God is an Impossibility

[Dontaskme]

You will not kill but will lash out at others who attempt to discuss the points. The evidence is so glaring already.

It takes two to tango.

Are not your own tightly held onto responses not also a lashing out at others that disagree with you?

Your such an idiot.

[Dontaskme]

It is wisdom to get out of a whirlpool.

If you want to debunk my argument, i.e.

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

viewtopic.php?p=367812#p367812
then address the above syllogism directly, not beat around the bush.

You are the one creating the whirlpool by applying attributes to nothing.

And the fact that you are able to do that means that nothing is very unstable, it has to be something.

.

Im-possible.

Nothing and Everything co-existing.

Irrefutable and Immutable to the bitter end.

.

[Age]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

• 1. Relative perfection
  2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


So,

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?

I said I would take a look at your argument now, considering you suggesting how good it was.

But you are joking, right? That is the most inbred argument i have seen in a while.

This is YOUR argument, per se;

P1. I BELIEVE God is an impossibility.
C. Therefore, God is an impossibility.

Besides the fact that your 2. Absolute perfection, is incorrect. YOUR definition is based solely upon your own relative view of what absolute perfection is. All you are doing is trying to grasp onto absolutely anything that will support your BELIEF.

Absolute perfection has already been proven empirically to already exist.

To exist IS absolute perfection. Existing IS living in absolute perfection. Existing, by definition, IS observing AND experiencing.

To be a truly Self-aware Being able to observe AND experience that, what I am creating, IS absolute perfection.

Although you are still a long way from truly understanding this, you can not dispute that you are an existing AND living, observing AND experiencing, human being. Therefore, you have ALL the empirical evidence right here before you to see AND feel as ENOUGH evidence of absolute perfection.

If you do NOT think that just being alive, able to experience AND observe, is NOT enough empirical evidence for absolute perfection, then there is NOTHING that will. If existing and living in a Universe is not enough evidence for you, then there is nothing that will be. Your RELATIVISTIC, subjective view of things will NOT allow you to see the OBJECTIVE TRUTH that is right in the HERE and NOW in front of you. Staring you in the face.

Have you never looked past and beyond your own distorted thinking, and just looked in pure wonder at the whole infinite and eternal Universal wonder that lays here before you?

If you have not, then you should try it some time. Before you are completely unable to. That body you are in will not be around for much longer to allow you to be able to see the absolute perfection before you.

If you need any guidance in how to be able to look at and discover the objective answers that lay here before you, then just ask. But here is a hint anyway. Do NOT look from your own subjective thinking. Instead look from the OPEN Mind. Then you can SEE objectively, as well as KNOW objectively, what the true and right answers are.

You can not give absolute perfection a relative, to your own view, subjective definition. Absolute perfection just IS. Just being able to observe and experience IS absolute perfection. Just being able to observe and experience IS the definition for absolute perfection.

As for 'God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived'. That is far simpler to understand than can be imagined for human beings living in this day and age.

Because of evolution human beings can NOT continue, as they are now. They WILL evolve. They will either continue on, as they are now, destroying their one and only home, and thus ultimately themselves in the not to distant future, or, they will change, for the better, and continue down that path and on in that direction. If they go down the latter path then with the extra time that they will gain from living correctly, then they will realize that they have a whole Universe to live and play in, and they will naturally progress to be able to do so.

Human beings can remain being human-like, and thus be the stupid creature that they sometimes are, and through an evolution process wipe themselves out, or, human beings can evolve into being much better creatures, even God-like some might suggest, and then with enough time they will evolve more into being God-like beings all the time.

Remember that human beings have evolved from not even being human beings and evolved into being human beings. Human beings will and can NOT stop continuing to evolve. So, with enough time human beings will evolve from being human beings and evolve into being some thing else. God-like maybe?

But before this could happen human beings need to STOP behaving in the ridiculous ways they do now and STOP their stupidity. Human beings can either evolve into becoming extinct in a slow and painful death, (like a lot of the other animals they have made extinct) or, they can change, and then very quickly evolve into a far more ideal way of life and living. One in which they ALL want and desire to live in anyway. That is, and ideal way of life that they ALL share together.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

• 1. Relative perfection
  2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


So,

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?

I said I would take a look at your argument now, considering you suggesting how good it was.

But you are joking, right? That is the most inbred argument i have seen in a while.

This is YOUR argument, per se;

P1. I BELIEVE God is an impossibility.
C. Therefore, God is an impossibility.

Besides the fact that your 2. Absolute perfection, is incorrect. YOUR definition is based solely upon your own relative view of what absolute perfection is. All you are doing is trying to grasp onto absolutely anything that will support your BELIEF.

Absolute perfection has already been proven empirically to already exist.

Note the definition of 'absolute' which in general is totally unconditional.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute

Whatever is empirical is always conditioned with a framework and system.
The most reliable is empirical scientific knowledge which is conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and System.

There is absolute temperature, but such an absolute is actually a relative absolute, i.e. conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.

To exist IS absolute perfection. Existing IS living in absolute perfection. Existing, by definition, IS observing AND experiencing.

To be a truly Self-aware Being able to observe AND experience that, what I am creating, IS absolute perfection.

Although you are still a long way from truly understanding this, you can not dispute that you are an existing AND living, observing AND experiencing, human being. Therefore, you have ALL the empirical evidence right here before you to see AND feel as ENOUGH evidence of absolute perfection.

If you do NOT think that just being alive, able to experience AND observe, is NOT enough empirical evidence for absolute perfection, then there is NOTHING that will. If existing and living in a Universe is not enough evidence for you, then there is nothing that will be. Your RELATIVISTIC, subjective view of things will NOT allow you to see the OBJECTIVE TRUTH that is right in the HERE and NOW in front of you. Staring you in the face.

Whatever that exist is not absolute perfection but as I had stated is relative to some framework and system.

The argument is there is no absolute "I". Note Hume argued there is no permanent self.

Have you never looked past and beyond your own distorted thinking, and just looked in pure wonder at the whole infinite and eternal Universal wonder that lays here before you?

If you have not, then you should try it some time. Before you are completely unable to. That body you are in will not be around for much longer to allow you to be able to see the absolute perfection before you.

If you need any guidance in how to be able to look at and discover the objective answers that lay here before you, then just ask. But here is a hint anyway. Do NOT look from your own subjective thinking. Instead look from the OPEN Mind. Then you can SEE objectively, as well as KNOW objectively, what the true and right answers are.

I have been arguing what you are postulating that can be 'seen' is also seen by those with mental illness, brain damage, drug takers, meditators, etc.
How do you know you are not in a moment of madness or brain aberration, and the likes when you thought you had that glimpse of 'objectivity'.

You can not give absolute perfection a relative, to your own view, subjective definition. Absolute perfection just IS. Just being able to observe and experience IS absolute perfection. Just being able to observe and experience IS the definition for absolute perfection.

First person subjective experience cannot be objective.
What can be observed and experienced cannot be absolutely reliable nor fully trusted.
Note the existence of empirical illusion and in this case transcendental illusions.
Note this experiment where your mind deceived to see two normal faces when in reality that is not the case;


Note what can be inferred as knowledge is either via;

1. Empirical
2. Rational [logic, from crude to refine].

In both cases they are conditional and can be corrupted by illusions.

Your inference of absolute perfection arise from some psychological desperation rather than from empirical evidence or even logical deductions.

Thus my P1 still prevails.
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real

[Age]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

• 1. Relative perfection
  2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


So,

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?

I said I would take a look at your argument now, considering you suggesting how good it was.

But you are joking, right? That is the most inbred argument i have seen in a while.

This is YOUR argument, per se;

P1. I BELIEVE God is an impossibility.
C. Therefore, God is an impossibility.

Besides the fact that your 2. Absolute perfection, is incorrect. YOUR definition is based solely upon your own relative view of what absolute perfection is. All you are doing is trying to grasp onto absolutely anything that will support your BELIEF.

Absolute perfection has already been proven empirically to already exist.

Note the definition of 'absolute' which in general is totally unconditional.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute

Whatever is empirical is always conditioned with a framework and system.
The most reliable is empirical scientific knowledge which is conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and System.

There is absolute temperature, but such an absolute is actually a relative absolute, i.e. conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.

The Universe, Itself, is totally unconditional, to and of Itself, and/or to and of any thing within Itself. The Universe, Itself, is also totally unconditionally existing, always has and always will. The Universe just always IS.

Whatever is empirical, observed and experienced, has always been filtered through an already pre-conditioned human brain. Thoughts, views, assumptions, and/or beliefs will always alter the outcome. Empirical "scientific" knowledge is always a subjective thing conditioned upon a human made "scientific" framework and system.

Let us see if you can look at and see this objectively at all. Looking at the Universe, Itself, from an unfiltered perspective the Universe is absolute perfection. But the view one has or makes up, of the Universe, is usually not of absolute perfection. This is because the view, itself, has already or is being filtered/conditioned. Take away the 'filters/conditions', thoughts, views, assumptions, and beliefs, then all you are left with is absolute perfection.

To exist IS absolute perfection. Existing IS living in absolute perfection. Existing, by definition, IS observing AND experiencing.
To be a truly Self-aware Being able to observe AND experience that, what I am creating, IS absolute perfection.

Although you are still a long way from truly understanding this, you can not dispute that you are an existing AND living, observing AND experiencing, human being. Therefore, you have ALL the empirical evidence right here before you to see AND feel as ENOUGH evidence of absolute perfection.

If you do NOT think that just being alive, able to experience AND observe, is NOT enough empirical evidence for absolute perfection, then there is NOTHING that will. If existing and living in a Universe is not enough evidence for you, then there is nothing that will be. Your RELATIVISTIC, subjective view of things will NOT allow you to see the OBJECTIVE TRUTH that is right in the HERE and NOW in front of you. Staring you in the face.

Whatever that exist is not absolute perfection but as I had stated is relative to some framework and system.

I say the Universe, Itself, is absolute perfection. So, what is THIS framework and system that the Universe, Itself, you say is relative to?

HOW could the Universe, Itself, which is ALL THERE IS, actually be relative to any thing else. You talk about some things being impossible, well to me this is one of them.

Can you grasp the context that absolute EVERY THING that exists IS absolute perfection?

You have proven already, countless times, that you can NOT grasp any thing that is contradicts your assumptions and beliefs but surely even a person like yourself can grasp the idea that ALL that exists is absolute perfection, which includes even this discussion.

The reason absolute perfection is every thing that exists is because without any existence, then there is nothing. To exist is to be in absolute perfection. If you do not think that you, existing, and being able to observe and experience is not absolute perfection, then you really are a hard one to please.

The argument is there is no absolute "I". Note Hume argued there is no permanent self.

You NOW say that "The argument is there is no absolute "I"." But when did that become 'THE' argument? Was it ONLY after I said, "To be a truly Self-aware Being able to observe AND experience that, what I am creating, IS absolute perfection."?

You are right hume may have argued there is no permanent self, but hume did NOT make a sound, valid argument for that. Therefore, what hume argued was NOT an unambiguous, indisputable fact. What hume actually argued was just some weak attempt to support hume's assumptions and beliefs.

I could very easily show and prove that there is in fact an absolute I.

