For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
It's entertainment -- it's helpful to be easily amused.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:35 pmSo, is that a "no"?
Considering personal experience has taught me that it is both a yes and no.
Where do you get your logic?
We don't get logic, we work though it as it operates as a means of connecting and separating axioms and in these respects acts much like a "spirit". A spirit being a continuum of how being is created and defined.
Is it bigger than or from beyond yourself?
Both, and yet internal as well considering one works through a logic.
So, does this mean you believe anything?
Everything?
If it exists then there is some degree of truth within it.
So everything is true?
Truth is existence with many grades of truth being the movement away or from a center point of being. This centerpoint can be called "God", with the circumferance being the range of being which extends from and through the creator.
So, as long as a person can create their own loop, they are functioning sanely?
They will reap what they sow and become subject to the same standards they apply. As to sanity, that reflects the degree to which they fit in with some underlying group and what groups those groups fit in as well.
A really detailed made-up story is valid because the person really believes it?
It is valid as it exists and the person manifests that story into reality.
So, the more complete the insanity is, the better?
What is insanity but the absense of connection with a group and reality?
The better the description, the greater the proof?
The greater the description the less defined something becomes because it increasingly becomes obscure. The simpler the description the more universal the proof with universality underlying common bonds to all phenomenon.
The only typical reason that theists seem open to expansion is when their congregation is shrinking and they need more money -- so they have to appeal to more people.
Half true, with that being the darker side of definition. On the lighter side God is infinite by definition thus is subject to a infinite continuum of newer and newer definitions.
If what you say is true, why don't the theist posters on this forum acknowledge that? Are they unaware of a greater truth that you know?
Many Express it under there own contexts. Theism has multiple dogmas.
What facilitates this expansion when the human ego is at stake?
Who said it is all about ego?
And what about a private language which can describe the deer in great amount of detail? Multiple dimensions, properties, both linguistic and visual representations. MRI view, 2D and 3D images.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:43 pm A private language still requires common forms. I may use the imagination to form the symbol of a deer with trumpets for antlers and thus symbol may represent an assertive and boisterous form of masculinity, yet the symbols are grounded in objectively observed forms.
It doesn't require the inversion. I learned to program when I was 5. I learned English when I was 16.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:56 pmAnd what about a private language which can describe the deer in great amount of detail? Multiple dimensions, properties, both linguistic and visual representations. MRI view, 2D and 3D images.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:43 pm A private language still requires common forms. I may use the imagination to form the symbol of a deer with trumpets for antlers and thus symbol may represent an assertive and boisterous form of masculinity, yet the symbols are grounded in objectively observed forms.
All into one, single linguistic expression. That they are all forms - sure. That's why they are called FORMALISMS. And they all reduce to syntax - structure.
It doesn't require the inversion. I learned to program when I was 5. I learned English when I was 16.
By any stretch of the imagination by mental constructs are visual/spatial/mathematical. Nothing like English.
Yet one connects to the other.
Well, that was part of my point. Philosophy is deconstructive. The point of questioning is to observe underlying assumptions - to deconstruct dogma.Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:53 pm It's entertainment -- it's helpful to be easily amused.
It's art -- a creative exercise to see what I can create... while seeing what other people create.
And yes, it's momentarily informative -- discovering things about the way I and others can and do think, which assists/enhances my brief journey through this experience of which we actually know nothing.
And dually the constructs form new words in English as well. To say one thing points to another is to take an approach starting from a single point.
The only property of language that makes language... language. The thing which Chomsky calls Universal grammar.
Thank you for your responses. Very interesting.
I'm just asking a question. Surely the human ego plays a role in these self-referential loops of premises, assertions, logic, and conclusions. So what facilitates expansion when the human ego likes its creation maintained as supreme?
Yes, I noticed. And that's how I think.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:00 pmWell, that was part of my point.Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:53 pm It's entertainment -- it's helpful to be easily amused.
It's art -- a creative exercise to see what I can create... while seeing what other people create.
