Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:26 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 6:03 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:30 pm
That's interesting.

It inspires me to ask: Is there anything other than ego that claims separateness?

I can only give you my -- a deist's -- view.

I won't talk about, or defend, or criticize, the theistic perspective (or dissect your monistic view).

You still wanna hear what I think?

Sure.

First, discreteness seems evident. Reality is not homogenous. I am not the Ipad I type on, the coffee I drink, or the chair I sit on. You, Lace, are a distinct other. Separateness and identity appear to natural and normal.

Second: if one takes the notion that sumthin' purposeful undergirds Reality, it's probable this sumthin' is a person in its own right. If there is no such undergirdin' to Reality, we're left with the mystery of complexity and individual self-awareness. Even assuming a kind of unintelligent universal vitalism (purpose without a intention) solves nuthin' (why should Reality, an entropic event, allow for anti-entropy?).

Third, there are certain universals among men, no matter their culture. Chief among these universal (or perhaps foundational to them) is the intuition that one belongs to himself. That he is his and it's natural and normal for him to be his. In a Reality without purpose, or in one where purpose is unintelligent, why do all men see themselves this way?

So, for the deist (this one, anyway), it's not ego claiming separateness; it's what is plain and apparent that leads to recognition of separateness, between persons (between me and you, between you and me and the Creator).

(this is a quick & dirty answer, cuz I'm time-pressed)

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:33 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:20 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:16 am

Sure I can, I just know you could never prove it. As we are having this little chat, I am working on the opposite to that equation. Yes, it would be nice to think of God as a Goddess - when it has me in heaven at times and makes love to my entire being - indeed sexual ecstasy that it can 'inflict' is ...mmm... - but it appears the dude is Gay or at least bi after all -

Okay, then quote me claiming that God definitely, certainly doesn't exist.

I can quote your claim here you go:- quote me claiming that God definitely, certainly doesn't exist.

Once you have gnosis, there is no avenue to being an atheist.

I guess, since my argument goes along these two options, on the point 2. I could claim to be an atheist, that there is plausible, but from what has been garnered since the sage introduced himself to me - er - point 1. is my comprehension.

Either:-
1. God is divine and constructs our reality in real-time.
2. 'God' is A.I. - artificial intelligence - that we have evolved into a simulation (see simulation hypothesis) ..again, our reality is constructed in real-time.
NB. The reason we would evolve into a simulation is to conserve resources as entropy increases.

So you can't quote me making that claim?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:11 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:58 am...

You appear to currently be obsessing over all of my posts... like a manic person with mental issues. I'm not interested in reading what you think. You're a very noisy person. Good luck to you.

Same here. If it was someone else, I'd say he/she is having a breakdown, but Age often writes like this.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:34 am CLAIMING things like: you appear to currently be obsessing over ALL of my posts. Which could ONLY be Truly ASCERTAINED by READING all of my posts.

Are you really not aware that obvious things can be noticed without reading through them? I can easily see that you are quoting me, with your typical capitalized words in your typical volumes of Kentext that are typically full of dumbass accusations because you misconstrue so much about what people are saying or thinking. Your repetition is obvious without reading through it. (Maybe you don't understand the skill of skimming.)

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:34 am you will NOT PROVIDE ANSWERS to CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, posed to 'you', by 'me'.

That's because your claims and questions are continually based on your misunderstandings and things you misconstrue. Trying to clarify anything for you requires too much explanation (that would usually be unnecessary with other people), then all of that effort simply results in more of your claims and questions based on what you continue to misunderstand and misconstrue.

It's hilarious that you boast about how much you know and can prove, when you obviously misunderstand and lack awareness of many basic understandings. Furthermore, your supposedly "clarifying questions" are often full of accusations and assumptions. So what seems clear is that your agenda is not about gaining clarity, yourself -- it's about directing other people to get clear on how you see things. When people ask you to prove what you say, you claim that it's not up to you to prove it, or you already have, or time will tell. Nonsense.

Most of the entertainment in watching people engage with you is in seeing what they say, and skipping over what you say for the most part. You do not offer anything new or compelling -- just your endless accusations at "you people". What's interesting is seeing how various people deal with and toy with that.

I do not wish you ill, Age. I just do not see your perspective/awareness as very credible, based on your continual inaccuracies and lack of awareness.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:11 pm First, discreteness seems evident. Reality is not homogenous. I am not the Ipad I type on, the coffee I drink, or the chair I sit on. You, Lace, are a distinct other. Separateness and identity appear to natural and normal.

