What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Perhaps, SOb, you could reference my 'Segan'-esque definition. Universe or cosmos does not matter to me. I think it might be prudent for our discussion if we find a term that we can both agree upon and go from there. I suggest 'cosmos' or 'universe' because our discerning of what may be true seems to stem from an ambiguity centered around this idea.

How might you ammend my definition of 'cosmos' or 'universe'; which ever term you prefer to begin with - or any other term ?

'The universe is the totality of everything that has ever existed, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.'

[lancek4]

Perhaps, SOb, you could reference my 'Segan'-esque definition. Universe or cosmos does not matter to me. I think it might be prudent for our discussion if we find a term that we can both agree upon and go from there. I suggest 'cosmos' or 'universe' because our discerning of what may be true seems to stem from an ambiguity centered around this idea.

How might you ammend my definition of 'cosmos' or 'universe'; which ever term you prefer to begin with - or any other term ?

'The universe is the totality of everything that has ever existed, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.'

Ok. And included in this totality the human being, all thoughts, rational and irrational, consciounes, including all that can be imagined - at least in so far as what can be imagined is that of the human being as an element of this totality - and including all that cannot be imagined - this then, we have the universe. I agree, if you agree, or do you have another ammendment ? this then we could say is the "absolute true" ?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Perhaps, SOb, you could reference my 'Sagan'-esque definition. Universe or cosmos does not matter to me. I think it might be prudent for our discussion if we find a term that we can both agree upon and go from there. I suggest 'cosmos' or 'universe' because our discerning of what may be true seems to stem from an ambiguity centered around this idea.

How might you amend my definition of 'cosmos' or 'universe'; which ever term you prefer to begin with - or any other term ?

'The universe is the totality of everything that has ever existed, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.'

OK. And included in this totality the human being, all thoughts, rational and irrational, consciousness, including all that can be imagined - at least in so far as what can be imagined is that of the human being as an element of this totality - and including all that cannot be imagined - this then, we have the universe. I agree, if you agree, or do you have another amendment ? this then we could say is the "absolute true" ?

The brains physical properties and electrochemical interactions actually exist. But two products of those interactions namely, consciousness and thought, does not necessarily exist in actuality. Here's a quote for you, "The mechanisms by which brain activity instantiates consciousness and thought have been very challenging to understand: despite rapid scientific progress, much about how brains work remains a mystery." We cannot yet attest to their true essence as we cannot yet attest to that of the universe's origin.

[lancek4]

Yes, I agree. That is what I was siptulating, that in so far as human beings, and its brain and neuropathways etc.. Exist, likewise then the 'effects', (as to physical objects: gravity, mass etc.., and human bodies: thought, consciousness etc..) of such things of the universe exist also. This, including all this in that is has existed in the past, the universal properties, so far as to motion, interaction and manifestation, is the universe.

So, do we have an agreement as to what we both mean when we say 'the universe' ?

I wish to have a stable term between us in our discussion, so then we may proceed to making distinctions, such as 'actual' and 'exist'. For now, I attempt to use the term 'exist' in its most basic, 'easy' sense, so far as the idea that "the universe is the totality of all that exists". If you can accomodate my use of 'exist' in my definition, do we have a stable basis from which to proceed?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yes, I agree. That is what I was siptulating, that in so far as human beings, and its brain and neuropathways etc.. Exist, likewise then the 'effects', (as to physical objects: gravity, mass etc.., and human bodies: thought, consciousness etc..) of such things of the universe exist also. This, including all this in that is has existed in the past, the universal properties, so far as to motion, interaction and manifestation, is the universe.

So, do we have an agreement as to what we both mean when we say 'the universe' ?

I wish to have a stable term between us in our discussion, so then we may proceed to making distinctions, such as 'actual' and 'exist'. For now, I attempt to use the term 'exist' in its most basic, 'easy' sense, so far as the idea that "the universe is the totality of all that exists". If you can accomodate my use of 'exist' in my definition, do we have a stable basis from which to proceed?

I have a problem with the red highlighted text above.

