An example of how supply and demand, capitalism and greed corrupt eco ventures
Say a guacamole factory has tonnes of waste byproducts - the avocado pits, which to them are useless.
They pay a fee to a waste disposal team have them discarded.
An eco start-up approaches them saying that they make biodegradable disposable cups, plates and cutlery out of avocado pits and are willing to take the avocado pits free of charge.
The guacamole company is more than happy to have this as they no longer have to pay to have them removed. This increases their guac-profit margins.
At first it's great. The eco cutlery producers have a free resource to make affordable sustainable cutlery that can challenge/undermine or compete with regular plastic cutlery.
Then the eco start up becomes successful and very profitable. The guac companies sees this, meanwhile the demand for avocado pits is increasing rapidly and the eco start up is in need of more and more.
The guac company decides to charge the eco cutlery company for the pits knowing they are the only big local source of such volumes.
The eco company has no choice but to accept this charge as they don't find an alternative. Now the price of eco cutlery goes up to maintain profit margins and is now more expensive than plastic cutlery.
Consumers start to buy plastic ones again.
This dynamic happens in hundreds of forms with hundreds of products and though an excellent business strategy, it is not an environmentally considerate or eco ethical one.
Is the structure or design of our markets/economy hindering us from developing a better way forward?
They pay a fee to a waste disposal team have them discarded.
An eco start-up approaches them saying that they make biodegradable disposable cups, plates and cutlery out of avocado pits and are willing to take the avocado pits free of charge.
The guacamole company is more than happy to have this as they no longer have to pay to have them removed. This increases their guac-profit margins.
At first it's great. The eco cutlery producers have a free resource to make affordable sustainable cutlery that can challenge/undermine or compete with regular plastic cutlery.
Then the eco start up becomes successful and very profitable. The guac companies sees this, meanwhile the demand for avocado pits is increasing rapidly and the eco start up is in need of more and more.
The guac company decides to charge the eco cutlery company for the pits knowing they are the only big local source of such volumes.
The eco company has no choice but to accept this charge as they don't find an alternative. Now the price of eco cutlery goes up to maintain profit margins and is now more expensive than plastic cutlery.
Consumers start to buy plastic ones again.
This dynamic happens in hundreds of forms with hundreds of products and though an excellent business strategy, it is not an environmentally considerate or eco ethical one.
Is the structure or design of our markets/economy hindering us from developing a better way forward?
Comments (157)
Market prices reflect the totality of the information in the economy. If we want more guacamole silverware and less plastic, we'll have to contribute to that well of info through legislation that increases the price of plastic or subsidizes guacamole.
it gets worse: between them, the two companies have increased the demand for avocado pits - if not necessarily avocado fruit. And then, some other cleverboots sees an opportunity to use avocado pit in place of plastic, manages to get hold of the formula or its inventor - which is a legal booby-trap waiting down the line. At first, this merely increases the price avocado farmers charge for their produce, but then the demand for just the pits skyrockets, and a lot of the fruit is left to rot, until somebody figures out a way to use it for fuel, so another byproduct is in huge demand again, so they start importing from Kenya instead of buying from California, which, of course, adds to transport costs and pollution. Some California farmers spotted the trend a couple of years in and turned fields of strawberries into avocado orchards, but they have to wait another twelve more years for even a modest a harvest, by which the time, the whole avocado craze may have peaked and declined. Meanwhile, there is a scarcity of strawberries, driving up the price and bolstering imports from Mexico, which is a great opportunity for smugglers...
Quoting Benj96
Not hindering. Preventing. Putting the kibosh on.
No they don't. The whole reason arbitrage works is because information assymetry, which we even see in highly liquid, transparent stock markets, let alone complex relationships resulting from the interaction of various supply chains.
Which part of that is outside the economy?
Your OP exemplifies the folly of a profit driven free market economy.
Capitalism fully supports and maintains the pernicious global plutocracy that the human race currently suffers under. You can choose to be part of it's support, or you can do what you can to help dismantle it.
If the eco cutlery producer expected a free lunch, that's their mistake. There is no free lunch.
:lol: Sure! and pigs are vegetarians!
Quoting Tzeentch
Even for a starving child?
If you were out in a forest, and you ate berries, growing on a bush for your lunch, does that count as a free lunch?
Economies have not always worked in a capitalistic manner. Economies (the flow of resources, goods and services) predates capital - monetary systems.
Bartering is another economic system as is simply sharing amongst a small tribal community.
Hence as I highlighted before, the modern way economies work hinders environmental consideration/sustainability for a fundamental reason - our attitude towards the world as an object to be owned, mined, deforested etc for objective resources.
But "stability" is a resource too. Its just not a material one - such that you can put in your pocket and sell to the highest bidder.
Stability as a resource is a highly important one as anything that is unstable, or unsustainable eventually collapses. And climate change is exactly the example of how mother nature is demonstrating our economies impacts in action.
The OPs moral kernel, is that a good idea (done with the ecosystems benefit in mind, stability or sustainability ) is strangled by the restrictions of how economy works based on profitability.
Eco-cutlery is appealing to consumers if it is as cheap as fossil fuel plastic cutlery. As no one wants to be at a financial loss but at the same time value anything healthier and better for their conscience.
The error here is that while there is innate demand for eco products, people monetise the means to manufacture the supplies to meet such demand (the guac company charging for avocado pits which they previously saw as a waste product that actually cost them to get rid of).
And that corrupts the innately good idea based on the free lunch (waste products being up cycled or used to make meaningful of valuable products).
Ironically, we are the only species that "pays to survive".
Nature offers free lunch. All the time in fact. Sunlight is free lunch for plants, plants are free lunch for herbivores and fungi etc.
The only thing any living thing "pays" for lunch is the energy required to capture and digest it. Which must always be cheaper than the energy they receive from that lunch otherwise they are in a "starvation to death" trajectory.
So survival is free according to nature provided you're fit enough to eat. If you're not fit enough to eat, you're still fit enough to be eaten. You become the lunch.
They are your fundamental 2 choices
So no I don't believe it was the mistake if the Ecocutlery company to seek out a free lunch, they saw the value in a waste product. It was a mistake of our economic systems to ever believe it wasn't free in the first place (converting newfound value in waste into a charge/fee to access it)
Only if you're gone before the bear family arrives.
Quoting Benj96
Yessss!!!
Quoting Benj96
:clap: :clap:
True. Easier said than done of course. We have a systematic obsession with material, namely money and thus all that money can acquire.
Its understandable as its hardwired into our fear of death and desire to survive, prosper and live in abundance.
We need material to survive, sure. That is a fact.
How much do we need? That is the next question.
In the face of capitalism, we need as much as we can get because others will always try to take it from us. If we value the same things, we are in endless competition for them. And the competition itself propagates the fear of losing and thus the behaviour of hoarding.
This is seen in nature - competition for mates, food, shelter and reflected in civilisation - competition for social status, physical prowess, health, beauty, power, food and property.
Therefore when we say dismantle capitalism I'm not sure if it needs to be abolished completely. However what it does need is regulation. And government is and should always be about equalising, checks and balances.
Hence capitalism only works when basic needs for survival are met so that people no longer need to fear for their lives if they fall into dire straits financially. Socialism steps in here to ensure that all people have food, shelter and access to health services regardless of circumstance.
The remaining desire for wealth is "healthier." You can live on a base/universal salary and be happy and live a long life or you can play the game and live wealthy and be happy with the same long lived life. Or anywhere in-between.
As in this case capitalism doesn't come at the direct cost of other people's lives. And it can't anyways. Because if it did, if capitalism was 100% pure, the world would be left with the 99% who perished/failing to secure finances to survive, and the remaining 1% which are no longer wealthy because there is no population of workers to hire, consumers to buy and services and luxuries to purchase.
Imagine a world with 1 quintillionaire and no one else. They have stacks of gold and currencies and own the entire planet. But they are alone.
Is their money and property useful anymore? Would you say pure unregulated run-away capitalism served them well?
There are no bears in the forests of Scotland. The existence of competitors for access to the berries, does not justify some vile human tribe/capitalist group claiming permanent ownership of the forest.
I have yet to hear a valid argument that supports the concept of ANY human OWNING land.
Legal occupation and protection from others taking what you and yours NEED, is a different matter. BUT, no-one has a RIGHT to OWN land imo.
Too late for that. Whatever regulations a government enacts the next one will begin to dismantle; within four election cycles, its effects are completely neutralized and the rush toward the precipice resumes with gusto.
Should, yes, but never can. However honestly and well-meaningly it begins, government is always suborned by the interests of the most ruthless citizens and the economic system, with all the powerless in it, made to serve them.
It will have to collapse under its own corruption. Just pray that happens soon - before national rivalries, corporate greed, technological irresponsibility and the whirlwinds our predecessors have sown wipe us off this planet.
"Take only photos, leave only footprints".
We are guests in the world. We have our time and then we are gone. All people are walking ash and dust. And nothing matters to ash and dust.
A porche or private island is not going to further your longevity nor is it going to benefit you when you're dead. Dust doesn't drive or sunbathe.
However we do birth new life. And we want them to come into a world that we have set up for them to thrive in.
So accruing wealth for ones own enjoyment is a "young man/woman's game", and accruing wealth for others (children and grandchildren) is an "old man's/woman's game".
Even then, intergenerational wealth is not permanent and can be lost by children and grandchildren in the same way it was created by their parents and grandparents. There are no guarantees to multi-generational inheritance, this is something not even the richest of us can guarantee for their family line.
So all that is left is to ensure the game can even continue. Which means climate change, pollution and destruction of our humble planet should be the top item on the priority list of all families and their industries everywhere.
Ultimately, the greatest wealth we have is one that no one owns outright - the continuity of nature itself and the life it fosters.
I fear you're correct. Governments seem to be "neutral" over time. With only two options: Conservative or liberalism, there is certainly a cancelling effect. The pendulum swings back and forth making ultimately little to no headway.
Meanwhile both are proponents of capitalism to some capacity while all this is happening.
This is the crux of the matter. The problem IS global capitalism. It's all fear based (same as theism).
We need to remove it. UBI offers a good beginning. The money trick is the bedrock of capitalism, so getting rid of money must become the main goal of everyone who want's a better way for the human race to exist.
A resource based global economy is the ultimate goal, and technology/automation is the best tool we have to help make such happen. I have learned a little abouts the 'Gosplan' as it was employed by the USSR. It was fundamentally moneyless and successfully supported a large population.
Unfortunately evil people such as Lenin and Stalin started to corrupt it, from it's beginning.
It eventually failed completely due to corruption. This shows that a fair and equitable, resource based system can be established. We need a system that can also incorporate the need that many have for an individual sense of freedom and the notions of reward and recognition humans associate with demonstration of personal entrepreneurial aptitude.
Not anymore! But there are still a few in other places where people and berries live.
My poor little joke was meant to illustrate that "free" is a function of timing, alertness and luck. There is usually a cost and some risk in human endeavours. Nothing is truly free, but survival is a whole lot less costly if you don't have to carry the landlords, administrators, priests, armies and corporate profits while you forage.
Quoting universeness
Or water or air or trees or animals or even other people.
