 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
News of interest to former Christians
Some leading thinkers have strong opinions about God, while others are reserving judgment
By Matt Donnelly
Science needs God. Or does it?
Together, the four contributors below — Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Michio Kaku and David Deutsch — are some of the most influential thinkers and writers on science. Dennett and Pinker are listed as numbers 24 and 26, respectively, on Prospect magazine’s recent list of the top one hundred public intellectuals in the world.
Some of the contributors are open about their atheism, while others are more agnostic. None profess to be theologians, but in their writings they all express a sense of wonder at the natural world. We offer their comments as a semi-representative snapshot of how those who influence our culture think about the relationship between science and religion.
No. There is no concept of God that strikes me as remotely worthy of belief.
— Daniel Dennett
I don’t believe in God, and I think the question is backwards. I don’t believe in Santa Claus either, and the burden of proof should be on those who do.
But if you must: (a) Since the 1600s, phenomena attributed to God have been increasingly explained by natural causes, and now that we are understanding the brain, the last phenomenon reserved for religion, namely the soul, will be explained as well. (b) Postulating God as an explanation for where of life and the universe came from, or how they work, explains nothing, since it just begs the question of where God came from, and how he works. (c) The existence of unnecessary evil, suffering, and tragedy disprove the existence of a beneficent deity. (d) Ethical precepts don’t require a god, as Plato showed more than 2000 years ago, because one has to ask why God chose the precepts he did. If he had no reason, why should we obey them; if he did have a reason, we can invoke those reasons directly.
— Steven Pinker
I don't believe in the supernatural. My principal negative reason is that there is an infinity of mutually inconsistent accounts of supernatural entities, between which reason cannot distinguish. Were I to accept the offer of one which, as it were, knocked at my door offering an underlying meaning in return for my agreeing to suspend my critical faculties, I should have no decent reply to the next one that knocked and asked “Why did you not choose me?”
My principal positive reason is that, for various reasons (about which I am writing a book, The Beginning of Infinity), I have come to the conclusion that the world is fundamentally comprehensible — but in a way that rules out the possibility that any ultimate explanation can be discovered. For the latter would necessarily be in terms of entities and attributes which themselves cannot be explained. I expect every true answer to create not closure, but a better question. To seek a final answer is to hope that everything beyond that is incomprehensible. And since that move is always available to shore up any false theory, it must be a mistake.
— David Deutsch
I tend to agree with Einstein, that we have to distinguish between two types of God.
First, there is the God of intervention, the God of prayer, the personal God. The second is the God of harmony and order. Einstein rejected the first, but believed in the second, calling God "the Old One," i.e., the lawgiver who set everything into motion. Today, we physicists face the same question. If one asks, Where did the big bang come from? we can say that it probably came from a unified field theory, such as string theory, my specialty. But then this begs the question: where did string theory come from?
This is embarrassing, since we have no answer. My own answer is that the unified field theory may be unique, i.e., the only mathematically self-consistent theory of the universe. Hundreds of attempts have been made, and all, except string theory, have been proven mathematically inconsistent.
So perhaps God did not have a choice in making the universe, as Einstein suspected. When Einstein set out to create this theory, he would ask himself a question: if I were God, how would I construct a universe? We theoretical physicists, in effect, try to emulate this. And it is much harder than you would suspect. I try this when I construct new theories. I find that the restrictions on a unified field theory are so stringent, so tight, that simple ideas fail immediately. Therefore, I suspect, as Einstein did, that the universe is mathematically unique. In other words, God is a geometer.
— Michio Kaku
Matt Donnelly is Web editor at Science & Theology News.
By Matt Donnelly
Science needs God. Or does it?
Together, the four contributors below — Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Michio Kaku and David Deutsch — are some of the most influential thinkers and writers on science. Dennett and Pinker are listed as numbers 24 and 26, respectively, on Prospect magazine’s recent list of the top one hundred public intellectuals in the world.
Some of the contributors are open about their atheism, while others are more agnostic. None profess to be theologians, but in their writings they all express a sense of wonder at the natural world. We offer their comments as a semi-representative snapshot of how those who influence our culture think about the relationship between science and religion.
No. There is no concept of God that strikes me as remotely worthy of belief.
— Daniel Dennett
I don’t believe in God, and I think the question is backwards. I don’t believe in Santa Claus either, and the burden of proof should be on those who do.
But if you must: (a) Since the 1600s, phenomena attributed to God have been increasingly explained by natural causes, and now that we are understanding the brain, the last phenomenon reserved for religion, namely the soul, will be explained as well. (b) Postulating God as an explanation for where of life and the universe came from, or how they work, explains nothing, since it just begs the question of where God came from, and how he works. (c) The existence of unnecessary evil, suffering, and tragedy disprove the existence of a beneficent deity. (d) Ethical precepts don’t require a god, as Plato showed more than 2000 years ago, because one has to ask why God chose the precepts he did. If he had no reason, why should we obey them; if he did have a reason, we can invoke those reasons directly.
— Steven Pinker
I don't believe in the supernatural. My principal negative reason is that there is an infinity of mutually inconsistent accounts of supernatural entities, between which reason cannot distinguish. Were I to accept the offer of one which, as it were, knocked at my door offering an underlying meaning in return for my agreeing to suspend my critical faculties, I should have no decent reply to the next one that knocked and asked “Why did you not choose me?”
My principal positive reason is that, for various reasons (about which I am writing a book, The Beginning of Infinity), I have come to the conclusion that the world is fundamentally comprehensible — but in a way that rules out the possibility that any ultimate explanation can be discovered. For the latter would necessarily be in terms of entities and attributes which themselves cannot be explained. I expect every true answer to create not closure, but a better question. To seek a final answer is to hope that everything beyond that is incomprehensible. And since that move is always available to shore up any false theory, it must be a mistake.
— David Deutsch
I tend to agree with Einstein, that we have to distinguish between two types of God.
First, there is the God of intervention, the God of prayer, the personal God. The second is the God of harmony and order. Einstein rejected the first, but believed in the second, calling God "the Old One," i.e., the lawgiver who set everything into motion. Today, we physicists face the same question. If one asks, Where did the big bang come from? we can say that it probably came from a unified field theory, such as string theory, my specialty. But then this begs the question: where did string theory come from?
This is embarrassing, since we have no answer. My own answer is that the unified field theory may be unique, i.e., the only mathematically self-consistent theory of the universe. Hundreds of attempts have been made, and all, except string theory, have been proven mathematically inconsistent.
So perhaps God did not have a choice in making the universe, as Einstein suspected. When Einstein set out to create this theory, he would ask himself a question: if I were God, how would I construct a universe? We theoretical physicists, in effect, try to emulate this. And it is much harder than you would suspect. I try this when I construct new theories. I find that the restrictions on a unified field theory are so stringent, so tight, that simple ideas fail immediately. Therefore, I suspect, as Einstein did, that the universe is mathematically unique. In other words, God is a geometer.
— Michio Kaku
Matt Donnelly is Web editor at Science & Theology News.
Some mysterious force vivifies everything we know of, from the atom to the universe. But it seems beyond our cognitive abilities. If Einstein actually said that the only place where some physical explanation or reason could be found for physically unexplainable phenomena was in the meta-physical ‘realm,’ then it seems so, to me.
Until we develop the means or machines that let us peep into the non-physical dimension or ‘plane’ that Einstein postulated and bring back the knowledge gained, we can but speculate. Even if were able to spy into that dimension, could we even describe it with our present vocabulary and understanding?
Why is it that so many humans want to grab this ‘unknown’ and package it into a box that they then call their deity? And with a range of ghastly human attributes appended! Worse, they then want to ram the whole confabulation down the throats of those who have not surrendered their powers of reason and common sense to their particular spook.
including Christianity (many Christians deny that they are a religion) is about control of others. Footnote for Christians. If your belief believes in a divine power then you are a religious person who follow a religion.
Michio Kaku: "So perhaps God did not have a choice in making the universe, as Einstein suspected."
The key, in this summary, is that "Intent" can not be "known" using closed system "Reasoning" why the Universe "Developed"... Therefore, using the word "Created" is mis-representative of Albert's thoughts, per his writings... The Universe and even humanity may be alive, out of necessity... Not some metaphysically deliberate attempt by a metaphysical God to create some test-bed petri-dish where humanity must prove itself as worthy to continue in the process of life beyond this Natural reality...
On "metaphysical reality", or some duality of reality... it doesn't exist, and can not by definition "Ever" exist... As Natural life forces in this Universe, we perceive our Reality through our physical senses... "If" a metaphysical concept were to be Observed... It would "No Longer" be a metaphysical Concept... it would immediately transfer to the "Natural Reality", hence, the reason Albert was more a monist than a dualist...
To extend ones' imagination beyond Mother Nature, is obviously representative of someone who has an UnFilled Need, where their imagination takes them to a place where they feel comforted... Many people psychologically are attached to religion, not becuase of the Truth of the matter, but, because they don't see the "alternative" in society to bring about their peace and harmony... and instead of getting up and mentally taking charge to mold society to become a "fulfilling" place to exist, where people can gain peace and harmony, they are much more comfortable allowing "Other" leaders to tell them what to do, and how to think...
Whether our Universe was the product of a Mother who had to conceive this Natural reality, in "order" to continue into existence, or a Mother bore our Universe as part of an ongoing Natural process, devoid of necessity and "Intent", is irrelevant to the question of "existence"... There is but "one" existence, that we can truly have "Know"ledge of, and its a "Natural" existence... To make more out of it, requires personal "Intent", if one doesn't have a Personal Belief, then they follow the "Intent" of a religious belief system, which was constructed by another Natural mortal who had their own personal "Intent" or "Agenda"...
Many great scientists have attempted to found their theories on "Absolute" laws, however, some were a little more educated, and founded their premises on "Relativity", which has recently come under attack by the Catholic Pope, et al... So many mediocre minds running the masses, who do nothing but sit around wanting their every needs met, where their needs are nothing but a reflection of clever "Manufacturing"...
Not all commentators agree with that. Here's an example I've seen:
No "Truths" in Science
"William Guillory, a professor of physical chemistry, has on many occasions flatly asserted that there are no "truths" in science. Science itself is a tautology. For example, consider life itself as a phenomenon. Consider further that at the moment of death, no physical quality has changed - not weight, not chemistry - yet life is gone. Life itself appears to be metaphysical. Our most basic presumptions are based upon principles that in and of themselves cannot be proven or explained except by observation."
