Philosophy Now Forum

QuantumT wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 10:53 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 10:28 pm First you called it a point which apparently has evolved to become the whole universe. If the whole universe is NOW then what is not NOW?

Time is a part of the universe as a whole. Therefore NOW is the current point in space-time of the whole universe.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 11:07 pm I'm reading you to reason that the whole cycle of the universe beginning with its origin for us as the big bang and finally perishing is actually NOW. I agree that this is a measure of time referred to in the East as a kalpa in which the universe comes into existence, exists, dies, and then begins again. However, for me this is the cyclical process of existence. How can it be considered NOW or a state of being?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 11:17 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 11:07 pm I'm reading you to reason that the whole cycle of the universe beginning with its origin for us as the big bang and finally perishing is actually NOW. I agree that this is a measure of time referred to in the East as a kalpa in which the universe comes into existence, exists, dies, and then begins again. However, for me this is the cyclical process of existence. How can it be considered NOW or a state of being?

No, you are not reading me. You are reading what you want to read.

CURRENT is the keyword!

NOW = The CURRENT state of the entire universe! Including you and me!

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 11:35 pm How do you define CURRENT in relation to the concepts of before and after? Imagine a horizontal line on a piece of paper. The left end represents before and the right end represents after. There is no objective division, no NOW, between before and after since the line is a continuum. NOW just becomes a figure of speech. If true, How can NOW objectively exist in the context of before and after in our lives?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 11:49 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 11:35 pm How do you define CURRENT in relation to the concepts of before and after? Imagine a horizontal line on a piece of paper. The left end represents before and the right end represents after. There is no objective division, no NOW, between before and after since the line is a continuum. NOW just becomes a figure of speech. If true, How can NOW objectively exist in the context of before and after in our lives?

"Before" only exists as a memory for the observer. "After" is still to come / does not yet exist.

Very very rarely, "after" exists as a prediction. But that is another discussion (I'd love to take!).

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 12:30 am You refer to the observer but as objective realities, before and after are relative terms in a person's life. From the point of view of eternity, there can be no objective now which is isolated from before and after. The cycle of before and after exist as a process within eternity.

The point I am making is that eternity and all possible eternities or multiverses exist as one within NOW beyond the limits of time and space. The eternal NOW does not divide before and after but before and after serve the continuing process of existence within NOW

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 12:30 am

QuantumT wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 11:49 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 11:35 pm How do you define CURRENT in relation to the concepts of before and after? Imagine a horizontal line on a piece of paper. The left end represents before and the right end represents after. There is no objective division, no NOW, between before and after since the line is a continuum. NOW just becomes a figure of speech. If true, How can NOW objectively exist in the context of before and after in our lives?

"Before" only exists as a memory for the observer. "After" is still to come / does not yet exist.

Very very rarely, "after" exists as a prediction. But that is another discussion (I'd love to take!).

You refer to the observer but as objective realities, before and after are relative terms in a person's life. From the point of view of eternity, there can be no objective now which is isolated from before and after. The cycle of before and after exist as a process within eternity.

The point I am making is that eternity and all possible eternities or multiverses exist as one within NOW beyond the limits of time and space. The eternal NOW does not divide before and after but before and after serve the continuing process of existence within NOW

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 12:42 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 12:30 am You refer to the observer but as objective realities, before and after are relative terms in a person's life. From the point of view of eternity, there can be no objective now which is isolated from before and after. The cycle of before and after exist as a process within eternity.

The point I am making is that eternity and all possible eternities or multiverses exist as one within NOW beyond the limits of time and space. The eternal NOW does not divide before and after but before and after serve the continuing process of existence within NOW

Is that your final conclussion? If so, we are beyond science, and therefore beond me.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 1:13 amWe are sometimes more conscious and sometimes less. Efforts to become more conscious are not scientific. They require first the need, courage, and willingness, to engage in experiential self knowledge as opposed to interpretation and self justification.

Greta wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 1:35 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 1:13 amWe are sometimes more conscious and sometimes less. Efforts to become more conscious are not scientific. They require first the need, courage, and willingness, to engage in experiential self knowledge as opposed to interpretation and self justification.

So why don't you make that effort to be more conscious?

Maybe you don't realise it but you are highly repetitive. How conscious are you when blathering on about "secularists" for the umteenth time? You are on a frickin' loop, lad, and trying to preach about awakeness. Seemingly you are expressing this lack you perceive in yourself; you may unconsciously realise this tendency to switch off and fall into mindless dogma is a personal shortfall, but one that is too hard to face.