Yes indeed.
Which is why I don't pursue politics in life. I pursue knowledge. Some form of revelation if it exists. Because education is the best way to steer the behaviour oneself and of others.
It's easy to run rampant if you're ignorant. Ignorance is bliss. You don't understand or take responsibility for the your actions and their consequences if you're not aware of them, don't have the knowledge/wisdom to address them.
But if you're educated, you're responsible, or at least you have the choice to be, and the guilt and shame that comes with knowing and choosing the worse path. Just as our children become ever more responsible for their actions as they grow and learn, we give them more freedoms (with responsibility) - to vote, to consent to sex, to manage their own finances etc.
For me the purest pursuit in life is truth. If we all knew what was true of the world, if none of us were misguided, deceived or ignorant to the truth of things, the world would surely be completely different.
I agree with everything you typed in your last post.
We are stewards of this planet at best. We have the right to exist on it and be sustained by it's resources. We have no right to 'use it up and wear it out,' based on individual carefree whim.
It's only something as pernicious as capitalism and/or theism that see's this planet and it's resources as expendable. Capitalists, because they only really care about their right to sate their own notions of excess and theists, as they believe, that their true glorification will happen in the next life and not in this one.
Okay I do know exactly where you're coming from. And I have previously believed money was the root of all evil. And also wanted to rid of it.
However I later realised its not money that causes harm, its what we choose to use it for. Money has done/continues to do great things - feed the poor, house the homeless, educate the uneducated, support social rehabilitation, urban renewal etc. The list of good deeds done with money as the vector is as long as all those done for selfish, perverse or evil reasons.
Money was invented to standardise value. As a mode of comparison. So that we can equate 2 tonnes of apples to an iPhone and an iPhone as the same value as 5 weeks of psychotherapy.
Money is excellent at standardising the value of all products/goods, services and properties against one another. As before that bartering was tricky.
How do you barter apples for shoes each week when the size, variety and quality of apples might naturally change with the seasons while the quality of shoes does not. Money removes this issue.
So if money is not evil. It's the behaviour and attitude ues that we have towards it that are - how much we want, and at what cost, what we spend it on and how we get it (thievery, immoral corporation or charitable donations etc).
I don't think the eco cutlery from your example would have fared any better under a system of barter.
What happens in your example is that a previously useless waste product gained value. And the market simply adapts to this new situation by asking something in return.
If the eco cutlery producer cannot produce something equal or greater in value then it simply means his "innately good idea", while perhaps well-intentioned, wasn't very good.
You're essentially lamenting the fact that people don't care enough about eco cutlery.
Quoting Benj96
And that includes the eco cutlery producer, no?
Why don't they continue producing eco cutlery anyway, and simply soak up the loss, if it's such a good idea?
Quoting Benj96
To suggest that the use of waste products equals a free lunch is wrong. It's a free lunch for the eco cutlery producer, paid for by the guac producer, so not a free lunch after all.
The amount of goods produced goes up, and as a result of the guac producer's free giving away of their waste product which the eco cutlery producer turns into value, the guac producer's buying power goes down as a result of their charity.
Quoting Benj96
Then it's not actually free, is it?
It turns out the labor cost of living in nature is actually quite high, which is why mankind does just about anything it can to avoid having to pay it.
The "problem of capitalism" even extends into the animal kingdom. :grin:
So, do you reject the word 'freedom' as unattainable?
Quite right. Well said. However I would point out that not all theists believe in an afterlife nor any specific entitlements in this one.
I am a theist. But I don't ascribe to any current religion as I find many aspects of them arbitrary or harmful to other peoples way of life. Theyre all in need of an update I guess as many are archaic and the language and culture they were built in has changed.
So I chose to develop my own theistic theory all things considered.
My relationship to the universe is a unique one and I'm not interested in imposing it on anyone all I offer is discussion and my views. The rest is up to others. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Haha I see your point and enjoy the humour in it. However I don't have a specific penchant for eco cutlery. Reflected by the fact that I don't own an eco cutlery company. It was simply an arbitrary example to highlight the nature of the issue.
You're probably right that it wouldn't have faired better on a barter system. As at the end if the day all systems of economy are based on "value". And we as humans apply value to literally everything.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
You're correct. Nothing is truly "free" as everything relies on fundamental principles of energy and entropy as their basis. Energy is a currency in its own right and one that nature deals in. We have supplemented this with our own symbol of currency - "money". And thus the concept of "free" is based on which currency is being considered. Things can be free of charge (free of monetary expense) but they of course have a physics based expense too.
Let's get down to the root of what I wished to say.
The environment offers us a net surplus of currency (energy) from the Sun. And though we know that even the sun is not eternal for the purpose of our short existence we can consider it a stable supplier of "free currency" - solar energy.
For our economies to work without impacting on the balances of nature, all industry and economy must obey the principles of living on a finite planet with a steady influx of energy to use for our "business as usual" - from the ground up.
This means that all waste products must be able to be converted into a substrate if value (recycling). As cycles are the fundamentally most stable and self perpetuating phenomena in nature.
So in essence, we must "tie up the loose ends of economy". And that means adopting the belief that economic growth is not indefinite. We live on a finite planet. So recycling is an absolute must.
We cannot create "terminal processes" like waste plastic that doesn't degrade for tens of thousands of years. Terminal processes are not stable or sustainable.
If we could develop a bacteria for example that could convert plastic back into crude oil, then fossil fuels would be a renewable resource. And then all we have to mitigate is the carbon footprint. If we could address that with carbon capture or planting more trees etc then again we have created a sustainable cycle.
If all these activities loose ends are circled back into soemthing organic and reusable instead of terminal, then we are golden.
We can truly "keep calm and carry on".
But as it stands economy is not based on 100% recycling its based on maximising product and by default maximising terminal waste. The terminal waste is where all our problems arise from.
First, I'd like to reject the conflation of 'liberty' with 'a free lunch'.
Second, I do not believe that anyone can be autonomous free, or that any desirable thing can be attained entirely without cost.
Third, that is not a rejection or freedom itself, nor of the word; it merely puts them into a realistic perspective.
Quoting Benj96
Therein lies a fundamental problem: the assumption that all things must have a market value for the purpose of commerce. Well if "things" can be assessed in monetary terms, why not resources, land, water, time, work, wildlife and human life?
Is it impossible to imagine the avocado grower, the guacamole maker, the pit recycler, the town councillor and the tree-hugger to discuss ways that they could most efficiently can co-operate to get what they each want and serve their community at the same time?
The theft and corruption, hoarding and cheating are much easier to accomplish with money - even more so, with digital money! - than with turnips, shoes and roofing slates.
The charity, however, is far more efficient and effective without money.
The problematic word there is "value" and how that evaluation is made in a capitalist system. Two products on a shelf, both perform the same function equally well. One is more expensive to buy. That's an easy choice - for the consumer.
For the concerned citizen the equation is quite different. Assuming identical manufacturing methods:
Product A is a result of deep ocean oil drilling and its concomitant accidental pollution events - see map. It comes packaged in plastic. Oil refineries are heavy polluters and the raw material needs special transport vessels, which themselves are heavy polluters. All these materials are toxic carcinogens. Both the product and its packaging will be discarded and take 20-500 years to decompose, meanwhile stuffing landfills or killing wildlife on land and in the oceans. Some of it will become micro-plastic and end up in the consumers' lungs.
Product B is made from avocado pits. Avocado trees only thrive in sub-tropical regions and so their products need to be packaged and shipped to colder places, polluting wherever the trucks and ships go. The trees are large and need water which may be scarce in some growing regions. Neither the raw material nor the final product is hazardous to health and both are biodegradabe.
If we count up the associated costs in environmental degradation, cleanup, disposal, human health and long-term medical care, which product is actually cheaper?
Quoting Tzeentch
I don't see how. Before he gave it away - not as charity but in self-interest - he was paying to have it hauled away. So he was saving money on the transaction all the while the eco-cutlety producer was investing in the early stages of his company's growth. The guac-producer was a couple of years ahead in extra profits and continues to benefit from free pit removal, and the eco-cutlery company doesn't ever become a competitor or cut into his business.
The only better way is to use less disposable things and use, instead, things that can be used for many years, like stainless steel forks, knives, spoons, mugs, and plates. We need to wean ourselves from throw-away economy.
Should they be? I don't think so. Are they? Sadly yes.
There's even a valuation of human life (insurance companies). And the popular quote "time is money" reflects the fact that your salary reflects how much your hours of life left are worth compensating.
An hour of life of a minimum wage worker doing a job they don't want to do is worth less than that of an hour of the life of a tech CEOs.
Hence why in an ideal world we would all do jobs we love/are passionate about. As if you love your job you "don't work a day of your life so to speak".
Agreed. Some industries are more throw-away for sure.
I think there's probably no better example than fashion.
The whole premise of fashion shows and catwalks is something "new", "fresh" or different. It has one of the greatest turnovers in relevance. It behaves like an ADHD child dropping the thing they liked 10s ago for something new and shiny which they'll throw away for the next in another 10s.
Fashion is so wasteful as there is nothing wrong with the clothes of last season other than the fact people are bored and don't want to wear them again. Closets full of perfectly good clothes worn only once or twice.
I read of startups now where you bring your last season clothes and they get modified several times over the course of the life of the piece so that your jacket you bought 7 years ago looks almost completely different now and so stays current/fresh using the same fabric or less fabric then it woukd use to make an entirely new item if clothing. It's a move in the right direction - satisfying both the desire to keep up with fashion trends but also to recycle.
Agreed.
Anything that can be used for evil can also be used for 'walled garden,' style good. In other words, as long as a knife is only ever used to cut food/whittle pretty ornamentation etc, then we can call it a good tool. It's ability to also function as a lethal weapon, shows the need to control it. Money is the same.
It can be used as an inert means of exchange, but it can also be used, and IS mainly used, as a very powerful capitalist tool, which helped to create and IS the main method of maintaining the global plutocracy that currently holds our species back, and leaves the stewardship of this planet, mainly in the hands of a tiny, nefarious, rich and powerful few.
My father used to push an old idea for better money control, in that it should have a use-by date, or there should be different kinds of money. Money that can only be used to buy food, and another kind for entertainment etc, within a society, where individuals don't pay for fuel, water, shelter, medical health or education. So, some beneficial use may be found for currency transactions in a resource based global economy, but it's role would be a strict 'walled garden,' style one.
Quoting Benj96
I am not suggesting replacing money with something as basic as a barter system.
I take it YOU have no apples or shoes to barter! YOU offer YOUR human faculties and YOUR human labour, to contribute to the benefit of ALL that exists in the universe. All you require in return, is your basic physical needs, support to find cause and purpose in your life, and to be treated as an equal, and as having significance in a vast universe, within which YOU may represent the ONLY species, that can currently demonstrate an ability to 'figure out,' the structure and working of the universe, FROM THE INSIDE OUT, as there is NO evidence at all, of anything outside, observing in.
I have read your posts in which you have professed attractions to some personal concept of dualism or perhaps even an emerging panpsychism but NOT theism! To read such words from you is disappointing.
What are the attributes of the god you believe in?
