Intent

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Precisely. If you understood existence, or quantum mechanics, or relativity, you would understand how ludicrous your claim actually is.

Here, I have something for you.

[PLANK]

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I want to see you explain to this forum how something is not having the experience of being you

I'll try to work with that, though you might have taken a little more time in crafting that sentence.

If there is 'something' having the experience, then what needs explaining is what the nature of that something is. Descartes said, "cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). For him, the fact that there are thoughts stood alone as proof that there is a thinker; a 'ghost in the machine'. If you want to make an actual case for the existence of such a ghost (and btw, the onus is on you, as the one making this extraordinary claim, to do so) then you may find it difficult to do so in a way that is compatable with standard physics.

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

This sentence, however, is so badly put together that I can't do a thing with it. I'm not even sure whether I agree or not.

 

[Wudang]

Fail?
My philosophy explains existence and is consistent with quantum-mechanics and relativity.

NO, it has repeatedly been demonstrated to you that you do not even understand what the words mean.

 

[hammegk]

Mud-slinging is so much more fun than explaining, iyo, why lg's god, or more basically Objective Idealism is at variance with QM or GR.

 

[lifegazer]

"I want to see you explain to this forum how something is not having the experience of being you"

If there is 'something' having the experience, then what needs explaining is what the nature of that something is.

No it doesn't. I do eventually proceed to explain that this ~thing~ is God, but that's irrelevant to the validity of the original statement itself, for we can be sure that something is having the experience of being you even if we don't know what that thing is.
In other words, asking you to explain to this forum how something is not having the experience of being you, needs a better response than the one you have just given.

Descartes said, "cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). For him, the fact that there are thoughts stood alone as proof that there is a thinker; a 'ghost in the machine'. If you want to make an actual case for the existence of such a ghost (and btw, the onus is on you, as the one making this extraordinary claim, to do so) then you may find it difficult to do so in a way that is compatable with standard physics.

To ask for a scientific/mathematical presentation
of God, is a ludicrous notion. It's bad philosophy - irrational. God is not a finite thing discerned within existence. God is existence.

"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"

This sentence, however, is so badly put together that I can't do a thing with it. I'm not even sure whether I agree or not.

Nonsense. The experience of being 'you' is comprised of sensations (red, cold, pain, sweet, loud, etc. etc.), thoughts (I assume you have thoughts) and emotions (I assume you know what feelings are like), within awareness.
Why don't you understand that? Do you have a low IQ? If you do, then I apologise and will try my best to use smaller words.

 

[lifegazer]

"My philosophy explains existence and is consistent with quantum-mechanics and relativity."

NO, it has repeatedly been demonstrated to you that you do not even understand what the words mean.

You're a plonker Wudang and I don't want you jumping into my threads after 5 pages just to utter two unsubstantiated lines of garbage. In future, stay away or explain your gripes.

Quantum mechanics
My philosophy declares that everything emanates from a primal-cause which, by default, must possess absolute free-will. A primal-cause cannot be a primal-cause unless it possess free-will, by rational default.
Hence, my philosophy says that God has an indeterministic nature, and that God's energy is essentially unpredictable. However, since God's energy is the cause of perceived [classical order] existence, we should expect to see God's energy moving towards a general ordering. Hence the probablistic ordering inherent within fundamental particles, which are essentially derivatives of fundamental energy - God's energy.

If I'd have been born two hundred years ago and had the same kind of philosophy as now, I might have predicted the base knowledge known via QM. That's how consistent my philosophy is with quantum mechanics.
Not to mention the importance of the observer to particle perception. Without an observer, all energy exists as the whole of its potential. So, without any observers, the energy of existence is just a blurry potential, awaiting observation so that it can become some things definite.

I'm intending to present my own thread about relativity soon. So I won't discuss it here right now.

 

[Dancing David]

Mud-slinging is so much more fun than explaining, iyo, why lg's god, or more basically Objective Idealism is at variance with QM or GR.

hamme,
It is not that god is incompatible, it is that LG's description is ludicrous.