At this point prior to any concession, I have to make a distinction. I agree that the 'ability of being conscious' and the 'act of thinking' actually exit in truth, whatever their true essence. But only in so much as the following are true. With regard to consciousness, there is not necessarily any truth in specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experience. And with regard to thought there is not necessarily any truth in the resulting ideas or arrangements of ideas. Because before they can bear truth they must be aligned with 'all' universal truth that came before, that from which they were born (the universe), otherwise they are contradictory unto themselves, and as such, bear no truth.

Do you understand my meaning? Can you paraphrase?

[lancek4]

At this point prior to any concession, I have to make a distinction. I agree that the 'ability of being conscious' and the 'act of thinking' actually exit in truth, whatever their true essence. But only in so much as the following are true. With regard to consciousness, there is not necessarily any truth in specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experience. And with regard to thought there is not necessarily any truth in the resulting ideas or arrangements of ideas. Because before they can bear truth they must be aligned with 'all' universal truth that came before, that from which they were born (the universe), otherwise they are contradictory unto themselves, and as such, bear no truth.

Do you understand my meaning? Can you paraphrase?

I think your ammendment speaks for itself; I do not know if I need to paraphrase further. I would then see that we may have a definition between us:

"The universe is the totality of everything that has ever existed, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space. The brain's physical properties and electrochemical interactions actually exist. But two products of those interactions namely, consciousness and thought, does not necessarily exist."

(I left off 'in actuality' since this can be another point of contension.)

This definition then lends itself to 'the totality of all that exists', in that what we can count as 'Absolute Truth' is thus the universe. It seems that we have a common basis between us.

Perhaps a paraphrase, or a summation for our point: the manifestation and operation/operating/functioning of the universe is the Absolute Truth.

So one could summarize your point in this thread as follows: There is an Absolute Truth of which most humans know very little. The lack of understanding of the universe, how it operates, what it is, is and has been taken up by such human beings as fear, and as a stalwart against thier fear, humans create 'lies' about the universe, which is represented in 'superstition' or 'denial' of reality (as reality may be said to be the same as 'that which is true').

Yet, i still see a problem in our definition, as to your proposal and agreed upon by me, that we together endeavor to discover what may be 'true'; I must ask then: how can something of the universe be separate from the universe? How could something which is based in Truth, (that is, our brains, our bodies), contain, develop or otherwise evidence something which is not of the universe, (such as thought, imagination) not likewise, True. How could this universe, the universe of our definition, contain something which is not likewise being True? How can the universe express 'not itself'?

[SpheresOfBalance]

At this point prior to any concession, I have to make a distinction. I agree that the 'ability of being conscious' and the 'act of thinking' actually exit in truth, whatever their true essence. But only in so much as the following are true. With regard to consciousness, there is not necessarily any truth in specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experience. And with regard to thought there is not necessarily any truth in the resulting ideas or arrangements of ideas. Because before they can bear truth they must be aligned with 'all' universal truth that came before, that from which they were born (the universe), otherwise they are contradictory unto themselves, and as such, bear no truth.

Do you understand my meaning? Can you paraphrase?

I think your ammendment speaks for itself; I do not know if I need to paraphrase further. I would then see that we may have a definition between us:

"The universe is the totality of everything that has ever existed, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space. The brain's physical properties and electrochemical interactions actually exist. But two products of those interactions namely, consciousness and thought, does not necessarily exist."

(I left off 'in actuality' since this can be another point of contension.)

This definition then lends itself to 'the totality of all that exists', in that what we can count as 'Absolute Truth' is thus the universe. It seems that we have a common basis between us.

Perhaps a paraphrase, or a summation for our point: the manifestation and operation/operating/functioning of the universe is the Absolute Truth.

So one could summarize your point in this thread as follows: There is an Absolute Truth of which most humans know very little. The lack of understanding of the universe, how it operates, what it is, is and has been taken up by such human beings as fear, and as a stalwart against thier fear, humans create 'lies' about the universe, which is represented in 'superstition' or 'denial' of reality (as reality may be said to be the same as 'that which is true').

Yet, i still see a problem in our definition, as to your proposal and agreed upon by me, that we together endeavor to discover what may be 'true'; I must ask then: how can something of the universe be separate from the universe? How could something which is based in Truth, (that is, our brains, our bodies), contain, develop or otherwise evidence something which is not of the universe, (such as thought, imagination) not likewise, True. How could this universe, the universe of our definition, contain something which is not likewise being True? How can the universe express 'not itself'?