That puts the notion of metaphysics in an intriguing perspective, because we can all 'see' what the professor is getting at!
I know God
so i guess you could say i believe in him but that sounds silly its like saying you believe that the man next to you exists. oh well, life is silly.
"His most recent cutting-edge program explores the subject of "spirituality in the workplace."
http://www.innovint.com/about/leadership.asp
I suppose it would be a tautology to state the obvious, but... seems William Guillory has a vested interest in portraying science as a tautology... It requires the diminishment of natural science, in order to promote metaphysical spirituality seminars and books... Leveling the playing field... Its what any good marketer does...
William Guillory: "Consider further that at the moment of death, no physical quality has changed - not weight, not chemistry - yet life is gone."
I'm no harvard understudy... but there are "dramatic" changes that occur chemically when a person dies... for one thing, the brain stops functioning... its at this point, a person is proclaimed 'dead', and no longer "alive"... I am not going to get into Planck time, and quantum physics, but... it appears this guy is like many others of religion, who attempt to exploit the last few "Unknowns" of this Natural Universe, in order to postulate that something "beyond" this Physical reality exists... like... what happens at point "zero" when the brain stops functioning... As if some major transformation occurs... Its like looking at ones' watch, at 3:33:33 and expecting something revolutionary to occur, because of the symmetry...
"He has also created comprehensive programs on creativity and innovation, and quantum thinking."
http://www.innovint.com/about/leadership.asp
Its a bold assertion, to pose that "life" is "More" than biological response, because at a specific moment in time, Death-0 the person is biologically unchanged, but life is no longer existent... A person must "biologically" be proclaimed non-functioning in order to be declared "dead"... His very statement is a tautology... what he declares, adds no value to the observation of death... How about, the second the last neuron stops firing, is the very moment "life" no longer exists...
William Guillory: "Life itself appears to be metaphysical."
Life appears to be beyond physical measurement... Well, if Willie can "measure" the exact same time a person is no longer subconsciously alive, then we can place a time on "death"... Until then, "death" is in the mind of the beholder... and typically, they keep it to themselves on the way out the back door...
Metaphysical means, beyond-physical measurement... There must be a presupposition that "life" is more than biological response, in order to assert that one can Observe, and "perceive" something beyond this Physical universe... If someone is "observing" or using their "perception" to make claims, then they are doing so, in this natural reality... Although, the method of quantification, and the epistemological limits can be debated... the fact remains... postulated metaphysical objects, such as "life forces" can not be observed, except with natural means in this natural universe...
To say something "leaves" this natural universe, or something is "less" than it started with, places the burden of proof on the one making the metaphysical claim... This is a refreshing topic however, I at least think, when talking of science and metaphysics...
Here, let me postulate... What if... biological life forms are nothing more than the bacteria, cells, etc., working together in a synergistic manner to form a natural being... they create the vessel, and we become cognitively aware of our environment once a threshold of cells, etc., form... We would then be defined as the culmination of many sub-life forms working together to give us "life"... The day they revolt or they become damaged from our efforts or from the natural environment, we suffer from disease, etc... Eventually, like the slowing down of our macro cosmological natural universe, so do the micro-cells which appear to be nothing short of smaller galaxies themselves... decay... eventually, the slowing down of the cells, prevent blood flow, which in turn creates illness, disease, etc... and in time, "death" is upon us... the smaller organisms, have depleted their energy, and at some point, an observer using some heart monitor, etc., declares that in fact, our natural "energy" from our smaller life forms, have indeed left the building... When one burns a piece of "wood", they release the energy within that object, and so, perhaps it is with our physiological beings...
It would appear then, that the real question would be, do these smaller life forms communicate? Do they have Intent? Ah, such is the search for sub-quantum theory... Again, perhaps I am not too wise regarding the matters of the natural universe, but... it seems to me, that our Natural Universe, tends to be our host, and we happen to be the smaller life forms, losing energy...
Things we postulate and can't observe, or measure are purely hypothetical, and metaphysical... however, what used to be meatphysical a few years ago, is no longer metaphysical due to Natural science and measurement... Science is not just a tautology, it does provide a "reference" point, where multiple people can ground themselves, and test predictability of theory, etc...
A tautology, that doesn't provide a commutative anchor, for more than one person to ground themselves, is useless in the search for Universally understood knowledge... Perhaps, to "one" person, metaphysics has meaning, but... then that would boil down to a personal truth, and we all know what metaphysical subjectivism consist of...
"Metaphysical subjectivism is the theory that perception creates reality, and that there is no underlying, true, reality that exists independent of perception."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_subjectivism
If I had to place my views on a spectrum, I'd have to say, as an empiricist, that reality is indeed unique to the Individual, and thus, subject, to the environment with which one grows up, and according to the physiological nature of their being...
"Metaphysical objectivism is the theory that there is an underlying reality that exists independent of our perception and consciousness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_objectivism
Willie, appears to imply, that observation is the key to knowledge, and observing the time of death of a person and the lack of "animation", somehow gives credibility that this "animation" has transferred into a separate and Independent reality from Nature, that escapes our perception and consciousness...
I observed the sun rise this morning, I suppose when I go to sleep tonight, the sun will exist in a different reality, only observable in my minds' eye... or not...
In regard to... my assertion, that our macro beings, may be nothing more than a culmination of smaller living organisms, working together... to give us a perception of "Life", in a "Body" sense...
"The conclusion that only highly evolved organisms have the ability to act collectively proved to be a stubborn prejudice, however. On several occasions, Nealson tried to publish a diagram in microbiology journals illustrating cell-to-cell signaling in V. fischeri, but peer reviewers rejected it. Bacteria just don't do this, the critics told him.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/quorum.html
Right, of course not... I mean, why smaller living organisms work together collectively...
For that matter, "Life" has the highest Value in my book, I wonder where I get that "Notion"... Perhaps, its the "white-blood" cells that attack foreign organisms that threaten my health... Hmmmm, my own molecular structure is built around the notion of survival, why wouldn't my collective, innate thought be of survival...
"The example often given is bioluminescence. Scientists noticed that once a population or colony of particular bacteria reached a certain size, the colony began to emit light. "Now many people realize that other important activities also depend upon a quorum, such as biofilm formation, releasing toxins, or becoming a virulent invader," said Rahul Kulkarni. While Kulkarni works with Vibrio cholerae as a model bacteria, quorum sensing appears to be a universal process in bacteria."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24337
Smaller individual Bacteria, act as a group once they reach a certain threshold, and they act in unison to provide what "some" people would term as "animation", i.e., light, Fluorescence... etc... William Guillory would suggest that bacteria that emit Fluorescent light, just before they die, obviously portray "Metaphysical" attributes... However, there may not necessarily be "Death", all it takes is for a decrease in the number of bacteria in the quorum, and light emission stops... the "Individual" bacteria are still "Living", they are just not part of the quorum, working together to produce "Life" like signs...
Well, enough ranting, obviously, Willie has to sell a book, to the religious and based on his science background, they are going to buy his books, seminars, etc., becuase, they are wanting to have "someone" on their side with science... Willie is suckering the religiously uneducated, by asserting that "life" just appears to be "Metaphysical" like "Soul" and "God", because chemically speaking, etc., a person doesn't appear to be changed, upon the proclamation of death, except through the loss of "animation"... Well, if the religious buy it, its their loss of money... I suppose, we will hear this argument for the next century... "well, it appears that life has left the body..." Why? "because the body is no longer moving..." Right, there must have been a ghost inside the body, making it move... Arrrrrghhhh, runs away screaming... The sad thing, is... that those who can't make a decent living in science, have to resort to feeding off of the ignorant in society... the religious, being the easiest to dupe...
I was not aware that William Guillory was a peddler of
religion. That quote which I posted was already a quote
from another place. So it seems that it may have lost its
religious connections (or connotations), along the way.
(Thanks for widening my understanding, there)
Using observation and reason, I can go along with Willie's
notion. But attributing the animating force to his deity (or
any other) would turn me away, immediately. In another
post, recently, hereabouts, someone used the expression
"life force." I use that phrase, too. It fits better when trying
to appraise such matters. It's also 'neutral' in that it doesn't
include or exclude any religion or philosophy.
Observation tells me that life (when animated) at any
particular 'level' is finite. It can go up or down a level,
depending on one's perspective. The force that vivifies does
so at all levels. From soil to bacteria to worm to grass to
cattle to cabbage to steak to human to die to soil to
decompose to bacteria to . . . . .
Life is animated, functioning at each level. What is
observably apparent is that all 'life' forms are parasitic. The
form of the grass or cabbage or cattle or human is lost and it
is integrated into the form of that which consumes it. And if
matter and energy are finite, then it's quite some merry-go-
round cycle. One that implies some form of progression.
Nearly all the religions and philosophies I've looked at have
bits and pieces of this concept embedded. Was this what
was in mind in this quote? Jhn 12:24 Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and
die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit.
Or was it more of an attempt to say / reinforce the idea that
form was finite, but that which animates it at any given level
is timeless? Who's to know? Many of the older human
concepts of this life force (E.g. Great White Spirit) deal with
the matter of cycles and relationships of finite with
unknown infinite. Further, there was lucid recognition that
the 'higher' life form is always paced by the lower forms.
It's all quite a conundrum. I wonder if it is resolvable at all.
Hey Perry, good topic... Well, it appears from the reading, that Willie's notion, is that there is more to "life" than "life" itself... and in that regard, I am sadly dichotomous in that perspective... Willie enters the words "Metaphysical" in regard to this Physical Reality... I tend to separate things between Metaphysical and Physical... and don't give much credit to Metaphyhsical hypothesizing... I am compelled to believe, there is this Natural Universe, and if there are forces (of which I concede), that are beyond our current measurement quantitatively, they are still ultimately Controlled by Nature and this Physical Reality... I am a strict empirical determinist, who believes reductionism is a cogent methodology for deducing truths within the known physical Universe... Willie disagrees with that notion also, as he believes Science itself is a tautology, and offers nothing of qualitative significance to what is apparently beyond our observations...