His theory should state that QM and relativity are immaterial because they are illsuions of percieved reality.
Some how QM is proof of the will of the primal cause and relativity is proof that light is the mind of god.

 

[Dancing David]

You're a plonker Wudang and I don't want you jumping into my threads after 5 pages just to utter two unsubstantiated lines of garbage. In future, stay away or explain your gripes.

use the Ignore feature lifeDazer, that way you can talk to yourself.

Quantum mechanics
My philosophy declares that everything emanates from a primal-cause which, by default, must possess absolute free-will. A primal-cause cannot be a primal-cause unless it possess free-will, by rational default.

whine.... but Lifegazer why does an indterminant process imply free will? Does a causality imply free will? Does randomness imply free will? Does chaos theory imply free will?

Hence, my philosophy says that God has an indeterministic nature, and that God's energy is essentially unpredictable.

Yeah because you can no where god is but not when he is there , right? If god is unpresictable, then how do you know they exists. I would think unpredictable is the opposite of your philosophy.

However, since God's energy is the cause of perceived [classical order] existence, we should expect to see God's energy moving towards a general ordering.

Why since the general tendency of the universe is to disorder. have you fudged the law of thermodynamics yet? The universe does not tend to oredr, it tends to uniformity.

Hence the probablistic ordering inherent within fundamental particles, which are essentially derivatives of fundamental energy - God's energy.

Have you shown that order, or do you mean that god's manifestation is in the probable area of an electron around a nucleus. that is really vauge and quite woo, even for you LG!

If I'd have been born two hundred years ago and had the same kind of philosophy as now,

You will still be a run of the mill monist , Berkley beat you to this, you have nothing new to offer, sorry.

I might have predicted the base knowledge known via QM.


Yeah, lets hear your predictions and then see how they match with QM.

That's how consistent my philosophy is with quantum mechanics.
Not to mention the importance of the observer to particle perception. Without an observer, all energy exists as the whole of its potential.

Sorry Lifegazer put you missed the boat and sank on that one. the energy is always manifest as the waveform, the wave form does not collapse.

So, without any observers, the energy of existence is just a blurry potential, awaiting observation so that it can become some things definite.

Yeah, well lets ee you prove it, does an electron change size just because you observe it.?


I'm intending to present my own thread about relativity soon. So I won't discuss it here right now.

I'd better stop drinking at the screen when i read that one.

 

[lifegazer]

His theory should state that QM and relativity are immaterial because they are illsuions of percieved reality.

QM and relativity are thoughts/ideas which mirror an understanding of the order present within perception.

Some how QM is proof of the will of the primal cause

Some how? I just gave detailed reason why - God's energy is free, being of free-will. Therefore, fundamentally, all energy within existence is inderministic.

and relativity is proof that light is the mind of god.

Each individual sees his own universe, borne within his own mind.
The sensation of light is an abstract experience had within awareness of the mind, and created by that mind.
Everything we see exists within us.

You need to up a few gears.

 

[Suezoled]

You need to let your hamster back on to type.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The experience of being 'you' is comprised of sensations (red, cold, pain, sweet, loud, etc. etc.), thoughts (I assume you have thoughts) and emotions (I assume you know what feelings are like), within awareness.
Why don't you understand that? Do you have a low IQ? If you do, then I apologise and will try my best to use smaller words

I'd appreciate that. Yes, I am an incredibly dense clod. One thing you might clarify is what you mean by 'within awareness' (since I don't see how that adds anything). Oh, and also, the distinction between 'thoughts' and 'emotions' seems quite clear to you. Since it is not at all clear to me, would you mind explaining that? (I'd prefer it in simple terms, but if you have to use them big words, I'll see if I can't find my dictionary).

I do eventually proceed to explain that this ~thing~ is God, but that's irrelevant to the validity of the original statement itself

That doesn't seem so much like an explanation as an excuse for the lack of one ("It's God, the unexplainable").

we can be sure that something is having the experience of being you even if we don't know what that thing is.