Before we continue do you believe that the universe was created by some sort of higher power such as a god. Or do you believe in a chance model such as that of the big bang?

[lancek4]

Ah yes; I do believe we have reached a point of departure.
The heart of the matter, if you will.

Now, you should understand that I am attempting to engage with you honestly, openly, that with you I might see better what may be my position.
And that I as well as you am endeavoring to see what this Absolute might be.

So see that I am not attempting to avoid the issue when I notice another obsticle in our path.
I must ask: what is belief?

For, your options, my answer to which, would beg the question of our issue, and would inevitably route our discussion and our objective back into a polemic we are wishing to avoid. To wit: if I were to answer yes the the former, we would enter a discussion about what amounts to 'existence of God'; if I would answer the second 'yes' we would begin discusssing topics similar to 'stars existed before plantetary life'. Both of which stem from an assumption of an Absolute' from which each discussion would begin.

I propose we go slower, step by step, to test such assumption to see if we can indeed find a Truth of the matter, be it God or Big Bang or both, or maybe even niether.

Might I frame a question from which to proceed; you of course can accept it or offer I different one.

What is belief and how does this relate to existence?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yet, i still see a problem in our definition, as to your proposal and agreed upon by me, that we together endeavor to discover what may be 'true'; I must ask then: how can something of the universe be separate from the universe? How could something which is based in Truth, (that is, our brains, our bodies), contain, develop or otherwise evidence something which is not of the universe, (such as thought, imagination) not likewise, True. How could this universe, the universe of our definition, contain something which is not likewise being True? How can the universe express 'not itself'?

Before we continue do you believe that the universe was created by some sort of higher power such as a god. Or do you believe in a chance model such as that of the big bang?

In formulating the answer to your question, referenced above, I realized that it was necessary that we stand at least on similar ground with respect to my question as referenced above, otherwise my answer will fail to satisfy your question.

So to which school of thought do you find better suits your understanding of the origin of the universe, one of intent or one of chance? If you'd rather PM me with your answer, that's fine. I have no reason to be anything other than discreet, and shall be forever bound by my word.

[lancek4]

Fair enough. I would say my answer is both. So far as the Bang, I have to defer to the scientists, since they much more learned in that area. But for this, I would say that it must rely upon something unknown. So one could say that at that ambigous boudary, beyond which can be or is explained, such a 'originator' lay.

One could say this is my beliief, but I do not believe it, since I do not rely upon either to inform me as to what is true; neither ideas are true in an absolute sense. They do not inform me to what I understand as 'absolute truth' as I understand the term. Niether, to my understanding, does either conform to what we have defined as the universe as "all that exists".
This is to say, for our definition, 'both' as my answer. Still does not explain to me 'all that exists'; both work to explain each other but do not account for the 'totality'. This answer of mine thus equates to 'relative' truth, which then implies that the relative is The absolute truth, which gets us nowhere. In that there may be an absolute, I have still to inquire as to what this may be, and have asked you to help me, rather, we have elisted each other, in this effort.

It seems your statement as to this thread is valid, yet I wish to test this seeming, since there are many things that are apparent yet are false, and because it appears to rest upon what one believes, in that
Belief to me connotes a false statement.
So I have asked what you mean when you say 'belief, and how does this relate to 'exist'?

[SpheresOfBalance]

---------
Sidebar
---------
As to directly answering the threads allusions, (apparently Bill meant actually "seeing"; optically. Or maybe it's more correct to say that he answered it at the same time that he asked it ),i.e., that we can't see the truth, and that something precludes our seeing it. Simplistically, the answer is obviously, us!

I believe its a combination of many things. All our physical and mental limitations which is also to say our youth as a species. While our physicalities present problems, we've created tools to compensate that are still undergoing advancement. I believe that this doesn't compare to the mental considerations.

Seriously, how can we possibly entertain universal understanding when we have an incomplete understanding of our own mental processes'. How can anything that doesn't know itself, know anything else? How many people are in therapy; how many should be in therapy? Until humans can harness their emotions, especially fear, becoming pure intellect, we shall continue to be stupefied by something as infinite as the Universe; the origin of everything.