Quoting Benj96
You wont get away with such declarations. It's not a case of imposing your views on others, its a case of justifying your views to others. If you don't open to full scrutiny then your 'theism,' will be ridiculed in the same way as all other unjustified theism.
And that is an outcome of monetization, and that is an outcome of money as a means of assigning value. Of course it's wrong. Money is one of humankind's worst inventions. It corrupts the human psyche even more effectively than power - and it buys power, so the two most corrosive elements of society are in the same hands.
Quoting Benj96
On average, 1/670. That's not so bad, given what a foot-soldier's life is worth compared to an emperor's.
Quoting Benj96
Do what you love, share what you make, take what you need.
Learn what you can, teach what you know.
The usual conservative reaction to social welfare or GBI is: "Nobody will have an incentive work."
And yet, retired people used to die for lack of meaningful work. They don't anymore: they start new enterprises, learn new skills, keep busy doing the work they choose for themselves.
There is commonality in concept between free, dom/lunch/love/money etc.
'Free,' commonly defined as:
'able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another'
'not or no longer confined or imprisoned'
'not subject to engagements or obligations'
I assume your use of 'free' in Quoting Vera Mont, suggests no 'cost' or no 'consequence,' etc but freedom is in reality, in my opinion, subjective.
Energy (as a fundamental) cannot be created or destroyed only changed in form. Energy as a fundamental IS therefore 'free,' as there is no associated cost or consequence. Cost and consequence only come into the picture when 'fundamental' energy changes form.
I am not just trying to be a nitpicking nudnick here Vera.
Trying to provide an exemplar of an existent that IS free from all notions of cost and consequence is not easy in an entropic universe, but I do think that there are such existents.
:clap:
Absafragginlootely!!!
At Waterloo, One butcher called 'Wellington' is reported to have commented that another butcher called 'Napoleon,' was not a gentleman. He is supposed to have stated, 'Oh, 'bonies,' hat is worth the lives of 30,000 soldiers, at least, BUT, he is NOT a gentleman!'
Another butcher at the Alamo called 'Santa Anna,' compared the death of his soldiers to the death of chickens.
I say, Wellington, Napoleon, Santa Anna and all such historical and current excuses for human beings, are not worth one fart of relief from any good peasant arse!
I suppose so. I don't see how that relates to human endeavors. We can't get or do anything without some expenditure of effort, calories and time.Quoting universeness
Agreed - so long as said peasant isn't whipping his dog and shagging his 10-year-old daughter. Or vice versa.
All human endeavours exist within the bounds of the physics of the universe.
Theism makes very little effort towards anything of significance in my opinion. for example, as a human endeavour, It assigns all ultimate responsibility, to fake gods. An excuse for humans to lay back and let life happen to them, instead of 'endeavouring,' to fight until death, to 'make things batter for everyone.'
We are mere bystanders and pawns in gods whims? They can f*** off with that shit!
The calories we extend can be replenished, for our entire lifespan.
Science is our best chance of increasing the time we have available to us, individually.
How we direct our efforts will dictate the individual legacy we leave behind.
This rationale has forced me to become a democratic socialist, a secular humanist, an atheist and an optimist to the very core of whatever the f*** I truly am, in respect of the universe that made living, conscious, self-aware, question asking creatures, exist.
The concept of my 'freedom' to 'become' what I am today, plays a very important role in my personal conception of who I am and what I can do. I don't accept that 'nothing is truly free,' I consider my ability to think anew, as 'truly free.'
Yeah, as that would probably make such a peasant as bad as some priests, popes, generals, kings and messiah's.
The fact that something is insignificant in one individual's opinion doesn't change the cost of that thing in terms of physics. Whether you light a candle as a petition to ST. Anthony or in order to study medicine, the same amount of wax is used; the same amount of heat is generated.
Eating celery stalks, I've heard, costs as much in expedinture of energy as it gains in nutritive calories - however, the gain in salts and fiber make celery a cost-effective food.
As to what the endeavours of theism have cost human being individually and collectively compared to its benefits, it's vastly, obscenely overpriced.
Quoting universeness
At the expense of other organic beings and their lifespan.
Quoting universeness
That's laudable - in all of your endeavors (though I have one or two issues with the Humanists).
But sure hasn't been a free lunch or a free ride, and however liberated your spirit and mind may be, your body is still in bondage to physics.
So true. Fashion does not care about waste or over abundance.
Well, I'm not a veggie or a vegan yet but perhaps in the future, good meat substitutes will be found.
I have not tasted one I like as much as a real Tbone steak yet. I have often asked veggies what would happen to the cow, sheep, chicken, pig, etc global populations, if all humans stopped eating them.
It often ends with agreement, that there would be a lot fewer of them eventually, compared to their numbers, counted during any single day when we ate them. I assume those remaining, would exist as part of the wild fauna or become human pets or they would go extinct, as they were created and altered via human genetic selection.
Quoting Vera Mont
I consider that a boundary/limitation, not a bondage.
Yeah, but St Anthony does not exist, but study of medicine, WILL save lives.
The wax energy was wasted in the former, and well spent in the latter.
Yes, that is your valuation, not the actual cost.
The wax doesn't care. Physics doesn't care. The universe doesn't care.
Reality, physics and the universe don't care how define things; if you don't eat, you die.
Well said! You agree then, that that is what we can demonstrate. An ability that wax, physics and god seems unable to demonstrate. We are OF the universe and we can demonstrate that WE care!
Yeah, I agree, I care enough about my existence to eat, because that maintains my ability to think and act and that can cause change for the better and for the worse. I hope I am part of the solutions and not part of the problems.
It doesn't matter why; the fact is, as long as you are in and of the world, you are not, and cannot be free of its laws. Which as all I meant by no absolute freedom, and no free lunch.
I understand that, but as I stated in a previous post. I am formed via 13.8 billion years of very large variety in very large randomised combination, abiogenysys, evolution via natural selection and my parents having reproductive sex. I started as fundamental energy, released due to inflation/expansion of a very hot, dense concentration of energy. That fundamental energy has no known origin/cost or first cause/consequence, so I think your 'no absolute freedom' and 'no free lunch,' is flawed.
Right. I should have made clear - thought I had made clear - that I was referring to the transaction of such entities as exist in the present and can be said to eat lunch. (Not to mention that the ignorance of one species - has no known origin/cost - is not definitive proof.)
All such current existents trace back to that very hot, dense energy concentrate with no known cost or cause.
Okay, if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist, and if you don't approve of it, it has no value. In that case, all that exists or can exists, happens or can happen, is 100% gratis, in which case "free" in all its forms and permutations is meaningless terminology. Makes attempted communication kind of futile.
But we do know about the singularity, as a very hot, dense concentrate of energy, it's just that, that's ALL we currently know about it. It has very definite value, as the most credible placeholder for the source of the universe, that best matches our current physics of the universe.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes the origin is 100% gratis, no god agent/mind required, to expend any energy, in conjuring the universe, no 6 days of divine effort required. 'Free' is on the contrary, NOT therefore meaningless, as you suggest and communication is demonstrated constantly, including between us, and such is certainly not futile, in my opinion.
I believe you. What I can't figure out is its relevance to the topic.
This was just a side track Vera, it does relate to human attraction to capitalism, in the sense that individuals choosing to behave the way they do, IS their responsibility and is based on their free choice. In my judgement, they cant escape the responsibility, by trying to scapegoat gods or exclaim that they are only acting in accordance with the natural rules of life, established and inherited from our days in the wilds. Capitalism is pernicious and remains a serious barrier to creating a 'civilised,' existence for our species. Those who maintain it, IN IT'S CURRENT FORM, cannot escape their responsibility for the current state of the human world.
I wasn't trying to enable anyone to do any of that. I was only using language within the context of economics, not implicating 10-dimensional strings, the amygdala or Sango.
Quoting universeness
As were monetarism, currency, inheritance, land ownership and the concept of chattels that gave eventual form to capitalism, which then demorphed into globalization
Quoting universeness
Sure they can! They'll stick the rest of us with the check, as usual, and complain to management about the waitress they groped.
It's all relevant Vera, Sango?
Quoting Vera Mont
Yep.
Quoting Vera Mont
Well they can keep trying to but their dilution continues. Would you show any deference or assign any respect to any individual, due to their personal excessive wealth, or influence or even to a title such as lord, queen, king, pastor, imam or pope?
I think such is actually becoming more and more toxic, to those who publicly brandish such.
Especially amongst Western youth, and perhaps even the female youth of Iran are demonstrating their hatred of such.
I think the billionaire is hated nowadays, as much as the kings of old.
BTW, the groped waitress nowadays, can start a 'me too' campaign, sue the b****** and the rich powerful perp, can have their reign of horror utterly smashed.
[url=https://medium.com/@OGBENISKILLA/sango-the-yoruba-god-of-thunder-and-lightning-99e8111c10d2]Just another deity.
[/url]Quoting universeness
Au contraire, mon cher ami!
Quoting universeness
What difference does that make, if I never even meet one? They have their self-contained, self-sufficient fortresses well above the eventual water line. Nevertheless, they control my access to the necessities of life, the tax on my beer and the carcinogen content of the air I breathe. By the time the young women of Saudi get hold of them we - even more of us - will be under 52 extra meters of storm-churned water.
In Yoruba mythology, Sango also known as Jakuta is perhaps the most popular Orisha; he is god of thunder and lightning and as well one of the most worshipped gods all over the world.
:rofl: I wonder if Thor will consult the lawyers of Asgard.
Quoting Vera Mont
Why would an ability to get more of what you already have an extreme excess of, prevent your ultimate demise? Does more evil make evil stronger or does it just increase the determination of good to overcome it? More money = more resentment and more counter activity, imo.
Don't be impressed by distractive shiny's Vera!
Quoting Vera Mont
All the difference in the world!
He's already appealed his case up to The Shadow Proclamation, who sent it back with a sticky-note, saying: "Why can't you 4,787,901 thunder-wielding gods in this galaxy just get along?"
"Quoting universeness
It won't prevent their ultimate demise. It will merely defer their demise until there is nobody left to serve them.
Quoting universeness
Evil has always been numerically less, but its blandishments appeal to the little bit of evil in the rest of us, and its threats keep the timid from action; it is stronger than Good, because Evil is not constrained by foresight, principles, compassion or shame.
The wars of B5 never end; evil just keeps coming back in yet another shape.
Once Evil gains supremacy, it can't be defeated by Good; the only way you can fight it is with its own weapons - by becoming evil yourself. What you can do is wait for the evil ones to consume the system until it collapses, then start over and prevent Evil from taking control. Horizontal, egaitarian societies had strategies to prevent consolidation of power; stratified, pyramidal societies facilitate it.
(* even so, those spider-bat spaceships were the coolest thing in sf)
In B5 the shadows (villains) and the vorlons (hero's) turned out to be as bad as each other in how they wished to control the younger races. Just like the nefarious capitalists and the philanthropic capitalists of today.
As in B5 we can do better without both.
It's an old debate now between us Vera. To me, our views fundamentally align in many ways but, imo, at times, you show signs of being rather tired of 'fighting the good fight,' and you have became a little defeatist and disappointed with your own species.