I get hung up, in the realm of reductionism and gods, hell, angels, etc... Reductionism is the attempt to break things down to its most basic natural attributes, in order to discover the most reducible underlying factors for this physical reality... it was an attempt by philosophers thousands of years ago, to find the Key Universal Absolute Truth in this Universe... if they were to extrapolate, using reductionist measures, a "physical" attribute that escaped and didn't suffer from "Change", they would be able to build a logical syllogism with an Absolute premise, for "all" things in life, we would all know Natures' "expectations" in life, as they would be defined according to the Universal Absolute Truth nature Provided...
At this time, Reductionists/physicists, have delved down into quantum matter, and it is still susceptible to Change... they are still digging, but at this time, have found Change to still be apparent as the Underlying Universal Absolute Truth, that our natural universe promotes... There have also been experiments, to use Vacuums to escape Change, to freeze matter and attempt to suspend it to deny Change, but, in the end, decay, or Change still occurs in those environments...
In regard to the Metaphysics, and the forces that are non-quantifiable in this Natural Universe, I see Intuition, as being one of those areas that just aren't quantifiable at this time, to any great extent... and so, what we get is qualitative analysis from a first person, non transferrable perspective, as opposed to quantifiable results that are more Universally understood... However, just because we can't "quantify" the Intuitive experience, doesn't default that the source of the Intuition is from some Metaphysically "Objective" Reality, seeping through in drips, and realized by each person in a Metaphysically Subjective manner...
Religions in general postulate that there is in "Fact", a Metaphysically Objective Reality, and Universal "Absolutes", call it Heaven, etc. where all of the Other Perfect "Metaphysical" objects, like God, Angels, etc., appear, and Escape "Change"...
Willie, connects the Metaphysically Objective Reality, with that of this Physical Reality, by asserting Natural Cause, and Metaphysical Effect... He believes there is an Underlying Metaphysical Objective Force, that propels life into animation... There is "no" evidence, at all... for a Metaphysically Objective Reality... which is required to animate life... Our Natural life force, is given by our parents, who hosted our embryonic development, to the point, that our physical bodies were capable of self-sustaining...
There are other reasons I don't believe in Metaphysically Objective Reality, but one more just to end on this topic, is that in a mathematical sense, if one wants to create an "Origin" on a three dimensional x,y, z, plane, and call that "Truth" with a capital "T", and Objective Reality, where a God resides, along with all of the Other Perfect, Unchanging Metaphysical "Objects", where objects are discretely different than fluid processes, such as math, then... it has to be "Anchored", at some fixed point in this Universe... or in at least "Everyones'" mind, in the same exact manner...
To "Define" that Origin, is impossible, because of "Change"... First of all, spatially speaking, our Universe is Moving, and therefore, its impossible to "Relate" the "Metaphysically Objective" Origin to a specific "point" in this Moving Natural Universe (and much of this Universe is still unexplored)... Secondly, since the term "Metaphysical" is used, there is no definitive manner in which to connote a "Quantitative" Origin, as Meta means beyond physical measurement... So, notionally, according to qualitative analysis using observation of Space, and definitively using quantitative measures, there can be no Metaphysically Objective Reality... Bottom line, we only know this Natural Universe... Therefore, "Everything" we know, is Relative to what we have learned or experienced... We learn by "Associations" and Relationships to these "Knowns" of our Natural Universe, and Known most times Uniquely to Ourselves Only, unless there is quantifiable evidence to be shared Universally... Since, there is no "Natural" Anchor to be found, to assert a "Metaphysically Objective" Reality, we get Willie trying to take a Natural point of Origin, call it "Death", and make an Association to some "Metaphysically Objective" Reality... that can be passed off as a Universal Absolute Truth...
Willie may indeed see something, he is totally oblivious to, Quantitatively speaking, and indeed that "Unknown" may at this time be considered "Metaphysical", due to adequate standards of measurement of the Hypothesis... however, in the end, there is still, and never can be, a Metaphysically Objective Reality, unless one creates it as an "Origin" in their Own Minds... and then its Non-transferrable, and Non-Universal, its a Personal Truth... If it exists in this Natural Universe, its Natural, not SuperNatural, springing from some Metaphysically Objective Reality with some Absolute Origin... The gnostics took the easy way out, and said hell was below the flat earth, and heaven was above, creating their Metaphysically Objective Realities...
Perry: "In another
post, recently, hereabouts, someone used the expression
"life force." I use that phrase, too. It fits better when trying
to appraise such matters. It's also 'neutral' in that it doesn't
include or exclude any religion or philosophy."
I agree with you, life force is definitely my choice of words also... it doesn't incorporate a Metaphysically Objective Reality, perhaps at most, a Metaphysical event... However, I am willing to concede "Intuition" to the realm of Metaphysics, because I have experienced such, but I believe it to be tied to this Natural/Physical Universe... I have not Experienced, "Death", and thus, have no compelling need to think that "Something" exists beyond "Death", i.e., when someone is proclaimed biologically dead...
Someone has to "first", believe that there is something to "measure" beyond the biological death of a person, in order to say they can't Quantitatively measure it, and thus, create a Metaphysical placeholder, for further research...
I am open to at least believing that there is a depletion/release of energy associated with an organism, human, once death occurs... and although it may not be quantifiable, and at this time, Metaphysical, it is not "Anchored" to a Metaphysically Objective Reality...
The bacteria I provided as an example, show that there are synergistic benefits in a quorum that embrace and work together, luminescence occurs when specific bacteria reach a threshold... Perhaps, our physiological bodies comprised of all of those micro-organisms (which communicate together), create a field of synergistic energy, and we are capable of sensing that field of energy... Perhaps, its that synergism that allows our neurological mechanisms to tick, and primitively, we have a core memory of instincts, based on our molecular bonding... i.e., immune system naturally protects us, therefore, we have a "Survival" instinct, and although when we are children, and not able to talk, we instinctively attempt to "survive"... Its our Natures, and our beings, comprised of our sub-organisms which contribute to our most basic "understanding" of this Reality, and Our Selves...
Take a person apart biologically, and keep the limbs alive, does a "toe" have a life force, a "soul"... If not, what part of the body holds the "life force", or, is it the culmination of "all" of the working parts, to include the sub-organisms providing a synergistic affect, called "animation"...
Perry: "Observation tells me that life (when animated) at any
particular 'level' is finite."
Biologically speaking, I agree...
Perry: "It can go up or down a level, depending on one's perspective."
Okay, but all are still biologically finite...
Perry: "The force that vivifies does so at all levels. From soil to bacteria to worm to grass to
cattle to cabbage to steak to human to die to soil to
decompose to bacteria to . . . . .
Nature is definitely a source for energy, at all levels... for all biologically, and Naturally living organisms... However, at this juncture, I would assert that this "life force" from my perspective, wells from a Natural Spring, called the smallest living organisms, working together to form an animated being/organism, whether it be, a cattle, cabbage, person, bacteria, etc...
Perry: "Life is animated, functioning at each level. What is
observably apparent is that all 'life' forms are parasitic."
A natural eco-system, okay...
Perry: "The form of the grass or cabbage or cattle or human is lost and it is integrated into the form of that which consumes it."
We are what we eat, okay...
Perry: "And if matter and energy are finite, then it's quite some merry-go-round cycle."
I don't see "life" and matter and energy inclusively in the same context... Life to me, is the organization of matter, which can provide synergistic effects, such as animation, and thought... So, each individual biological "Life" may indeed be 'finite', matter and energy, need not be... Life is the result of matter and energy... I am a Naturalist, with Natural "Objectivist" views... where; Existence exists. Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification.
Perry: "One that implies some form of progression."
Our beings, comprised of our sub-organisms learning from a "Changing" environment, i.e., immune systems, etc... Okay, I can accept that... However, I prefer the term "Change", as opposed to "progression", progression seems to "lead" up to something that is more "Valuable" than what currently exists... Currently, I feel I am valuable... Where does progression fit in for my mortal being...
Perry: "Nearly all the religions and philosophies I've looked at have bits and pieces of this concept embedded."
There are bits and pieces, reincarnation among the thoughts, however, reincarnation requires a homogenous "life force"... The attraction and organization of matter, creates bilogical life, which in affect, creates life energy, in a synergistic manner... The composition and decomposition of matter, doesn't preclude me to believe that "life forces" are, "homogenous"... In short, a "life force" is the culmination of matter, according to its sub-organism configutation vivified by synergy...
Where you say there is the possibility of progression, one could easily assert that there is the possibility of regression... Our matter, may one day be part of the composition of cabbage...
The only explanation for a stable theory on "Progression", would come through humanity being seen as a growing organism ecologically in itself... where, environmental factors, are spread accross humanity bio-chemically... and our individual bodies adapt to the changes... Like influenza shots, we get them, our bodies adapt, and our immune systems can be said to have Progressed/Changed...
And of course, decomposed matter, of a dead body, feeds the worms, which feeds the birds, which feeds the human, which gives birth to a new baby who receives the benefit of a Progressive/Changed biological form... Of course, this is purely speaking of Natural Matter, not, "life force" as per the SuperNatural Metaphysical aspect...
Perry: "Was this what was in mind in this quote? Jhn 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit."
Hmmmm, well, it looks like the acorn if living, provides less joy, and Value, than the "Death" of the acorn... Perhaps, Death, is more Valuable according to this passage... it does seem to bring about "much fruit"...
Perry: "Or was it more of an attempt to say / reinforce the idea that form was finite, but that which animates it at any given level is timeless?"
I don't know Perry, I spoke towards' Willies' assertions, which I find unfounded, if linked to a SuperNatural/Metaphysically Objective Reality... If you do believe form is finite, one would have to call that an "Absolute", along with a "Universal Force" that appears, per your description to permeate this Universe... Since, I believe in "Change" as the only Absolute known at this time, "form" is not necessarily "finite", and "time" is Relative... but, perhaps the comment is rhetorical...
Perry: "Who's to know?"
I am not Absolutely sure...
Perry: "Many of the older human
concepts of this life force (E.g. Great White Spirit) deal with
the matter of cycles and relationships of finite with
unknown infinite."
I agree, nothing new under the sun so to speak... Willie is obviously providing us his tautology in life...
Perry: "Further, there was lucid recognition that the 'higher' life form is always paced by the lower forms."