But it is impossible to show and prove some thing to any person which contradicts their strongly held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. As shown and proven here already, you still can NOT grasp the fact that you are alive and living in absolute perfection right HERE and NOW. Even the WHOLE UNIVERSE is NOT enough evidence and proof to show you that what you BELIEVE is NOT true, NOT right, and NOT correct is in fact actually TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT.

If the whole Universe as living proof can NOT get past a human beings belief system, then nothing will. But I will keep on trying; LOOK at and LISTEN to the Universe. NOW, what does It show and tell you?

Does the Universe, Itself, show and say that this is absolute perfection, or, are you still unable to look and listen without your thoughts and beliefs and therefore you still just BELIEVE in that absolute perfection is relative to some framework and system.

Have you never looked past and beyond your own distorted thinking, and just looked in pure wonder at the whole infinite and eternal Universal wonder that lays here before you?

If you have not, then you should try it some time. Before you are completely unable to. That body you are in will not be around for much longer to allow you to be able to see the absolute perfection before you.

If you need any guidance in how to be able to look at and discover the objective answers that lay here before you, then just ask. But here is a hint anyway. Do NOT look from your own subjective thinking. Instead look from the OPEN Mind. Then you can SEE objectively, as well as KNOW objectively, what the true and right answers are.

I have been arguing what you are postulating that can be 'seen' is also seen by those with mental illness, brain damage, drug takers, meditators, etc.
How do you know you are not in a moment of madness or brain aberration, and the likes when you thought you had that glimpse of 'objectivity'.

You can not give absolute perfection a relative, to your own view, subjective definition. Absolute perfection just IS. Just being able to observe and experience IS absolute perfection. Just being able to observe and experience IS the definition for absolute perfection.

First person subjective experience cannot be objective.
What can be observed and experienced cannot be absolutely reliable nor fully trusted.
Note the existence of empirical illusion and in this case transcendental illusions.
Note this experiment where your mind deceived to see two normal faces when in reality that is not the case;


Note what can be inferred as knowledge is either via;

1. Empirical
2. Rational [logic, from crude to refine].

In both cases they are conditional and can be corrupted by illusions.

Your inference of absolute perfection arise from some psychological desperation rather than from empirical evidence or even logical deductions.

Thus my P1 still prevails.
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real

The illusion here is your ASSUMPTION. You assumed I was talking about first person perspective. You will NEVER get to see objectively that way.

You have NOT understood anything I was getting at here. This, my friends, IS because this person IS looking directly from the brain, and thus only seeing from previously gained thoughts ONLY. This person is THINKING it knows. There is NO looking from the Mind at all. That is WHY this person is completely unable to see WHAT IS, and what is actually happening here.

Veritas Aequitas, you said, 'Whatever that exist is not absolute perfection'. If the Universe, ALL THERE IS, is NOT absolute perfection, then WHAT IS IT?

[TimeSeeker]

Veritas Aequitas, you said, 'Whatever that exist is not absolute perfection'. If the Universe, ALL THERE IS, is NOT absolute perfection, then WHAT IS IT?

The universe is the universe. It does not need to be quantified/qualified with phrases like "absolute perfection". the universe is whatever the universe is.

To say that the universe is absolute perfection is to say that nothing that is a product of the universe can ever be improved.
So all the things we have invented - like medicine What is it for ?

Here is a subjective truth: The universe is trying to kill us and every living thing that ever walked the Earth, or that ever accidentally emerged in the Universe... It's succeeding.

[Age]

Veritas Aequitas, you said, 'Whatever that exist is not absolute perfection'. If the Universe, ALL THERE IS, is NOT absolute perfection, then WHAT IS IT?

The universe is the universe. It does not need to be quantified/qualified with phrases like "absolute perfection". the universe is whatever the universe is.

If that is the case, then neither does any thing else need to be quantified/qualified with phrases. They just are whatever they are.

Therefore, nothing at all NEEDS to be quantified/qualified, which is true. But human beings, out of human habit, will continue to quantify/qualify absolutely every thing, that is, until they have got it down perfectly right.

To say that the universe is absolute perfection is to say that nothing that is a product of the universe can ever be improved.

Exactly. Nothing that is a product of the Universe is literally nothing, or no thing to put it into different words. Absolutely every thing IS a product of the Universe, so the only thing left besides every thing is no thing. Or, nothing, which obviously can never be improved upon.

So all the things we have invented - like medicine What is it for ?[/quote]

To assume all the things like medicine is NOT a product of the Universe is incorrect. Human beings are NOT above, beyond, nor apart from, the Universe. Human beings are a product of the Universe, just like every thing else is. And, whatever human beings imagine, invent, create, and destroy IS also a product of the Universe, Itself.

ALL things are a product of the the Universe. The 'Universe', by definition, is ALL THERE IS. That means absolutely every thing is a part of the Universe. There is absolutely nothing apart from the Universe.

Here is a subjective truth: The universe is trying to kill us and every living thing that ever walked the Earth, or that ever accidentally emerged in the Universe... It's succeeding.

Here is a greater objective truth. Until the question of who am 'I'? is accurately and thus successfully answered, then if the Universe could kill 'Us', thee I, or NOT, may or will then be KNOWN. Individual human beings will not have a hope in hell of out succeeding the Universe, but just maybe the real and true I is NOT actually 'us', the individual (or even the collective) human being. Maybe thee I is evolving into Its Self, from and through human beings, and for all human beings know, that I could be thee Universe, ItSelf?

We will just have to wait and see what happens.

[TimeSeeker]

If that is the case, then neither does any thing else need to be quantified/qualified with phrases. They just are whatever they are.

Only if you care about the silly notion of 'objectivity'. That is 'unbiased perception' or some such philosophical idiocy.
The map is not the territory - it will never be the territory ( https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map ... _territory ) because physics!

Therefore, nothing at all NEEDS to be quantified/qualified, which is true. But human beings, out of human habit, will continue to quantify/qualify absolutely every thing, that is, until they have got it down perfectly right.

1. That would be "objectively" true. But I don't buy into the religion of objectivity.
2. SUBJECTIVELY - humans have needs, therefore things are qualified/quantified in pursuit of those human needs.
3. Human knowledge and language are value-ladden, lucky us - because without values language cannot even exist!
4. How would humans know they have gotten it "down perfectly right" ? If only the universe is "perfect" then how can a human DESCRIPTION of the universe also be "perfect" ?

To assume all the things like medicine is NOT a product of the Universe is incorrect. Human beings are NOT above, beyond, nor apart from, the Universe. Human beings are a product of the Universe, just like every thing else is. And, whatever human beings imagine, invent, create, and destroy IS also a product of the Universe, Itself.

ALL things are a product of the the Universe. The 'Universe', by definition, is ALL THERE IS. That means absolutely every thing is a part of the Universe. There is absolutely nothing apart from the Universe.

Sure, I am a product of the universe. I am also DIFFERENT from the universe. I have free will. I WANT therefore I am.
I WANT self-determinism. The universe has other ideas.

Here is a greater objective truth. Until the question of who am 'I'? is accurately and thus successfully answered, then if the Universe could kill 'Us', thee I, or NOT, may or will then be KNOWN. Individual human beings will not have a hope in hell of out succeeding the Universe

1. In this context "us" means the SYSTEM of humans/humanity. Not us - the collection of individual human animals. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
2. That is demonstrably false - we have (at least) doubled the human life-expectancy in the last 2000 years. How is that possible if we first need to answer the "Who am I?" question?
3. Asking questions without having SOME idea of what the answer should look like is a stupid exercise (and I am willing to demonstrate it).

For example what is the REASON why you ask the question "Who am I?". What answer do YOU EXPECT will be accurate enough and satisfactory enough TO YOU (the person ASKING the question)?

My name is TimeSeeker. I am human. That is satisfactory to me. What other qualifiers/quantifiers do I need to attach to myself and why?

[Age]

If that is the case, then neither does any thing else need to be quantified/qualified with phrases. They just are whatever they are.

Only if you care about the silly notion of 'objectivity'. That is 'unbiased perception' or some such philosophical idiocy.

Interacting with one who puts more thought into their responses is refreshing, but if you want to BELIEVE that objectivity/unbiased perception is just an impossible stupid view, then there is NO use in discussing it with you.

To timeseeker, the label given to a human being, believes objectivity is an impossibility, then WHY does the one labelled "timeseeker" use the word. This would be like one using the word 'God' when to them 'God is an impossibility'. There is NO use even discussing the issue.

The map is not the territory - it will never be the territory ( https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map ... _territory ) because physics!

Yes true. But you are talking about TWO different things. Obviously two different things will never be the same. By definition 'two' means NOT one, thus NOT the exact same.

To rephrase what you wrote, the thinking (of some thing) is NOT the same (as that thing). This is obvious and not sure why you want to bring it up.

A subjective view, concept, mental model, or even a physical model of some thing is NOT the same as the actual object. But the subject of a discussion could be about any object, like the Universe or any object within it.

The actual object, the Universe, and EVERY single thing within the Universe, is an object. You, the words you write down here, the thoughts from where the words came from, the thinking itself are ALL objects, and the sum of all these objects makes the Universe, Itself, thee objective Universe, Itself. The subjective views, concepts, mental models, and even any attempt at any physical models of objects is NOT the object, itself.

To be able to have an objective/unbiased view of this, or any thing else, just needs to be re-learned. I say, re-learned, because objectively was how all human beings once looked at things. That is before they became adulterated and began looking from and through subjective/biased views.

In saying that though, and which has already been shown and proven to be true here in this forum is, it is impossible to teach some thing to some one if they BELIEVE that it is an impossibility.

If you BELIEVE that looking and seeing objectively is impossible, then there is no use even discussing the issue any further, let alone trying to explain how extremely simple and easy it is to actually do. You are free to choose to BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE whatever you like. I am certainly NOT one to try to force any thing onto any one.

Therefore, nothing at all NEEDS to be quantified/qualified, which is true. But human beings, out of human habit, will continue to quantify/qualify absolutely every thing, that is, until they have got it down perfectly right.

1. That would be "objectively" true. But I don't buy into the religion of objectivity.

So, are you saying the ONLY reason you do not accept that that statement is objectively true IS because of your BELIEF that objectivity is an impossibility?

2. SUBJECTIVELY - humans have needs, therefore things are qualified/quantified in pursuit of those human needs.

Agreed. Also what is true is human beings have wants and desires AND things are qualified/quantified in pursuit of those wants and desires, ALSO.

By the way, you say humans have needs, would you like to clarify, by qualifying and quantifying, what those actual needs are. I KNOW humans have three and human beings have four. Do you think you know what those needs are, and, do you think you know of any more needs. I am interested to hear what you know.

3. Human knowledge and language are value-ladden, lucky us - because without values language cannot even exist!

Could it also be argued that without language then values could not also exist?

4. How would humans know they have gotten it "down perfectly right" ?

The answer to that is very simple and easy indeed. The answer is also very obvious when look and see it objectively and thus you fully understand it. But considering you BELIEVE that there is NO answer, because of your BELIEF that objectivity is an impossibility and that perfection could NOT exist, then there is NO use discussing this further.

When you can prove to me that you are open enough to accepting that there COULD be AN answer, then I will freely provide it. But until then why would I bother?

If only the universe is "perfect" then how can a human DESCRIPTION of the universe also be "perfect" ?