But I think you still secretly believe that our race is worth saving.
I also like their scream:
In 2016, somebody stepped on my pink sunglasses; now I have to use the yellow ones.
It's not disappointment: I've been aware of the shortcomings of our species for six decades or so. What I've figured out is that "the fight" is not "good". Fighting can only ever be destructive and a war mentality produces bad leaders. I generally think subversion is a more effective strategy.
I also see that these top-heavy, overpriced, young-eating regimes have always toppled within a few hundred years of their founding. At first, the empires were small and local; their fall didn't reverberate very far. Then they grew bigger and richer, affecting entire continents both through their conquest and their demise; then bigger still, more diverse and psychologically unhealthy, until the sun never set on the last and biggest two. Their hegemony was quietly, subversively assumed by global corporate power, and now it's too big for any nation to escape, and the consequences of its collapse will also be inescapable.
Afterward, however harsh the prevailing conditions, the much diminished and impoverished human race can restart the enterprise on a better foundation. We - that is, the quiet good people who'd rather work than fight - will have left them seeds, skills, technological and historical knowledge. They might make the same mistakes - but at least they'll have a chance to avoid those mistakes, with guidance from the best of their ancestors, instead of the worst of their contemporaries.
(That's my bed-time story....)
Well in many ways money and power are synonymous. The most powerful people on earth are those that either have a). The greatest wealth or b). The greatest political influence or both. Usually they're intermixed.
Quoting Vera Mont
You're correct. Some human lives are more dispensable merely by profession and compensated poorly for that possibility. Military, especially in countries at war or with civil unrest are such an example. How much does one pay for someone to risk their life and health on a day to day basis?
Quoting Vera Mont
Absolutely. Brava. I like this proverb/quote.
Quoting Vera Mont
I think this is at most partially true. People I think are generally happiest when their life has purpose. That purpose can come from anything but usually comes from career or if not career then hobbies funded by a less than desirable career. In either case there is always incentive to work so long as one is fit and able.
On the other hand, there will always be a small cohort of people that don't work nor want to work. And are for lack of a better word "social deadweight" as they don't contribute to taxes or their pension and take more in social welfare payments then they ever contributed.
But this is going no where any time soon. However it is an opportunity for jobs in careers focused on encouraging those that refuse to work to become inspired, to socially integrate, to find purpose or develop skills in the areas they enjoy so that they may participate in the workforce in a way they actually might enjoy.
Will 100%of people ever be employed? Of course not, but funding the small percentage that don't want to to stave off homelessness and crime is certainly the best option verses leaving them financially helpless regardless of their attitude.
Laziness exists. And we as people who pay tax must pay for their upkeep. You can argue it as unfair. But you can also argue it as being at a distinct financial advantage. You will have more privileges and financial freedom than anyone who settles for living off the state.
I think it's 100% untrue. Conservatives have been taken in by/invested in the prevailing capitalist fiction that people are motivated by material self-interest alone. That, once their survival needs are met, people just want to lie around, doing nothing - or worse, blissing out on mind-altering substances.
And maybe a great many products of our present system do feel that way - because they have given up any hope of autonomy or opportunity to develop their best talents or explore the limits of their imagination. And it doesn't help that they've been systematically dumbed down, brutalized and demoralized by the hierarchy.
Quoting Benj96
Eventually, there won't be jobs for anyone except servants and a few health care specialists. But it doesn't matter. Nobody should ever be "employed". People do want to work; they do not want bosses.
The happiest men I have ever seen were gathered around a malfunctioning machine, or a building site, or a rescue operation or a drafting table. Sometimes they're happy doing their own project, but they're even happier in a project they can share voluntarily, as equals, contributing to a team effort. They're unhappiest, they're taking orders from some idjit who gets double the money they get and hasn't a clue what they're actually doing.
Besides, it's even more corrosive to a person's psyche to lord it over other people than to be lorded over. That's the proverbial power corrupting to which I referred. And I do maintain that wealth is even more corrosive; that owning a mine or factory makes someone even crazier than commanding a battalion.
I agree in the sense that entertainment is the religion of the masses. Social media has shown our endless hunger for being entertained. It's quite hedonistic in that way
I'm sorry to disappoint you haha. The attributes of such an entity in my mind is that it is non-local, because it is in all locations. It is non substantial (in any specific or discrete manifestation) because it is all substances. It doesn't have a spatiotemporal dimension because it is those dimensions themselves. It is neither good nor bad but does form all dichotomies/opposites. It is neither inanimate nor animate as it is both what is observed as well as all observers and the content of their consciousness and perceptions.
As you can see this is problematic to any monoism - physicalism, materialism or immaterialism alone and in isolation. As such a definition is already too restrictive/reductive.
So instead I chose not to deny either account but create a fusion between them - a grounds for interrelationship. Hence dualism as we previously talked about.
The tao is an excellent basis for this account and if I had to subscribe to any religion it would probably be this one. But alas any accurate God description must account for all religious contemplations and how they relate to one another. Some are more personified and others are more phenomenonological.
Quoting universeness
I'm more than happy to have my views put on the chopping block. If I am to propone any such idea I must not refrain from explaining when asked to. I don't intend to "get away with" anything. I have no sinister motive.
Most importantly, my views on a God are not static but open to reform and refinement. As I don't have all the answers. But try to work from the most macroscopic downwards and try to remove logical paradox by correcting associations/relationships in a reasonable manner.
This is for sure true. Having power tends to lead to arrogance because one equates power with entitlement/righteousness. I am in power therefore I must be correct and what I say goes, because the power I exert dictates so and I then observe the effects of such dictations as proof that what I say, is what will happen.
This leaves less room to maintain a sense of humble equality with others. Or to be contested or denied action.
So an omnipresent, immaterial/omnimaterial, outside of what we conceive as spacetime, amoral/omnimoral, inanimate animate, existent.
Yeah, I see your problem!!!!
To me your rationale should reject such a proposed set of attributes as those of a non-existent rather than an existent.
Quoting Benj96
Everybody has their own cunning plan to figure out the mysteries of the universe they are most interested in. I am sure your approach is as valid as my own. As long as you are enjoying the quest, and you are not hurting innocents along the way, all power to you!
Not outside space-time. It is space-time as in it is the universe and its entire content. Nothing exists outside of the universe in this sense.
Quoting universeness
It can't reject the existence any more than it can accept it. To use dichotmies as a reason for rejection is bias. Bias towards monisms as proofs. Ie there is only one correct answer and not opposite states.
But basically, defining everything as a single whole unit, is inherently problematic. As definition is a process of exclusion/segregation/discrimination: "A but not B", "up but not down", "within but not outside" etc.
Knowning that A and B are both existants that operate contrary to one another the full set is a full dichotomy: AB (dualism) or "A + B, as well as A in isolation (monism 1) and B in isolation (monism 2). The dualism contains polarised monisms.
Quoting universeness
Thank you I am enjoying it.
Analogy for this would be that perceiver 1 only accepts evidence 1 based on premise 1. Perceiver 2 only accepts evidence 2 based on premise 2. And so they argue with opposing logics, rationals, reasons and experiences.
Whilst the theistic concept I am pursuing would say that in both instances they have practised bias.
The truth would be someone in the middle encapsulating both bias about a common entity as a mutual relationship to one another from within the entity, using the entity as evidence or means for rejection of the entity.
Yes, and religion is an entertainment of the masses, as are politics and wars. We're feeding on electronic media, but we have no baleen to filter the nourishing plankton and krill out from among the plastic derbis.
Quoting Benj96
I don't think that's what we hunger for. I think entertainment is a junk-food, to fill a hole in our collective psyche; a substitute for meaningful achievement and community.
I think Marshall McLuhan was right - too bad only seven people in the world could understand his prose, and three of them didn't read English.
You typed:
Quoting Benj96
You can't posit 'it doesn't have,' because 'it is.' I am 3 dimensional, in what logical sense, could that mean I don't or a god might not have 'have' 3 dimensions?
Quoting Benj96
Sure but you seem to be suggesting A and not A at the same time, which is, as I'm sure you know, against the logic law of non-contradiction.
Your quote above, reads as contradictory to me. How can you not have a spatiotemporal dimension but BE a spatiotemporal dimension?
There is no difference between "has" and "is" when it is the entirety of existence. These linguistic distinctions break down, think about it, objects contained within a set "are" things that "have" properties.
The entire set is all things and is all properties or similarly has all things and has all properties. In either case it doesn't make any difference to the description. It's jist a hangup on choice of verb which is based on discrete objects not the entire universe.
It doesn't have a position in time or space for example: located on the andromeda galaxy at 3 billion years into the evolution of the universe, because it is at all times and locations simultaneously - as in a singular existant permeating all of existence - obviously, because it is all of existence.
Quoting universeness
Firstly, if contradictions don't exist, how can a law of non contradiction exist? And if they "shouldn't" exist, they do exist despite that desire. In either case contradictions exist. Insisting that they don't exist because of a law renders the premise of the law non existant. That is a contradiction in itself. Ironically.
But what I will say is contradictions exist based on premises. Change the premise and you change displace/remove the contradiction. For example the grandfather paradox is a contradiction based on the ability to time travel. If you change the premise for say "linear ttime doesn't exist outside of chronologic memorised experience" then it is impossible to travel through any physical external linear time as it doesn't exist. And thus the grandfather paradox is resolved. The contradiction may shift elsewhere or you may encounter new ones based on new premises.
And yes my theorised entity does include A and not A simultaneously it's called superposition. And thus allows for discordance, opposition, perspective, individuality of perception and belief in consciousness, observation, locality, relative motion etc.
It's like, having a picture of a 96 on the floor and not knowing what the original inscribers intended orientation is. In that way it is a superposition of truth in seeing 69 from one location, truth in seeing 96 from the opposite side, and truth is seeing the possibility for it to be either from the middle. And then arguing about "which is correct" which is absurd.
Theyre all correct within the confines of their premise (the location from which the numbers were observed). If you change the premise (angle of observation or "perspective" you change your observed logical deduction).
This is the premise for Duality.
Therefore it can be A) 69, B). 96, and AB both numbers simultaneously. Depending on what bias you want to take.
None of them individually equals the absolute truth, only a partial truth. All of them taken together as a dynamic, now that is a bit more fleshed out and balanced.
It's like saying I am Ben (a definition) and I have "Ben-ness" (the total sum of qualities pertaining to my definition).
So my theistic view runs that the oneness, or absolute fundamental entity, is and has its own quantities and qualities. It is space-time as a property (an observed phenomenon) and all individual localities and times as quantitatively measurable compartments we have assigned to it (seconds, minutes, meters, centimeters, Astronomical units etc).
What is the relationship between yourself and that deity?
The same as everyone else's I guess. I was born within it, I live it, I will die because of it, I breathe it, I urinate it into the toilet, I throw it in the dump, I cherish and love it, I hate it, I ask what's the point in it, I discuss it on tpf, I am deceived by it, it convinces me to think differently about it for better or for worse, it frequently eludes me, I forget it, and sometimes if I'm lucky, I relearn it, remember it - in some brief moment of clarity, swiping away some of the major dead end paths I was stumbling on. I think about it. Sometimes I don't think much about it at all. I battle it, and in other instances I find myself living harmoniously with it.