Interesting, a reductionist view of ecology... I can see that as inspiring news... It seems that academia is just now catching on however, as many biologists have just started coming to the conclusion (or have been un-handcuffed to show) that these lower life forms actually communicate in order to support the higher life forms... Probably, something to do with religious bigotry... I mean, religion requires a cohesive connection between "Body" and "Spirit", what happens when our bodies are dissected into millions of smaller living "organisms" that communicate... Do we have a million little souls living inside our one body... A man wounded in his "stones" per the bible, couldn't hold the priesthood, I wonder if that is where the "soul" resides...
Perry: "It's all quite a conundrum. I wonder if it is resolvable at all."
Well, I am not Absolutely sure, but, I could wager a bet, that whatever is discovered will be in this Natural Universe, through Naturally occurring patterns, measurements, and tests... I am compelled to believe that nothing of a Metaphysical nature, will "ever" provide evidence for anything, per the term, Meta, meaning beyond Natural/Physical measurement to include, Observation... if it can be seen, it can be measured... I wonder if Willie ever Observed a ghost fly out of a dead persons' corpse... I should write the guy, and see what his reponse is...
Well, in the end, if Willie finds an answer, it won'd be classified as a Metaphysical concept, it will become a Natural/Physical concept once brought into this environment to be observed... Hence, the use of the word Metaphysical per Willie, provides nothing of use...
Other than to say, "I don't know... but I have a hypothesis... which can never be measured... and further, I believe that immeasurable concept, is tied to a Metaphysically Objective reality, that Transcends this Universe, where a Metaphysical God resides..." I'm holding out for the biologists to come up with the answers on this one... Willie, has already reached his conclusions on the animation of life, and Natural forces... he disagrees with Nature as the sole source for life, matter and energy... I believe Nature is "all" that exists... anything beyond, is pure speculation, where someone has taken naturally learned information, images, concepts, etc., and applied them to their imagination, where they generate an intrinsic spatial location for their Perfect Reality...
I liken my reality to... an Objectivist view...
"Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality, that individual human beings are in contact with this reality through sensory perception, that they gain knowledge by processing the data of perception using the method of reason or "non-contradictory identification,"
Mind-Independent, means, not conjured in the mind... means, Metaphysical concepts, to include Heaven, Hell, God, etc., all die away, once the Mind, goes bye bye, as per Willies' assertion... what remains, is Nature, and what we can Observe in this Universe, only...
Well, good discussion, the more I research, the more I progress ;-) If only I can figure out how to encode my DNA with knowledge, it would make raising children so much easier... :-) Take care...
There are parts which I am opposed to... Objectivist Law of Causality is one of those, as it implies "Absolutes"... I do however, extend my belief in the Non-Existence of a Metaphysically Objective Reality... It's an "Absolute" unknown, by definition... that which can't be perceived through empirical senses, doesn't exist... Projecting ones' imagination to the moon, or picturing another person thousands of miles away, doesn't make them real or non-real, what makes them real is the "Confidence" one places in the source that provides the Projection... If a friend tells me they're sitting in a restaurant a thousand miles away, I have to Trust them, and have Confidence in their statement, still, I don't Know they are in the Restaurant they say they are... To Truly "Know" something, requires experience, and I haven't experienced anything that alludes to a Metaphysically Objective Reality which underpins the Universe... if I experience something, that makes me reflect on the matter, I chalk it up a Natural event, that I haven't yet, understood how the measure... I don't consider it metaphysical at that point, just non-fully understood... take care...
alchemists. Earth, air, fire and water were reductions.
Phlogiston was the missing metaphysical component, the
'thing' that assembled, dissembled and reassembled
atoms and molecules (yet undiscovered), the
philosopher's stone: life force; that which vivified form in
all it's manifestations. And which changed (form) from
one particular assemblage of molecules to another.
Modern stories seem to confine alchemists to the zone of
quackery, of mis-guided individuals trying to turn lead
into gold. And so on. I suspect that their investigations
were more profound than pecuniary.
Another 'dimension' that correlates to intuition is instinct.
More than a few scientists say they have the full genetic
code for many living organisms. I have asked a few local
scientists where - in the DNA sequences / strings -
instinct is coded (or carried). So far, they don't seem to
have an answer.
As for heaven, hell, purgatory and other religio-
mythological constructs, I suspect they allude to
dimensions that co-exist with the physical, but are at a
"different frequency," one beyond the scope of our
natural senses, or the instruments that we build to "see"
such things.
I'm not consumed with any interest in the structures that
Willie builds from his hypothesis, but I am interested in
the hypothesis itself. I can build something different from
the same foundation. As you remark, "Willie may indeed
see [revealed] something [that] he is totally oblivious to."
[quote]However, at this juncture, I would assert that this
"life force" from my perspective, wells from a Natural
Spring, called the smallest living organisms, working
together to form an animated being/organism, whether it
be, a cattle, cabbage, person, bacteria, etc...[/quote]
But where do the smallest living organisms get "it" to
start with? You mentioned separating a toe as an
example. The toe seems to perish. But the now
diminished organism (a human?) lives in. In some cases -
a bit of skin - regeneration occurs. But take away
something more systemically vital and senescence
follows.
You questioned progression and preferred "change."
Would change for the better suffice? And yes, the atoms
and molecules of our matter may well be one day a
cabbage. Or a worm. But that is form. That is matter.
When matter is assembled differently, the form differs.
The matter, the components, the atoms and molecules are
the same. E.g. The fruit juice we drink today may have
been (in part) the piss of a medieval knight of old.
My / the "reductionist view of ecology" isn't that
provocative. I have some experience in organic farming.
That's prompted me to observe biological phenomena
(and cycles) more closely than most. I can see that some
sunshine (fire), in conjunction with the earth, air and
water can produce all manner of different things: a
tomato, cabbage, corn, carrot, potato, egg plant, etc. Only
the coded seed differed. And the season. But life force
can depart from the seed and does, over time, causing
infertility and non-germination. Where did it go? Why?
When I receive a delivery of "day-old" chicks, (about 48
- 54 hours old when I get them), they have no fear of
humans. Or dogs. 24-36 hours later, they do. Why did
instinctive fear take that long to manifest? They already
"know" how to drink and eat. Within the next 48 hours, I
observe scratching. A few more days and I see dust-
bathing. This all happens in a chick that has never had
any parental contact. Never had an example shown.
Subsequent "behaviours' follow. Where did the template
come from? I know what instinct "is." I don't know
where it "comes from," nor how it is passed down the
generations. Scientists – so far – don't seem to know,
either. For the moment, I attribute the causative factor to
another dimension – meta-physical.
Dave8, I don't feel that I've done your reply full justice.
But it is a subject that is near and dear to me, the subject
of 30+ years of informal study and investigation. And
treks through an assortment of religions and philosophies,
exo- and esoteric. They all seem to have a part of the
'truth.' But only a part. (and an unwillingness to
appreciate that!)
Recapping on progression, momentarily. I have
'challenged' bible thumpers to open their religious book
at the break between the old and new testament. I then
say to them that on the left (presuming it's up the right
way) they have the animalistic, eye-for-eye, tooth-for-
tooth, do unto others as they do to you, etc. On the right is
forgive and forget, be kind, patient, love and be tolerant,
turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have
them do unto you, move on, etc. To me that not only
sums the mythological constructs the book embodies, it is
a description of explicit progress. I'm not absolutely sure
where to, though . . . .
[quote] Currently, I feel I am valuable... Where does
progression fit in for my mortal being . . .[/quote]
That does not exclude the possibility of progression to a
point that your assessment of yourself is more enhanced.
That you have grown in wisdom, patience, tolerance,
love, forbearance, knowledge, skill, etc. The notion that
we're 'scumbags' needing some sort of confidence trick
to 'redeem' us from our parlous state is a falsehood.
Organised religion, in peddling such nonsense, is the
single greatest and most enduring confidence trick in
human history.
G'night. I hope to catch up again, in the days ahead.
Perry: "Some of what you say reminds me of the ancient
alchemists. Earth, air, fire and water were reductions.
Phlogiston was the missing metaphysical component, the
'thing' that assembled, dissembled and reassembled
atoms and molecules (yet undiscovered), the
philosopher's stone: life force; that which vivified form in
all it's manifestations. And which changed (form) from
one particular assemblage of molecules to another."
I would consider myself, metaphorically speaking, as a type/kind of alchemist, yes... With the understanding, as you allude, more to the side of profound than pecuniary... The alchemists of old, were attempting to prove upon, ancient philosophical renderings/constructs...
Some alchemists back in the day, were trying to find the methods/key element(s) by which to "control" the one Universal Absolute known, "Change"... Many millenia ago, that would in fact seem sorcery, teetering on dark arts... because of the notion of manipulating metaphysical forces...
Those ancient metaphysical forces, thousands of years ago, are quite commonly understood today, and are no longer considered metaphysical forces... They were always part of the Natural Universe, just unobservable...
In high-school, not so many years ago, I told my chemistry teacher that metals can in fact be changed/transmuted to form more precious metals, she laughed at me... and then, I pointed out ratioactive decay among the heavy elements, which "Change" over time to produce entirely new elements, i.e., Uranium 238 to Lead for instance, which is at the end of the alpha emission depletion chain...
"Uranium occurs in rocks, sea and fresh water and in the human body (see Table 3.1). Uranium (U) is a naturally occurring element with an average abundance in the Earth’s
crust of about 2 mg per kg (range 0.1 to 20 mg per kg). It is more abundant than silver
or gold. For example Alloway, (1995) has quoted an average concentration and range in
typical crustal rocks of 2.5 mg/kg and 0.05 mg/kg to 5 mg/kg, respectively, although
higher concentrations commonly exist in some mineralized environments.
http://www.grip.org/bdg/pdf/g1861.pdf
The Alchemists, were attempting to "control" this Change, even if searching for a fountain of youth, suspending the decaying affects on our biological processes, which modern medicine appears to continue to do... Modern day scientists, are masters of "Change" control and manipulation, that would have indeed garnered them the title Alchemist a little further back in history...
Perry: "Modern stories seem to confine alchemists to the zone of
quackery, of mis-guided individuals trying to turn lead
into gold. And so on. I suspect that their investigations
were more profound than pecuniary."
And, Pb can be turned into Au, with enough control measures... ;-)
Perry: "Another 'dimension' that correlates to intuition is instinct."