And yes, it's momentarily informative -- discovering things about the way I and others can and do think, which assists/enhances my brief journey through this experience of which we actually know nothing.
That's why I like it.
Yes. To question and explore further is more interesting and seems more reasonable/truthful to me.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:16 pmThank you for your responses. Very interesting.
I'm just asking a question. Surely the human ego plays a role in these self-referential loops of premises, assertions, logic, and conclusions. So what facilitates expansion when the human ego likes its creation maintained as supreme?
The ego can manifest it's own loop but it does so at the expense of forming it's own judgements by which it is judged.
I feel like Basil Fawlty looking for a duck in a blancmange.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:18 pm 1. Man is the measure of all things.
2. Man is made in the image of Divine Reason through the capacity of measuring phenomenon, with this measuring capacity existing through the recursion and isomorphism from the source (ie the capacity to measure is inverted into another capacity to measure and repeated).
3. The first born of man would be Jesus Christ, as both the center point of reason, where all men and women in their capacity to reason are variations of this one source. Christ is God synthesizing with his own image.
4. All men and women are co-creators through the one source with creation being the measuring of phenomenon by the seperation and connection of phenomenon. God synthesizes to his creation where creation is a recursion of God. The source joins to its image as a means of measurement.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:03 pm(G-->G)--> ((J --->M) --> (M-->J)) --> GEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:18 pm 1. Man is the measure of all things.
2. Man is made in the image of Divine Reason through the capacity of measuring phenomenon, with this measuring capacity existing through the recursion and isomorphism from the source (ie the capacity to measure is inverted into another capacity to measure and repeated).
Isomorphism as a beginning of a tautology: (G-->G)-->J.
Recursion as the tautology: (G-->((G-->G)<-->J)
3. The first born of man would be Jesus Christ, as both the center point of reason, where all men and women in their capacity to reason are variations of this one source. Christ is God synthesizing with his own image.
(G-->G)-->J ---> M
4. All men and women are co-creators through the one source with creation being the measuring of phenomenon by the seperation and connection of phenomenon. God synthesizes to his creation where creation is a recursion of God. The source joins to its image as a means of measurement.
I feel like Basil Fawlty looking for a duck in a blancmange.
Where is there any LOGIC in this post?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzlqMNRavWQ
@ 2 minutes in
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:21 pm Illogical Christianity.
1 Loving God promises barbaric punishments.
2. Death bed confessions allow maniacs like Ted Bundy and Adolf Hitler to get to heaven.
3. God of the OT is basically dispensing genocide, disease, and famine on the unworthy.
4. How is Jesus' sacrifice logical? How can one person die for another's sins?
5. As long as you believe you seem to be able to act as you will. Absurd!
6. Infants get a free ticket to heaven. Why not just kill your child to save them from hell, then ask for forgiveness?
7. Christians seem to insist that life begins at conception. How come God keeps aborting kids with natural miscarriages (estimated at 25% of all pregnancies)?
8. Why are there no miracles to solve the world's starvation? Seem to be plenty in biblical times?
9. How can Christian claim the NT is the word of God when there are so many contradictions.
10. Prayer is inherently illogical with an omnipotent, omniscient god. Think about it!
11. Bible condones slavery.
12.Christianity accepts homosexuality yet it is condemned as an abomination in the Bible.
13. Women? Need I say more?
14. God's basic ignorance of science in his WORD>
15. One God, yet a multitude of secular interests and splinter groups willing to fight each other. Millions have died because of spliting.
16. What the 10 commandments COULD have done:
No proscription of slavery
No proscription of child endangerment
No proscription of bigotry
No proscription of racism
No proscription of sexism
No proscription of classism
No proscription of blackmail or bribery
No proscription of discrimination against LGBTQ persons
No proscription of incest
No proscription of torture or terrorism
No proscription of rape
No proscription against the mistreatment, exploitation, and relocation of native populations
No command to treat animals humanely
No command to take care of the Earth’s environment
No command to help others in need
No command to settle disputes peacefully
No command to distribute the Earth’s resources fairly.
Yeah. REALLY REALLY LOGICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1