I share it, I keep it to myself. It's me, it's you and its every opinion, view and perspective, wrong, right, bizarre, immoral, virtuous. Fiction and fantasy, logic and science. Hard physical proof and intuition in equal part pertaining to its many different interpretations and academic focuses.
Ultimately, I try revel in the beautiful side of it. It's benevolent half. Because I believe that's the only side of it worth worshipping. All the good stuff, but I appreciate the fact that in order to grasp at the good, one must experience the bad and compare them to develop understanding. Thats free will. That dichotomy is mutual and neccesary - like yin and yang, like the protagonist and antithesis. The heroes and villains. A must to distinguish these two qualities with growth and gain of hopefully some concrete knowledge as to what the nature of this deity is. It is self aware, and it is not aware of itself at all, and everything in-between.
In essence everyone worships some aspect of its virtues: intelligence, beauty, power, authority, wisdom/knowledge, recognition, riches and abundance, comedy, creativity and imagination, skills/talents etc.
But we also confuse what is good about it. We live in its delusion-truthscape. We cannot unanimously pin that down and contradict ourselves and it repeatedly, and so we go to war and cause great conflicts over what aspects or parts of this deity we should value.
Does that answer your question? :)
Ye-e-es.... and uhu.
Yes, I got that. What I don't get is how what you describe qualifies as a deity, or whether something so big and round and wibbly-wobbly could have any point (I know, all points - which would still present as a continuous smooth surface). I recognize the concept and I don't perceive it, or the people who articulate it, as something to be wary of; but nor do I find any valances with which to engage.
If you are moving on with the topic, at any speed, please do; I'm still interested.
Thats entirely fair. I can understand where you're coming from. In essence, it is entirely up to the individual what credences or lackthereof they take from experience and the reality we all exist in.
The only reason I chose a Deity as the definition to which I applied all of these descriptors, is for the simple fact that part of it is conscious, and we as humans, appear to be the only thing we know of (so far ofc, I can't speak for a total lack of other life on other planets), that has cognitive capacity advanced enough to contemplate it.
So in essence, for now, it seems to have an aspect of personhood in the sense of "self" - multiple selves experiences it uniquely from their personal "I am".
And no other definition seems to quite encapsulate with such magnitude not only the objective universe, but also the ability to be aware within and from it and the seismic implications of everything, being, fundamentally connected and originating from the same mysterious thing.
But I don't blame other people for choosing other terms or seeing it as strictly a cold, dead, inanimate object of scientific exploration. Deity, non deity, universe, reality, existence, simulation, mother nature, the cosmos, for me the name is not so important, names are relatively arbitrary, call it "the great potato" for all I care haha, its the meaning, the relationships and interactions, that matter to me.
For me it's ultimately nameless, and at best I try to comprehend it to the maximum degree that my little human brain can manage with the limits of language and communication.
We all understand we could get coal cheaper if we didn't require miners to be provided helmets, but we don't just let the market mine coal however it wants for the cheapest price.
The question isn't whether we should regulate or not. The question is how much we should regulate, with the right saying less and left saying more, with the two being divided by a fuzzy ever shifting line. The market is ultimately the product of the government, with the government deciding how the market will be permitted to run.
I like that last one, but people might think I mean pumpkin, so I'll stick with The Whole Shebang.
Which could and could not care less and more about capitalism.
I agree. But political will is a reflection of the democratic will of the public in a healthy democracy at least. So really the only things that can be "forced" on people are those things they will actually abide by. And policies have failed before not because they werent implemented but because the mass of society persisted in ignoring it and thus it became "unenforceable". You can't fine or penalise the entire population.
So yes, regulation can and does work ofc. But we must time it for when conditions are ripe for its adoption.
In this case, its likely people would be happy to abide by enforced eco-consumption but it depends on the price gap between the alternative. You won't have much success for example insisting that people buy an eco product that is essential and also 5 times more expensive than the fossil fuel counterpart. If its a little bit more expensive it's doable.
So a lot of factors to consider
I like it. Haha. Especially because the bang aspect sort of references where it all supposedly began.
Yes but the set of 'everything,' does not include non-existents. So we are left with debate regarding what credibility level should be assigned to what people 'claim,' exists. You referred to yourself as a theist.
That label has accepted definition, such as "belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." The burden of justification for assigning high credence to such a proposal, is with the people who propose it as true, or even highly probable.
Quoting Benj96
If your god version IS all of existence, and science proposes all of existence started at the big bang, then why would it be wrong for you to refer to your god/theism as 'faith' that the big bang singularity once existed, as a very dense, very hot concentrate of energy, which was not conscious, not alive, not a mind, had no intent, could be described as a mindless 'spark,' etc. Why would that 'god' description not satisfy your need for theism? If you required a first cause mind with a plan or intent, then you are proposing an existent BEFORE the big bang singularity, WHICH WOULD put it outside of spacetime.
If you need that, then Roger Penrose' CCC can give you that, AGAIN, without the need for a mind with intent.
Any panpsychist style proposal that 'god' is an emerging totality of all existent, continuing, activity of conscious creatures in the universe, gives no credence whatsoever, to traditional theism or theosophism.
It is purely a prediction of a future totality or combinatorial.
Quoting Benj96
If x exists at an instant of time then it is not logical that x also does NOT exist at that same instant of time. That's the law of non-contradiction. A contradiction such as NOT x, can exist, but it cannot be TRUE at the same time that X is true. Superposition does not contend with the logic laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. Superposition relates to an averaging of all possible states, at the point of measuring. It's got nothing to do with the binary logic states of 'true' and 'false' at the same time instant. In a computer for example, a logic gate is either open or closed, it CANNOT be open and closed at the same instant in time. A theist would claim that god can make a logic gate be open AND closed at the same instant of time, but I assign 0 credence to that claim, how about you?
Quoting Benj96
This does not 'resolve' the grandfather paradox, it simply suggests that it can never happen.
There are many musings on the grandfather paradox such as:https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a41106690/grandfather-paradox-time-travel/
Quoting Benj96
This makes no logical sense to me at all. The order for reading numbers is preset! That preset is vital for the system to function correctly. If the setting is 'read left to right,' then the number IS 96. If the setting is 'read right to left,' then the number IS 69. Not following the preset rules for a system means your output will be incorrect. There is no 'bias' involved, you either pay attention to how a system actually works, or you are unable to use it correctly!
I applaud your scepticism and your wish to test the 'logic' of a given proposal, but you seem to have a need for that wow! factor, offered by supernatural posits, in the sense that you try to conflate them with the 'real' world, by suggesting stuff like god IS spaciotemporal dimensionality! :roll:
Quoting Benj96
So, your god is just the universe and everything in it! Why not just go with calling such 'the universe,' rather than god?
Why is this 'it' you keep referring to not 'the universe and everything in it that is not me?'
Or is this 'It' you refer to, something you perceive IS YOU?
Yeah, me too. The question remains, do you think your great potato is self-aware and created this universe and is used as one of the main justifications for the divine right of theists to consider themselves 'the chosen one,' and who consider the rest of us as ultimately dammed? This also allows many of them to feel unconcerned, when some use nasty systems, like capitalism and the money trick, to ensure they and those they care about, thrive, and the majority of those who live under such systems, do not. 'It's the way god wants it,' is a well used theistic thought, that informs the politics and actions of many, and certainly supports the idea that only the chosen of god, deserve salvation. :roll:
Do you agree that such a viewpoint is nefarious?
Do you think it's important not to give sustenance to such or even offer breath to its embers?
It's 2023, and we still have countries like Uganda, passing a law which is medieval in it's concept.
From Wiki:
"Christianity is the predominant religion in Uganda. According to the 2014 census, over 84 percent of the population was Christian, while about 14 percent of the population adhered to Islam, making it the largest minority religion. Anglicanism and Catholicism are the main Christian denominations in the country."
Hello again universeness. Sorry I haven't had time to reply as finishing up some work things before the weekend. I'll be brief now and address it in a bit more detail later.
Well, I'm not outside the universe. There is an externality to myself, as perceived by me, through which I observe "others, the world and the effects of my actions" . And I am part of the same external interactive environment for others, as perceived by them, from their point of awareness.
So none of us are outside this entity thus I don't really understand your above statement. Its not a case of everything else except for myself, or myself except for everything else. But both.
Quoting universeness
I think the "great potato" as you say is self aware to certain degrees. It's self aware in the sense of every living sentient thing that's ever existed thus far and their unique experiences that they had.
Furthermore, I think the way it is aware evolves and changes over time. What it is aware of/capable of doing and experiencing, where and for how long it is aware, how many individuals are aware, what senses it can use and what data/information it can collect and process to establish a sense of self - changes.
Lastly, to say it "created the universe" separates it from its creation. Which for me I think is a misleading description as it places a deity somehwere outside of "itself" (everything).
I think its nature is "Potential" (like potential to be energy/time basically) and so it has the potential to emerge into material phenomenon from something that is not "nothing" (nothing would have no abilities/potential to do anything).
Potential is distinct from true nothingness by its capabilities to be/do stuff.
So in essence it didn't create the universe, but rather potential became the universe, and that potential for change in quality and evolution persists to this day as a fundamental constant underlying physics and chemistry.
As for "chosen ones", I don't believe anyone is special or selected tbh. This is a relic of archaic religious interpretations. Favouring specific people or groups has only ever lead to dictatorships/fascism, uncontrolled egomaniacism, discrimination, inequality, corruption, war, assassinations etc. The whole concept of a chosen one or chosen group (like the israelites for example) seems ridiculous.
If we are all made of the same entity, we share in that fact. The only choice we have is what aspect of it do we wish to manifest in ourselves and our behaviour towards others.
I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to make distinctions between where my theistic views come from verses preconceived notions from outdated or misinterpreted religions which I usually get lobbed at me left right and center the moment I even cough at the word theism. Because fundamentally you don't need a religion to believe in something almost incomprehensible/mysterious/elusive.
And I don't ascribe to any religion outright/in entirety but I do think they all have considerable fundamental overlap and speak of the same thing with different focuses and different errors.
Deities have been used for millenia to make people afraid, manipulate them or exploit them.
Two groups of people are at fault here.
Group 1 are those that cite deities as having conferred them divine rights. These people are opportunistic, egotistical and often have the most self serving/selfish and sinister agendas.
Group 2 at fault are those that never bothered to question group 1. For whatever reason they didn't use their common sense, logic/reason to see through the thinly veiled efforts to gain the upper hand or manipulate. Group 2 sitting idle and complaining about their treatment never organised themselves sufficiently to deny group 1 rulership.
And eventually, the tides change and revolts, mutinies etc happen.
The only way to live in peace, is to educate ourselves. Education is not so much the collection of arbitrary facts but rather a state of mind, a way of thinking. Being able to be critical, measured, reasoning etc.
That's the only way a society avoids such inequalities.
So in conclusion: people using theism as a means to gain power or oppress others is unacceptable. But, it doesn't mean theism is bad in its own right.