I am not sure if you saw the irony in this question when you wrote it, but IF the Universe is a perfect object, in and of Itself, then IF an accurate description of that perfect Object is given, then that DESCRIPTION of the Universe would also be perfect. But obviously because you BELIEVE that the Universe could NOT be perfect, then that also obviously means absolutely no other could be perfect also, including a human beings description of It.

To assume all the things like medicine is NOT a product of the Universe is incorrect. Human beings are NOT above, beyond, nor apart from, the Universe. Human beings are a product of the Universe, just like every thing else is. And, whatever human beings imagine, invent, create, and destroy IS also a product of the Universe, Itself.

ALL things are a product of the the Universe. The 'Universe', by definition, is ALL THERE IS. That means absolutely every thing is a part of the Universe. There is absolutely nothing apart from the Universe.

Sure, I am a product of the universe. I am also DIFFERENT from the universe. I have free will. I WANT therefore I am.
I WANT self-determinism. The universe has other ideas.

What are those "other ideas" that you, subjectively, think, believe, and say the Universe has?

Also how are you, the one self-labelled "timeseeker", supposedly DIFFERENT from the Universe? How do you, try to, separate yourself from the Universe, and, what is it that, you think, separates "you" from the Universe, Itself?

Here is a greater objective truth. Until the question of who am 'I'? is accurately and thus successfully answered, then if the Universe could kill 'Us', thee I, or NOT, may or will then be KNOWN. Individual human beings will not have a hope in hell of out succeeding the Universe

1. In this context "us" means the SYSTEM of humans/humanity. Not us - the collection of individual human animals. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Fair enough, i mistook the context of "us" in which you wrote it. i accept that i should NOT have assumed this, nor any thing else, and i should have asked for clarification first, so i apologize for making this mistake.

What IS this thing you call "SYSTEM of humans/humanity"?

Of course the whole is greater that the sum of its parts. That stands to reason, even logically.

2. That is demonstrably false - we have (at least) doubled the human life-expectancy in the last 2000 years. How is that possible if we first need to answer the "Who am I?" question?

You appear to have completely taken out of context what I actually meant. Maybe re-read what I wrote again.

Even if a human being could live forever more they would NOT have a chance in hell of out succeeding the Universe BECAUSE the Universe was around before that human being ever came into being. That is what I meant, which may not be in line with the context you were using with the word "us" but i have already explained and apologized for not understanding what context you meant.

3. Asking questions without having SOME idea of what the answer should look like is a stupid exercise (and I am willing to demonstrate it).

Do you think/believe that I did ask any question in this forum without having SOME idea of what the answer should look like?

For example what is the REASON why you ask the question "Who am I?".

To show to future readers HOW the human beings of this day and age were still in the dark ages about what they now KNOW. I want to show "future peoples" what was actually involved in and during the actual discussions of people of one generation with One from a future generation. Imagine, if you will, being able to go back say 200 years and in writing conversations with those people you write in a way KNOWING that you can and will show the "future" people, of your generation, how hard it was just trying to explain things like how future events will come into existence. You do this also so that in order to show and prove some point, to the future people where you came from, so that the necessary proof is available so that they can AND WILL change, for the better? (That may seem deep to some, but it is not really at all).

I am teaching, through explanation, how the Mind and the brain work. Using the people in this forum as test subjects and allowing them to provide freely the answers and/or responses that they give, they are providing the proof needed of HOW the closed-thinking (subjective) brain actually tries to override the OPEN-KNOWING (Objective) Mind. Showing this, will be part, of the evidence needed, of HOW to change, for the better. Once this is fully learned and understood, then moving forward in the right and proper direction will progress, exponentially.

This process of "future" human beings learning and understanding this more and more all the time is an ongoing process, which has already begun. Some are just able to learn and understand things far quicker than others are. NOT because some are more able to learn quicker than others can but BECAUSE some are more far OPEN than others are.

What answer do YOU EXPECT will be accurate enough and satisfactory enough TO YOU (the person ASKING the question)?

The SAME answer that will be accurate enough AND satisfactory enough TO YOU, also. In fact the answer that is accurate enough and satisfactory enough TO ME IS the exact same answer. That is, accurate enough AND satisfactory enough not just to EVERY ONE of US, human beings, but also to EVERYONE of US, things.

Only when an answer IS accurate enough and satisfactory enough TO EVERYONE as ONE, only then that IS the true and right OBJECTIVE answer. OH, that is right you BELIEVE that that is an impossibility. Thus the reason WHY your questioning here appears so obviously written with skepticism and sarcasm, am I right?

My name is TimeSeeker. I am human.

Are you at all able to further qualify what exactly 'timeseeker' IS, and/or, what exactly 'human' IS?

That is satisfactory to me.

Whatever answer a human being gives/provides to themselves and they feel it is satisfactory, then so be it. If you are satisfied with the answers you have/give, then great, just accept them. And, be happy. However, there are some others, like me, who prefer to keep delving deeper and deeper until I found answers that are in agreement with each other. Answers that when ALL come together, like a puzzle, fit perfectly to form the most accurate and satisfactorily truest picture THERE IS.

Once this big picture was formed, some people, like me, like to begin showing It the best way that they can, which unfortunately at times is about useless as me talking to a brick wall. That is not to say that the brick wall is not listen, that is to say that I have not yet learned how to communicate accurately and correctly with a brick wall. I do not want to keep showing this, what I call, perfect big picture for any other reason than just wanting the rest of humanities children to grow up in a truly loving and caring environment. Discovering and finding answers that unite together, peacefully and harmoniously, with each other as One IS the answer that will lead to creating the world in which we ALL want and desire to live in.

What other qualifiers/quantifiers do I need to attach to myself and why?

I suggest that that answer only you, and you alone, can give.

But I will provide a hint to the answer; Do you really believe that you NEED to attach your Self to any thing whatsoever?

And, if so, WHY?

If not, then great.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...
You have NOT understood anything I was getting at here. This, my friends, IS because this person IS looking directly from the brain, and thus only seeing from previously gained thoughts ONLY. This person is THINKING it knows. There is NO looking from the Mind at all. That is WHY this person is completely unable to see WHAT IS, and what is actually happening here.

Veritas Aequitas, you said, 'Whatever that exist is not absolute perfection'. If the Universe, ALL THERE IS, is NOT absolute perfection, then WHAT IS IT?

Noted your full post above.

Your whole argument and my contentions is reducible to,
Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism, i.e.
[=mine]

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2]

In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the Philosophy of Science.

My focus is not on Science, but,
my position is Philosophical anti-realism [mainly Kantian plus others] where reality is a Spontaneous-Emergent-Reality comprising all-there-is including the subject[s], thus inevitably conditioned upon the human[s] conditions.

Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism is a major dichotomy and contentious issue within the philosophical community.

What you are arguing for is Philosophical Realism, i.e. there is an absolutely independent reality [all there is] out there awaiting to be perceived and realized. This view is not tenable as real.

Note, crudely [there are more refine arguments];

• Reality is all-there-IS.
  ALL-there-IS comprise of subjects[all].
  Reality is subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

Btw, I have argued elsewhere 'objectivity' is purely intersubjective consensus, thus subjective in this sense.

Now, why humans like you are insisting reality is an absolutely independent all there IS, is because of the inherent unavoidable desperate psychology within the psyche of the person[s]. This will pave the way for subjects like you to a belief in God who will promise salvation of your trembling soul desperate for eternal life in Heaven. This is purely an illusion and delusional upon a persistent claim.

I believe your argument above which I have countered is your last bastion of defense. I still have loads of ace cards on hand if you ever squeezed out any sliver of counter.

[TimeSeeker]

Interacting with one who puts more thought into their responses is refreshing, but if you want to BELIEVE that objectivity/unbiased perception is just an impossible stupid view, then there is NO use in discussing it with you.

Well, indeed. If you are trying to impose your view on what 'objectivity' is on me, or if I am trying to do the same to you - then there is no point. We are just battling perspectives. And so 'objectivity' can only exist in some pre-agreed, shared framework. What is that framework?

To timeseeker, the label given to a human being, believes objectivity is an impossibility, then WHY does the one labelled "timeseeker" use the word. This would be like one using the word 'God' when to them 'God is an impossibility'. There is NO use even discussing the issue.

Simple explanation. Inheritance an completeness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)

Telling you that I am human gives you all the information about the COMMON properties you expect me to possess: anatomy, speech, ability to reason etc. I inherit an approximation of all the properties you would expect any human to have. That sets the general context.

Telling you my name tells you that my TYPE (human) does not COMPLETELY define me. There is more to me than the properties I've inherited.
That sets the particular context.

Yes true. But you are talking about TWO different things. Obviously two different things will never be the same. By definition 'two' means NOT one, thus NOT the exact same.

To rephrase what you wrote, the thinking (of some thing) is NOT the same (as that thing). This is obvious and not sure why you want to bring it up.

Because when we call TWO DIFFERENT THINGS 'human'. We need a reason as to WHY we are equating them. IF they are different, then why do we NEED collective nouns? Why can't we just address humans by their UNIQUE names?

If you BELIEVE that looking and seeing objectively is impossible, then there is no use even discussing the issue any further, let alone trying to explain how extremely simple and easy it is to actually do. You are free to choose to BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE whatever you like. I am certainly NOT one to try to force any thing onto any one.

Well, here is the fundamental, mathematical problem.
The universe is BIG.
Our minds are SMALL.

And so any 'objective' conception of the universe that fits in our minds is naturally a reduced model. And a MODEL, by definition is an idealisation/simplification. Every model is incomplete in some particular way.

If you want to get an exact number - we can look to Combinatronics and information theory to make some approximation. Lets just say that the number of possible MODELS of reality (perspectives) is 10^10 (VERY conservative).

So, are you saying the ONLY reason you do not accept that that statement is objectively true IS because of your BELIEF that objectivity is an impossibility?

Correct. Given the 10^10 possible models all of which are incomplete (e.g IMPERFECT). You have but only one problem to address.

Which one is THE 'objective' model and how did you DECIDE that?

Agreed. Also what is true is human beings have wants and desires AND things are qualified/quantified in pursuit of those wants and desires, ALSO.

By the way, you say humans have needs, would you like to clarify, by qualifying and quantifying, what those actual needs are. I KNOW humans have three and human beings have four. Do you think you know what those needs are, and, do you think you know of any more needs. I am interested to hear what you know.

In general - Maslow's hierarchy will do. For the particular topic at hand I have but a question: Do you think arriving at an objective description of reality is a human need?

Could it also be argued that without language then values could not also exist?

I don't think so. We had values long before we had language.
I am hungry - I should find food (need). I like food (value). All of these were thoughts/instincts before they became words.

Because we are social creatures - we developed language to communicate. Probably to communicate about HOW to obtain food.

The answer to that is very simple and easy indeed. The answer is also very obvious when look and see it objectively and thus you fully understand it.

In that one sentence YOU have moved YOUR OWN goal post! In a slight of .... mind? You have fooled yourself.

I will just ask you a different question: How will you know that you understand the universe?

But considering you BELIEVE that there is NO answer, because of your BELIEF that objectivity is an impossibility and that perfection could NOT exist, then there is NO use discussing this further.

When you can prove to me that you are open enough to accepting that there COULD be AN answer, then I will freely provide it. But until then why would I bother?

