Intent

[lifegazer]

Sigh. No it's not at all obvious. Yes I have thought about it. That the mind creates its own experiences is what you have to prove, not something that you can use as part of a proof.

You cannot see that an entity which experiences an abstract awareness of reality is the creator and experiencer of that reality?
Surely yea, for you must acknowledge that the [supposed] external reality neither cares about abstract experience, nor knows of what it is, nor forces any entity to have it?

We cannot attribute abstract awareness to anything external to our mind (or even our brain).

I've demonstrated elsewhere that the mind is not the unitary element you posit.

I was well aware, thankyou, that the brain was composed of many [material] parts. Yet you cannot prove that matter creates intangible experience. In fact, it's irrational to even try.

In fact I would say that the brain injuries discussed in another thread suggest that there is no "Mind" as you mean the term.

All perception is by God. You can alter the awareness that God might have, but you cannot alter God nor "his" mind.

 

[Wudang]

No, because for the umpteenth time it's what you have to prove. As has been said again and again, your assumption is that there are both internal and external awareness which differ in quality and have to be treated differently and the internal sensations are the ones you privelege as "real".
That is an assumption. QED. Again.

 

[Wudang]

I was well aware, thankyou, that the brain was composed of many [material] parts.

Read again. The severed corpus callosum shows that the mind is not unitary. The mind not the brain.

 

[uruk]

True. But God makes "his" choices through our being. Therefore, it is 'we' that actually make those choices, as God's being. We are God. Our choices are God's choices. We cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility for what lies ahead.

That is an unimportant distinction. it is still god who is ultimately making the choice. Remember, according to your philosophy, we're not real in relation to god. God is making the choice through his imaginary creation (us). That is the consequence of your philosophy. "Our" free will is not real. it is god's free will being expressed through us. we have no choice but to follow god's will to the conclusion of what ever god's dream culminates to. So how can "we" be held responsible for god's will? But god's will isn't truely that "free" either. he has no choice but to continue to dream. It is either that or just sit alone in his singular being doing nothing. Either way, we (god's imagination) have no choice. Just his.

You mock the illusion, yet you fell for it hook line & sinker, such is the apparent reality of it all.

Again I am mocking your interpretation. I have no choice but to accept the illusion. I can not experiance anything other than this illusion. So what is the difference? A self-consistant illusion is no different from a self-consistant reality. especially if you have no way of determining if it is an illusion or reality. Again, what do I gain by accepting that this is an illusion that I don't gain by accepting that this is a reality?

 

[uruk]

All perception is by God. You can alter the awareness that God might have, but you cannot alter God nor "his" mind.

Do you mean to say that god's awarness can be altered or do you mean that "we" can alter god's awareness.

either way you look at it, it is god that is altering his own awareness. Remember, "we" don't really exists in relation to god.

According to your philosophy, If a person is born with a brain defect that severly impares or alters their perception or function, then it is god that puposefull made that defect or alteration.

was well aware, thankyou, that the brain was composed of many [material] parts. Yet you cannot prove that matter creates intangible experience. In fact, it's irrational to even try

It is only irrational if you do not accept the scientific view or the materialistic view. otherwise it makes perfect sense and there is observational evidence to support that view.

 

[lifegazer]

As has been said again and again, your assumption is that there are both internal and external awareness which differ in quality and have to be treated differently and the internal sensations are the ones you privelege as "real".
That is an assumption. QED. Again.

Internal sensation is real. Are you denying the actual occurance and hence reality of your abstract sensations, thoughts or feelings? Surely not?
Our experience of existence is completely intangible. No man has ever experienced anything beyond his intangible awareness!
As for an external reality, I'd rather just assume - as you wrongly accuse me of doing - that no such thing exists. But in the sincere pursuit of truth, I must entertain the idea that what exists within my awareness is an intangible representation of what really exists outside of me. So:-
"You cannot see that an entity which experiences an abstract awareness of reality is the creator and experiencer of that reality?. Surely yea, for you must acknowledge that the [supposed] external reality neither cares about abstract experience, nor knows of what it is, nor forces any entity to have it?"
... Well? If you still do not see this, then please explain to this forum how the material realm creates intangible experience, thus creating a realm distinct from itself.

 

[lifegazer]

That is an unimportant distinction. it is still god who is ultimately making the choice. Remember, according to your philosophy, we're not real in relation to god.

According to my philosophy, we are God, lost in the illusion of being "we". You're still under the miscomprehension (is that a word, Wudang?) of thinking that my philosophy obliterates your existence. It doesn't. It simply tells you that you are the existing God, fundamentally, thinking that you (God) are uruk.
So, even as "we", we make God's choices for God.