In essence most bases of theistic values are wisdom and kindness. And this is something I strive for.
But sadly the anti-thesis using the same knowledge base is "intelligent/cunning exploitation". Which is why so many regions were corrupted by the flaws of people.
No, I believe instead that intentions are flawed. And if a theory happens on rare occasion to actually be well developed, fundamental, logical and accurate, it confers a lot of reasoning power.
I believe reasoning power combined with good intentions is divine.
Reasoning power combined with bad intentions is sadistic/ cruel.
Hence why religions (mass popularised philosophical theories of the unity of consciousness and the universe by origin - ie one's that explain both a logical and moral basis for what existence is and where it comes from) and war (misuse of such knowledge) virtually always come hand in hand.
Idiotic and deluded people can't do much harm regardless of their intentions. Because they lack efficiency, rationale and directive. Highly intelligent people on the other hand are the best and worst of us.
So if theistic theories are truly close to the universal "truth" they generate the best virtues and are misused and abused to commit the worst evils.
That is a common dichotomy in theism as a whole.
One man's meat is another man's poison, I suppose.
I believe all theism is ultimately pernicious, as at the most fundamental level, it steals (with your consent!!!) the credit for your own sense of wonderment and awe, regarding this existence and makes it subservient to an outside source, that is not OWNED by or is an integral part of, your OWN consciousness.
A person staring up at the sky at night, from a position, not affected by light pollution, deserves to credit the awe and wonder available, TO THEMSELVES. They have A BIRTHRIGHT to OWN that experience. It is FOLLY to apply some stupid, unwarranted, notion of humility, and become fearful of some external wrath, disapproving of any notion that ONLY A CREATURE LIKE YOU OR ME can perceive the universe in such a way. So, many choose to 'thank god' or some other BS theosophist notion of reality, for the wonder and awe you have been 'gifted.' :roll:
WE are OF the universe, yes, but it is not capable of demonstrating itself as a existent in the way our ancients anthropomorphise the Earth as 'Mother' or 'Gaia' etc. That stuff is just total BS and we should never project it on to the entire universe.
The universe cannot demonstrate intent, and purpose or love and caring or even hate, despair and a need to destroy.
Only lifeforms such as WE can demonstrate such ability, WE MUST OWN THIS and not give the best of what we are, to non-existents, due to our own primal fears regarding death and some notion of failure to measure up to the idiotic, inconsistent, morality guidelines, proposed in bullshit books of man made religious scripture.
@Vera Mont is not convinced that any aspect of humanity is truly free. I think that if all of us are incapable of owning what I think BELONGS to us, such as personal wonderment and awe, free thought, the right to think anew etc. Then she will continue to have the preponderance of evidence, supporting her claim. That just makes me pissed off at all humans who can't OWN themselves!
Sometimes I am guilty of such myself and become pissed off at myself soon after!
But then ..... I think anew!
Quoting Benj96
Quoting Benj96
Quoting Benj96
:clap:
Quoting Benj96
:down:
So humans (which do these things) are not part of the universe? We are something else removed from a the matter and energy around us?
I don't think anyone is trying to detract from your personal experience of awe and wonderment. I for one am certainly not. If anything I endorse it.
All I'm saying is that you are as much part of reality as a rock, a planet, space-time etc. And that whether we like it or not, the universe has to be conscious because we know we are and we exist within it, we are part of it.
So the universe gives rise to awareness of itself. Because you are aware, and you're made from it.
With all due respect Ben, you seem to be reading what I typed a little selectively.
You must have read:
Quoting universeness
So I establish my absolute agreement with that fact quite clearly. My point is that being part of does not meant you inhabit or influence the totality of.
Quoting Benj96
No, We are a much more significant part of the universe than a rock or a planet (specifically those with no life). ONLY WE represent intent and purpose, nothing, other than lifeforms, are capable of demonstrating such. We MUST OWN that.
When did I say that was the case
Why is OWNERSHIP such a big issue with you? We can be of the universe, of the Earth, of our ecosystem, of our species, of our community, of our family and partake of the nested properties of those whole(s) - which is a great deal more than each of us could be or have as a stand-alone unit. But we cannot extricate ourselves from the support structure and matrix that produced us, contains and sustains us; we cannot be stand-alone units. It's not chains that bind us; it's threads of silk, which we each spin as well.
When you suggest such as 'the universe IS god,' or 'god IS spatiotemporal dimensionality,' etc.
I'm surprised you ask, considering you posit 'nothing is truly free.'
If you can't take full ownership of your own existence. If you need to make some belief connection to some external intent and influence outside of 'other people and other lifeforms,' then you are not truly free BECAUSE, you (I don't mean you personally,) will always feel a subservience to that which you don't yet understand or know about.
There is much we don't know, I agree with that, but I also agree strongly with 'To boldy go .......' and not let BS dalliances with theism and theosophism, cow us in any way.
Janeway conquers a virtual manifestation of fear:
Fear exists to be conquered! Theism, theosophism, fear of death, fear of the unknown, will be conquered by humans eventually, imo.
You can pretend to be self-generated, I suppose. I'm aware that I owe my birth to all life as it evolved before me, and to my parents and the society that nurtured me as a helpless infant. I still owe my continued existence to the world that provides me air, water, food and shelter. I have no way to assess the exact amount of influence on my character and circumstances of each encounter, experience, book, conversation, each emotional connection with another being, but I acknowledge their influence - and mine on them.
Not belief and not outside of "them". Where in post did you find either of those concepts?
I mean them, what I said: other people, other life forms, the earth, the universe.
That's what I've been saying: I never can be "truly free", until I'm dead.
Why? Connection and interdependence are not subservient, and I understand the world in which I belong about as well as I need to. I can never know or understand everything, which doesn't particularly bother me.
(Janeway was sometimes a damn fool. Feisty... but come on, In for a penny, in for a pound is a gambler's motto!)
Quoting universeness
Fine. Good luck to them!
Not so much in your posts, but in the posts of many others. We have mostly common ground here.
Quoting Vera Mont
We have no common ground here, for the reasons I have already posted.
Quoting Vera Mont
Good, it's doesn't bother me either, in fact it offers me enhanced purpose.
Quoting Vera Mont
You are subservient to such, if like @benj96, you perceive or assign high credence, to some kind of already existent, omnipresent, self-aware, force/entity that may have been involved in our origins.
Quoting Vera Mont
So what? So do the majority of intelligent/educated people. I don't think YOU are particularly hampered by theism, theosophism or woo woo proposals. My beef with you is ONLY on your pessimism, and your annoying, incorrect suggestion, that no aspect of human consciousness is truly free.
Are you a fully cooked determinist? Do you think the universe is totally deterministic?
Is any event in the universe truly random in your opinion?
How about quantum fluctuations?
Quoting Vera Mont
The target for the clip I posted was 'fear,' and how I think humans should deal with it.
I was not trying to present the Star Trek character Janeway for a general critique.
Quoting Vera Mont
A pity you can't find the will to type something like, "Good stuff, I support that approach to dealing with 'fear,' completely."
As I read back some of my reply's to you Ben, I noticed that I often type 'that' instead of 'then,' in a few sentences. I edited the errors, but It's one that I keep making :rage:
It's a strange one, it's not as if the 't' is next to the 'n' on the keyboard :blush:
I have on several threads expressly said: There may, for all I know, be a Universal Consciousness, or Allness, or Creative Force or Whatever and people can call that God or the Great Pumpkin or anything they like, but if It doesn't care about you and you can't influence It, it's irrelevant, meaningless. I don't see how you can be subservient to something that makes no rules and requires nothing from you.
Quoting universeness
It was a freebie, from SF fan to another. So is this: I mostly liked her, but she made some emotional decisions, when caution would have been a better guide than reliance on faith.
Quoting universeness
Sorry. You be free you and I be cowardly me.
Quoting universeness
Being part of a totality doesn't mean you influence the totality. Sure. I never pertained to the idea that this is the case.
At most you influence only what falls within your sphere of influence - friends, family, the people you encounter in life, the books or ideas you develop, the career you work in etc.
Of course a human can't influence anything in the andromeda galaxy. It's too far out of reach. At most we can influence our collective understanding of the universe from a human perspective.
As for habitation. You can inhabit the totality. That's all we inhabit. We don't exist outside of thr universe. We are made from it, we live in it, and we abide by its laws and principles whether we like it or not. Even when we die, we don't disappear (energetically and materially speaking). No part of us becomes mere nothingness, other than perhaps our identity and perhaps our conscious awareness as a human that once lived. Our bodies and their energy/content is not going anywhere, they are merely mixed back into mother nature's ecosystem. Reuse, recycle.
I don't fully understand the point you're trying to make. Some elab would help here.
Haha its all g universeness. Probably it didn't detract from what you were articulating much. And if you feel it did or I mistunderstood you based on that minor error pleas highlight where and ill have a re-read.
:lol: :rofl: I even managed to f*** up my correction above!!!! :scream:
I meant I often type 'that' instead of 'than' !!!!!!!
No, I am sure you garnished the main points I was trying to make, well enough, amongst my f***** up 'that' and 'than' confusions.
When you consider such (if you believe such exists,) to be superior to yourself, in every way. This is how theists feel about their gods.
Quoting Vera Mont
Sure, but I will continue to moan at you about it.
I am typing against the panpsychist/pantheistic flavour of theism, you seem to give a high credence to.
Except I didn't, don't and won't.
As to the moaning, I've heard louder.
I'm very cautious around the word panpsychism.
I not so sure it makes sense to say the entirety of the universe is conscious or aware. More that the universe is capable of consciousness through specific systems (so far organic life, perhaps soon AI) and that these systems are a natural evolution of the laws and principles underlying physics and chemistry and the probabilities and thus possibilities they create in interaction with one another.
Because self and thus a sense of it requires an exterior world for which to perceive. How can the universe as a unit/whole have an external world to develop sense of self, identity etc.
For me anything conscious/aware, must be a thing with temporospatial location, it's surroundings feed it with input , it processes them and then generates output.
If the universe is the input and the processing and storage database/ machine and the output all at the same time, there's no reference point for anything. Input and output in this sense is meaningless because their is no centralised point or "holder of mind".
For example where would this consciousness exist in time and thus have an awareness of past, present and future. Where would it be in space and thus have a sense of location, self/indetity with respect to an environment.
If you're citing me as a panpsychist I want to be very clear that for me it's the ability to become aware that permeates the universe, and not the state of being aware. Certain systems must be employed: first matter must be used to store info, empty space can't be structured into any form of solid lasting code/memory.
Also there has to be some sort of condensation of highly reactive systems into something consistent and stable so that the consciousness it generates has any sense of its on permanence of self and has enough sensitivity (reactivity) to changes in its environment that it can perceive the flow of time with reference to its stable, stored and most importantly "confined" memory base.
So the universe has the potential for awareness. And part of it is indeed aware but I wouldn't say all of it. Consciousness is for me the property of a specific construction or arrangement of energy/matter and the information they carry.
You can convert the energy and mass in food, water, oxygen for example into the matter (neurons) and energy (neuronal firings) required to have conscious awareness. But this doesn't mean that the energy/matter when in the form of food, water and oxygen is in its own right conscious.