Quite the opposite. There are VERY MANY ANSWERS.

Which one do you like?

I am not sure if you saw the irony in this question when you wrote it, but IF the Universe is a perfect object, in and of Itself, then IF an accurate description of that perfect Object is given, then that DESCRIPTION of the Universe would also be perfect. But obviously because you BELIEVE that the Universe could NOT be perfect, then that also obviously means absolutely no other could be perfect also, including a human beings description of It.

The only thing that can suffice as an 'accurate description' is a PERFECT REPLICA.

No such REPLICA can exist INSIDE the object we are trying to replicate.

Russian dolls problem...

What are those "other ideas" that you, subjectively, think, believe, and say the Universe has?

Also how are you, the one self-labelled "timeseeker", supposedly DIFFERENT from the Universe? How do you, try to, separate yourself from the Universe, and, what is it that, you think, separates "you" from the Universe, Itself?

I have free will that is in opposition to the Universe's plans for us.
The universe is entropic/chaotic. I (like all humans) value order and self-determinism. I value control. And so I wish to design my life to my liking

So I need to tame the universe.

What IS this thing you call "SYSTEM of humans/humanity"?

Society.

Of course the whole is greater that the sum of its parts. That stands to reason, even logically.

It's just a value-choice. You COULD say "the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts". It is equally and logicaly correct. It preaches of the Clockwork (deterministic) universe.

Whether the universe IS deterministic is not a question for my ape brain.
Given OUR physical limitations (small brains!) - it's NOT deterministic! It is probabilistic.

Even if a human being could live forever more they would NOT have a chance in hell of out succeeding the Universe BECAUSE the Universe was around before that human being ever came into being. That is what I meant, which may not be in line with the context you were using with the word "us" but i have already explained and apologized for not understanding what context you meant.

OK, but that is an absolutist view. I don't want to succeed the universe. I just want to live longer than 65 years I think I'll settle for 600.

I want to LEARN more. And given my physical limitations (thanks, asshole universe!) - I need more time

Do you think/believe that I did ask any question in this forum without having SOME idea of what the answer should look like?

I don't know. I cannot read your mind. But if you are transparent about the goal/objective/answer you seek - conversations go MUCH faster

I am teaching, through explanation, how the Mind and the brain work. Using the people in this forum as test subjects and allowing them to provide freely the answers and/or responses that they give, they are providing the proof needed of HOW the closed-thinking (subjective) brain actually tries to override the OPEN-KNOWING (Objective) Mind. Showing this, will be part, of the evidence needed, of HOW to change, for the better. Once this is fully learned and understood, then moving forward in the right and proper direction will progress, exponentially.

Are you really teaching, or obtaining evidence for yourself that you understand the subject-matter Maybe both.

As many wise men have said: "If you cannot explain it simply - you do not understand it".

The SAME answer that will be accurate enough AND satisfactory enough TO YOU, also.

Are you sure about that? How can you make such assertion without knowing what answer I seek.

For example. I already have my answer. I have simply chosen not to impose it on you. Because it is very VERY unlikely that you will accept my 'truth'

In fact the answer that is accurate enough and satisfactory enough TO ME IS the exact same answer. That is, accurate enough AND satisfactory enough not just to EVERY ONE of US, human beings, but also to EVERYONE of US, things.

Only when an answer IS accurate enough and satisfactory enough TO EVERYONE as ONE, only then that IS the true and right OBJECTIVE answer. OH, that is right you BELIEVE that that is an impossibility. Thus the reason WHY your questioning here appears so obviously written with skepticism and sarcasm, am I right?

OK. I have an answer. You won't like it

Are you at all able to further qualify what exactly 'timeseeker' IS, and/or, what exactly 'human' IS?

Yes, but only to specific/particular questions that YOU might ask. In general terms - no, I cannot.

I suggest that that answer only you, and you alone, can give.

Well, I have answered it. And I am giving it to you anyway. I am a human. My name is TimeSeeker

But I will provide a hint to the answer; Do you really believe that you NEED to attach your Self to any thing whatsoever?

And, if so, WHY?

So that I can communicate with other humans

[Age]

...
You have NOT understood anything I was getting at here. This, my friends, IS because this person IS looking directly from the brain, and thus only seeing from previously gained thoughts ONLY. This person is THINKING it knows. There is NO looking from the Mind at all. That is WHY this person is completely unable to see WHAT IS, and what is actually happening here.

Veritas Aequitas, you said, 'Whatever that exist is not absolute perfection'. If the Universe, ALL THERE IS, is NOT absolute perfection, then WHAT IS IT?

Noted your full post above.

Your whole argument and my contentions is reducible to,
Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism, i.e.
[=mine]

BUT that IS NOT my whole argument at all. That is NOT even a part of my argument. In fact I would NOT even begin to talk about "philosophical realism" let alone argue for or against it. To me the two words together are nonsensical. That is NOT an argument I made at all.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2]

In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the Philosophy of Science.

THAT IS your take on things, which you have gained from the rubbish you read and listen to from self-labelled "philosophers", which ALSO has just about nothing at all to do with what I talk about.

All you have written here is how you see things regarding this issue. This issue HAS just about NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WHAT I AM SAYING.

My focus is not on Science, but,
my position is Philosophical anti-realism [mainly Kantian plus others] where reality is a Spontaneous-Emergent-Reality comprising all-there-is including the subject[s], thus inevitably conditioned upon the human[s] conditions.

Who cares what your focus is on or not on. Either respond to what I ACTUALLY wrote and said AND in the context that I said and wrote it in, or, do NOT respond.

Writing about what your take is of things that other people have written and what you focus or not focus on is of no real importance here. The point in question is you BELIEVE that God is an impossibility and you insist that this is absolutely true, right, and correct. I have questioned you on WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS THING THAT YOU INSIST IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY? Or, in other words, what definition do YOU use for 'God', which leads you to BELIEVE what you do? Until YOU write down in your OWN words the definition YOU use, instead of using OTHER's definitions, the I have NO real understanding of where you are coming from. I do NOT like to assume any thing. I also can NOT view things from the perspective that you do. So, just providing other's definitions does NOT allow me to see exactly where you are coming from.

Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism is a major dichotomy and contentious issue within the philosophical community.

Absolutely EVERY issue within that stolen and ridiculously called "philosophical community" IS CONTENTIOUS. Probably always has been and always will be, if "they" continue doing what they have been and continually to do NOW.

That "community" you talk about is the exact same one that I asked you earlier to find just one single sound, valid argument that they have come up that has been of any real benefit for humanity or the world within the last 200 years. I also asked you to present it here for all of us to see. You have failed to do so. Either because you are to lazy or because you can not find one, or for some other reason. Until a sound, valid argument that was asked for is presented then how hard is it to imagine with of the these three reasons most people will be thinking is the one WHY you have not done so.

What you are arguing for is Philosophical Realism, i.e. there is an absolutely independent reality [all there is] out there awaiting to be perceived and realized. This view is not tenable as real.

I am NOT arguing for that at ALL. I do NOT participate in the ridiculousness, stupid and general waste of time that is "debating".

I have said it previously, but you obviously missed it. I do NOT take sides and fight for that side. To me there are no sides. There is ONLY TRUTH, which when looking correctly is very easy to see, as well as distinguish from what is false.

I NEVER argued for "philisophical realism".
All i have said here generally is;
Just being able to exist is absolutely amazing. Consider not being able to exist. What are you left with? What is left? Nothing!
If there is some thing, then no matter what shape or form it is in it is, by itself, pure and absolute perfection.
If you exist, then that is because of the Universe, Itself.
If the Universe did NOT exist, then neither would you.
You are existing.
There is some thing. That thing is called the Universe.
The existing Universe no matter what shape nor form It is in, It is in absolute perfection.
No matter what any other living thing thinks about it.
The ONLY reason there is any living thing that thinks is SOLELY because of the Universe, Itself.
The Universe, in any way It is, is absolute perfection.
Existence, or existing, IS absolute perfection. Because without existence there is NO thing, at all.

Note, crudely [there are more refine arguments];

• Reality is all-there-IS.
  ALL-there-IS comprise of subjects[all].
  Reality is subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

Note, (NONE of any of those refined, or non-refined, arguments are mine).

'Reality' is NOT ALL-there-IS.

ALL-THERE-IS is 'ALL-THERE-IS', or more commonly known as the Universe.

'Reality' is completely different to ALL-THERE-IS.

Btw, I have argued elsewhere 'objectivity' is purely intersubjective consensus, thus subjective in this sense.

Was it a sound, valid argument that you made, and thus an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed? Or, was it just another one of your unsound, invalid arguments? If it was not a sound, valid argument, then so what? Every adult human being "argues" about things. That does NOT make their "arguments" sound and/or valid. Adult human beings are just about always trying to "argue" for their own positions, views, and beliefs. Just because adult human beings, do what you call, "argue" their position that does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT make their position true, right, nor correct.

By the way, with just a slight tweak of your argument here it could be made into a completely sound, valid argument.

Now, why humans like you are insisting reality is an absolutely independent all there IS, is because of the inherent unavoidable desperate psychology within the psyche of the person[s].

BUT, if I recall correctly, I have NEVER even used the word 'reality' through any of these discussions with you. Let alone even imagined the word 'reality' while discussing things with you. So, how you come up with this ridiculous notion that i am insisting reality is an absolutely independent all there IS is beyond me.

The only reason, that I can think of now, WHY you have jumped to this most stupid of conclusion is because of a term you would probably be familiar with; that is, you have been 'brain-washed', and 'brain-washed' by and because of this silly little "community", which you so desperately want to belong with and fit in with, called a "philosophical community". ('Brain-washed' by the way, for those with real interest, is a totally incorrect term used by the human beings, of this era of human beings, when this is written.)

This will pave the way for subjects like you to a belief in God who will promise salvation of your trembling soul desperate for eternal life in Heaven. This is purely an illusion and delusional upon a persistent claim.

What are you going on about NOW? Are you STILL under the illusion that I believe some thing?

You are so off tangent and off track that I am not sure if you will be able to get back to the issue here.

I believe your argument above which I have countered is your last bastion of defense.

"Defense" against what exactly?

I still have loads of ace cards on hand if you ever squeezed out any sliver of counter.

BUT you have NOT countered any thing, except for your OWN ASSUMPTION that I have argued for some thing. I repeat, I do NOT and did NOT even argue for what you ASSUMED I did. Therefore, there is NOTHING for me to counter here. Your own stupidity seems to counter your own arguments even better than I would even try to.

This all is of course if you can prove I did make an argument for what you assumed I did. If you can and do provide evidence for the contrary, then I will have and WILL apologize profusely to you.

We await patiently for your evidence.

Let us start again right back to my very first words in this post of yours;
You have NOT understood anything I was getting at here.

You seem to keep repeating this very fact more so, now.

Some may say you are also trying your hardest, even if it may unconsciously be being done by you, to side-step the main issue here. That is, I do NOT have a BELIEF here. The only one with a BELIEF here is YOU.

[Age]

Interacting with one who puts more thought into their responses is refreshing, but if you want to BELIEVE that objectivity/unbiased perception is just an impossible stupid view, then there is NO use in discussing it with you.

Well, indeed. If you are trying to impose your view on what 'objectivity' is on me, or if I am trying to do the same to you - then there is no point.