"To concern oneself with the ability/inability of understanding something particular, alludes to it's knowledge being absolute!"

or if you want it further delineated:

"The greater the number of those concerned with the ability/inability of understanding something particular, increasingly alludes to it's knowledge being absolute!"

Obviously we should continue to try, as it's the only way we'll make any progress, well that along with time.

"In truth, we can only believe the understanding of the time, hoping it's the knowledge of the future, until such time, that there are no questions."

I just hope that we have time, as it would seem to me that we're currently oblivious to that which ensures it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

At this point prior to any concession, I have to make a distinction. I agree that the 'ability of being conscious' and the 'act of thinking' actually exit in truth, whatever their true essence. But only in so much as the following are true. With regard to consciousness, there is not necessarily any truth in specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experience. And with regard to thought there is not necessarily any truth in the resulting ideas or arrangements of ideas. Because before they can bear truth they must be aligned with 'all' universal truth that came before, that from which they were born (the universe), otherwise they are contradictory unto themselves, and as such, bear no truth.

Do you understand my meaning? Can you paraphrase?

I think your ammendment speaks for itself; I do not know if I need to paraphrase further. I would then see that we may have a definition between us:

"The universe is the totality of everything that has ever existed, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space. The brain's physical properties and electrochemical interactions actually exist. But two products of those interactions namely, consciousness and thought, does not necessarily exist."

(I left off 'in actuality' since this can be another point of contension.)

This definition then lends itself to 'the totality of all that exists', in that what we can count as 'Absolute Truth' is thus the universe. It seems that we have a common basis between us.

Perhaps a paraphrase, or a summation for our point: the manifestation and operation/operating/functioning of the universe is the Absolute Truth.

So one could summarize your point in this thread as follows: There is an Absolute Truth of which most humans know very little. The lack of understanding of the universe, how it operates, what it is, is and has been taken up by such human beings as fear, and as a stalwart against thier fear, humans create 'lies' about the universe, which is represented in 'superstition' or 'denial' of reality (as reality may be said to be the same as 'that which is true').

Yet, i still see a problem in our definition, as to your proposal and agreed upon by me, that we together endeavor to discover what may be 'true'; I must ask then: how can something of the universe be separate from the universe? How could something which is based in Truth, (that is, our brains, our bodies), contain, develop or otherwise evidence something which is not of the universe, (such as thought, imagination) not likewise, True. How could this universe, the universe of our definition, contain something which is not likewise being True? How can the universe express 'not itself'?

Assuming a universe, not of purposeful creation, whereby the hand of the creator guides all cause and effect and that instead the cause and effect was of random chance encounters, I propose the following:

The Universe is approximately 13.73 billion years old.
Simple cells came into existence on Earth 3.8 billion years ago.
Human evolution started 7 million years ago
Humans appeared 200,000 years ago.

I couldn’t find when consciousness and thought were supposedly born, but I believe it’s safe to say sometime in the last 7 million years.
(By the way, some philosophers and scientists think that consciousness is an illusion.)

So I put your question to you. If in fact for the first 13 billion years of the universes 13.7 billion year life it had no mind, no consciousness, or no thought such that it was incapable of decisive intent, aim and purpose, in actual existence (truth), then at that time, how could the universe express ‘anything other than its true self?'

And if the Creation side of you takes a peek from behind the curtain then I submit that the answer to both questions is “because that’s the way it was designed!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Content deleted because an Internal server error caused a duplicate message again.

[lancek4]

---------
Sidebar
---------
As to directly answering the threads allusions, (apparently Bill meant actually "seeing"; optically. Or maybe it's more correct to say that he answered it at the same time that he asked it ),i.e., that we can't see the truth, and that something precludes our seeing it. Simplistically, the answer is obviously, us!

I have to wonder: have you read Feuerbach?

I believe its a combination of many things. All our physical and mental limitations which is also to say our youth as a species. While our physicalities present problems, we've created tools to compensate that are still undergoing advancement. I believe that this doesn't compare to the mental considerations.