Definitely a correlation, as a determinst, however, I feel everything must tie together, as we learn by making associations via our perceptions of this Natural reality... Everything, "is" Relative to Nature... its where we start in this life...
Regarding the proximity/strength of the correlation, I would have to enter my hypothesis as follows; instinct is intrinsic and the sole product of a beings' molecularly controlled survival mechanisms, where intuition to me is the influence Nature imposes/influences our intrinsic being, via "x"... Molecular biologists indeed know much about our instincts, for instance, to maintain physiological homeostasis, our "fight or flight" mechanisms engage, as the following paragraph deduces, we are at our most basic being, instinctive animals...
"There is a good reason why the first discovered hormone (1894) was Adrenaline (Epinephrine in the US). Produced and secreted by the adrenal gland (that all its hormones are known as 'stress hormones'), adrenaline is secreted as a direct reaction to stressful situations, and its powerful effects are similar to those of the sympathetic branch of the ANS (such as increasing heartbeats, blood pressure, sugar-levels, muscle activity etc..
Besides its hormonal functions, adrenaline is also an excitatory neurotransmitter in the CNS (indirectly controlling its own production). It is involved both in neural and hormonal processes and its effects as a neurotransmitter are further reinforced by its hormonal function (a positive feedback loop)."
http://www.health-concern.com/Articles/introduction_to_the_physiology_of_stress.htm
These instinctive processes are intrinsically controlled... However, they can be Intuitively affected...
Intuition is based on our ability to perceive our Natural environment, on differing levels... From the most subtle, to the most expository... The more subtle, the less quantifiable, the more compelling the need to use inference...
Perry: "More than a few scientists say they have the full genetic code for many living organisms. I have asked a few local scientists where - in the DNA sequences / strings -
instinct is coded (or carried). So far, they don't seem to
have an answer."
Neuroendocrinology... As stated, the body is the culmination of a mutually benefitting physiological process, where sub-organisms contribute synergistically to create a self-sustaining, living being... Remove some of the key components of the system, and "life", as defined by willie, no longer thrives... Looking at a bicycle wheel, and exclaiming that it doesn't provide stand-alone evidence for a transportation device, doesn't remove the fact, that the wheel coupled with a system of parts, can't be used to created a transportation vehicle...
This kicks off an entirely different discussion, one that I wouldn't mind delving into, if you want... The topic would be that of Synergy... In a strictly materialistic sense, without external influence, there doesn't exist synergy, two ball bearings in a motor, will facilitate for example, an "x" number of rotations of a cylinder... If one of the two ball bearings were removed, and a different one placed in the motor, the same number of rotations, with a small degree of error, will occur, there is no synergy of effort... there is no mechanism to make the two materialistic ball bearings produce more output, than they would as individuals...
However, inorganic systems aside, there can be synergy of effort, with organic systems... There can be greater efficiencies realized through synergistic effects... and these benefits are the result of "communication"... I could be working a project, and be producing an "x" number for work output, and my colleague, may indeed be Individually working and accomplishing their "x" work output... Individually, we together may produce for example 10 on a numeric scale for work output...
If me and my colleague, come together, and communicate, sharing information that allows us to naturally mold our environment to attain a more efficient means to achieve a higher output, there can be synergy of effort, for the long term...
In the short term, however, there may indeed be a gap of downtime, an initial lull in the process, call it dormancy... where we learn of eachothers' beneficial knowledge/attributes... The dormant process of interacting organic elements may produce little to nothing initially, however, a connection where two elements find mutual benefit, can easily spin up, connect, and start kicking off work output, to not only catch up to a separate parallel working system of similar Individual elements, but to far surpass the work effort of two similar Individually working elements...
Communication facilitates growth, on all levels, its a center of gravity studied by many... it happens to be a field I currently work in... I suppose once humans, know, everything there is to know of the Natural Universe, and the number of possible beneficial combinations to be made inorganically/organically, will there be a lull in our growth... notwithstanding, religion continuing to place barriers to gaining further knowledge, by twisting derived knowledge to its purposes, or totally manipulating it to render it doubtful/unusable...
Religion aside, Nature and organic systems, in many systems, seeks beneficial rewards... both Universal/macro and micro/planetary/species/bacteria/atomic/quantum/etc...
There could be an argument, for the communication of inorganic systems, I suppose, they do in fact follow the laws of action and reaction, the difference is that inorganic systems don't happen to have the capability to store "knowledge", "perceive themselves as part of the whole", and "manipulate the environment"...
A slightly deeper subject, I may ponder this tangent later...
Perry: "As for heaven, hell, purgatory and other religio-
mythological constructs, I suspect they allude to dimensions that co-exist with the physical, but are at a "different frequency," one beyond the scope of our natural senses, or the instruments that we build to "see" such things."
This goes back to the heart of inorganic and organic systems... I don't see the weaving or permeating of frequencies between differing Realities, that religions label as "Duality", or, Dual Reality... There is in fact, metaphysical phenomena, such as how this Universe and ourselves communicate within the "whole", however, Abrahamic religions, don't "just" perceive the interworkings of this Universe as metaphysical, they typically ascribe an "origin" in some "Metaphysically Objective Reality", which generates this "frequency/force", etc...
I am more compelled to believe we are monistically a "part" of the inseparable larger Universe, which consists of layering of elemental attrubutes, from the lowest sub-quantum unknown to the largest inorganic/organic macro knowns, where there is consistent interaction between these layers, i.e., organic layers, riding over inorganic layers, riding over "x", etc., etc.
I tend to have reservations, that this Universe is in fact by Abrahamic religion standards, "Separable", where this Universe and its layers, are subservient to an "alternate" reality... where one day, after we leave this Natural Reality, we will go to join Metaphysical Objects, i.e., god(s), heaven, hell, etc., in a Transcendent Metaphysical Objective Reality...
Perry: "I'm not consumed with any interest in the structures that
Willie builds from his hypothesis, but I am interested in
the hypothesis itself. I can build something different from
the same foundation. As you remark, "Willie may indeed
see [revealed] something [that] he is totally oblivious to."
Agreed. The observations Willie has made, is indeed worthy of thought, for instance, the observation has sparked a discussion, where communication has allowed us to beneficially ingest knowledge, that may serve us in our lives, and the quality of our lives... Willie, just seems to have taken away more from his observation, than Willie has foundation for, and that's Willie's right, but... he's written academic checks that he can't cash...
Perry: "But where do the smallest living organisms get "it" to start with? You mentioned separating a toe as an example. The toe seems to perish. But the now diminished organism (a human?) lives in. In some cases - a bit of skin - regeneration occurs. But take away
something more systemically vital and senescence follows."
The chemical root, to class organic life, is based on carbon compounds... The Universe from a macro view, could be considered a living entity, based on the fact, that "organic life", we humans, exist as part of its makeup... Much like, a person who has major portions of their body fitted with prosthetics, as still being considered a "living" and "organic" entity...
To ask, where "it", the "genesis" of life, stems from, in that macro sense, begs the question, where did the living "Universe" get "it", "us", to make the Universe a living host, and us the quorum of bacteria, that generates "light", when clustered together in cities, with city lights... and observable, by anyone inspecting from a distance in space...
Perhaps, life, is nothing more than give-take inertia created between smaller living organisms, inclusive of both inorganic and organic compounds... Where did the smallest living organisms, get "it" from, the vivifying process, whereby, inorganic matter, joined with carbon based compounds to manifest "new life"... Not sure... However, this does go back to cosmological origins, for me, the most I can "Know" is what appears to me, in my lifetime based on "first" hand experience, that means, inorganic matter has always existed in my lifetime, and always has, to include "life"...
To search for a "Purpose", for "life", and inorganic matters' existence, seems to be a little more thought provoking, as it enters an "irrational" variable into the equation... its like trying to guess the "intent" of a vast Universe, which hosts our living beings... I liken it to a cell in our bodies, with their limited ability to communicate, trying to guess what we cognitively think, and what our "intentions" are, on a day to day basis... as our "thoughts", and "intentions" change, with our environment...
To postulate answers on the "intentions" and cosmological purpose, to me is folly... it places me as an equal to not only "knowing" the Universe (as a living host), but to "know" everything beyond, if possible, the living Universe... I suppose I am content being the cell, who is at least "aware" of its existence within the larger host, where my purpose, is like that of bacteria to a great macro degree... which is, to process and organize matter, with a limited linguistic system to communicate with the remainder of humanity..., based on words and structure, where a "word" per Nietsche, is "The image of a nerve stimulus in sounds." We all, have different images, because we have all been exposed differently to this Natural universe, and our environment, further we are physiologically different on certain levels, the physical neural paths for instance... therefore, a "word" may recall a different image for each of us... the word "god" for instance...
I also, am compelled to believe, that mankind is fully controlled by the Universe, and not vice versa, we just learn how to work more efficiently within the Universe by passing on experiential knowledge, gained from previous trial-error events... which is "not" the most efficient manner of propelling a civilization/species forward... using symbolic systems (Mathematics) as frameworks to process our "nerve impulse results" through, does create an environment where "standardization" and transferrence of information becomes more efficient, consistent, and meaningful... the same can be construed with verbal language or written language, however, misinterpretation potentials increase based on human factors... probably, why literature is considered an "art", and math is considered a "science"... math, to a great extent removes the potential for human factor errors...
Referring to the vital organs, and how one can negatively impact the homeostasis of our living being to affect senescence, I would assert that removal of a systems' part, would in fact diminish the whole... Its why, I believe the Universe to be one functioning "whole", and me just a part of it, my job is to find and seek purpose...
If purpose, is to act according to our natures, we just need to know our "True" natures... Religion robs that of people, a "Purpose" is provided them, and they are instructed on how to perform according to the purposes set forth in doctrine... I have been tested, and have a gift for strategy, which means, depending on the field I study, I can assimilate information to create systems, theoretical and applied...
I don't naturally function in inefficient systems, I am easily perturbed... Psychology, is the area that would allow someone to map their cognitive skills, traits, etc... there is a lot of research in this area of psychology in the past few decades... On a physiological level, we are born with systems, that religions attempt to "control", the reproductive system for instance, I don't feel "anyone" I have known in religion is qualified to mentor "anyone" professionally on sexual homeostasis... The denial of marriage services for couples who are not both virgins is one of those "controlling" factors, and the "denial" is supposed to set the standard, to prevent future "Natural Acts" from occurring by its members...