You have lost my point completely. If you share your VIEW, of some thing, and I share my VIEW of some opposite thing, then that is great.
If we both share our opposing VIEWS and we are OPEN to seeing each others VIEW and thus able to change our own VIEW, then that is even much better.
However, if you share your BELIEF, of some thing, and I share my BELIEF (if I had one), of some opposite thing, then there is NO use in having any further discussion with you about this because we both are NOT open at all, thus we are unable to change our BELIEFS and therefore there is absolutely no use in discussing this any further.
'BELIEFS', by definition, are unchangeable fixed views or opinions.

Expressing and sharing a VIEW is very different from expressing and sharing a BELIEF.

We are just battling perspectives. And so 'objectivity' can only exist in some pre-agreed, shared framework. What is that framework?

Are you asking from a skeptical perspective, thus NOT able to accept any answer I give? Or, are you asking from an open perspective, and thus able to accept my answer of; That framework is UNITY. Accepting it does not mean you have to agree with it. But if you are open, and thus able to accept it, but you do not agree with it, then you will give a purely logical explanation of why you do not agree and also explain WHY my answer is not true, not right, and/or not correct. However, if you are asking from the skeptical perspective, then you will NOT accept any answer I give and just dismiss it wholeheartedly, and/or also usually give some illogical reason why my answer is wrong.

When ALL are in agreement, then that means EVERY ONE has put their VIEW forward, or had a look at the issue from their viewpoint and perspective, and when, and if, ALL are in agreement with any proposed answer/solution, then that means, whatever the thing is, has been looked at from every possible position, and therefore as objectively as objectivity can be.

Honesty, openness, and a willingness to change, by ALL, will be the pre-agreed, shared framework. Sharing perspectives peacefully in an honest and open way, while wanting to change is NOT battling but working together to find WHAT-IT-IS that we ALL actually do accept and agree upon. This coming together, peacefully, in UNITY is THAT FRAMEWORK for 'objectivity'.

That is my answer, which maybe partly or wholeheartedly either correct or incorrect. If you are not going to dismiss it completely, and explain to me the parts of it that is wrong, and more importantly WHY those parts are wrong, then I would much appreciate that.

Coming together like this is what will help us ALL to find what is the ultimate of truth that we can find.

To timeseeker, the label given to a human being, believes objectivity is an impossibility, then WHY does the one labelled "timeseeker" use the word. This would be like one using the word 'God' when to them 'God is an impossibility'. There is NO use even discussing the issue.

Simple explanation. Inheritance an completeness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)

Telling you that I am human gives you all the information about the COMMON properties you expect me to possess: anatomy, speech, ability to reason etc.

No, that is incorrect. That does NOT give me ALL the information at all. There is a LOT MORE of information available, which by the way tells a far truer and far more corrective description, and thus also draws a far bigger picture, to see and understand.

I inherit an approximation of all the properties you would expect any human to have. That sets the general context.

But I do NOT expect any thing.

I prefer to just look at WHAT IS, and then see just WHAT IS.

Telling you my name tells you that my TYPE (human) does not COMPLETELY define me.

Telling me your name just tells me a label (or a name), for a thing.

And, of course a label, or name, does NOT completely define a person or a human being.

There is more to me than the properties I've inherited.

Yes, I KNOW.

That sets the particular context.

Yes true. But you are talking about TWO different things. Obviously two different things will never be the same. By definition 'two' means NOT one, thus NOT the exact same.

To rephrase what you wrote, the thinking (of some thing) is NOT the same (as that thing). This is obvious and not sure why you want to bring it up.

Because when we call TWO DIFFERENT THINGS 'human'. We need a reason as to WHY we are equating them. IF they are different, then why do we NEED collective nouns? Why can't we just address humans by their UNIQUE names?

I am not sure where this is going, nor why.

If you BELIEVE that looking and seeing objectively is impossible, then there is no use even discussing the issue any further, let alone trying to explain how extremely simple and easy it is to actually do. You are free to choose to BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE whatever you like. I am certainly NOT one to try to force any thing onto any one.

Well, here is the fundamental, mathematical problem.
The universe is BIG.
Our minds are SMALL.

There are so many different ways to progress here to show;
1. This is not a fundamental nor a mathematical "problem".
2. This is not even a problem at all.
3. How the Universe could NOT be big, and in quite a few different ways.
4. You would have to show sufficiently and accurately what a 'mind' actually is.
5. There is no such thing as "our" minds.
6. There is only one Mind, of which it is also not "ours".
7. The one and only Mind is NOT small.
8. There is an actual problem here of how do you differentiate between A thing being big or small when there is no other thing to relatively compare it to?

Even what an actual 'problem' IS and or entails, needs to be discussed and agreed upon before we could progress successfully.

And so any 'objective' conception of the universe that fits in our minds is naturally a reduced model.

That is only if you BELIEVE that there are "our" minds and that those supposed minds are small.

Also, I explained earlier that a conception of some thing is NOT what that thing IS. I also explained that to see 'objectively' is to NOT look from conception, views, opinions, assumptions, beliefs, et cetera.

You can not have objective conception. But you can see objectively. There is a BIG difference.

And a MODEL, by definition is an idealisation/simplification.

Very true, maybe.

Which might help in explaining WHY I can very easily see, and understand, the whole big and true picture of the Universe, Itself, in Its absolute perfection, very simply also.

Every model is incomplete in some particular way.

Unless a model is of course full and thorough in EVERY way.

Being able to see and understand the whole thing, like the Universe, Itself, might be a very simple and easy thing to do, once you know how. But learning how to make an explanatory and accurate model of It for others, through painting a picture and make notes for them is a long, slow and tedious learning process, especially when that one is very inept at drawing and reading.

If you want to get an exact number - we can look to Combinatronics and information theory to make some approximation.

If you want to get an EXACT, of any thing, then SOME APPROXIMATION just is not going to cut it.

Exact and approximation are two very different things. Contrary or opposites some may say.

Lets just say that the number of possible MODELS of reality (perspectives) is 10^10 (VERY conservative).

Way beyond me even wanting to begin understanding this. I do not want to get an "exact" number of some thing that I see is not even true. That is, NOT every model is incomplete is some particular way. If a model is complete in EVERY way, then that model is NOT incomplete in some particular way. Therefore, NOT every model is incomplete is some particular way, which is contrary to what you say is true.

To me every thing is very simple and easy. What you are doing here is just complicating some thing that is already very simple. Human beings have an extremely bad habit of trying to complicate that what is purely very simple.

So, are you saying the ONLY reason you do not accept that that statement is objectively true IS because of your BELIEF that objectivity is an impossibility?

Correct. Given the 10^10 possible models all of which are incomplete (e.g IMPERFECT). You have but only one problem to address.

Which one is THE 'objective' model and how did you DECIDE that?

I have already explained what the framework is that is necessary to see objectively.

Also, a physical model of some thing will be incomplete in some particular way, just as you suggested. However, looking at a thing, in and of itself, in the correct way a complete, full, and thorough model CAN be drawn. Thus, creating a full and true model of that thing. Discovering and/or learning HOW to see objectively, allows one to be able to see objectively, and then a big picture of things can be drawn.

Agreed. Also what is true is human beings have wants and desires AND things are qualified/quantified in pursuit of those wants and desires, ALSO.

By the way, you say humans have needs, would you like to clarify, by qualifying and quantifying, what those actual needs are. I KNOW humans have three and human beings have four. Do you think you know what those needs are, and, do you think you know of any more needs. I am interested to hear what you know.

In general - Maslow's hierarchy will do.

No it will NOT do.

That hierarchy is just an incomplete, and/or over complicated, model in some particular way.

For the particular topic at hand I have but a question: Do you think arriving at an objective description of reality is a human need?

;Arriving at an objective description' of 'reality' is certainly NOT a human need. But 'arriving at an objective description' of 'reality' is certainly a human being need;, that is, if they truly want to end up living how they truly want and desire to live, then they need to arrive at an objective description of 'reality'.

Which by the way that description was and is very easy to discover and find also.

Could it also be argued that without language then values could not also exist?

I don't think so. We had values long before we had language.
I am hungry - I should find food (need). I like food (value). All of these were thoughts/instincts before they became words.

Can you please explain how one can have the thought 'I am hungry', 'I should find food', or, 'I like food', WITHOUT language nor words?

Because we are social creatures - we developed language to communicate. Probably to communicate about HOW to obtain food.

Did human beings really and actually develop language to communicate BECAUSE they are social creatures?

Could there be another reason why language developed other than 'to communicate'?'

Did 'we', ourselves, develop language, or could language developed on its own? Because of some other reason like an inherent need within us?

To you, did any other social animals develop language?

And, where is or what is the actual link that lead you to the conclusion that human beings developed language probably to communicate about HOW to obtain food? Did you read that somewhere or was it just a guess or was it some thing else?

I had not thought to much about this before, if at all, but, at first glance, in order to obtain food all social creatures have to work together. For it is working together how social creatures live, obtain their food, and thus keep living and surviving. In order to be able to work together successfully some form of communication between each other is needed. As human beings are the very weakest for physical strength of all social animals if not all animals, then that might somewhat explain WHY human beings have forged so far ahead of all other animals in their ability to be able 'to communicate'?

The answer to that is very simple and easy indeed. The answer is also very obvious when look and see it objectively and thus you fully understand it.

In that one sentence YOU have moved YOUR OWN goal post! In a slight of .... mind? You have fooled yourself.

Explain WHERE and WHY you think/believe that I have moved MY OWN goal post.

I will just ask you a different question: How will you know that you understand the universe?

Easily. When EVERYONE is in agreement as One, then I will KNOW.

This is the second time you have done this; That is, side-stepping the issue at hand, by asking me a question, instead of staying on and looking further it what is being discussed. Do not get me wrong about asking me clarifying questions. I love them. I love when people give them to me, and, I actually thrive on them. But please finish answering the clarifying questions I ask of you also. I let the first one slide that you did not answer. I do let most of my questions go unanswered without picking the people up on it because I know that usually they can not answer my questions anyway. But now instead of not answering one of my questions you are accusing me of some thing, which i can not and will not let go by. You say that I have moved my own goal post, with slight of .... mind, and, that i have fooled myself.

1. What goal post have I supposedly moved?
2. You said with slight of ... mind?, with the question mark. Does the question mark imply that you are unsure, and/or that i also am unsure, of how and/or why I moved the goal post?
3. How and why do you think I have fooled myself?

Now, back to your question. If EVERYONE is in agreement about the Universe, then that means there is NO one thing in disagreement about the Universe, so that means I KNOW, for sure, that I understand the Universe.

But considering you BELIEVE that there is NO answer, because of your BELIEF that objectivity is an impossibility and that perfection could NOT exist, then there is NO use discussing this further.

When you can prove to me that you are open enough to accepting that there COULD be AN answer, then I will freely provide it. But until then why would I bother?

Quite the opposite. There are VERY MANY ANSWERS.

Which one do you like?

I have forgotten the question that you say there are VERY MANY ANSWERS to and it is not quoted here, so you will have to remind me again what the actual question is?

Considering your response I also think you have missed my point again.

By the way, what do you mean there are VERY MANY ANSWERS? Are you saying that there are many very truly objective answers?

