Intent

lifegazer said:
I keep trying to tell you: only God exists. Being [any] human is a perception within God's awareness. Therefore, no humans really exist.
But the experience of the world is real...
Click to expand...
What you say is: If Johnnie throws a rock and hits you in the head - Johnnie wasn't real, the rock wasn't real, Your head wasn't real, But God experiences a headache.

There is not much there to hang a morality on. Nothing happened except God's headache.

I'm talking to different aspects of God. All aspects of God are real.
Click to expand...
All is God, All is Illusion, All is Real?

The world is mad, not me.
Click to expand...
The question was... How do you KNOW that?

I think that my philosophy (that God is existence itself) is the only thing which can save mankind.
Click to expand...
But you never explain how any kind of morality arises from it... Since we are all God... We can do anything!
 
lifegazer said:
As I have said, the presence of any intent doth suffice to make my argument credible.
Click to expand...
I agree that is what you have said.

In response I have echoed Flatworm in asking: In your philosophy, do spiders have free will or is this instinctual and evidence of a naturalistic origin for intent? You have answered, and I am here condensing two of your thoughts from your response, lifegazer... It sounds to me as though your spider has exhibited some level of intent.

I believe that is a fair statement of your response to me. It says that human Intent is similar to a spider's Intent in that both arise out of free will descending from the primal cause.

I know you don't wish to talk about spiders, but free will often implies aspects of Morality and Soul.

Can you briefly contrast the morality and soul of the spider with that of man. The presence of Intent may, as you say, suffice to make your argument credible, but perhaps it's implications will illuminate the more incredible aspects for discussion.

Thanks
 
lifegazer said:

I keep trying to tell you: only God exists.

Being human is a perception within God's awareness.
Therefore, no humans really exist.
Click to expand...


If it is true that no humans really exist, then in what meaningful way can you use the term being in your argument, since this obviously infers a state of existence.

If we truly do not exist, then it should follow that God is the qualifier for the term being, and if that is true, how can God not be aware of himself.
 
Atlas said:
The question was... How do you KNOW that?
Click to expand...
I have asked this question to Lifegazer many times, and have never gotten a response.

Lifegazer, you must admit that the god's dream illusion is not perfect, otherwise you would never have figured out the world is an illusion. Also, there must be a method to discovering the existence of the illusion, as you have admitied that you somehow discovered the truth (that is, you were not born with these beliefs, but came across them somehow and had your mind changed). If these are true, then why is it that you alone among the tens of billions of people that are alive or have lived came across this belief? Why is it that you cannot give us a method for determining the illusion ourselves? Certainly we cannot all get the same brainstorm you got, but after getting this brainstorm, you should be able to learn new things about illusion-world that could help us discover it. We meer illusion-world believing humans have a system for figuring things out. It is called "science". It isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good as you must admit (seeing as how you live in the technological western world with the rest of us). There has to be a way to use science (or even just a theoretical idea of how to use science even if we don't have the technique or technology a the moment) to show that illusion-world is really an illusion.

Wouldn't this be a good thing for you? Wouldn't wide-spread discovery, description and exploitation of the illusion meta-reality be a boon to the uber-god? Wouldn't it be the moment of Hegelian self-dicovery that the uber-god has been building towards since time began?

Of course it would. But it is a two-way street. You have to allow for the fact that you may be wrong. You have to put the tinyest grain of doubt in that 100% doubtless brain of yours.
 
Atlas said:
But you never explain how any kind of morality arises from it... Since we are all God... We can do anything!
Click to expand...
Imagine the scenario: All establishments (scientific, religious, and philosophical) and all governments, somehow acknowledge, en masse, that God is existence.
Hence, morality arises from unilateral philosophy. If I kill my neighbour, I kill myself. If I abuse my neighbour, I abuse myself. Afterall, all is One.

You have accused me of nothing more than a dry philosophical message. This isn't true. I just don't see the point in trying to sell Unity until I have proved that we are unified.
 
lifegazer said:
You need to explain. How can a system possessing intent, be the product of an embracing system possessing none (we assume) whatsoever?
The question is applicable to all human characteristics. For example, how can a system possessing desire, be the product of an embracing system possessing none (we assume) whatsoever?
So please bear this in mind when responding.
Click to expand...
Lifegazer,
Above is a partial response you sent to Flatworm. You have said forcefully and often that the immaterial free will of the primal-cause entity acts on the illusion of the world and it's contents instilling impressions of free will and intent.

I wonder if we may use invisible energies that arise from matter and appear intent on causing orbits and warming the hearts of the inhabitants of the material world.