Anyway, purpose, we are the slaves to our Nature, again, Nature is master with its governing dynamics, and they will continue to exist, no matter what a public speaker shouts behind the pulpit... the only ones who are duped into believing in the words so easily, are the ones, who are so lost regarding their own Natural being, that they need to be "told" their Purpose, and "how" to live their life... and that wouldn't seem terrible, but its the same organizations who bitterly oppose science, and the ability to "provide" that education to people, so they "can" live a peaceful and Natural life... sorry for the rant...
Perry: "You questioned progression and referred "change."
Would change for the better suffice? And yes, the atoms and molecules of our matter may well be one day a cabbage. Or a worm. But that is form. That is matter.
When matter is assembled differently, the form differs. The matter, the components, the atoms and molecules are the same. E.g. The fruit juice we drink today may have been (in part) the piss of a medieval knight of old."
Agree ;-)
Perry: "But life force
can depart from the seed and does, over time, causing infertility and non-germination. Where did it go? Why?"
As stated earlier, my view of the Universe is abstract, I see it in shifting layers, for instance, at the origin of a seed, in space, there exists multiple layers, thermal temperature, inorganic composition i.e., H20, etc, organic carbon compounds i.e., CO2, etc, atmospheric pressure, inertial decay, length of time exposed to non-facilitative environments conducive to fertile seeds, etc., etc... In short, the dimensions of Time, Space, and Energy, and the effects they have on the Natural fulfillment of the "seeds" potential... Sort of like... Us... I'd say... perhaps, one could surmize coddling the "seed" is like acting in a "god" like capacity, ensuring the environmental "factors" are favorable for the seed to eventually vivify... but, of course, we would only be demi-gods ;-), as, we are "given" these Dimensions via Nature, and do nothing more than accept the clues that allow us to run around trying to Get Each element/attribute/being to reach its true Potential...
Perry: "When I receive a delivery of "day-old" chicks, (about 48
- 54 hours old when I get them), they have no fear of humans. Or dogs. 24-36 hours later, they do."
Intuition... the interaction of environmental factors with the instinct of the chicks to survive begin to conflict... Animals have personalities also... if the chicks are part of a ranch, they know their own kind intuitively also, and know, when there are major episodes involving survival and presence...
I have walked into houses, and known intuitively that someone had died in that house recently, and my basic instinct typically is to leave the premises... What is the environmental factor that allows us to "sense" Other human beings, I am not sure, but, it exists in my experience...
Perry: "Why did instinctive fear take that long to manifest? They already "know" how to drink and eat."
It took them that long to become more "In-tune", Intuitive, with their changing environment...
Perry: "Within the next 48 hours, I observe scratching. A few more days and I see dust-bathing. This all happens in a chick that has never had any parental contact. Never had an example shown.
Subsequent "behaviours' follow. Where did the template come from? I know what instinct "is." I don't know where it "comes from," nor how it is passed down the generations. Scientists – so far – don't seem to know, either. For the moment, I attribute the causative factor to another dimension – meta-physical."
If a human didn't have endocrine glands, to push adrenaline into our bodies to create a hyper-defensive effect, and alertness (keener sense of perception) our species may well have died off many years ago... We all have Intuition at differing levels of sensitivity, based upon our experiences both Physically using "empirical senses", and, in some "more subtle" manner, which triggers our instincts... which is intrinsic, we perform according to our functional processes once triggered... I still don't see the instinctive as esoteric, as removal of the endocrine glands, will "show" us, that a person will not "act" instinctively to previously triggering intuitive factors/thoght..., its a quantifiable delta, using comparison analysis, pre and post endocrine gland operation...
Our perception, and intuition are key areas of study in the areas of neuro/cognitive psychology, perhaps, taking a holistic approach to the field will render greater benefits in teh future...
Our perception of reality, using senses at all levels, triggers our natural systems to engage according to their function... To postulate how our mechanisms became structured in the manner they have, goes into survival of the fittest, etc., discussion... there are many examples of changes... and how some are kept, and others discarded over time... one of those, use it or lose it concepts... and even, it its non-useful, if its not negatively affecting "homeostasis", it will probably just stick around...
We are what we do, we do, because we are... we do more, when we know who we are...
Perry: "Dave8, I don't feel that I've done your reply full justice.
But it is a subject that is near and dear to me, the subject of 30+ years of informal study and investigation. And treks through an assortment of religions and philosophies, exo- and esoteric. They all seem to have a part of the 'truth.' But only a part. (and an unwillingness to appreciate that!)"
Well, humbly, I have only treked for about a year now, I have been in a very restrictive environment most of my life, at times, restrictive to enhance survivability... After, being released from the environmental conditions that have restricted me, I have started to explore, so I am at the early stages of my journey so to speak... However, when I said, we are what we do... I do, naturally process information 24 hours a day, even while sleeping if I didn't know better ;-) So, in that aspect, I have chalked up, many hours in the past year myself, and feel I am fulfilling my purpose by allowing myself to Naturally process information freely, and holistically...
Its been quite easy once I dropped a dual reality concept, I now look for everything to have direct associations or relations, if the relationships aren't apparent, I chalk it up to my ignorance of the Natural Universe... as so many have in the past few thousand years, hoping that thinkers, and scientists uncover the underlying truths to the clues in time... There are many knowns at this time, they are just Relative, and fluctuating with the environment...
I agree, there is a little truth in many things, the ones who inject a little truth to create an UnNatural environment to allow people to reach their Natural Potentials are the ones I typically have problems with... Nature is in charge, nothing has been peachy king when an institution comes out, and proclaims it has Greater authority than Nature, based on some ideaology... when one, goes against their Nature, there is "conflict", usually mentally, which affects a persons homeostasis, and even physical health if left uncorrected over time... conflict causes stress, stress reduces our life spans...
These topics being discussed, are topics I enjoy also, they broaden my view of reality... Your reply has done more than justice to the topic at hand, "life" and the underlying mechanisms... causes, whether it be "god" or some naturally occuring unmeasurable metaphysical force...
Perry: "Recapping on progression, momentarily. I have 'challenged' bible thumpers to open their religious book at the break between the old and new testament. I then say to them that on the left (presuming it's up the right
way) they have the animalistic, eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth, do unto others as they do to you, etc. On the right is forgive and forget, be kind, patient, love and be tolerant, turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have
them do unto you, move on, etc. To me that not only sums the mythological constructs the book embodies, it is a description of explicit progress. I'm not absolutely sure where to, though . . . ."
Nietzsche would say, progress towards global morality, it just started a while back, in the conquoring empires... Nations are postured against eachother, presupposing they are moral and the other nations are immoral, with armies to back up their claims... Where Nature seems to be herding us, is towards figuring out how to more resourcefully use our environment, to better facilitate survival of the species... If all humans didn't have the capability to wage war in mortal combat, there would be a global dictatorship/government at this time...
Its the blooming of our Natures' being that compels us to remove ourselves from restrictive environments, communist countries are much less restrictive than they appear on paper many times, entire revolutions have resulted in the proclamation that freedom is an inalienable right (Naturally), and if man-kind can't find an environment that allows their Nature to bloom, they will indeed seek out alternatives... some not so good, in my opinion, the restrictive and mis-conditioned beings who lose touch through desentization of their Natural purpose, are the ones who end up becoming criminal in society... with the understanding that the laws of the society are Naturally just...
Perry: "That does not exclude the possibility of progression to a
point that your assessment of yourself is more enhanced. That you have grown in wisdom, patience, tolerance, love, forbearance, knowledge, skill, etc. The notion that we're 'scumbags' needing some sort of confidence trick to 'redeem' us from our parlous state is a falsehood. Organised religion, in peddling such nonsense, is the
single greatest and most enduring confidence trick in human history."
Progression of me as an Individual, is based on my ability to become self-actualized, and follow my Nature... In that regard I do feel I am progressing, as I learn more about myself, and how I can best fit into my environment...
In a macro sense, civilization in theory is supposedly progressing, but, I am not sure the institutions in place at the moment, are vying for the "best fit" practice, matching neurological strengths with available work in our global environment...
Many are still being predisposed to working in whatever is available... which can in fact, impede ones' personal growth... I understand the saying... don't ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country, and there are times when one must sacrifice of the self, for the better of the whole, however, that mentality has been flowing for many, many years now...
I don't think the philosophy has changed, many people expose themselves to sacrifices that allow them to live until the next day, and for them, I don't see progress... and because of their value as part of the whole of humanity, I don't see synergistic progress... When humanity as a "Whole", and not as Individuals come together for a "Greater Purpose", will there be true progress...
However, seems religions etc, can't even come together for a common purpose... and they're supposed to be the moral majority... probably has to do with their, presuppositions regarding Nature, and their fundamental Values... I have very few presuppositions to my simple philosophy of life, and one is... "Life" is Valuable, "Liberty" and freedom to become Self-Actualized has Value, and Ultimately, the blooming of my Nature will garner realized Purpose in my life and provide "happiness"... I suppose I could add, "I Exist" for all those who may read this, and want to pander to ontological argument, but, I'll wait for the peanut gallery if they show up... take care...
Some of what you say is beyond me. I can follow it,
reasonably well, but I lack knowledge of some aspects that
you describe. So you'll have to forgive me if I seem to
ignore some of what you say. Allowing ignorance as my
excuse for an incomplete response.
Dave8: Hey Perry, sorry for the delayed post.
I need to do other things, like pack eggs, so a day's respite is
welcome!
Dave8: Those ancient metaphysical forces, thousands of
years ago, are quite commonly understood today, and are no
longer considered metaphysical forces... They were always
part of the Natural Universe, just unobservable...
Much of modern scientific knowledge endorses that.
Fortunately, the church persecution of Copernicus, Galileo
et al did not suppress the truth indefinitely. But there's still
some speculation. E.g. atoms.
Step a bit lower - a lot lower - down the chain and we have
atoms and molecules. I find it ironic that electrons can't be
seen by an electron microscope. That the structure of an
atom is a working hypothesis, "proved out" by mathematics.
But science (and me) accept the unseeable as 'real,' for the
moment. What keeps electrons orbiting in their shells? What
keeps the planets circling in their orbits? Is it the same
thing?
We know what electricity is; or how it behaves, at least, as
we can't see electrons flowing along a conductor. We can
see lines of magnetic force with the aid of a few iron filings.