All you need do now is realise that the criticisms you level at others are the qualities in yourself that you detest, but have not yet faced. If you face these personal demons then you may be freed from your Sisyphean forum labours. You may even find some empathy for your fellow humans.

In the meantime, though, it seems that you are done with your thought experiments/psychonaut activities. You speak as though you have all the information you need and now you are telling it from the mountain. Again, you engage in the very "interpretation and self justification" on the forum that you complain about, seemingly with no interest in advancing your paradigms.

The answer lies before you - face those demons. To find them, follow the trail of that which you most detest.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 12:03 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 11:28 am Define Atheist?

It's not a proper noun, so there is no need to capitalise it in English. (Unless of course you are asking about someone called Atheist.) An atheist is simply anyone who does not believe there is a god. There are some atheists who believe that there is no god,
Come on uwot, you're trying to split hairs where there are no hairs to split. Both sentences mean the exact same thing. In both cases belief is called into question, which is all that can be done, as no one can provide proof either way.

"...not believe there is..."
"...believe that there is no..."
We could get rid of "that" and it would read the same
"...believe there is no..."

That you place the words in a different order matters not, as they both contain the same result, (no belief that there is a god).

Would you be offended any more or less if I said either, "uwot is a moron" or "a moron uwot is?" Both suck equally, as they mean the same thing! You'd want to pop me one, either way I said it.

And no I didn't mean to say anything like that, it was just an example, so as to raise your BP, if only for an instant, so as to get you involved emotionally. Did it work?


but they have as hard a time proving it as people who believe there is a god. Frankly, it's turning atheism up to 11. (It's today's buzzword(s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc )

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 5:24 pmCome on uwot, you're trying to split hairs where there are no hairs to split. Both sentences mean the exact same thing. In both cases belief is called into question, which is all that can be done, as no one can provide proof either way.

"...not believe there is..."
"...believe that there is no..."
We could get rid of "that" and it would read the same
"...believe there is no..."

That you place the words in a different order matters not, as they both contain the same result, (no belief that there is a god).

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 5:24 pmWould you be offended any more or less if I said either, "uwot is a moron" or "a moron uwot is?" Both suck equally, as they mean the same thing! You'd want to pop me one, either way I said it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 5:24 pmAnd no I didn't mean to say anything like that, it was just an example, so as to raise your BP, if only for an instant, so as to get you involved emotionally. Did it work?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 2:52 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 1:35 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 1:13 amWe are sometimes more conscious and sometimes less. Efforts to become more conscious are not scientific. They require first the need, courage, and willingness, to engage in experiential self knowledge as opposed to interpretation and self justification.

So why don't you make that effort to be more conscious?

Maybe you don't realise it but you are highly repetitive. How conscious are you when blathering on about "secularists" for the umteenth time? You are on a frickin' loop, lad, and trying to preach about awakeness. Seemingly you are expressing this lack you perceive in yourself; you may unconsciously realise this tendency to switch off and fall into mindless dogma is a personal shortfall, but one that is too hard to face.

All you need do now is realise that the criticisms you level at others are the qualities in yourself that you detest, but have not yet faced. If you face these personal demons then you may be freed from your Sisyphean forum labours. You may even find some empathy for your fellow humans.

In the meantime, though, it seems that you are done with your thought experiments/psychonaut activities. You speak as though you have all the information you need and now you are telling it from the mountain. Again, you engage in the very "interpretation and self justification" on the forum that you complain about, seemingly with no interest in advancing your paradigms.

The answer lies before you - face those demons. To find them, follow the trail of that which you most detest.

Greta I agree with your interpretation of Nick's personality, however I would have to agree with Nick's conception (not argument) that this current world is a meat grinder. Now it may have always been to this way in some degree, but this increase in technologicization is giving form to some of our inner beasts.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 5:22 pm We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. George Orwell

Eodnhoj7

Yes I begin with the premise that we are in Plato’s cave and slaves to the human condition. You seem to agree that it is repetitive and best avoided. I’ve learned that it is quickly forgotten and people become lost in the weeds of argument.

How have I criticized you? If you cannot answer, who have you seen me criticize? Do you believe it is more important to be guided by appearance than to impartially question? Socrates was killed largely because he questioned appearances. Do you respect the difference between questioning appearances and criticizing others? Do you believe that questioning the value of the dualistic reason in pursuit of the experience of human meaning is criticizing others or a necessary step towards acquiring human understanding?