complexity and structure that we see in our own lives, except on a much grander scale?

Exactly the point of my first post about God being a galactic corporation rather than a single intelligence. We could posit a multitude of other possibilities in addition to the universe being a pervasive mind.

The very idea of "error" involves there being the idea of an objective truth as a standard. Truth is a regulative principle, part of how are choices made.

Is God a galactic corporation or a pervasive mind? Neither? Both? Is there even a God at all? In a universe of entirely subjective truth there is no way to choose. "Sure" the universe could be a great expansive mind. It might even be useful to consider it as an artistic exercise. Maybe some creative inspiration might come of it. But to say it has artistic meaning is different than saying it is so. To say it is "so" we need to evaluate and examine (and I almost hate to use this word on a religion and philosophy forum) "facts".

To survive in the world we need to learn to choose, and choose rightly. Failure to be able to choose rightly has a direct relationship on our ability to survive as an individual, if not as a species. We learn and learn to choose. All choices would be good if the universe were ours to create as we wish, but sadly, it is not.