But we don't know why electricity or magnetism "IS." We
can't seem to fathom its inherent nature. What we know
about it is simple observation and trial and error.
Dave8: To search for a "Purpose", for "life", and inorganic
matters' existence, seems to be a little more thought
provoking, as it enters an "irrational" variable into the
equation... its like trying to guess the "intent" of a vast
Universe, which hosts our living beings... I liken it to a cell
in our bodies, with their limited ability to communicate,
trying to guess what we cognitively think, and what our
"intentions" are, on a day to day basis... as our "thoughts",
and "intentions" change, with our environment... To
postulate answers on the "intentions" and cosmological
purpose, to me is folly...
So, as the cell is to us, we are to the wider form of the solar
system, the galaxy, etc? How much of a stretch would it be
to conceive that there is "life" to whom an atom is home?
And to whom a human body is a galaxy? Akin to the
relationship between us humans and the solar system.
When you look at humanity now and reflect on its status of
a millennia or two ago, do you hold the view that we have
improved, progressed? What criteria do you evaluate in
arriving at an opinion/answer?
Dave8: Referring to the vital organs, and how one can
negatively impact the homeostasis of our living being to
affect senescence, I would assert that removal of a systems'
part, would in fact diminish the whole... Its why, I believe
the Universe to be one functioning "whole", and me just a
part of it, my job is to find and seek purpose...
But diminishment of the whole does not invariably lead to
senescence of the whole. The loss of function of a vital
organ can do that. A virus can do it. Or a drop of poison.
Dave8: Anyway, purpose, we are the slaves to our Nature,
again, Nature is master with its governing dynamics, and
they will continue to exist, no matter what a public speaker
shouts behind the pulpit...
But what is Nature, but your name for gawd (of no name or
denomination)?
I think I badly expressed my seed question. "Fresh" seed is
viable in that it is capable of germination. All that's needed
is some suitable disposition of earth, air, fire and water! But
seed can become non-viable, after a period of time. Some in
a very short time (e.g. parsnip). Some 'hold' their viability
for much longer (e.g. wheat). This loss of viability is
nominally akin to Willies observation. Physically and
chemically, the seed is the same, biologically, it has 'died.'
If it's put in the soil, it will rot, not germinate. It's physical
form (and chemical constituents) will suffer normal
oxidation/reduction that occurs in soil as it returns to the
cycling of matter. Not quite the "bring forth much fruit"
proposition.
Dave8: It took them that long to become more "In-tune",
Intuitive, with their changing environment...
The problem with that hypothesis is that – here - there is no
change in their environment for about 10 days. The dilemma
with words like 'intrinsic' or 'inherent' is there seems to be
no code in the chromosomes except physio-biological data.
Similar sentiments can be accorded to Nature as a primary,
causative (or responsible) factor. Or "in charge" as you put
it. (Also as in Everything, "is" Relative to Nature... its where
we start in this life...
And Nature and organic systems, in many systems, seeks
beneficial rewards... )
Dave8: In a macro sense, civilization in theory is
supposedly progressing, but, I am not sure the institutions in
place at the moment, are vying for the "best fit" practice,
matching neurological strengths with available work in our
global environment... Many are still being predisposed to
working in whatever is available... which can in fact,
impede ones' personal growth...
If I grasp what you say correctly, I'd agree, exponentially.
Any form of socialism, (of which vicarious atonement, per
religiosity of most all forms is a great example) interferes
with both individual and collective growth and
development.
Do you have a way of expanding on "Self-Actualized"
that's somewhat more expansive?
A friend of mine, a female artist, a generation younger, have
discussed the topic at some length and come up with our
"position statement" of the moment. It goes something like
this, but is dynamic and subject to change, without notice,
as we each expand our "system of considerations" (which is
our expression for "belief system").
1) There is only one sin - separateness, belief in it and acting
accordingly.
2) All form (yes, including us) is evolving (changing, if you
prefer) and Nature/gawd/Life Force is evolving through us.
We found our position statement hypothesis somewhat
scary, but have yet to find a more viable alternative that fits
the observations.
As for synergy, yet there is time . . .
Perry:
"1) There is only one sin - separateness, belief in it and acting accordingly.
2) All form (yes, including us) is evolving (changing, if you
prefer) and Nature/gawd/Life Force is evolving through us.
A life philosophy in my humble opinion, must cover certain aspects... Being, Reality, and Knoweldge... this of course is the start of ones journey... Values, beliefs, and even the way we dress is based on what we subconsciously hold to be truths in our life, whether subconsious or conscious... I don't believe anyone does anything in life without knowing their actions on some level of awareness, I do however believe people do things many times in life, without knowing "why" they behave, decide and act in certain ways... the path to becoming Self-Actualized, is the journey to find out ones' own "being", through all of the maslonian layers, from the most basic humble acceptance on the physiological level, that we are born genetically disposed to "function" according to our makeup, i.e., we have a brain to reason, etc., therefore, we should probably not forego the use of our ability to reason... it moves us away from the natural functions that have allowed us and our species to survive, for who knows "what" purpose...
The following is a few of the aspects one need become familiar with, and come to terms with in life...
Ontology - In philosophy, ontology is the most fundamental branch of metaphysics. It studies being or existence as well as the basic categories thereof—trying to find out what entities and what types of entities exist. Ontology has strong implications for the conceptions of reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
Epistemology - Epistemology, from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos (word/speech) is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge. Historically, it has been one of the most investigated and most debated of all philosophical subjects. Much of this debate has focused on analysing the nature and variety of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth and belief. Much of this discussion concerns the justification of knowledge claims.
Not surprisingly, the way that knowledge claims are justified both leads to and depends on the general approach to philosophy one adopts. Thus, philosophers have developed a range of epistemological theories to accompany their general philosophical positions. More recent studies have re-written centuries-old assumptions, and the field of epistemology continues to be vibrant and dynamic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Even, the nature of epistemology has been "Changed" in the recent years... Laws of Relativity have replaced scientific hypotheticals founded on absolute laws, or terms...
I alluded earlier that "intent" is the end result of much philosophical discussion, in some of the areas of philophy... Again, "being" what is it, urges us to think about our physiological makeup, and how we have developed and survived to the point in time we live today...
This is important, I believe, because at the very foundation of "being" requires us to seek "intent" or "purpose" in life, to even start to create our presuppositions of our philosophy...
Some of the Ontological questions are:
-What is existence?
-What are physical objects?
-What are the essential, as opposed to merely accidental, attributes of a given object?
-What constitutes the Identity of an object?
-Can one give an account of what it means to say that a physical object exists?
-What are an object's properties or relations and how are they related to the object itself?
-Is existence a property?
-When does an object go out of existence, as opposed to merely changing?
-Why does something exist rather than nothing?
The very observations you have made engage these questions, i.e., we can't see atoms, etc., but we "exist"... the next question could be, "why" and "for what purpose"... This is where much of religion has darted away from those who don't feel the need to extent presuppositions beyond their levels of "knowledge", based on their "epistemological" premises...
Ockhams' razor is a philosophical principle used to increase the founded syllogistic arguments...
William of Ockham - William of A pioneer of nominalism, some consider him the father of modern epistemology and modern philosophy in general, because of his strongly argued position that only individuals exist, rather than supra-individual universals, essences, or forms, and that universals are the products of abstraction from individuals by the human mind and have no extra-mental existence. Ockham is sometimes considered an advocate of conceptualism rather than nominalism, for whereas nominalists held that universals were merely names, i.e. words rather than existing realities, conceptualists held that they were mental concepts, i.e. the names were names of concepts, which do exist, although only in the mind.
Ockham is also considered one of the greatest logicians of all time. One important contribution that he made to modern science and modern intellectual culture was through the principle of parsimony in explanation and theory building that came to be known as Ockham's razor, which states that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham
In logic, when building logical syllogisms, many accept that there are no "Absolutes" except change... In syllogistic creation one states a premise, and builds on the argument, as follows;
No geese are felines.
Some birds are geese.
Therefore, Some birds are not felines.
The above syllogism, is stronger than a syllogism, of most religions, because it only relies on three statements... "No geese are felines", is definitely true, based on a "definition" or categorical perspective... and the remainder of this categorical syllogism has merit, but is totally validated on "our" perspective of our "existence" and premise of "Knowledge" or epistemological views...
When getting to the "ontological" arguments, religions build, upon, and build upon themselves to end with "Therefore, you needed salvation by grace, by the murder of a gods' child"...
Ockham, was a Fransiscan friar, and was called upon by the Pope, because his philosophy reduced the "value" of religious argument... Hence, he fled... In short, when someone continues to come up with "excuses" oops, I mean, flowing and unending syllogistic "statements" to support their belief, the more "invalid" the argument becomes... Anything that starts with "All", seems to reach beyond the spectrum of "known" for me, unless its categorical by "definition", or "Change"...
Since everything "Changes", each syllogistic statement added suffers from the "Change" presupposition, and becomes increasingly invalid, in the search for predictable truths...
Science, is based on predictability, also, and logic... When one can't see an "atom" then, one must presuppose that "Change" affects it, therefore, like you stated, the "form" of the "atom" never seen at its subatomic parts is "unknown", but must be considered a "Changing" form, just as our human bodies, and everything else in life... In physics, entropy is considered a measure of the amount of disorder in a system.
Thermodynamics, etc... It appears one must philosophically presuppose that there is a "resting" state of our Universe, or a state where objects are "exactly" as they should be, based on some model or design in "Perfect Harmony" and everything in the Universe has a tendency to become disordered from its original "form"... However, who says a bunny rabbit is exactly as its supposed to be, it begs "intent" of the "Natural Universe", or causes us to speculate on what is Normal, Organized, and dare I use the word "Designed" as it should be...
Design? Science says, solids, liquids and gases have different properties based on density, but who's to say at a sub quantum level, that there is "no" difference between "any" substance we know of in this Natural Universe... is science a tautology? I suppose to a certain degree, but so is everything in life, and just as much so as each of our conscious or subconscious philosophical foundations we use to interact with our environment...
As stated earlier, I notionally explain the universe in modelling via layered approaches, that doesn't mean, I don't believe in a reductionist view, that the collection of quantum matter, which bond to build/form larger substances, call it atoms, which bond/form to build molecules, which bond/form to create the next layer of complex matter, to what we know as our beings...