Can we?

 

[Upchurch]

Poor lifegazer. He always gets in trouble when he tries to use physical arguments to defend his immaterialist position.

Incidently, how can a philosophy that relies on the concept of causality be consistant with a science that proves acausality? If the philosophy agrees with the existance of acausality in the universe, it can't really argue the necessity of causality, now can it?

Poor lifegazer.

 

[lifegazer]

use the Ignore feature lifeDazer, that way you can talk to yourself.

I will listen to anybody. I don't hide from nobody. But if they are being a plonker, then I'll tell 'em. You too. He was out of order diving in after 5 pages with a two-line put-down. That sort of participation is not welcome in my threads.

whine.... but Lifegazer why does an indterminant process imply free will?

Energy of the existence which is essentially indeterministic, emanates from a source which is not controlled by any other thing. There is no control upon that source. Yet this energy proceeds towards order. Thus, the energy is self-ordering. I.e., the source whose energy is unknowable, proceeds to create order within itself.

Does a causality imply free will? Does randomness imply free will? Does chaos theory imply free will?

There is no such thing as acausality, except in relation to a primal-cause. Don't cite quantum events as acausal because physics cannot see the cause. That's not good philosophy.

Yeah because you can no where god is but not when he is there , right?

Actually, God is beyond space and time. Hence, the energy of existence is beyond space and time. That's why we cannot really see anything that is definitely existing within space and time. Again, my philosophy is consistent with what we know.

If god is unpresictable, then how do you know they exists. I would think unpredictable is the opposite of your philosophy.

Knowing that God exists and knowing what God shall do are two totally different things.

Why since the general tendency of the universe is to disorder.

We see order. We see order from the reality of quantum indeterminism. Therefore, quantum indeterminism progresses towards the order that we see. It's a myth that the general tendency of the universe is towards disorder. In fact, through time, there has been a progression towards creating more and more systems of complex order. Life itself, for example.
If the universe absolutely-moved towards uniformity, then localities of order would never have arisen.

have you fudged the law of thermodynamics yet? The universe does not tend to oredr, it tends to uniformity.

The universe emanated from indivisibility/uniformity. It progressed towards fragmented localities of order. Particles, atoms, molecules, stars, planets, galaxies.

If the second law of thermodynamics was absolutely true, then none of these things could have been yielded from the big-bang.

Have you shown that order, or do you mean that god's manifestation is in the probable area of an electron around a nucleus. that is really vauge and quite woo, even for you LG!

You're asking for another bop.

All fundamental-particles are derivative of fundamental-energy of fundamental-source. This indeterministic energy progresses towards the order that we actually see within awareness.
As I said to you in my previous post, the sensation of light is an abstract experience, anyway - like pain, for example. So, the sensation of light is a mind-given experience, had by that mind.
The source of what we see is the mind itself, and its energy is indeterministic because it is the primal-cause of all existence.

You will still be a run of the mill monist , Berkley beat you to this, you have nothing new to offer, sorry.

I haven't read Berkeley so I cannot comment. I can guarantee that his philosophy wasn't exactly like mine though. Did he ever mention "intent", for example?

Yeah, lets hear your predictions and then see how they match with QM.

That's my point - they do match with QM.
200 years ago, for example, I might have concluded that since God is existence and God has free-will, then God's energy (God itself) is indeterministic. Therefore, no part of God can definitely be seen within space and time. Hence, we should expect to see - with the right technology - that the fundamental building-blocks of the universe are also indeterministic, by nature. Yet, since they are the basis of [perceived] classical-order, we should also expect to see these particles exhibit a probablistic-order within their behaviour.
I could have said this 2000 years ago, never mind in A.D. 1800. I didn't need 20th-century scientific knowledge to have predicted this. All I needed to realise, was that God's energy must be, fundamentally, indeterministic.

Sorry Lifegazer put you missed the boat and sank on that one. the energy is always manifest as the waveform, the wave form does not collapse.