If you are, then that contradicts what you have been previously saying.
If you are not, then are you just saying that there are very many relative answers?

If it is the later, then I am already very aware of that.

I am not sure if you saw the irony in this question when you wrote it, but IF the Universe is a perfect object, in and of Itself, then IF an accurate description of that perfect Object is given, then that DESCRIPTION of the Universe would also be perfect. But obviously because you BELIEVE that the Universe could NOT be perfect, then that also obviously means absolutely no other could be perfect also, including a human beings description of It.

The only thing that can suffice as an 'accurate description' is a PERFECT REPLICA.

No such REPLICA can exist INSIDE the object we are trying to replicate.

Russian dolls problem...

When you say 'PERFECT REPLICA' are you thinking/talking physical replica, mental replica, or some other replica?

I have already agreed no exact same physical replica could exist.

You seem to be stuck on this smaller and smaller issue again, which does arise with physical models/replicas. This issue will also arise for you because of your belief that there are many human minds and each one is smaller than the Universe.

One other thing here is; it would not matter one bit EVEN if an ABSOLUTE PERFECT REPLICA or model is produced, of an absolute perfect thing, because to you 'objectivity' in any way, shape, or form is an impossibility anyway.

What are those "other ideas" that you, subjectively, think, believe, and say the Universe has?

Also how are you, the one self-labelled "timeseeker", supposedly DIFFERENT from the Universe? How do you, try to, separate yourself from the Universe, and, what is it that, you think, separates "you" from the Universe, Itself?

I have free will that is in opposition to the Universe's plans for us.

Not necessarily in opposition.

The Universe's plan IS for you to have free will.

The reason this IS part of the Universe's plan, which will be fully seen and understood after human beings have learned how and why to change, for the better, and, after they have successfully discovered and accurately answered the question 'Who am 'I'?'

The universe is entropic/chaotic.

Depending on an individuals take of those two words that is not a bad thing at all.

I (like all humans) value order and self-determinism.

A lot of things human beings value is wrong for life, living, their home planet, and even themselves.

I value control. And so I wish to design my life to my liking

Thus, the reason each passing generation of human beings is left with more pollution, more rubbish, and more destruction to try and clean up and fix after.

The reason you are like that is NOT because you are born that way but because you learned to be that way.

So I need to tame the universe.

You do not need to. You want to.

You can also try as hard as you like, but you know what the actual chances are.

But in saying that you will be absolutely utterly surprised at just how, dare I say it 'objectively', tame the Universe, Itself, actually IS.

The Universe is NOT complex, chaotic, nor disordered. Only human beings see it that. The reason human beings see it that way is because it is them, themselves, that are confused and perplexed about matters regarding the Universe, Itself. When they look to the Universe for answers, they look from and through this confused and perplexed field of view, which distorts the actual and real truth of things.

The Universe, Itself, IS, and thus is also in a state of, absolute perfection. Therefore, there is nothing to tame and neither is there any thing to want to tame.

What IS this thing you call "SYSTEM of humans/humanity"?

Society.

Noted, but completely forgot what it was in regards to exactly. Without the actual previous quotes in front of me i do not like to assume any thing.

Of course the whole is greater that the sum of its parts. That stands to reason, even logically.

It's just a value-choice. You COULD say "the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts". It is equally and logicaly correct. It preaches of the Clockwork (deterministic) universe.

If it is just a value choice, then that is a different context, than the one that i was thinking.

Just to make it clear when I look at things I do NOT see either a deterministic "side" nor a free will "side". To me, there is NO either/or. There is NO one or the other. No one verses another issue nor debate. To me, both co-exist equally. In fact one could not exist without the other. This goes for any and all issues like this that you, human beings, want and do debate about. There is no creation/evolution issue. There is no nature/nurture issue, et cetera, et cetera. Within all of these, so called, "issues" you can not have one without the other. In ALL "issues" both things co-exist, equally. The fact is there is NO thing to debate.

Whether the universe IS deterministic is not a question for my ape brain.
Given OUR physical limitations (small brains!) - it's NOT deterministic! It is probabilistic.[/quote]

Trying to look at and see some thing as big as the Universe through and from the brain is a pointless task. The brain can NOT see past its own limitations.

So, the very thing that you used, to arrive at the answer that the Universe is NOT some thing IS because the very thing that you used, to arrive at that answer, is small and limited, is that right?

Appears to me to be a very self-defeating answer.

Even if a human being could live forever more they would NOT have a chance in hell of out succeeding the Universe BECAUSE the Universe was around before that human being ever came into being. That is what I meant, which may not be in line with the context you were using with the word "us" but i have already explained and apologized for not understanding what context you meant.

OK, but that is an absolutist view. I don't want to succeed the universe. I just want to live longer than 65 years I think I'll settle for 600.

That will be possible in the relatively near future, from now.

I want to LEARN more.

I KNOW that. That comes across very obvious, which is a tremendous sight to see.

And given my physical limitations (thanks, asshole universe!) - I need more time

NOT true at all. 'Time' is NOT what you need at all.

What you do need, if you truly do want to LEARN more, is to just change from what you have been taught to do all your life. In order to do this you just firstly need to WANT to change. Then you just need to be truly HONEST and OPEN about changing.

Just in case you want any ideas about what you need to change, well obviously you would not need change what do you right in life.

But here is the hardest part of the whole exercise in gaining the ability to LEARN far more and KNOW anew; being able to look truly openly and honestly about ALL the wrong you do in life.

Do you think/believe that I did ask any question in this forum without having SOME idea of what the answer should look like?

I don't know. I cannot read your mind. But if you are transparent about the goal/objective/answer you seek - conversations go MUCH faster

Agree wholeheartedly, not that that is something that i really do that often.

The goal/objective/answer I seek for any and all questions I ask is just so I can keep learning HOW TO COMMUNICATE MORE SUCCINCTLY, in order so that I can be completely understood.

I am teaching, through explanation, how the Mind and the brain work. Using the people in this forum as test subjects and allowing them to provide freely the answers and/or responses that they give, they are providing the proof needed of HOW the closed-thinking (subjective) brain actually tries to override the OPEN-KNOWING (Objective) Mind. Showing this, will be part, of the evidence needed, of HOW to change, for the better. Once this is fully learned and understood, then moving forward in the right and proper direction will progress, exponentially.

Are you really teaching, or obtaining evidence for yourself that you understand the subject-matter Maybe both.

If I am really teaching people's of this day and age, then not yet.

I am fairly sure I have all the evidence for me already regarding understand the subject matter.

As many wise men have said: "If you cannot explain it simply - you do not understand it".

Yes I have heard that. I have also heard that a split-second of inspiration can take a life time to explain.

Also, some things can be explained very simply: for example, the earth revolves around the sun and not the sun around the earth, but just because it can very simply be explained does not mean others can nor will accept nor understand it. How long was that person who was explaining that, and who understood it very well i imagine, under house arrest for?

How easy was it really to explain E=MC2. The person who was trying to explain that very simple equation, and who did understand it, i heard, had to write so many hundreds of thousands of words beforehand before it was truly explained.

Imagine if you were around 200 years ago and "trying to" explain how we, human beings, will be driving around in horseless carriages, talking on little hand-held devices to each other, on the other side of the planet, and to people on the moon, and still having the same sounding voices, and accents, and happening almost instantly, and that there will be moving drawings coming out of boxes in living rooms, and people will be talking to each other through writings again almost instantly while sitting in bed with another thin box on their laps, and the million and other things that you may well have full understanding of, but as of yet not exactly sure how to explain it simply?

Although one person can imagine some thing and understand it fully, if the people that idea have not lived with it yet, then trying to explain that thing may not be as simple as it would be expected.

Imagine if you KNEW how a truly peaceful and pollution free world WILL come into being. Absolutely EVERY ONE will be living happily in peace and harmony with one another just like in heaven, utopia, et cetera. Now, you KNOW how this will work, you fully understand absolutely everything regarding this, including the answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?' with the answer being the One and only God. But now imagine what would happen when you are trying to explain this to others. How open are they going to be? All they have ever experienced is living with greed, pollution, wars, et cetera. Imagine you have full understanding, you KNOW how to explain very simply, but just how many people are going to begin to even listen to?

How do you even begin to start explaining to people that one day we will be driving around in horseless carriages when people do not know anything other than horses and have not yet even imagined the idea, let alone imagined the possibility of it?

Just some times finding the people to explain some thing to, is much harder than just explaining simply. If no one is listening, then it does not matter how simply explained some thing is. No one is going to hear it. ONLY when the thing is explained AND UNDERSTOOD, then it is accepted that it can be simply explained. Why did it take so many years of being ignored to just explain simply, that the earth is not the center of the Universe? How hard could that be to explain?

If people BELIEVE some thing is an impossibility, then it does not matter how simple, nor complex, you try to explain that thing, they will just NOT listen to you.

The SAME answer that will be accurate enough AND satisfactory enough TO YOU, also.

Are you sure about that? How can you make such assertion without knowing what answer I seek.

Do you really think that the right way to find the correct and accurate answer to any thing is to firstly having the answer you seek?

I have no idea about what answer you seek, unless of course you tell me firstly. But what i do KNOW is if you, i, and every one else end up with the same answer, then that will be the accurate enough and satisfactory enough answer for me. This is all still based on the proviso that we all remain completely OPEN to the fact that new knowledge and/or answer/s could also come to light.

For example. I already have my answer. I have simply chosen not to impose it on you. Because it is very VERY unlikely that you will accept my 'truth'

Are you sure about that? How can you make such assertion without knowing what I will or will not accept?

If you could explain how that truth fits in will all of your other truths to make up a perfect picture of ALL-THERE-IS, then I am sure I would accept it, and even agree wholeheartedly with it. If it is the Truth, the I would surely and pleasantly accept it.

In fact the answer that is accurate enough and satisfactory enough TO ME IS the exact same answer. That is, accurate enough AND satisfactory enough not just to EVERY ONE of US, human beings, but also to EVERYONE of US, things.

Only when an answer IS accurate enough and satisfactory enough TO EVERYONE as ONE, only then that IS the true and right OBJECTIVE answer. OH, that is right you BELIEVE that that is an impossibility. Thus the reason WHY your questioning here appears so obviously written with skepticism and sarcasm, am I right?

OK. I have an answer. You won't like it

That is just an assumption.

Are you at all able to further qualify what exactly 'timeseeker' IS, and/or, what exactly 'human' IS?

Yes, but only to specific/particular questions that YOU might ask. In general terms - no, I cannot.

If i can do it, the I am sure you can to.

I suggest that that answer only you, and you alone, can give.

Well, I have answered it. And I am giving it to you anyway. I am a human. My name is TimeSeeker [/quote]

So, the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is human named timeseeker.

Okay, that is fair enough. If that is as far as you have got, then so be it. I do not dislike it. But I wonder 'How many are going to accept that answer for when they ask the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

From my perspective of things it just does not seem to fit in anywhere really. But you may have been able to fit in somewhere and also able to paint a picture for us to see of how exactly it fits in with the truth of the Universe, Itself.

But I will provide a hint to the answer; Do you really believe that you NEED to attach your Self to any thing whatsoever?

And, if so, WHY?

So that I can communicate with other humans

So, I will take it that that means the human named timseeker BELIEVES that it NEEDS to attach itself to other humans so that it can communicate with them, is that about right?