Seriously, how can we possibly entertain universal understanding when we have an incomplete understanding of our own mental processes'. How can anything that doesn't know itself, know anything else? It would seem this is the issue at hand in our discusssion. For, I would say, I know myself absolutely. But what does that say about 'anything else'?
How many people are in therapy; how many should be in therapy? Until humans can harness their emotions, especially fear, becoming pure intellect, I do not believe that harnessing our fears equates to becoming pure intellect. Here is an example of a conclusion derived from an assumption of 'truth'.
we shall continue to be stupefied by something as infinite as the Universe; the origin of everything. Yet, I would agree with htis conclusion in as much as your previous conclusion (the assumption) is true. I am not stupefied by an infinite universe (our definition thereof?) since I know of an absolute truth, which is what we are testing.

"To concern oneself with the ability/inability of understanding something particular, alludes to it's knowledge being absolute!"

or if you want it further delineated:

"The greater the number of those concerned with the ability/inability of understanding something particular, increasingly alludes to it's knowledge being absolute!" You should look at Feuerbach, check out his reply to Stirner.

Obviously we should continue to try, as it's the only way we'll make any progress, well that along with time.

"In truth, we can only believe the understanding of the time, hoping it's the knowledge of the future, until such time, that there are no questions."

I just hope that we have time, as it would seem to me that we're currently oblivious to that which ensures it.

Your sidebar here is consistent. I understand what you are saying.

Feuerbach speaks of 'God' as being the potential that lay in the existance of the entire human manifestation. The economy of human interaction establishes that which is the Self, the known, against the entirety of the human manifestation, the unknown. His analysis is more involved, and I cannot bring into words his whole argument, but it is an interesting proposition.
His position (a rough summation) is that God does not exist as a supernatural agent, but that our morality projects from the totality of human interaction (the unknown) out upon itself an agent of morality in itself, a being, a God. But that actually God is that 'portion' of the human economy which we, as individuals, cannot recognize in our immediate experience. And that it is in the full recognition of the human experience, so far as to practice, responsibility and concern for others, as a whole that 'atheism' is salient, and paradoxically, God becomes actually effective.

(I may have elaborated upon his idea somewhat, but I think Ive conveyed the jist.)

XXXXXXXXXX

But -
all such propositioning avoids the question that I feel is at the heart of our endeavor: How is it that I may come upon a truth of the universe? How is it that I may be separated enough from the universe that I might be able to 'know' of it in order to make statements of truth about it?

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance]Assuming a universe, not of purposeful creation, whereby the hand of the creator guides all cause and effect and that instead the cause and effect was of random chance encounters, I propose the following:

The Universe is approximately 13.73 billion years old.
Simple cells came into existence on Earth 3.8 billion years ago.
Human evolution started 7 million years ago
Humans appeared 200,000 years ago.

I couldn’t find when consciousness and thought were supposedly born, but I believe it’s safe to say sometime in the last 7 million years.
(By the way, some philosophers and scientists think that consciousness is an illusion.)

So I put your question to you. If in fact for the first 13 billion years of the universes 13.7 billion year life it had no mind, no consciousness, or no thought such that it was incapable of decisive intent, aim and purpose, in actual existence (truth), then at that time, how could the universe express ‘anything other than its true self?'

And if the Creation side of you takes a peek from behind the curtain then I submit that the answer to both questions is “because that’s the way it was designed![/quote] I dont know why this quote function doesnt work sometimes!)

Thus I would propose that thought and consciousness, as effects of the human being, its organs, its brain, are equally ture and existant. That we humans are merely carrying out the continued functioning of this universe, that there is no 'false' in this sense, or that 'false' is in itself merely another form of the universe occurring as it does.
Or,
the universe was designed in a manner where humans have an ability to know the universe through an arena of effective ignorance and knowledge.

So I am not sure if you are being facecious here though, to make a point.

Nevertheless, the same problem presents itself:

How is it that I may have come upon this knowledge, as if it is more true than any other assertion? It is rediculous to throw up our hands. I am compelled to seek.
So, is there some 'force' or 'agency' that exists outside of the universe as we have defined it as existing? A creator? This smacks firmly of belief. I cannot rest in such a platitude; at minimum I need ask what 'belief' is.

How is it that the universe as we have defined it , as 'the totality of all that exists", developed something of itself that is not itself?

so we are back to where we left off, eh?

What do you belief'?
Creator/ Big Bang/ Both/ Niether?
What is 'belief'?
existance? knowledge?
where shall we resume?