I beg your pardon? There's no such thing as a particle?

I'd better stop drinking at the screen when i read that one.

Yes you had. I don't want you drunk when you finally realise that 'you' are God.

 

[lifegazer]

Incidently, how can a philosophy that relies on the concept of causality be consistant with a science that proves acausality?

SCIENCE HAS NOT PROVEN ACAUSALITY.
Emphasis justified.

That's right my slippery friend - just because science cannot observe the cause of an effect does not automatically imply that the effect has no cause. Try running this past your philosophy teacher. If he/she doesn't agree, then join another class/school.

Furthermore, the concept of "acausality" can only have reality if there is a primal-cause (which is without cause). A primal-cause "just is". It is not born.

If the philosophy agrees with the existance of acausality in the universe, it can't really argue the necessity of causality, now can it?

Every thing perceived within existence is a product (an effect) of the primal-cause.
Hence, an acausal primal-cause is the cause of all perceived effects.

Poor lifegazer.

Squire, do not look down your nose at me. I am more than your equal when it comes down to rational discourse.
Where were you for the first 5 pages?

 

[spejic]

I would argue otherwise - that the illusion is perfect because it enables God to become aware of Godself within the illusion itself.

But it isn't doing that - people still think they are people, except for you, who is thought of as a crackpot by all other aspects of All-God. By your own philosophy, most of All-God thinks your ideas are silly - and when you die, all your ideas will be forgotten, which means that All-God has actually gotten nowhere on the quest to self-awareness.

My philosophy makes all people equally special, fundamentally.

Then give me $10,000. We are all the same thing, right? It does not effect the cosmic ballance for me to have that money instead of you, right?

The method is simple: from this day forth, resolve to believe nothing which is not definitely true. [...] My philosophy is one of pure reason, accepting no assumptions or conclusions which cannot be verified by experience or reason.

Without self-questioning, you cannot know what is truth and what is not. If your philosophy comes from pure reason, then experience has nothing to do with it. And if you can use reason and experience to prove your claims, then why are you having such a hard time convincing even one other person that your beliefs are right?

Science has its head stuck inside the fishbowl.

It only is now because you have not given us anything ourside the fishbowl to look at. Science in and of itself (that is, the philosophy of science) is good under all circumstances, and can be used outside the fishbowl as well as inside it. We only need some kind of fact, some kind of record of an event to get started.

You're crazy. Do you think that God has no interest other than exploitation of universal resources?

But exploitation is certainly a part of the All-God, and I have evidence. People are aspects of the All-God, people exploit universal resources, thus the All-God desires exploitation. At the very least, you must admit that to get people interested in the outside-illusion universe, they must be able to get something useful from it.

There is no longer any doubt in my mind that God is existence.

I feel great pity for you.

 

[lifegazer]

You need to let your hamster back on to type.

Hello. I'm lifegazer's hamster. I'm called Buffy. I just wanted to say hi and let you know that lifegazer is a wonderful philosopher. Plus, he buys me hamster treats.

 

[Upchurch]

Where were you for the first 5 pages?

Not wasting my time on pseduoscientific drivel and troll baiting, which I will now commence in doing both.

SCIENCE HAS NOT PROVEN ACAUSALITY

It has, actually, not that you'd understand it. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that your argument from ignorance is correct and the implication of acausality is that we simply don't know the cause. Why, then, must we assume there is a cause at all? How do you prove causality is true?

Furthermore, the concept of "acausality" can only have reality if there is a primal-cause (which is without cause). A primal-cause "just is". It is not born.

Goodness, I must have forgotten your love of unsupported assumptions. Acausality is not a singular occurence. If it exsits at all (and it does), one would expect it to happen repeatedly and randomly (which it does). There is no singular source of acausality, as you would like to imply.

Every thing perceived within existence is a product (an effect) of the primal-cause.
Hence, an acausal primal-cause is the cause of all perceived effects.

Prove it.

Squire, do not look down your nose at me. I am more than your equal when it comes down to rational discourse.