 

[lifegazer]

I really want to wrap this thread up. We're not even on topic, but the real reason why I want to finish this, is because I am eager to start a thread of my own on Relativity. And I really want to concentrate on that thread. I'm convinced that Einstein has discovered God, without knowing it of course.
So ladies & gents, this evening will probably be the last time that I respond in detail to anything here - unless it's really important to you that I do.
Thankyou.

 

[lifegazer]

You know, I believe that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. You once agreed that even spiders show intent. All predators do. And of course that came from a free-willed primal-cause.

God gave the dinosaurs many many millions of years to work out their bloody, devouring, and death filled illusion. Perhaps this harmony angle you're pushing is exactly the wrong idea. Especially if the end is Armageddon. It actually sounds like the creator of this illusion prefers the slaughter of animal and humans and if all we're going to do is procreate he's going to enforce the rule of world scale horrible terrible death, as you have foreseen.

Time isn't an issue for God, of course. And humanity should be considered as the culmination of life's processes... of God's purpose.
The dinosaurs were a small cog in a very large wheel which rolled towards the destiny of mankind. Now, the wheel shall go where we tell it to.

 

[uruk]

According to my philosophy, we are God, lost in the illusion of being "we". You're still under the miscomprehension (is that a word, Wudang?) of thinking that my philosophy obliterates your existence. It doesn't. It simply tells you that you are the existing God, fundamentally, thinking that you (God) are uruk.So, even as "we", we make God's choices for God.

Illusion = not real.

god is lost in the illusion of being "we".

"we" are the illusion = we are not real.

When "we" make a choice. it is god making a choice under the illusion of being "we"

you say it yourself right here: "we make god's choices for god"

we are god so god is making the choice for god.

you really need to be listening to what you are saying.

 

[lifegazer]

Illusion = not real.

god is lost in the illusion of being "we".

"we" are the illusion = we are not real.

You aint listening. "We" is an illusion. But this doesn't mean that we don't have existence. It's just that we don't know who we are.
In reality, we are God believing that it is "we". So, your third axiom here is incorrect.

When "we" make a choice. it is god making a choice under the illusion of being "we"

When we make a choice, we do it as God, since we are God.

you really need to be listening to what you are saying.

I know exactly what I am saying. You however, have yet to latch on to what I have said.

 

[Dymanic]

lifegazer:

In addition to reinforcing the importance of critical thinking by providing examples of the the types of conclusions reached through alternative methods, I also admire the creativity you use in formulating your worldview. Unanswered or unanswerable questions are simply no problem at all for you -- you just make something up! I think that's just terrific.

Originally posted by lifegazer

Now, the wheel shall go where we tell it to.

And sense of humor, too! Don't ever change.

 

[uruk]

You aint listening. "We" is an illusion. But this doesn't mean that we don't have existence. It's just that we don't know who we are.In reality, we are God believing that it is "we". So, your third axiom here is incorrect.

An illusion is something that is not real, right?
Or do you have another definition for illusion that you are keeping from us?

We have existance with realtion to each other, but we are not "real" in relation to god.

"We" have existance as god's illusion or dream. But that illusion is not real in relation to god. The illusion may seem real to god just like a dream seems real to us. but when we wake up the dream ceases to be without affecting the existance of the dreamer. Just as if god ends this illusion his existance is not altered.

Here you say:

Because we are that God. We are God being (or 'becoming'). Therefore, if we - as God being - choose armageddon, then we - as that God - choose death to being.
God can only "be" in relation to other things. God is absolute. But if, whilst being, God chooses armageddon, then God chooses death to [relative] being. Please note however, that this does not kill God's absolute existence - just his relative being.

God does not die if man dies. But God's being does die if God, as man, chooses death to being.
.

If you say this, then you are in effect saying that "we" are not "real" within relation to god's existance. "We" just SEEM real to god.

"We", or god, chooses armageddon; the illusion ends. god's existance is unaffected. Just like waking up from a dream.

When we make a choice, we do it as God, since we are God.

Therefore, god is making that choice. You say it yourself here:

But if, whilst being, God chooses armageddon, then God chooses death to [relative] being.

I know exactly what I am saying.

Are you sure?

 

[lifegazer]

I also admire the creativity you use in formulating your worldview. Unanswered or unanswerable questions are simply no problem at all for you -- you just make something up! I think that's just terrific.

It appears that I'm making it up because:-
(1) It's largely original.
(2) You're closed-minded and refuse to explore beyond the box.
(3) You have a peanut for a brain.

 

[lifegazer]

"We" have existance as god's illusion or dream. But that illusion is not real in relation to god. The illusion may seem real to god just like a dream seems real to us. but when we wake up the dream ceases to be without affecting the existance of the dreamer. Just as if god ends this illusion his existance is not altered.