If so, but what about when that body was born? Did it NEED to attach itself to another human or was it in a way already attached? Did it keep NEEDING to attach itself to humans in those years?

Why does this aged version of that human feel the NEED to attach itself to other humans? In other words, WHY do you feel so detached from humans that you BELIEVE you NEED to attach yourself again so that you can communicate with other humans?

[TimeSeeker]

You have lost my point completely. If you share your VIEW, of some thing, and I share my VIEW of some opposite thing, then that is great.
If we both share our opposing VIEWS and we are OPEN to seeing each others VIEW and thus able to change our own VIEW, then that is even much better.
However, if you share your BELIEF, of some thing, and I share my BELIEF (if I had one), of some opposite thing, then there is NO use in having any further discussion with you about this because we both are NOT open at all, thus we are unable to change our BELIEFS and therefore there is absolutely no use in discussing this any further.
'BELIEFS', by definition, are unchangeable fixed views or opinions.


Expressing and sharing a VIEW is very different from expressing and sharing a BELIEF.

That is not the definition I subscribe to. Beliefs are the things I act out.
http://rightreason.typepad.com/right_re ... tment.html

And so I do not make distinction between views and beliefs. They are one and the same in my framework. Beliefs are useful, functional thing. I use my beliefs to make decisions in my daily life.

Are you asking from a skeptical perspective, thus NOT able to accept any answer I give? Or, are you asking from an open perspective, and thus able to accept my answer of; That framework is UNITY.

As stated. My framework is utility. Pragmatism. Beliefs need to pay rent and thus they need to serve a purpose. If they don't serve a purpose (pay rent) they need to get out!

Which is why the very notion of "Truth" is rather suspect. What's the purpse of Truth? To understand? What's the purpose of understanding? Ad infinitum

Accepting it does not mean you have to agree with it. But if you are open, and thus able to accept it.

By virtue of you not imposing it on me I already accept whatever it is that you believe

Honesty, openness, and a willingness to change, by ALL, will be the pre-agreed, shared framework. Sharing perspectives peacefully in an honest and open way, while wanting to change is NOT battling but working together to find WHAT-IT-IS that we ALL actually do accept and agree upon. This coming together, peacefully, in UNITY is THAT FRAMEWORK for 'objectivity'.

See - we already disagree

A common goal is the framework for objectivity. Unity (co-operation) emerges by side-effect.

No, that is incorrect. That does NOT give me ALL the information at all. There is a LOT MORE of information available, which by the way tells a far truer and far more corrective description, and thus also draws a far bigger picture, to see and understand.

It is not incorrect. It is just incomplete. But any description I give you of myself will always be incomplete! That is because logic/language is broken, not because I don't know how to give you more information about myself. I can write a 30 tomme encylopedia about my life and I WILL leave something out

Godel has proven this in his incompleteness theorems. All formal systems are incomplete. Language is a formal system.

And so rather than chasing my own tail in trying to produce a complete description/definition of self - I recognize that it is an impossible task and so I don't even try (anymore).

I think colloquially this is refered to as: accepting yourself or something

But I do NOT expect any thing.

I prefer to just look at WHAT IS, and then see just WHAT IS.

So you expect to look and SEE what is?

But you can't do that - your perception is flawed. We, humans are practically colorblind. We are trichomates ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichromacy ).
Something like the mantis shrimp has 12. So you are shit out of luck arleady.

9 colors short of "seeing what is"

And then you perceive SOME wavelengths through your skin (heat!) instead of your eyes. What's up with that?

Yes, I KNOW.

Well, you know that you DON'T'T KNOW If you KNEW you wouldn't ask me Because you already know.

That sets the particular context.

I am not sure where this is going, nor why.

Like I said - beliefs/mental phenomena serve purpose or they need to pay rent.
What is the PURPOSE of categories? Why do we NEED categories?
And if we don't NEED categories then why do we call ourselves 'human'?

Simple answer: our brains are too primitive to make sense of this place without categories. And we become far too complacent when we forget that categories are properties of minds and language, not properties of reality.

There are so many different ways to progress here to show;
1. This is not a fundamental nor a mathematical "problem".
2. This is not even a problem at all.

Mathematically - I disagree

3. How the Universe could NOT be big, and in quite a few different ways.
4. You would have to show sufficiently and accurately what a 'mind' actually is.
5. There is no such thing as "our" minds.
6. There is only one Mind, of which it is also not "ours".
7. The one and only Mind is NOT small.
8. There is an actual problem here of how do you differentiate between A thing being big or small when there is no other thing to relatively compare it to?

OK, but remember how you said telling you my name and that i am human is "incorrect" and I said "NO, it's just incomplete".

Every description of the Universe is incomplete So what OBJECTIVE criteria do we use to decide which one of 10^10 incomplete descriptions is 'better' or 'worse' ?

And please don't say 'reason and logic' because as soon as I ask you what is 'OBJECTIVELY reasonable and logical' you are back to square 1

And so any 'objective' conception of the universe that fits in our minds is naturally a reduced model.

That is only if you BELIEVE that there are "our" minds and that those supposed minds are small.
[/quote]
1. They are small
2. They work VERY differently from each other (empirical evidence for this exists)

You can not have objective conception. But you can see objectively. There is a BIG difference.

While missing 9 colors, and having no receptors for a wide range of wavelengths whatsoever ? X-rays, gamma rays, infrared. Majority of the RF spectrum is invisible to us

Which might help in explaining WHY I can very easily see, and understand, the whole big and true picture of the Universe, Itself, in Its absolute perfection, very simply also.

How do you know that you understand? What happens when you understand?
How can two people who 'understand' disagree with each other?

Q.E.D I understad - you understand. We understand differently

Unless a model is of course full and thorough in EVERY way.

Any such 'model' would be called an EXACT replica. You can't replicate the universe inside itself

Being able to see and understand the whole thing, like the Universe, Itself, might be a very simple and easy thing to do, once you know how.

How do you know how?

But learning how to make an explanatory and accurate model of It for others, through painting a picture and make notes for them is a long, slow and tedious learning process, especially when that one is very inept at drawing and reading.

Explanation is in sufficient. There are infinitely many explanatory models that fit the same evidence. Again - this is mathematically provable.

A scientific model needs to predict the future - not explain the past.

If you want to get an EXACT, of any thing, then SOME APPROXIMATION just is not going to cut it.

Exact and approximation are two very different things. Contrary or opposites some may say.

The you need to quit life now. Approximations is all we have

What you are aiming for is called 'perfectionism'. It is a religion.
If you believe in perfection - show me something that you think is perfect

Exact and approximation are two very different things. Contrary or opposites some may say.
Way beyond me even wanting to begin understanding this. I do not want to get an "exact" number of some thing that I see is not even true. That is, NOT every model is incomplete is some particular way. If a model is complete in EVERY way, then that model is NOT incomplete in some particular way. Therefore, NOT every model is incomplete is some particular way, which is contrary to what you say is true.

As above - there are no complete models.

To me every thing is very simple and easy. What you are doing here is just complicating some thing that is already very simple. Human beings have an extremely bad habit of trying to complicate that what is purely very simple.

And that is your error. You have mistaken the complex for the simple

The Universe is THE MOST COMPLEX system in existence.

Also, a physical model of some thing will be incomplete in some particular way, just as you suggested. However, looking at a thing, in and of itself, in the correct way a complete, full, and thorough model CAN be drawn.

Impossible In order for you to describe and therefore greproduce the EXACT state of a quantum system you need to overcome Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory

Thus, creating a full and true model of that thing. Discovering and/or learning HOW to see objectively, allows one to be able to see objectively, and then a big picture of things can be drawn.

Do you think REALIZING that you cannot see things objectively IS seeing things AS objectively AS possible?

No it will NOT do.

That hierarchy is just an incomplete, and/or over complicated, model in some particular way.

OK. Give me something better to replace it.

;Arriving at an objective description' of 'reality' is certainly NOT a human need. But 'arriving at an objective description' of 'reality' is certainly a human being need;, that is, if they truly want to end up living how they truly want and desire to live, then they need to arrive at an objective description of 'reality'.

Which by the way that description was and is very easy to discover and find also.

OK. How do humans desire to live? How long do you think it will take to figure it out?

Can you please explain how one can have the thought 'I am hungry', 'I should find food', or, 'I like food', WITHOUT language nor words?

The same way a baby has it. It starts crying. The same way you have it - you EXPERIENCE hunger. I trust you only started speaking English at an age of, what 2 years old? I also trust you didn't starve until then

Did human beings really and actually develop language to communicate BECAUSE they are social creatures?

I don't know the exact reason. What I do know is that language is useful and being able to communicate AS social species is useful to our survival.

Could there be another reason why language developed other than 'to communicate'?'

No. Communication means "exchanging information" if you don't want to exchange information with another creature - there is no reason to speak.

Did 'we', ourselves, develop language, or could language developed on its own? Because of some other reason like an inherent need within us?

I am not sure what you mean by 'on its own'. Language evolved as we evolved.
Language is STILL evolving.

To you, did any other social animals develop language?

A bunch! Dolphins. Meerkats. Apes. None as advanced as our languages.

And, where is or what is the actual link that lead you to the conclusion that human beings developed language probably to communicate about HOW to obtain food? Did you read that somewhere or was it just a guess or was it some thing else?

Evolutionary reasoning. Survival requires food.

I had not thought to much about this before, if at all, but, at first glance, in order to obtain food all social creatures have to work together. For it is working together how social creatures live, obtain their food, and thus keep living and surviving.

Surviving being the key point. Everything else follows. Because we have larger brains, we cooperate and we communicate - we survive 'better'.

Explain WHERE and WHY you think/believe that I have moved MY OWN goal post.

When you look for a lost cat - you have a photo of the cat. You have a CONCEPT (some prior experience) to which you can relate IF you were to encounter the cat. Without such EXPERIENCE then you cannot possibly look for the cat - because you don't know what it LOOKS like.

You have the exact same problem with 'understanding'. If you don't currently understand (you recognize that you lack knowledge). Then how will you recognize when you DO understand? What does 'understanding' look like/feel like?

Easily. When EVERYONE is in agreement as One, then I will KNOW.

OK, so consensus is your criterion. It is similar to my criterion, but not as precise. What is it that WE (humans) need to be agreeing to/on?

1. What goal post have I supposedly moved?
2. You said with slight of ... mind?, with the question mark. Does the question mark imply that you are unsure, and/or that i also am unsure, of how and/or why I moved the goal post?
3. How and why do you think I have fooled myself?

I asked: How will humans know when they have gotten it 'perfectly right?"
You said: They will then understand.
I asked: How will humans know they understand?

This is exactly the same problem as looking for the lost cat. What is 'understanding'? What does it feel like? What can you DO with it?

The way you moved the goal post is thus: you had only one unknown. You were looking for 'describing the universe perfectly right'. Now you have two unknowns. The previous unknown + 'understanding'.

You don't know what it means to understand - because you have never experienced it. No human has experiencd it! Because we DON'T understand the universe

Now, back to your question. If EVERYONE is in agreement about the Universe, then that means there is NO one thing in disagreement about the Universe, so that means I KNOW, for sure, that I understand the Universe.

Again: What is there to agree upon? Its shape? Size? Contents? Age?