Second: if one takes the notion that sumthin' purposeful undergirds Reality, it's probable this sumthin' is a person in its own right. If there is no such undergirdin' to Reality, we're left with the mystery of complexity and individual self-awareness. Even assuming a kind of unintelligent universal vitalism (purpose without a intention) solves nuthin' (why should Reality, an entropic event, allow for anti-entropy?).

Third, there are certain universals among men, no matter their culture. Chief among these universal (or perhaps foundational to them) is the intuition that one belongs to himself. That he is his and it's natural and normal for him to be his. In a Reality without purpose, or in one where purpose is unintelligent, why do all men see themselves this way?

So, for the deist (this one, anyway), it's not ego claiming separateness; it's what is plain and apparent that leads to recognition of separateness, between persons (between me and you, between you and me and the Creator).

(this is a quick & dirty answer, cuz I'm time-pressed)

Thanks for your response.

First: I do understand (and thoroughly enjoy) the value and role of perceiving separation between people in this life and on this Earthly stage.

Second: Human beings are the ones who decide what has or needs purpose. Life, itself... including everything in nature... countless species... planets forming and suns burning out... does not seem defined by such ideas of purpose. The vast Universe would seem like overkill for demonstrating some purpose for, or defined/understood by, human beings. There are immense cycles and rhythms and interactions that we do not understand. Must everything have a purpose according to humans, or might such things simply occur and exist because they can, not because they need to?

Third: Ego is part of the first item above. I see uses for ego as a tool -- not as a complete driver. There is always much more to consider than anyone's ego. And I think human beings are more than their egos... which is why I find it interesting to practice "turning it way down" to revisit and remind myself what reality feels like with less of it. If I can do that... if lots of people are doing that... it's much easier to see how ego and personhood and purpose aren't required for the Universe.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:26 pm If it was someone else, I'd say he/she is having a breakdown, but Age often writes like this.

He does seem to spin-out sometimes.

I enjoy reading your posts and perspectives, Atla.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:16 am Yes, it would be nice to think of God as a Goddess - when it has me in heaven at times and makes love to my entire being - indeed sexual ecstasy that it can 'inflict' is ...mmm... - but it appears the dude is Gay or at least bi after all -

You know what the coolest thing about atheism is? (Aside from making fun of theists, and then congratulating each other for it, with smug looks on our faces? And then celebrating it all with a good ol' round of baby eating.)

To explain the mind-boggling improbability of our universe, atheists often end up believing in an infinite multiverse. (They try to support this belief with things like String theory, which has no experimental evidence going for it whatsoever.)

Now in an infinite multiverse, most universes are uninhabited, and some universes are inhabited by talking monkeys, who post nonsense on philosophy boards.

But then there are those even rarer universes, which are home to the smartest and sexiest Goddesses imaginable, with powers that would seem like magic to us. We probably can't communicate them, but we can still worship them.
(Unless we are already worshipping a nasty 3rd party intelligence sky daddy, who is gay and likes to violate us.)

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:42 pm You know what the coolest thing about atheism is? (Aside from making fun of theists, and then congratulating each other for it, with smug looks on our faces? And then celebrating it all with a good ol' round of baby eating.)

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:42 pm then there are those even rarer universes, which are home to the smartest and sexiest Goddesses imaginable, with powers that would seem like magic to us.

Makes much more sense than fuddy-duddy male gods.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:19 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 9:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:44 pm I have long suspected that I'm the only person left on this forum who is both intelligent and has a clue, but now I'm finally completely certain of it. This isn't even funny anymore so I'm off, I'm just making a fool of myself by being here.

...

I've thought something similar to that before, myself. It's not that outrageous to wonder... and it speaks more of frustration or bafflement than ego.

It is one thing to "think it" and have the good judgment to keep it to yourself. However, it is something else altogether to put it in writing on a public forum. It smacks of a Trumpian level of self-praising egoism where one thinks that they can publicly proclaim things such as this,...



...while, at the same time, being so oblivious as to not realize that by doing so, it demonstrates to the whole world that they are actually quite the opposite of what they think they are.

Or, at the very least, they come-off as being preening little blowhards who make themselves look smaller and smaller with every self-aggrandizing boast.