Uruk, I've had enough of this thread now. I'm pretty sure that you're just being difficult, because I refuse to accept that you are so dense that you do not understand the concept of being God who thinks that "he" is somebody else - namely, yourself.

The dream analogy was a good one. God is lost within the dream of being "we". Hence, "we" is not real, but the entity who thinks that it is "we", is. Thus, uruk is an illusion, but you still have existence as God the dreamer of being uruk.

 

[Wudang]

Internal sensation is real. Are you denying the actual occurance and hence reality of your abstract sensations, thoughts or feelings? Surely not?
Our experience of existence is completely intangible. No man has ever experienced anything beyond his intangible awareness!
As for an external reality, I'd rather just assume - as you wrongly accuse me of doing - that no such thing exists. But in the sincere pursuit of truth, I must entertain the idea that what exists within my awareness is an intangible representation of what really exists outside of me. So:-
"You cannot see that an entity which experiences an abstract awareness of reality is the creator and experiencer of that reality?. Surely yea, for you must acknowledge that the [supposed] external reality neither cares about abstract experience, nor knows of what it is, nor forces any entity to have it?"
... Well? If you still do not see this, then please explain to this forum how the material realm creates intangible experience, thus creating a realm distinct from itself.

The problems with this silly argument have been pointed out to you again and again and as usual once you realise that someone is not going to let you get away with your usual circular reasoning you are bailing out to start a new thread.
There is no abstract awareness, there is only awareness. Prove your separation of the two or admit your assumption.

 

[CWL]

The dream analogy was a good one. God is lost within the dream of being "we". Hence, "we" is not real, but the entity who thinks that it is "we", is. Thus, uruk is an illusion, but you still have existence as God the dreamer of being uruk.

"God the dreamer"?

 

[lifegazer]

"Internal sensation is real. Are you denying the actual occurance and hence reality of your abstract sensations, thoughts or feelings? Surely not?
Our experience of existence is completely intangible. No man has ever experienced anything beyond his intangible awareness!
As for an external reality, I'd rather just assume - as you wrongly accuse me of doing - that no such thing exists. But in the sincere pursuit of truth, I must entertain the idea that what exists within my awareness is an intangible representation of what really exists outside of me. So:-
"You cannot see that an entity which experiences an abstract awareness of reality is the creator and experiencer of that reality?. Surely yea, for you must acknowledge that the [supposed] external reality neither cares about abstract experience, nor knows of what it is, nor forces any entity to have it?"
... Well? If you still do not see this, then please explain to this forum how the material realm creates intangible experience, thus creating a realm distinct from itself."

The problems with this silly argument have been pointed out to you again

The argument is exceptionally reasonable and as usual, just ignored.

and again and as usual once you realise that someone is not going to let you get away with your usual circular reasoning you are bailing out to start a new thread.

How can you blame me when you ignore my arguments, yet freely condemn them? This post of yours is an insult to my efforts. I don't know why I bother.

There is no abstract awareness, there is only awareness.

Wtf is this supposed to mean? Is it some fancy line you pulled from a Dennett book?
Use your intelligence for a change. Your awareness is entirely comprised of abstract sensations such as pain, red, sweet, cold, etc.; and abstract emotions such as love, anger, joy, etc.; and abstract ideas, images or thoughts. This is the foundation of your experience of existence, and anybody who denies this is just a liar and/or a complete fool.

Prove your separation of the two or admit your assumption. [/B]

The two? What two would that be? I know of no other existence except via my sensations, thoughts & feelings. Perhaps you should tell us all about your experience of life.

 

[lifegazer]

"God the dreamer"?

Why wouldn't God dream? Why wouldn't God aspire to be?

 

[Wudang]

That was the entire point of Upchurch's question - that you give a special consideration to what you term "internal" or "abstract" sensation and privelege it above other sensation. Upchurch and Russdill have argued that there is only awareness and if you want to privelege certain aspects you have to justify them beyond a wild hand-waving and yelling that it's obvious.
Your failure to be able to distinguish between inference and implication should have alerted you to your own intellectual limitations. Not only did you look up "infer" in a dictionary and get it wrong, you averred your interpretation. You then tried to twist that into me nitpicking your spelling when the actual problem is that you are ill-informed, are unable to read a dictionary and are too arrogant to admit the limits of your thinking. Others who have long understood the difference between inference and implication take the trouble to try to point out your errors and you insult them and accuse them of nitpicking and waffling when they are making serious points which you are unable and unwilling to understand. Think about your failure to grasp the meaning of a simple word such as "infer" even with a dictionary definition available to you, your defence of your error and the implications it has for more complex matters such as teleology.