Thing is, if you're going to play with the big boys, so to speak, you've got to do better than this endless repitition of logical errors and fallacies. Have you done any research at all in any of the topics you've referenced? Or is your "rational discourse" simply devine insperation from God?

It just really sad that you still haven't gotten any further than this. Ah well, perhaps someday you'll learn the difference between reason and rationale and the relationship of reason to truth. May I recommend The Logic Book as a fairly basic starting place? As far as I can tell, it's still pretty much the standard starting text.

 

[Atlas]

If I'd have been born two hundred years ago and had the same kind of philosophy as now,I might have predicted the base knowledge known via QM.

Lifegazer, this is exactly what I've always thought was missing from your philosophy - real world connection.

If you could have predicted it, do you think you would have? After all, philosophy is not always the friend of science. Science wants to make things like medical instruments and bombs. Only one of which gets people closer to their maker.

Still for me, a prediction would be great. It would help to silence the skeptics here as well.

Is there anything left in your philosophy that can tell us something new about the experience of reality that science might use to ameliorate the human condition? What can we look for? What are the avenues that science should be pursuing. Or is science pretty much at it's dead at this point.

You seem to put your philosophy above science, that's why I ask.

 

[Atlas]

That's my point - they do match with QM.
200 years ago, for example, I might have concluded that since God is existence and God has free-will, then God's energy (God itself) is indeterministic.

I hadn't gotten this post when I posted my last one about predictions.

Now I wonder if this same indeterministic deity would've led you to the same kind of interventionist deity of Judeo-Christianity.[edit] Surely, it could have.[/edit]


Why or Why not?

 

[Flatworm]

The statement was meant to be read as a whole. You omitted the second half of the statement, which qualifies the first:-
"Without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will. Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will."
[/quote[

I omitted it because it is nothing more than a reaffirmation of your assumption. It is not a proof.

So, as a whole, my statement explains why I see no reason to accept the premise or argument that... etc..

No, it simply rephrases your assumption.

A primal-cause that is the source of any intent within existence, has absolute free-will, by default.

Unfortunately, you have not established that intent must spring from intent, or that there is a primal cause.

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.

IP addresses are products of our minds, first & foremost. So, IP addresses are the products of a mind that has knowledge about IP addresses.

You still don't understand the analogy. It has nothing to do with whether the property under consideration is artificial or not. It simply goes to show that it is not true in general that a thing with property X can only arise from a system having property X.

Consider "crystalline structure". Many materials have a crystalline structure, but that doesn't imply that the universe as a whole has crystalline structure.

All the evidence before us demonstrates that intent exists on many levels of sophistication in the animal kingdom. It is certainly not a stretch to see stimulus-response behaviour arising naturalistically- it is merely an extension of cause-and-effect among inanimate systems. From there we can trace the increase of complexity in responses, with the birth of memory to the rise of desires. The fulfillment of needs and desires is the seed of intent.

Well, why not ask that entity: "Oy guv'nor... did you consciously intend to do X, or did you do it without thinking?"
Guvnor's possible responses:-
(1) Grunt.
(2) He eats you.
(3) He doesn't know what X is or whether he did it.
(4) He says: "Of course I intended to do it.".

Ask me about this post. I will not grunt or eat you, and will understand the question.

Very cute, but hopelessly simplistic. Any novice computer programmer can create a program that will answer "Because I intend to" when you type in "Why do you do anything?". More advanced programs can obviously reach much higher levels of sophistication conversationally, but all can respond that they have intent.

Meanwhile, a gorilla can assemble bedding material in anticipation of nightfall, chimps form political alliances within their tribes, and your cat can train you to let it out- but none of these can communicate that they have intent.

I only need to prove the existence of any intent, for my argument to be valid. So, regardless of what happens to animals, I claim that humans consciously choose specific direction of action - if only some of the time.

No, you further need to demonstrate that this intent cannot arise from a system that has not innate intent. Once again, you simply assume the answer you want, and repeat it endlessly instead of proving it.