Gravity and solar radiation may substitute on the material plane for the force of God giving rise to Intent and Desire.

They seem to have a similar constancy to God at least on the human scale. Of course, I know you are a Monist/Idealist but you have invited us to consider alternatives. It is in that spirit that I offer up the invisible material energies and speculate that life developed in response to these pulls and warmings exhibiting what would evolve to be Intent and Desire, in the same strange way sight arose in response to light.

Now we have 2 sets of invisible energies giving rise to the perceived intellectual states of Intent and Desire. Neither is very deeply presented. But on their face, neither can be said from this discussion to be a superior theory - I'm speaking only in terms of Life displaying Intent.
 
lifegazer said:

Imagine the scenario: All establishments (scientific, religious, and philosophical) and all governments, somehow acknowledge, en masse, that God is existence.
Hence, morality arises from unilateral philosophy. If I kill my neighbour, I kill myself. If I abuse my neighbour, I abuse myself. Afterall, all is One.

You have accused me of nothing more than a dry philosophical message. This isn't true. I just don't see the point in trying to sell Unity until I have proved that we are unified.
Click to expand...
I think you underestimate the ability of Man to rationalize any philosophy to his personal moral advantage.

Christians teach - We are all God's children. Still, we kill gleefully. Buddhists teach about the ONE - I think it is probably a more peaceful philosophy, but merely on philosophical terms I don't know enough to argue that Buddha teaches peace better than Jesus. Your philosophy seems to go beyond Buddhism in it's teachings of the illusion.

While Buddhism recognizes the illusion of opposites and preaches the middle way, it still encourages the people to incline to the light. Humans live in a solid reality full of opposites - the enlightened Buddhist accepts reality and transcends it.

There is little to suggest that telling people that they don't exist, except as aspects of a single dream, instills peace, or harmony of soul.

Maybe you'll explore that in a new thread.
 
Atlas said:
Can you briefly contrast the morality and soul of the spider with that of man.
Click to expand...
You make things difficult for me. Such is life.
As I already have said, I have no need to discuss animals or spiders to make my argument - based upon the presence of any intent - credible. All I need to do is show that intent exists, even within myself if nothing else.
I intend to change your attitude squire. The effort is not nulled by your (assumed) disinterest, either.

Having said that, I will attempt to answer your question since I am sincere and eager to impress.;)

... There is a difference between man and all other living things. There can be no doubt about this. Indeed, most of us readily accept this.
Most of us say this difference is due to the fact that we are self-aware whereas our fellow life-forms are only aware of specific concepts/ideas in relation to the environment we share. For example, a bird is self-aware but only in terms of concepts/ideas which relate to that bird's well-being and in relation to the environment - of which it is also aware. Such a bird cares nothing more than to survive and reproduce. All of its actions mirror these desires. A human being, however, cares about how its actions shall be judged by the greater-whole (of humanity).
Our behaviour is driven by a fear or concern for what others shall think of us. Hence, our actions are driven by more than staying alive. They are driven by a desire to be respected or remembered. Or by, perhaps, a desire to glorify what is right or good or selfless, itself.
And let us not forget the desire to express our creativity. This is vitally important to this discussion. No animal cares to impress, artistically, except man. In this realisation alone, resides the realisation of man's differences with all else which [supposedly] lives.
... Man is creative, by nature. Another sign that he is descended of God... the creator.
 
That was pretty good. But you didn't mention morality or soul.

I'm really only interested in soul. Since we see intent in the spider, hence free-will according to your philosophy, what about the soul of that little guy.

Are there 3 free-wills now... Absolute - Human - and Spider and 3 types of soul?
 
lifegazer said:

I think that it is absolutely irrational to accept that we (who possess intent/purpose) were created by a universe which absolutely does not. Hence my argument is founded upon reason: that if we have intent then existence, fundamentally, must also possess it.
A "God of the gaps" argument would seek to insert God where there was no explanation. Whereas I conclude that God exists because of my reasoning.
Click to expand...

So...because we have intent/purpose, we had to have been created by something with intent/purpose.

OK, god has intent/purpose, so...
 
Atlas said:
That was pretty good. But you didn't mention morality or soul.

I'm really only interested in soul. Since we see intent in the spider, hence free-will according to your philosophy, what about the soul of that little guy.

Are there 3 free-wills now... Absolute - Human - and Spider and 3 types of soul?
Click to expand...
Perhaps one could say that the measure of ones spirit was reflected by the measure of ones intent.
In any case, it is my philosophy that God is existence. Hence our eight legged friend is as holy as ourselves, except that he can never know this - we must assume.
We can.
Our soul belongs to God.