Yeah, I know. Not every sentence I post to you, directly refers to opinions about you personally Vera.
Many are to emphasis points regarding the viewpoints of other posters. I already thought I had made my specific beef with you quite clear. I mainly agree with the majority of your viewpoints. We differ in that I don't suffer from the level of pessimism that is contained in some of your posts and I disagree with you that 'no aspect of human beings is fully free.'
Quoting Vera Mont
I hope you shouted back!
Everything in your last post, seems perfectly valid and rational to me, so where in the analysis you just offered, do you find a rational space, to label yourself a theist????
Whispering sometimes gets more attention.
What? AH CANNY HEAR YE VERA!!!!
Because, simply put, I cannot conceive of any idea greater than the capabilities of the universe to not only be an objectively measurable, elegant, objective and consistently rational/logical subject of investigation, but at the same time it can birth all the subjectivity, meaning, feels, uniqueness, irrationalities, deceits, misconceptions, and profound nuances of experience that comes with being conscious.
The universe is able to be aware. I find that exceedingly profound. Its not only dead, inanimate and aimless happenings, a simple automaton of chemical and energetic interactions, but also the entirety of imagination, creativity, mystery, wonder, awe, curiosity, sensuality, love, suffering, anguish. There is a certain element of "magic" - not literally ofc, but rather figuratively; in the wealth of dynamics and abilities it is able to manifest.
The full shebang
It contemplates itself.
Scientific explanations and paradigms have ultimately fallen short so far in explaining the link between inanimate dead mechanistic processes and the living breathing sensation feeling state that is "living".
So my unifying concept of the observer and observed sourced from the same basic fundamental, is nothing less than the greatest depth of innate intelligence, pure potential and capability.
For me the word "God" satisfies both the origin of consciousness or "I- hood" , as well as the environment in which "I" 's exist as unique individual and aware beings.
If science offered a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, over the explanatory ability of Duality, then I would consider another word instead of God. However I don't think science can fully elucidate this due to its limitations as a confined tool/instrument - restricted by its objective basis (irreconcilable with subjectivity - its opposite) and that is where philosophy and spirituality fill the gaps.
But for now thats what I settled on. As I said at the beginning of our discussion, my choice of definition need not encroach or detract from others unique views.
I am but one person - one personal viewpoint. I'm here to explain my choice of definition, to discuss it, to posit it as something hopefully rational to others, to distinguish it from previous notions of other theisms that came before it.
But at the end of the day, we are all free to approach reality however we see fit based on our understanding. And I have little issue with other people's choices.
Everything has truth in it. A word like "God" or "universe" is not actually that important to me. For me it's the significance of an ultimate fundamental principle that gives rise to the multitude of existants, that I'm fascinated with. Words are word. The meaning, logic and relationships underlying words on the other hand, goes much deeper, and is not so restricted.
Definitions are multiplicitous. Each one confines the idea by different parameters (assumptions, presumptions, biases, restraints).
My sole goal, is the unravel the assumptions by integrating them into a mutual coherent dynamic, where apparent contradictions can be resolved simply by re-framing the perspective, and dissolving the emerging conflict.
But I'm a very playful, imaginative and intuitive person, and I find a purely physicalist view of the universe underwhelming, disenchanting and just basically lacking. It explains a lot. For sure. But not enough.
I want it all.
That makes it an entity, or even The Entity, but not a deity in any conventional sense. Redefining any word to mean "whatever I imagine it means" may work inside your head, in your dream-log, in poetry, but it doesn't stand up that well in communicating your ideas to another person who speaks a known language and has access only to definitions of its words as conceived by other speakers of that language.
Quoting Benj96
Ironically, I think "universeness" comes closer to conveying that, but afaik, he hasn't claimed divinity.
I don't think you can call the above quote, 'simply put.'
Your conception of the universe is forgivably romantic/dramatic, but when you boil it down, it seems to me, that all you say above, is that you think that its valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. Humans demonstrate all the properties you mention above and can 'birth' entities that can do the same, and we are OF the universe. It's the same old stuff! There are those who think life exists ON planet Earth, and there are those who project this into musing that the Earth itself, is a living entity. I am in the former category and I think you are in the latter.
Quoting Benj96
So you call the universe god, and assign it 'magical' status. I find that romantic, but unhelpful.
@180 Proof, accuses me of having a similar approach in my thoughts about how humans may have a very positive relationship with a future ASI, so, I am not suggesting you are doing any great harm here. But I do think you are letting theism and its traditional invocations of the supernatural woo woo, in by a side door. Which is not the case, in my ruminations, regarding a future ASI.
Quoting Benj96
Well, I hope future science provides you with such a path towards your personal salvation from theism.
Hallelujah brother!!
Quoting Benj96
That's all fine Ben, but you also have to be responsible for what you type, say and do.
The theists will be grateful to you for supporting their words and their concepts. You have to decide if that is damaging to the future of our species or not. Damaging to our ability to totally free ourselves from restrictive woo woo notions.
I discussed this topic with Bing Chat recently. Here:
[hide="Reveal"]Me: Wait. People really think we live in a free market capitalism instead of a consumer capitalism? The way I see it, consumer capitalism isn't just for the advantage of sellers. People also pay taxes over the goods they get, the money they make to get those goods etc. The way taxes work in modern society is through the fuel of consumer capital, not through some set of free market dynamics.
Bing Chat: [i]I understand your point of view. It seems that you are questioning the validity of the distinction between free market capitalism and consumer capitalism. You are suggesting that consumer capitalism is not just a manipulation of consumer demand, but also a way of generating revenue for the government through taxation.
According to Investopedia, free market capitalism is an economic system that focuses on the exchange of wealth or goods and services, with little to no government intervention or regulation. Capitalism, on the other hand, is an economic system that focuses on the creation of wealth and ownership of capital and factors of production by private individuals or businesses.
However, as you pointed out, most countries do not have a pure free market system or a pure capitalist system. They have mixed economies that combine elements of both systems, such as state oversight, taxation, and regulations. Some countries may lean more towards one system or another, depending on their political and economic goals and values.
Consumer capitalism, according to Wikipedia, is a theoretical condition that suggests a departure from free market capitalism and an adverse effect on society in general. It implies that consumer demand is manipulated by mass-marketing techniques to the advantage of sellers and other non-business entities, such as governments, religions, the military, etc.
However, some sources may disagree with this definition or perspective. For example, Ask Any Difference states that consumerism is based on the consumer market and does not allow private ownership of the company. Enlightio states that consumerism is a cultural phenomenon that encourages excessive consumption and materialism.
So, it seems that there is no clear consensus on what consumer capitalism means or how it differs from free market capitalism. It may depend on how one defines capitalism, consumerism, and the role of the government in the economy. It may also depend on how one evaluates the benefits and drawbacks of each system for society as a whole.
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with any of these definitions or perspectives?[/i]
Me: The way I see it, the interests of the state, industrial sector, financial sector and commercial sector are all alligned in the motive of profit, which they harvest from the consumer flock. I believe these interests are in direct conflict with any real solution to the global warming issue
Bing Chat: [i]I see. You have a very critical view of consumer capitalism and its impact on the environment. You seem to think that the profit motive of the various sectors of the economy is incompatible with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change.
Can you tell me more about why you think that? Do you have any evidence or examples to support your claim?[/i]
Me: You can see it happening if you pay attention. Lobby groups alligned with big buisness trying to limit or even overturn environmental laws, just to make a buck, and government officials proudly going along with it, even in light of the rising impact of global heating
Bing Chat: [i]Thank you for sharing your perspective. You have given some examples of how lobby groups aligned with big business try to limit or overturn environmental laws, and how government officials go along with it. You seem to be very concerned about the rising impact of global heating.
I did some web searches and found some articles that support your claim. For example, The Guardian reported that the American Petroleum Institute, a powerful US lobby group that receives millions from oil companies, has been working behind the scenes to block climate action. Another article by DW revealed that lobbyists for oil giant ExxonMobil told undercover reporters that the company was supporting a carbon tax in order to stall more serious carbon pollution cuts. A third article by The Guardian also showed that top oil firms have been spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies.
These articles suggest that there is a strong and influential opposition to climate action from the fossil fuel industry and its allies. They also suggest that these actors have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of consumer capitalism and its reliance on fossil fuels.
However, there may be other factors or perspectives to consider as well. For example, some countries or regions may have different levels of dependence on fossil fuels, or different capacities or willingness to transition to renewable energy sources. Some businesses or governments may also be taking steps to reduce their emissions or invest in green technologies, even if they are not enough or fast enough. Some consumers or citizens may also be demanding more action or accountability from their leaders or corporations, or changing their own behaviors or lifestyles.[/i][/hide]
Oh, btw. Avocado pits can be used as a resource for the production of vegetable oil. Just sayin'.
Yes. Not in a conventional sense correct.
I would hate to think of myself as conventional haha. I like to push boundaries elsewhere - to explore the unconventional.
The more abstract a concept is, the less we collectively agree on the definition.
Asking a collection of people to describe a definition for "chair" is much easier than asking them to describe "beauty" or "existence" for example.
Sure we have definitions for them in dictionaries. Standardised general use. But this isn't very useful to the deeper inquiries of philosophy which are often personal, existential or pursuing fundamental truths.
What is beauty to you Vera? As I'm sure again, there is certainly discrepancies between my definition of beauty and yours. Just as my definition for what a God might he/ought to be has contradictions with yours.
In essence most if not all words we use in common language have nuanced differences, idiosyncrasies and colloquial/environmenal influences with respect to different individuals. That's because we all have a different understanding, relationship and experientially derived meaning applied to said words.
So I don't really see what the issue is. This is language, individualism and the restrictions of communication between two unique minds.
What I define as a "God" may not satisfy your definition of it. And it may never satisfy that definition. Or it may instead satisfy alternative definitions in your mind like "Entity".
So with that in mind, what was the intent you had with he above? Ought I use the term entity instead of deity?
Essentially, for me to truly define the term, like any term, as I understand them, I must describe it in respect to every inquiry or line of questioning you can throw at it. Every reason, rationality, logic that you may find and follow that might contradict what I believe or highlight flaws.
And we could be here for months or years, the same amount of time it took me perhaps to develop my theistic definition in the first place.
Not only that, but you may not accept my explanations as satisfactory for whatever reason: logical, moral, personal, practical etc
Hence, Theology isn't "knowing" the definition for deities. It's the process of trying to find one though discussion, philophising, reasoning, refining and reformulation.
People will always disagree with my definitions for things if they define it differently themselves. Obvious.
I'm fine with that. Theres no obligation to convince them, nor obligation to submit to their determinations. Only healthy discussion and free will.
"An example of how supply and demand, capitalism and greed corrupt eco ventures, plus what is God?"
This all seems very imposing. As in you imposing your own personal dislike of theism on someone who finds it interesting, curious.
I don't think I need to be saved from anything. If you do, despite me being happy doing what I do, then perhaps it's a case of accepting other people enjoy things you do not for reasons you may not know.