Our lives, and perceptions, in my humble opinion, is nothing more that "cause-effect" speculation... Science is based on it, and we live according to the results... Perhaps, we may not see atoms, but we define the "effects", and "name" the "Causes", each cause in physical science given "element" names, law names, etc... Science is the study of predictability, based on testing...
Religion? Pray to God(s), and no response, "ever", leads to zero predictability, test after test... Anyone, who requires some measure of "predictability" in their lives, which of course is a "Natural" state of mind, can not be satisfied and reach peace and mental harmony... We are creatures who try to "form" matter to our needs, for purposes of our "design", and purposes to carry out our natural tendencies...
We label Causes, and take notice of their effects, however, at the smaller levels of the universe, we can't possibly know "all" of the effects, we see the ripple effects once the actions reach a visible state in matter large enough for us to observe/sense with raw senses or instruments...
Your philosophy seems straight forward, and not lengthy giving strength to the argument... I would agree that everything I can "know" is based on "Cause-Effect", even the most ridiculous religious beliefs, provide proof that "everything" is at some level, "inter-related" and "inter-active"... as people respond to the most absurd of stimulus/sound/words, no matter how meaningless, we are compelled to seek the use of our senses, unless we shut them off... another reason me and religion don't get along, their requirement to shut off reasoning, and knowledge which is a natural cognitive process, in order to "elevate" the value of the "unknown" epistemologically...
Separateness, can not exist unless someone can somehow prove they have "knowledge", that can allow them to "escape" this "known" Natural reality... Its why I posted a comment regarding my belief that "reality" is Mind-Independent, in an objectivist sense... "escaping" into ones' own intrinsic mind, doesn't induce their "physical" separation of this Natural Universe...
In a layered model sense, just as I alluded matter might not be "differentiated", by sub quantum particles, as there could just be free floating, vibrating, particles of different measurements than appears to be known at this time, which attract other particles, etc., to form the building blocks of the Universe... perhaps what has been "named" the theory of the "big bang", is nothing but the sub-atomic explosion via an implosion based on an incomprehenible sub quantum attraction... and it appears the Natural Universe, appears to be gathering its strength back, slowly, to pull itself back together again... what's left, when the basic sub quantum particles pull back together... Nothing? As the Universe slows down, in a more macro molecular sense, and matter as we can measure becomes less "attractive" based on "motion", it could just take a small centric attraction to start pulling matter back together... purely speculation of course, based on modeling...
You alluded that Nature/gawd/Life Force is evolving through our bodies, which are subject to "Changes"... I am compelled to believe that Nature/gawd/Life Force is us... Slight subtlety, but "through" us, to me means an extra or eso- "separate" force is effervescing metaphysically through our larger molecular bodies, which undoes the original philosophical statement on "separation"...
I hope I'm doing justice to your modelling of the universe, which to me, refers to a necessary backdrop upon which all matter, substance, and reality sits upon, bubbling from the lowest depths, and living "through" us, kind of like a philosophy based on modern bosonic string theory... Perhaps, I am still antiquated in my modelling of particle universe...
Superstring theory is currently not falsifiable, and therefore, doesn't have the capacity to show cause-effect relationship, and thus, can only be a 'hypothesis'... I am still hanging on the cause-affect relationship of falsifiable and accepted theory of particle fields, such as atomic shells, etc., even though I have never seen one...
Religion, intelligent design, etc., all rest upon hypothesis', and would have equal grounding with a superstring theory in that accord... from that perspective, I don't open myself up to unknowns to base decisions in life upon with no cause-effect relationships, as, it becomes a "slippery slope", that I don't tread upon very often...
I suppose, I am extremely in the mold of an empirical, determinist, who sees only cause-effect, how my causes, effects my life, and the environment to include other people... in a utilitarian manner, where the most basic molecular genetic information compells me to act accordingly...
"Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is a theory of ethics based on quantitative maximization of some good for society or humanity. It is a form of consequentialism. This good is often happiness or pleasure, though some utilitarian theories might seek to maximize other consequences. Utilitarianism is sometimes summarized as "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian
The consequences, I wish to affect, are more embedded into my genetic code, which compels me to survive... and further, to sacrifice if necessary for the survival of the species which is to me, the greater good... If I can't find an "effect" for a cause, then... I can't use it in "any" capacity, and therefore, is useless in my "life"...
Learning increases Causal power, where the greater the knowledge, the better the potential to effect society... Religions typically shun Causal power, as it elevates man-kind to their horror, to that of the gods of yester-year...
Just like the smallest particles in our Universe that we can measure through cause-effect, and their attraction(s)... so it appears, that there is an attraction of our social beings to others of likeness... Nature has always been the smartest, and truest tutor of reality... and, in an abstract manner, I don't see my gawd as Nature, I see me as Nature and part of the whole... I haven't experienced a cause-effect relationship that has validated "more" than the "whole" of the Universe...
In a mathematical sense, I don't see a one way flow of "existence" coming from an underlying dimension, and flowing through me, I see more of a, I "make" Nature live, as Nature makes me "live"... Its a two way street... Anyway, sorry for the discourse, but hopefully the soliloquy has provided a little more substance to the theory of this thread of "God" belief, and how I at least perceive reality...
I don't have all the answers, and the answsers I have today, may indeed Change tomorrow, but... I "live", and as long as I "live", so does Nature... hopefully, my gawd isn't looking to commit suicide... like so many other 'younger' gods have chosen... Perhaps, my gawd will just choose to employ me by different means as I Change according to its will... Take care...
I still struggle to follow you through the labyrinth of the cascades of thoughts in your extensive expositions. But that’s my dilemma, of course. One difficulty I have with your recent post is it’s separateness from the daily reality that most people have to face - me included. Why do you and I ask ourselves these questions? Why do we seek answers? Why do we present the fallacies of religiosity as the absurdities of superficiality that they are? Why do those fallacies of religiosity have the emotional appeal to the wider population - that beast of muddied brain?
You ask: I hope I'm doing justice to your modelling of the universe. I didn’t think of our two tenets as quite such a grand design. (Perhaps Ockham's razor at work?) Just a working hypothesis from which our reasoning might progress. Then Katherine decided to change her mind and bear a child. Our creative discourse is sadly in suspense, meantime, under pressure of the demands of motherhood. She has (much earlier in life, she said) several times attempted suicide, so her ‘relationship’ with Albert Camus’ question is altogether too close for comfort. I am most glad she failed on each attempt. I (and the world) would be the poorer for it, otherwise.
One person she introduced me to was Joseph Campbell. His discourses of mythology and human advancement are thought-provoking. Although rather more second-hand, another recent philosophical discourse that I considered presented a couple of interesting pronouncements.
What future purpose or goal would make this life worth living? (For religionists, it is abandoning reason to obtain eternal life. [Only joking. Sorry - couldn’t resist that one]) The problem with this position was identified thousands of years ago by Aristotle. His point was that we do many things for the sake of something else. We eat to live, work to pay the mortgage, study to pass exams and so on. But unless at least one thing is done for its own sake, there is no point in us doing anything. Every act cannot be a means to an end: there must be ends which are valuable in their own right.
So if living must at some stage be valuable in itself if it is to be worthwhile, why not here and now? To put it bluntly, it’s what Albert Camus claimed was the only serious philosophical problem: why shouldn't we kill ourselves? Why should we think that this life, with all its problems and pressures, really is valuable in itself? I found that very thought provoking. But, on reflection, I have struggled to invalidate the postulate.
Everyone that is here, now, is incarnate, is in this “here and now.” Everyone is faced with a today and a tomorrow that requires a decision or two, and a compromise or three.
What can be done to help people (including you and me?) understand their personal “here & now?” What can be done to provide answers to those essential (to some) burning questions? To me that’s the essence of it. (Perhaps I’m unfair in including you?)
I need a signpost, a map, some pointers - ANYTHING (but religion) - that helps me put things in perspective. That gives my life and the lives I influence (interact with) some rationale, some reason for being. That’s where “evolving through us” comes in. I don’t see any dichotomy between my chosen expression (for that) and yours. It seems to me to be a synonymous way of expressing the same thing. As you comment - a slight subtlety.
To me, the suicidal gawd concept is another portrayal of the OT versus NT postulate of mine. Eastern philosophy has it more evident. The sublimation of our animal instincts to that of a greater good. Whatever exactly that may be!! In other words, getting our minds above our waistlines. Embodied in the change from: me first and you take your chances, to: women and children first. (It’s surprising how recent that dictum is).
Dave8: I don't have all the answers, and the answers I have today, may indeed change tomorrow, but... I "live", and as long as I "live", so does Nature.
Well said. Except that Nature can get along without you and I. And quite well, at that, I suspect. Knowledge may well be described as “a dynamic.” It’s not that I think what’s “there” changes. We move observation and information to assimilated knowledge. Then temper it with wisdom, if we’re lucky. And act accordingly. It’s us that changes. Or our perception and comprehension of what’s been there, all along.
The eggs - as you know, of course - are not a done deal. Hens do not observe religious festivals or statutory holidays. I have earnestly suggested to them that a weekly sabbatical may be of mutual benefit. From the continued daily supply of eggs (and concomitant demand for food and water) I take it that they didn’t grasp what I was suggesting. Such - it seems - is life.
Hello Perry, well took a break for a few days to let the thoughts settle. I do think in terms of everything being linked together, in a systems process, deterministically in the Universe. You're not the first person to charge that when I start getting into the more theoretical applications/models that I appear to jump around. I will try to keep anchored more often, however, when talking of metaphysical structures/models its often hard to "ground" or "anchor" on a stable attribute, but I suppose that's the point of the discussion, and its just a challenge to make the connections more clear...
Perry: "Why do you and I ask ourselves these questions?"
Why do I ask myself questions, which require in depth analysis... short answer... I'm neurologically mapped that way, its natural for an INTJ (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) personality type like me...
"INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.
INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability."
My personality type is the most likely to "not" believe in a supernatural being in the U.S. out of the 16 personality types. Probably, because of the "does it work?" issue, religion is broken, and illogical... system builders, typcially find it much easier, to scrap a system, and start fresh, from the "ground" level up...
Perry: "Why do we seek answers?"
I naturally ask questions, and am driven to find answers, I'd much rather know what I don't know, and my limits of knowledge, than to mak