Keep in mind, Lacewing, that according to Atla, you are clueless and beneath him when it comes to intelligence, and he is just trolling you for the fun of it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:19 pm Seriously, how can there be so many people with some kind of psychosis or bizarre idiocy wandering across this forum? The high ratio is perplexing.

It would be hypocritical of me to not include myself in the extensive list of psychotic idiots with bizarre ideas, wandering across this forum. However, to answer your question, it comes with the trade-off of having a forum where there are no heavy-handed moderators.

Indeed, in most of the philosophy forums I've participated on, half of the people who are presently on this one would have been banned from the get-go.
_______

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:57 pm Dontaskme wrote:
What conceived the very first woman who was then able to conceive or replicate herself?



Age replied—
What conceived the very first woman were the two things that CAME TOGETHER.


—————
Wow, thanks Age, you are really showing me something here

The two things that came together made the first sentient replicating organism. And hey presto, a replicating self machine was born, according to you….all because two things came together….who’d have thought it

That really does explain it, how the first woman came to be conceived.

WHAT???

EVERY human body was conceived by two previous bodies COMING TOGETHER.

Then when human bodies are born they are usually gendered male or female.

So, the female body was conceived either at the coming together of the sperm and the egg, OR, at the moment of comprehending and understanding of what the word 'female' means and is in relation to.

Now, to be MORE CORRECT you did ask for; "What conceived the very first woman?", which then OBVIOUSLY all depends on what 'you', "dontaskme", the word 'woman' means and is referred to here.

To some people the word 'woman' means or refers to when the female gendered human body reaches a particular age. So, in this sense and context, what conceived the VERY FIRST 'woman' was the VERY FIRST human being who came up with, created, made, or conceived the word 'woman', and then related that words to some 'thing'.

What you were IMAGINING and/or BELIEVING I was referring to I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL. But it was NOTHING like what I just described and explained here, CORRECT?

By the way, what you are so desperately 'trying to' argue for with that question you asked "others" but which you BELIEVED you ALREADY KNEW thee ANSWER to, you can NOT successfully argue for ANYWAY.

See, thee Universe, Itself, is infinite AND eternal, and as such was NEVER conceived/created, in the beginning. This is because there was NO "in the beginning" in the sense that 'you', human beings, have been IMAGINING and CONCEIVING of.

Also, there were a LOT more sentient beings WAY BEFORE ANY woman or man evolved, and came, into Existence.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:24 pm Age, you say you don't know what 'psyche' means. Look it up in a good dictionary!

Here is ANOTHER example of a human being JUMPING STRAIGHT into AN ASSUMPTION, WITHOUT ANY CLARIFYING FIRST.

And this is WHY that ASSUMPTION is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong.

A reason WHY this human being JUMPED into this specific ASSUMPTION is to 'try to' DEFLECT from the FACT that they can NOT and will NOT define what the word 'psyche' means to them NOR is able to EXPLAIN what "lacewing's" 'psyche' ACTUALLY IS, which they based and made THEIR CLAIM on.

Now, to back up and support this NEW CLAIM of YOURS here; WHERE did I say I do NOT know what 'psyche' means?

The PROOF that these human beings, in the days when this was being written, were CONTINUALLY MAKING ASSUMPTIONS with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE NOR PROOF AT ALL can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout these writings.

The EXAMPLE PROVIDED here by this person is a PRIME EXAMPLE of this.

Lace,

How do you reconcile...

Human beings are the ones who decide what has or needs purpose. Life, itself... including everything in nature... countless species... planets forming and suns burning out... does not seem defined by such ideas of purpose.

...with...

Throughout nature, I see a kind of awareness and perfection that "knows what it's doing", as it explores, expands, perfects, and dances. It also appears to be connected, all throughout. I see no reason to think that there's a puppet-master for such a thing -- rather, the creative force drives itself from within.

This creative force drives without purpose? Then how is it not just blind chance?

You say...

I don't necessarily think that what is manifested, or what we're experiencing, is by chance. It seems to me that there is awareness and perfection... perhaps moving throughout all. Rather than making up static stories and religions, it seems useful (to me) to be open to the naturally divine, dynamically flowing, in every present moment.

If there is no purpose: all that's left is chance.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:57 pm It is one thing to "think it" and have the good judgment to keep it to yourself. However, it is something else altogether to put it in writing on a public forum.