I have forgotten the question that you say there are VERY MANY ANSWERS to and it is not quoted here, so you will have to remind me again what the actual question is?

To the questions you seek. There are many perspectives and many views. In fact - quite a clear lack of consensus on anything from philosophy to science, never mind social matters.

By the way, what do you mean there are VERY MANY ANSWERS? Are you saying that there are many very truly objective answers?

If you are, then that contradicts what you have been previously saying.
If you are not, then are you just saying that there are very many relative answers?

If it is the later, then I am already very aware of that.

I am saying that there are very many perspectives. Neither of them is what you call "objective". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism

When you say 'PERFECT REPLICA' are you thinking/talking physical replica, mental replica, or some other replica?

I have already agreed no exact same physical replica could exist.

OK, so if an exact replica is impossible, and all 'objective' models of the universe are incomplete then which details of the universe do you propose that we should leave out?

I have free will that is in opposition to the Universe's plans for us.

Not necessarily in opposition.

The Universe's plan IS for you to have free will.

The reason this IS part of the Universe's plan, which will be fully seen and understood after human beings have learned how and why to change, for the better, and, after they have successfully discovered and accurately answered the question 'Who am 'I'?'
[/quote]
Have you been paying attention? 99.999% of all species that walked the Earth are extinct. The rest of the solar system/galaxy/milky way is not a very hospitable place for us. We are stuck on a rock in a VERY large universe.

The last dominant species on this rock are now extict.

Depending on an individuals take of those two words that is not a bad thing at all.

Entropy is only bad for survival. Otherwise - it's whatever

Thus, the reason each passing generation of human beings is left with more pollution, more rubbish, and more destruction to try and clean up and fix after.

Also, longer life expectancy. Hospitals, police, food and grocery stores. Internet. I mean - if you much prefer the past, I would love to hear which century in human history and in which country you would love to live in

You do not need to. You want to.

Semantics.
You don't need to eat but you want to.
And for exactly the same reason I want to tame the universe

You can also try as hard as you like, but you know what the actual chances are.

Yep. Greater than not-trying.

But in saying that you will be absolutely utterly surprised at just how, dare I say it 'objectively', tame the Universe, Itself, actually IS.

You have mistaken the grim reaper for your friend

The Universe is NOT complex, chaotic, nor disordered. Only human beings see it that. The reason human beings see it that way is because it is them, themselves, that are confused and perplexed about matters regarding the Universe, Itself. When they look to the Universe for answers, they look from and through this confused and perplexed field of view, which distorts the actual and real truth of things.

Nope. The universe is big REALLY BIG. It is the MOST COMPLEX THING in existence.
You lack a sense of proportion.

The Universe, Itself, IS, and thus is also in a state of, absolute perfection. Therefore, there is nothing to tame and neither is there any thing to want to tame.

If the universe was 'perfect' we wouldn't need to cure diseases.

Trying to look at and see some thing as big as the Universe through and from the brain is a pointless task. The brain can NOT see past its own limitations.

So, the very thing that you used, to arrive at the answer that the Universe is NOT some thing IS because the very thing that you used, to arrive at that answer, is small and limited, is that right?

Appears to me to be a very self-defeating answer.

Quite the opposite. It is the best answer given our current technology and understanding. You cannot escape the laws of physics.

That will be possible in the relatively near future, from now.

When? 50 or 500 years from now ? Why can't we have it sooner?

NOT true at all. 'Time' is NOT what you need at all.

What you do need, if you truly do want to LEARN more, is to just change from what you have been taught to do all your life. In order to do this you just firstly need to WANT to change. Then you just need to be truly HONEST and OPEN about changing.

That's just some feel-good mantra It's not helpful. WHAT do I need to change?
My knowledge of physics?
My knowledge of mathematics?
My knowledge of computer science and complexity theory?

The thing I am MOST running out of is time

But here is the hardest part of the whole exercise in gaining the ability to LEARN far more and KNOW anew; being able to look truly openly and honestly about ALL the wrong you do in life.

Until you run into the laws of physics and the limits imposed on you thanks to your mind/brain's inefficiency

The goal/objective/answer I seek for any and all questions I ask is just so I can keep learning HOW TO COMMUNICATE MORE SUCCINCTLY, in order so that I can be completely understood.

I have nothing but anecdotal advice here. Learn to understand YOURSELF first. And communicate your feelings/emotions. If you can do that - the rest is 100x easier

Yes I have heard that. I have also heard that a split-second of inspiration can take a life time to explain.

Especially to yourself!




Also, some things can be explained very simply: for example, the earth revolves around the sun and not the sun around the earth, but just because it can very simply be explained does not mean others can nor will accept nor understand it. How long was that person who was explaining that, and who understood it very well i imagine, under house arrest for?

How easy was it really to explain E=MC2. The person who was trying to explain that very simple equation, and who did understand it, i heard, had to write so many hundreds of thousands of words beforehand before it was truly explained.

How do you even begin to start explaining to people that one day we will be driving around in horseless carriages when people do not know anything other than horses and have not yet even imagined the idea, let alone imagined the possibility of it?

Simple: you don't sell them the HOW, you sell them the WHAT.

In the future you will be able to get from Paris to New York in 6 hours.
In the future you will be able to talk to people in the next village, or city, or country or continent as if they are in the next room.

The only way to explain is to relate to experience or need.

Do you really think that the right way to find the correct and accurate answer to any thing is to firstly having the answer you seek?

Yes. You can't hunt for grobmunf in the forest until you know what grobmunf is

Are you sure about that? How can you make such assertion without knowing what I will or will not accept?

Because you already made the mistake that the universe is your friend
In the game of survival - the universe is our enemy. The Earth is our friend. For now. But in future it may become unfriendly too - maybe through our own doing, maybe just because things constantly change...

Either way. This game we are stuck in is a game of adaptation. Those who adapt - live.

That is just an assumption.

Well, it was an assumption based on my interaction with OTHER people, but now it's an assumption based on interacting with you

If i can do it, the I am sure you can to.

Sure, I could tell you where I come from, what I do, what my favorite color is. I just find it unnecessary to reduce myself to soundbytes If you want to know something particular about me - you will ask.

So, the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is human named timeseeker.

Yes. I am me. All of me

Okay, that is fair enough. If that is as far as you have got, then so be it. I do not dislike it. But I wonder 'How many are going to accept that answer for when they ask the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

I don't care if they accept it? I am TimeSeeker - what do you want to know about me?

From my perspective of things it just does not seem to fit in anywhere really. But you may have been able to fit in somewhere and also able to paint a picture for us to see of how exactly it fits in with the truth of the Universe, Itself.

I fit in many places, and anywhere I choose to fit in Which one would you like to know about?

So, I will take it that that means the human named timseeker BELIEVES that it NEEDS to attach itself to other humans so that it can communicate with them, is that about right?

If so, but what about when that body was born? Did it NEED to attach itself to another human or was it in a way already attached? Did it keep NEEDING to attach itself to humans in those years?

Why does this aged version of that human feel the NEED to attach itself to other humans? In other words, WHY do you feel so detached from humans that you BELIEVE you NEED to attach yourself again so that you can communicate with other humans?

Because as per your goal of co-operation. Cmmunicating with humans is a skill.
Getting humans on your team is a skill. Understanding humans and navigating humans is a skill. More than just 'wanting to communicate' - it requires ability to manage your own emotions. Because humans are hard work!

For me it is not an innate skill. I had to learn it. I have met very few people for whom it is an innate skill - lucky them!

[Age]

To that self-labelled one called timeseeker your NEED to be right all the time has left you either taking out of context what I actually meant or you completely missing the point of what I say, in my responses. Your NEED to be right only allows you to see and respond to things that are NOT even there. For example, you write, see we already disagree. Of COURSE we already disagree. I NEVER said we did not nor would not. So WHY the stupid obvious remark? I NEVER ever suggest that we would not disagree, but that is what you saw.

You are NOT reading what I am actually writing so you are NOT understanding what I am actually saying. You are looking and seeing ONLY from the the human physical perspective. For example, you write, humans are practically colorblind. You are so self-obsessed with you, the physical human body, that you think and expect that the Universe SHOULD be here for you and revolve around you ONLY. How colorblind or even how completely blind a physical human body is that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with looking at and seeing the Universe. Looking at, comes through any of the five senses. Seeing, is understanding. How in hell do you think human beings who are physically blind or who have any other impaired or lose of the other four senses SEES and UNDERSTANDS the world/Universe in which it lives? Just because an animal like a shrimp can see more colors than a human being can does NOT mean it can see/understand more. You really NEED to stop looking from, and thinking about, this is about human beings. Whilst you continue to do that you will continue to have a very distorted perception and understand of WHAT really IS.

Because you are still looking for answers in life, that does NOT mean that I have not found them already. I am just learning how to express them so that human beings, like you, are able to understand better. Once you learn HOW to learn, see and understand fully, by your own self, then you can find ALL the real and true answers of which you are seeking, without help from others. For example, you will KNOW how to find the RIGHT answers in life because you KNOW when you have the absolute right answer. Until then all you are doing is GUESSING. For example, I have even already written down HOW you will KNOW when you have the absolute RIGHT answer/s, yet because of the way you look at and see things, what I wrote goes completely through you, completely missed and misunderstood.

Whilst you continue to look at and see life, through that brain, and those thoughts within it, you will NEVER truly understand. You are continually looking for answers for you, the human being. You BELIEVE that you, the human being, is ALL that matters. So, you look through the human being's already and ill-gotten perspective ONLY. You, the human being, will NEVER find what it is that the true One, in you, already KNOWS. For example, you wrote, "Yes. I am me. All of me." (with a smiley face), in regards to the universal question 'Who am 'I'?' I had already pre-responded to that (because I sometimes KNOW what your views are) with, 'How many are going to accept that answer for when they ask the question, 'Who am 'I'?' The answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?' IS a universal question. The Universe is NOT about one individual person nor about revolving around that individual, so to seek an answer to that question thinking/believing it would be about one individual person shows just how much that human being is self-centered. Exactly what an individual person is IS not 'Who 'I' am. Exactly who and what 'I' am is very simple and easy to understand and who and what an individual person is some thing completely different and also very simple and easy to understand as well. Both can be explained very simply, also. But who is even OPEN to this?

Your BELIEFS prevent you from learning more and anew. For example, you BELIEVE that 'minds' are small. So, literally, YOU have completely prevented the actual thing that is NEEDED from working, in order to learn more and anew. Two things here;
1. BELIEFS, themselves, prevent human beings from learning and thus progressing and moving forward into the real true and peaceful world.
2. The incorrect BELIEF that you have about 'mind' is preventing you doubly from being able to learn and discover any thing new or more.

You can NOT learn without the OPEN Mind, of which there is only ONE.
You cannot NOT learn with the OPEN Mind, of which there is only ONE.

Those that look at this solely from the OPEN Mind, will instantly recognize and understand this. But,
Those who look at this from their opinions, views, assumptions and/or beliefs will struggle in just trying to understand this at all.

Although every one of those who just read those two lines KNOW instinctively that it is TRUE and CORRECT, some will be far more confused and perplexed than others are. How much one is confused and perplexed is depended upon how much belief or not is in their already, ill-gotten and ill-conceived perceptions and ways of looking at this.