As for morality; well my philosophy advocates action for the whole. Selfless actions, that is.
 
Atlas said:
There is little to suggest that telling people that they don't exist, except as aspects of a single dream, instills peace, or harmony of soul.
Click to expand...
I'm disappointed that you still haven't grasped the meaning behind my philosophy. Everybody definitely does exist. But they are God, lost within the illusion of things, believing themselves to be the man they see in the mirror. That belief is the illusion. Existence is God. You are God.
 
Didn't somebody ask lifegazer if he had just read Stranger in a Strange Land? What was the answer to that?
 
csense said:
If it is true that no humans really exist, then in what meaningful way can you use the term being in your argument, since this obviously infers a state of existence.
Click to expand...
God is... existence is God.
If we truly do not exist, then it should follow that God is the qualifier for the term being, and if that is true, how can God not be aware of himself.
Click to expand...
God imposes a dream upon itself in which awareness is focussed and lost within that dream. "We" are the intended awareness of the dream.
 
spejic said:
Lifegazer, you must admit that the god's dream illusion is not perfect, otherwise you would never have figured out the world is an illusion.
Click to expand...
I would argue otherwise - that the illusion is perfect because it enables God to become aware of Godself within the illusion itself. My philosophy is the conclusion of my experience within the illusion, whilst still within that illusion.
Such knowledge will one day facillitate heaven on earth. Otherwise, we shall destroy ourselves. There's only two choices for man, and the decision will be made sooner than we might think.
Also, there must be a method to discovering the existence of the illusion, as you have admitied that you somehow discovered the truth (that is, you were not born with these beliefs, but came across them somehow and had your mind changed). If these are true, then why is it that you alone among the tens of billions of people that are alive or have lived came across this belief?
Click to expand...
I have no idea and it doesn't matter. My philosophy makes all people equally special, fundamentally.
Why is it that you cannot give us a method for determining the illusion ourselves?
Click to expand...
The method is simple: from this day forth, resolve to believe nothing which is not definitely true. Then, acknowledge that something is having the abstract/intangible inward experience of being you. Your sensations, your thoughts, your emotions, your characteristics - all are found within your awareness.
This is the basis of my philosophy. Amazing as it might seem, plenty here have disputed this philosophical footing.
My philosophy is one of pure reason, accepting no assumptions or conclusions which cannot be verified by experience or reason.
Certainly we cannot all get the same brainstorm you got, but after getting this brainstorm, you should be able to learn new things about illusion-world that could help us discover it. We meer illusion-world believing humans have a system for figuring things out. It is called "science". It isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good as you must admit (seeing as how you live in the technological western world with the rest of us). There has to be a way to use science (or even just a theoretical idea of how to use science even if we don't have the technique or technology a the moment) to show that illusion-world is really an illusion.
Click to expand...
Science is the study of the order which exists within the illusion. Science has its head stuck inside the fishbowl. It contemplates the relations which exist between [illusory] things.
Science thinks that the things it studies are reality.
It is philosophy which will be our saviour - not science - for philosophy can show science that the essence of existence is not a "thing" as perceived within the fishbowl of our awareness.
Wouldn't this be a good thing for you? Wouldn't wide-spread discovery, description and exploitation of the illusion meta-reality be a boon to the uber-god? Wouldn't it be the moment of Hegelian self-dicovery that the uber-god has been building towards since time began?
Click to expand...
You're crazy. Do you think that God has no interest other than exploitation of universal resources?
Of course it would. But it is a two-way street. You have to allow for the fact that you may be wrong. You have to put the tinyest grain of doubt in that 100% doubtless brain of yours.
Click to expand...
There is no longer any doubt in my mind that God is existence.
 
Originally posted by lifegazer

...acknowledge that something is having the abstract/intangible inward experience of being you. Your sensations, your thoughts, your emotions, your characteristics - all are found within your awareness.
This is the basis of my philosophy.
Click to expand...
This is called 'Cartesian dualism' (i.e., of Descartes). Amazing as it might seem to you, plenty here have disputed this with strong arguments. Among the recommended reading on the topic is this thread.
 
Dymanic said:

This is called 'Cartesian dualism' (i.e., of Descartes). Amazing as it might seem to you, plenty here have disputed this with strong arguments. Among the recommended reading on the topic is this thread.
Click to expand...
I challenge you to address what I have said, here.
I want to see you explain to this forum how something is not having the experience of being you (the opposing view to myself). This is really like arguing that there is no experience of 'you' at all.
Then, I want to see you explain to this forum why the experience of being 'you' is not really comprised of sensations, thoughts & emotions, within awareness.
I dare ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom