Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:
Thus the reason why I say look at things from the Mind and then use the brain instead of looking from and using the brain only

Did your brain think this for it is perfectly capable of doing so rather than the Mind and if not then can you demonstrate this

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
You do not think that a suitable exo planet could be found beyond this solar system within the next five billion years

I have absolutely no idea and so I am not ruling out the possibility of one being discovered as it is entirely possible

That is great that you are now openly admitting this as how you wrote before just showed and proved how closed you actually were
How you wrote before showed no sign that you are open to any idea that other things are actually possible to what you already believed

I have never been closed minded to that possibility I just think it statistically improbable because of other factors
Merely discovering one does not automatically mean it is suitable as it may very well not be but only time will tell

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:14 am

Dontaskme wrote:
why would evolution or natural selection or what ever is responsible for life ... why would it go through all that effort to make
a self aware being that is capable of co creation in addition to what has already created this self aware being ... to just then have
that species go extinct ... seems like a stupid plan to me. And what would be the point in living if its all going to go extinct anyway

Questions pertaining to meaning or purpose beyond the physical do not apply to evolution because that is a purely physical phenomenon as is
entropy. Whether human beings accept or understand this is entirely irrelevant to the processes themselves. But energy cannot be destroyed
only transferred so in that sense one does not truly die. I am not saying this because I believe in woo [ I do not ] but simply because it is true
Like in scientifically true. And only so. For were it only true [ that is subjectively true ] from a woo perspective I would not be saying it at all

I agree that energy transforms into one shape or another in that there is only energy in formation.

But there must be some kind of prior directive intent behind all physical processes including the process that is the human brain function which can only be an appearance of this living directive...If natural selection is a case of discarding one particular species in favour of something better, it seems there is a hidden directive appearing to be striving for perfection ...which it's already achieved in the human brain that is capable of self-awareness....and it is as and through this mind body mechanism, that the universe has apparently become aware of itself...so I personally don't believe it was by pure chance or by having no purpose or intent? ..

.

ken wrote:
By the way have you ever noticed what you write never really has much to do with clarifying what I actually
mean? Although you might ask clarifying questions like above you are writing from a very narrow even closed
view of what is believed to be true. You are not asking for clarity from the perspective of it could be possible

Why do you expect or demand everything to be understood by me right away
Just because you know or understand everything does not mean that I do too
I have already stated that progress for me is on going so it happens over time
You appear to be very impatient with me but I am not as educated as you are

Dontaskme wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:
why would evolution or natural selection or what ever is responsible for life ... why would it go through all that effort to make
a self aware being that is capable of co creation in addition to what has already created this self aware being ... to just then have
that species go extinct ... seems like a stupid plan to me. And what would be the point in living if its all going to go extinct anyway

Questions pertaining to meaning or purpose beyond the physical do not apply to evolution because that is a purely physical phenomenon as is
entropy. Whether human beings accept or understand this is entirely irrelevant to the processes themselves. But energy cannot be destroyed
only transferred so in that sense one does not truly die. I am not saying this because I believe in woo [ I do not ] but simply because it is true
Like in scientifically true. And only so. For were it only true [ that is subjectively true ] from a woo perspective I would not be saying it at all

I agree that energy transforms into one shape or another in that there is only energy in formation

But there must be some kind of prior directive intent behind all physical processes including the process that is the human brain function
which can only be an appearance of this living directive ... so if natural selection is a case of discarding one particular species in favour of some
thing better it seems there is a hidden directive appearing to be striving for perfection ... which its already achieved in the human brain that is capable of self awareness ... and it is as and through this mind body mechanism that the universe has apparently become aware of itself ... so I personally dont believe it was by pure chance or by having no purpose

So how do you explain randomness in relation to all of that? And why do you think that human beings are the epitome of perfection? For how
do you know that there is not biological life or machine intelligence elsewhere in the Universe more intelligent than us? It is entirely possible

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:28 am So how do you explain randomness in relation to all of that? And why do you think that human beings are the epitome of perfection? For how
do you know that there is not biological life or machine intelligence elsewhere in the Universe more intelligent than us? It is entirely possible

Well for example, the mind that expresses as and through the human form does not randomly put together a state of the art flying aircraft capable of carrying people from one side of the planet to the other effortlessly using random bits and bobs without any prior planning or careful rational thought input...The aircraft is put together by an intelligent rational conscientious thinking mind.

The human creation is just one expression of this living mind which is everywhere inseparable from it's own creation the living physical universe. The mind stretches as far and wide as the physical cares to exist. It's not confined to one expression, the intelligence is not human, it is beyond the human intelligence and yet limits it's intelligence in that form so as to grow and evolve....(seeds has talked about this same idea on his website)

Right now there appears to be the human experience. That which has not been experienced cannot be known by the mind expressing itself in human form...although ideas about how the mind experiences itself as and through the form it takes .. can be imagined via the minds capacity to think in mental pictures...as in a dream.

.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:19 am

ken wrote:
But as I continually say what is actually true can be seen and known already

Not everything true is known but can you give an example of something that is

Of course not everything true is known (by human beings). I never said that. But, what I did say was, "what is actually true CAN be seen and known already".

Again, Everything is relative to the observer, so how things are being looked at influences just how much, or how little, of what is actually true CAN be seen and known. From a truly Honest, fully Open, and seriously Wanting to change for the better perspective, then this Observer CAN see and thus know what is actually true already.

Some thing that is actually true, which is seen and known already, is that there is distance between objects/particles of matter. This Truth applies to the largest of objects up to the smallest particles of matter. Unless of course this is not actually true and there is some evidence and proof to show other-wise.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:39 am

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Experiments conducted with the rigour of the scientific method eventually provide reliable evidence

They might do if and only if that reliable evidence is actually provided and shown. Otherwise I am not going to
accept some thing because it is said in a book. I do not accept things on these circumstances for three reasons

The people doing the scientific method can have biases

The premises on which the scientific method began might be inaccurate or wrong or false or incomplete
or incorrect and /or just be. Besides that the whole starting point might just be wrong in the first place

What is said and /or written in a book can get so misinterpreted from its original that was once meant could
be so far from what is being conveyed now. You just need to look at the bible for reliable evidence of this

All functioning human beings have biases

We have discussed this a few times already. I agree human beings have biases, but as I have said, "they do not have to". I have also explained how once evolved past being human, these beings can function without biases. This is done very simply and easily. I have also explained how it can be done.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:39 amThere is no flaw in the scientific method only in the scientists using it because they are functioning human beings

Another one of your absolute statements.

Now think about who created the scientific method?

If you did think about it, then you would realize the flaws in your reasoning here. That is if biased human beings created a method and labeled it a scientific method, then obviously that "scientific method" could well be flawed. That is of course unless the creators of the said "scientific method" are flawless. And, hopefully I do not need to provide you with the answer to that.

Are biased human beings flawless?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:39 amThe Bible is not a scientific book and we are discussing science here not religion so that example is an invalid one

The book, itself, and the subject matter of the book does not matter at all, the example is about how much faith and belief people can put into books.

That example might be an invalid one to you. But that example still works with how some people put all their faith into the so called knowledge that is written in scientific literature, just like some people put all their faith into the so called words that are written in religion literature. Some people actually believe what is written in scientific literature as being, dare I say it, 'gospel' just like some people believe what is written in religious literature as being the absolute truth. Human beings can put all their faith into what is written and believe (in) those words without ever actually verifying if those words are true or not. This is very obvious to Me and the proof is just about every where when looking at HOW human beings look at, think about, and believe (in) things.

ken wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:44 am If this is true, then how do you explain the contradictory nature of the theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics? You are one of the ones who was saying that these two theories are incompatible with each other. If this were so, then how can one of them be better than facts and much more than a speculation or hunch.

By the way I have not had any answers to My clarifying questions regarding What can appear at two places at the one time, et cetera, et cetera. Until I get these answers I will not explain how the two theories are actually compatible. By showing how ALL theories are compatible, then the subject about the theory of Everything can also be known. (But we are a long way of showing that just yet).

Quantum theory and classical physics use different sets of data and facts and that is where the contradiction is, any contradiction that is in the theory starts there.

Quantum effects, that determine quantum theory, are not bound by human experience. Science can only report what it observes, science doesn't make up data to suit it's theories and principles like religion does.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:08 am

ken wrote:
I noticed that you did not provide what the actual thing was that was supposedly in two places at the one time where this was meant to have
taken place nor when did this supposedly happen nor has any else been provided on any of the other clarifying questions similar to this one

An object being in two places at the same time is a feature of quantum mechanics as per the famous double slit experiment with electrons
This is now the third time you have inquired about your clarifying questions to me with regard to why they are not always answered so can
you stop mentioning it. I have already given you a satisfactory answer which you accepted entirely and so please do not mention this again

If that is what I am going to get, then I will now ask is there any actual video evidence of the "famous" double slit experiment with electrons?

I NEVER inquired with regard to why My clarifying questions are not answered here. I just said that I noticed you did not provide an answer to a particular question, which you ever so slightly just answered now.

ken wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:44 am

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:04 pm Too many times in the past I have heard a layman use the phrase "It's only a theory" to discredit a scientific theory that they didn't like, evolution seems to be one of the favorites.

Why was it 'too' many times?

That phrase should not be used at all in that context. It is only used by people who don't understand what they are talking about.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:14 am

ken wrote:
To understand the truly meaningful things in Life like

What is the meaning of Life and life

What is the difference between these

'life', can refer to either,
1. living, being alive
2. a person's experiences
3. the time frame or period from when a thing comes into existence to when it ends.
4. a time frame or period from when a type of existence starts to when it finishes.

'Life', can refer to, ALL-THAT-IS.

There is no difference between the meaning of Life and life. The meaning of Life and life IS living, being alive.

ken wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:07 pm If that is what I am going to get, then I will now ask is there any actual video evidence of the "famous" double slit experiment with electrons?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaxmEkVlOVs

It seems that there are quite a few videos on this subject. This seems to be one of the better ones.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:34 am

ken wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:03 am
To understand the truly meaningful things like above, one needs to discover who/what 'I' am and who/what 'you', et cetera first.

Yes, but the trouble with the conditioned human mind is as soon as you posit the question who/what 'I' am to them.. they go all silent knowing full well they have no idea of the answer except what their up-bringers and society has imposed upon them which they then believe to be the only truth.

they take on either dead or other living peoples ideas, without ever thinking to think things through for them self. Only the rare few ever break free from this false imposed prison that is the identified ego self.

.

But the actual reason this happens is all very easily understood and very understandable also. All people are the way they are because of their past experiences. That is WHY human beings are imprisoned. If there is nothing in their past experiences to show them any thing better or show them another way, and they do not freely choose to open up to other ideas about any thing better or other ways, then they will continue to be imprisoned and not be able to find nor discover them - Self.

The beauty of the infinite is there is no rush. The Awareness of ALL-THAT-IS has evolved, and IS revealed soon enough. Human beings come to KNOW Me when they have been prepared and thus ready to.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:36 am

ken wrote:
Thus the reason why I say look at things from the Mind and then use the brain instead of looking from and using the brain only

Did your brain think this for it is perfectly capable of doing so rather than the Mind and if not then can you demonstrate this

Think about any thing that appears to be true. Now think about if it is true because it is actually true or if it is only true because you either think or believe it to be true. Now imagine if it were not true and what other possibilities there could be.

For example, the saying 'We do not need money to live' is a thought that most human beings, in this day and age, think and/or believe is true. Now is it true because it is actually true or is it only true because you either think or believe it to be true? The "obvious" answer to the brain is of course it is true. The brain can only look at things from what information has been put into it. The only information that can be put into it comes from the past experiences of the body, which it is in, coming from and through either or all the five senses of the body. However, if the question is looked at and answered from the Mind, instead of the brain only, then we get a different answer. Of course we do not need money to live. The Mind is always open and looks at all possibilities. We can then use the brain to verify if our findings are right here. From the knowledge the elder human beings have gained previous human beings lived for hundreds of thousands of years without money and even some human beings today still do live without money now. So, the correct and true answer is We do not need money to live.

When we use just the brain to look at things, then we can only see, thus know and understand, what information or knowledge that has been put into this one particular brain that exists inside this one particular body, which we individually live or dwell with-in. However, when we use the Mind, which is always open and of which there is only one, and is what has allowed all of us human beings to keep progressing, dreaming, imagining, creating, learning, understanding, and reasoning, to look at things, and then use what knowledge or information to back up what we see, then what is actually true can be known and understood already. The Mind has a collective perspective of ALL things, whereas the brain can only see from what information has been fed into it.