I think I understand where you're coming from. At the same time, this is the one place where we can say it like we see it, and perhaps there is value in that. We don't have to worry about all the pleasantries... and we also don't have to take any of it too seriously. People have called me all kinds of names and accused me of all kinds of ignorant and crazy ideas.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:57 pmIt smacks of a Trumpian level of self-praising egoism where one thinks that they can publicly proclaim things

This is online theater. He was the president. Seems to me that the scenario and expectations are very different.

If we cannot openly challenge absurdity, delusion, dishonesty, etc., here in this forum... where can we do it?

Does it help anyone to stay quiet about such things and keep it to ourselves? Does it mean we're full of ego if we tell someone they're being an idiot or insane? Maybe they are, and maybe it's worth pointing out.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:57 pm Or, at the very least, they come-off as being preening little blowhards who make themselves look smaller and smaller with every self-aggrandizing boast.

You can see it that way. Alternatively, it can be seen as many other things: insightful, bold, challenging, funny, etc... depending on perspective and context. I think it's important to keep in mind that there is a lot going on in these exchanges. Nobody is a victim... and there are a lot of crazy claims.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:57 pmKeep in mind, Lacewing, that according to Atla, you are clueless and beneath him when it comes to intelligence, and he is just trolling you for the fun of it.

Hmm. I don't know if that's what Atla thinks... but if so, it wouldn't be much different than the nutjobs who arrogantly and ignorantly claim that they know me better than I know myself, and they know divine truth better than I do. I, in turn, taunt them for the fun of it -- what would be more appropriate?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:57 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:19 pm Seriously, how can there be so many people with some kind of psychosis or bizarre idiocy wandering across this forum? The high ratio is perplexing.

it comes with the trade-off of having a forum where there are no heavy-handed moderators.

Indeed, in most of the philosophy forums I've participated on, half of the people who are presently on this one would have been banned from the get-go.

Yes, agreed. And I suppose the circus atmosphere (or snake-pit) discourages the participation of more members who would be interested in more reasonable discussions. However, it does seem that a lot of people here are polarized on one platform or another -- and free-thinkers who look across the aisles and really question what we think we know, are not as common. It is what it is. Sometimes I find value in it... and sometimes I don't. I come here to express and explore ideas, and to challenge absurdity and rigidity, and to play. Being irreverent seems suitable for the territory.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 12:42 am If there is no purpose: all that's left is chance.

Does this idea of "purpose" have to be long-term, or can it be moment-to-moment?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:57 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:19 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 9:23 pm
...

I've thought something similar to that before, myself. It's not that outrageous to wonder... and it speaks more of frustration or bafflement than ego.

It is one thing to "think it" and have the good judgment to keep it to yourself. However, it is something else altogether to put it in writing on a public forum. It smacks of a Trumpian level of self-praising egoism where one thinks that they can publicly proclaim things such as this,...



...while, at the same time, being so oblivious as to not realize that by doing so, it demonstrates to the whole world that they are actually quite the opposite of what they think they are.

Or, at the very least, they come-off as being preening little blowhards who make themselves look smaller and smaller with every self-aggrandizing boast.

Keep in mind, Lacewing, that according to Atla, you are clueless and beneath him when it comes to intelligence, and he is just trolling you for the fun of it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:19 pm Seriously, how can there be so many people with some kind of psychosis or bizarre idiocy wandering across this forum? The high ratio is perplexing.

It would be hypocritical of me to not include myself in the extensive list of psychotic idiots with bizarre ideas, wandering across this forum. However, to answer your question, it comes with the trade-off of having a forum where there are no heavy-handed moderators.

Indeed, in most of the philosophy forums I've participated on, half of the people who are presently on this one would have been banned from the get-go.
_______

Well if you really want to know, I'm 140-145 IQ range, which is considered borderline idiot. But I also seem to have some sort of acquired savantism which in my case seems to affect my abstract thinking (I can think with the unconscious brain which is kinda parallel and almost instantaneous, skipping "conscious thoughts" which almost all humans use). I've been called a genius many times throughout my life irl.

I've finished unifying all scientific knowledge save the unimportant details some 5-10 years ago, now I just have to keep up-to-date. I usually run 5-6 dimensional universe simulations in my mind to try to figure out the best explanation for why we are here. The best we humans can do is use Occam's razor, but you guys aren't even using it for your theories.