Quoting universeness
To know exactly what notions are restrictive and woo woo from those that are not would require you to have a full, exacting, precise/accurate understanding of the entirety of reality as it truly is.
To make such a determination between all delusions (woo woo) from reality. You must know all of reality therefore all delusions? No? Is that not a logical inference?
I woukd imagine such a person would be pretty famous for that level of insight/discovery. Einstein level.
Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that you're not that above case. So I would suggest a healthy openmindedness to other people's ideas and explanations over implying you know with 100% certainty all that is "woo woo".
Quoting universeness
I don't care if they are or not. Because it's likely my theistic view won't accord with theirs. And we would be having the same existential arguments that have been going on for millenia.
Quoting universeness
I believe everyone is responsible for their own actions. Which means one person's actions can't be the entire destruction of the species.
Just as in the case of a nuke, its the person who presses the button, plus everyone that didn't stop them, those who didn't raise them better, those who lied for them, those who designed the system, the engineers that made the bomb, the coders that programmed it. A whole myriad of people are culpable for any one outcome in life.
All I offer is my views on the universe and its moral or logical aspects as best as I can understand them, and on "my" theology. Not general theology. It's just a categorical think.
All I offer what I belive personally to be useful, interesting or a perhaps just a curious alternative information that may be helpful to someone. At best: knowledge. At worst, just some random guy crapping on about nonsense on tpf.
My intentions are good in life. And sometimes I make mistakes. That is what I'm responsible for.
How people might misquote me, misinterpret me, or use any aspects of what I say against me or against others, or for self interest or personal gain, to exploit etc is their choice and they have to love with their decisions.
There is a few things I want to highlight on this. Which I will do from 2 separate approaches in 2 separate responses.
Firstly, are humans one set/group of existants in the universe? Yes, right? Then we are part of the universe, the whole.
Thus, is it logical to anthropomorphise at the very least that set/portion of the universe? Yes. Because we are "anthropos" (humans). Obviously. Its self clarifying/evident in this instance.
People that don't anthropomorphise other people (don't ascribe human expectations, characteristics and behaviours to other people) are either solipsist - believing no one else is truly real, has actual emotions, that they are fake or simulations. Or they are psychopathic - and don't believe anyone else's experiences, feelings and emotions are valid or warrant the same esteem as their own. In essence they don't anthropomorphise anthropos (people). They lack empathy.
However, that aside, the Oxford dictionary definition of anthropomorphism is such: "The representation of Gods, or nature, or non-human animals, as having human form, or as having human thoughts and intentions."
Here we have a contradiction in the inclusion of "nature". Humans are natural. Organic. From nature. Humans are a part of nature. So to anthropomorphise some aspects of nature is logical.
As for "non-human" animals, we can suggest that every similarity to humans behaviour, needs and natural characteristics are "anthropomorphic".
For example: like animals; we have dna, cells, tissues, organs. We live and die. Behaviourally, we compete, we attack and defend, we reproduce, we nurse/care for offspring, we exhibit common basic emotions and instincts like fear, aggression, playfulness, competition, curiosity, communication. We could consider these "anthropomorphic traits" of other animals, some of which are even applicable to plants, bacteria, fungi etc.
The elements of nature that confer "living status" are shared by all living things.
As for "Gods". They are inherently human concepts. As far as we know anyways. I've never been another animal so I can't claim information about the thought content of other animals.
So "Gods" are inherently anthropomorphic because they're a consequence/product of human experience.
So it seems the Oxford dictionary standard definition of "anthropomorphism" seems flawed or open to debate.
Let's take it from a second approach now. Being human means being biased. Biased by the mere fact that we are evolved to sense, experience and perceive reality in the uniquely human way. We cant sense the things other animals can sense: for example echolocation in bats and dolphins.
So our relationship to the universe is a human-centric one. In that sense there is an element of anthropomorphising in all assumptions, critical thinking, exploration and ideas we generate about reality as humans, with human perception.
Science elucidates consistencies, and subsequent predictabilities. That's all it can do. The veracity of any scientific endeavour is based on repeatability of measurement. Standardisation.
In that way we try to reduce/minimise or ideally eliminate the anthropotic component - the degree to which we anthropomorphise the universe. We try not to fall into the trap of human-centric measurement but rather universal principles that are constant, everywhere, all the time, for everything.
However, even science isn't removed from human assumptions about reality. We have memory, thus we perceive linear chronological time. Thus we count it in a linear fashion: seconds, minutes, hours, the calendar, years, decades millenia etc.
We use this standard in science all the time. Many formulas include linear time as a component. For example speed or velocity: measured in meters/second.
But is a second natural? Is innate to nature. Or arbitrary - a human/artificial construction, something we applied to nature to standardise what we observe? Is the second an anthropomorphism derived solely from our human experience of reality that we project onto all physical processes?
In conclusion, as a response to you saying that I think it's valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. Yes. I do. I think it's logical in the capacity of human logic.
I'm not saying the entire universe has human qualities. I'm saying that humans have universal qualities, and that humans only understand the universe "self-referentially", from the "human condition".
So of course we anthropomorphise our investigations. What else could we do. We can't measure/observe the universe from the conscious experience of a dog or from the state of being a rock.
While science does away with individual variations in perception in pursuit of something objective, spirituality, philosophy, art, poetry, imagination - they explore reality without confining themselves to consistency. As we can acknowledge some phenomenon in existence are not repeatable, but singular and unique expressions.
I hope this clarifies my position on anthropomorphising our experience of reality as an anthropos would.
It's not my intention for you to feel 'put upon' by my viewpoints, but I am more concerned with what is true, than I am about the individual disgruntled feelings of my interlocuters.
Quoting Benj96
Is that not what we both seek? We must continue our asymptotic approach to omniscience! Do you not agree?
Quoting Benj96
I would say you remain on solid ground on that one and there is no precarious limb support involved.
You are just offering me YOUR opinion on MY level of open mindedness which is of limited value to our exchange but, fair enough. I note your opinion on that, for what it's worth.
Quoting Benj96
Let's hope that there are many folks around Putin who agree with you and will prevent him being the person you describe.
Quoting Benj96
Most of us do the same but don't underestimate the importance of such old adages as 'out of little acorns big oak trees grow' or 'little snow drops can become a deadly avalanche.' Don't underestimate your little snow drop contributions. Such can tip a balance or cause a melting point to be reached for good or bad.
Quoting Benj96
Yeah but don't conflate the parts with the whole. YOU are not your leg, in fact you can continue without it and remain alive and conscious. Earth contains life that is conscious/self aware, that does not make the Earth alive and conscious/self-aware. Venus is very active, do you consider it conscious/self-aware?
Why do you choose to project the consciousness/self-awareness of part of the universe, onto the whole of the universe, based on the current, very limited evidence, that such a projection is warranted? This is one of my interests. What convinces intelligent people, to decide to ascribe high credence, to a particular proposal, when the evidence is quite weak.
Different sources will define a label in nuanced ways. I am not too concerned about the nuances applied to the term 'anthropomorphise,' for the purposes of our current exchange on this thread.
Correct, but we also seek principles which are locally true, even only locally true, under a given set of circumstances.
Quoting Benj96
Mathematic is a tool, there is no anthropomorphism in maths that I can perceive.
Carlo Rovelli offers detailed discussion on the notion of time as humans perceive it and use it. I have not heard him complain, that we anthropomorphise time. I have heard him challenge our classical notions of time, in quite coherent ways, but his argument do not have any significant anthropomorphic aspect, that I can perceive.
Quoting Benj96
Fair enough. Your position is clear. I continue to think that your position is a very weak one, based on what I have already typed in my responses to you. It's very rare, that a TPF member causes another TPF member to significantly, change one or more of their fundamental views. BUT, it is good nonetheless, to regularly take measurements of what others think about 'the big questions.'
However, the views of your "disgruntled" interlocutors are part of the truth of what is happening in reality.
Quoting universeness
Yes, we must consider as many possibilities and explanations as we can and develop a paradigm that can explain them in a unifying way.
Quoting universeness
This is true. You're wisdom has afforded a valid highlighting of that fact.
There is a great dilemma here: sometimes the best intentions butterfly effect into the most dire of consequences. We must ask ourselves, which prevails - the positive initial intention, or the calamitous fall out of its use by others, and thus finally, who then, is at fault? Ought we hold the originator responsible despite their good will, or those that propagated the transformation into something destructive.
For example, is the scientist who describes nuclear fission and its capabilities responsible for the use of this knowledge to create nuclear bombs? Should they have said nothing to avoid such abuse? Or is knowledge by itself innocent of its applications?
Quoting universeness
Thats fair. Nor do I. I think some flexibility on definition is often helpful. Sometimes defining every discrete individual aspect of soemthing can detract from the general flow of sentiments in communication.
Quoting universeness
I don't ascribe human level complex consciousness to the whole universe. That is uniquely ours and part of the definition of humanity. I ascribe the ability to form consciousness in the first place and for consciousness to evolve in complexity and ability to the universe as a whole.
Whatever the singular fundamental principle is, the "first mover", the ultimate existant that generates all subsequent qualities of reality, must have had the capability to generate consciousness from the beginning, or else it would not have occurred. This is in a way I guess a deterministic feature of the "origin/cause of all effects"
I believe existence requires a "sense of" existence mutually. A universe without consciousness is one that never was, isn't, nor ever will be, as it is unappreciated, undetectable, unprovable, no trace of evidence of its existence as evidence is tied to the experiencer.
In essence its as though it never existed at all. What would ever "know" of it. What would ever "happen" in such a universe.
This is part of the reason I believe the capacity for consciousness is inbuilt into the basic principles of physics. And is where I derive my dualist ethos from.
If you dont believe consciousness is fundamental, at what point in time in the evolution of the universe, life and then humans, do you ascribe the beginning of consciousness? Because it exists, and thus it must have some pre-defined point in time in which it occurred.
Yes very true. Biology, Sociology, geography or political science would all be good academic disciplines to cite here.
We only know of human society, earth geography, human history and politics for now. No aliens known so far. So these are locally valid subject which we couldn't outright apply to the whole universe. We can certainly aspects of each are probably quite aplicable across the board. For example plate tectonics in geography, this is based on physics and chemistry and could be applied to other planets and alien societies with reasonable confidence.
Quoting universeness
Well I would counter with positing what is "time" to an entity that exists eternally and did not begin nor end at any given time. How would such an existant perceive time. My view is that it would be unable to. Another reason why I don't think the universe is conscious - least not in the way humans are.
The second is measurable to the human lifespan and rate of existence. If you expand the concept of existence of something to billions of years, seconds are very much more negligible.
If we were bacteria living our entire lives in 20 minutes, a second would be more significant. If we were quantum particles appearing and disappearing in nanoseconds, a second has even greater significance, it is akin to a millenium.
Thus a second is relative to the "existant" in questions. But why is the second the length in duration that it is. This duration is arbitrary. The second could just as easily be 5 hours long or 30 pento seconds long. In essence it's arbitrary. It doesn't matter what standard of the passage of time we take, physical formulas will still operate in the same relationships to one another.
The numbers would be different but their relationship/proportion to eachother would be the same.
Quoting universeness
I agree.
I enjoy pushing boundaries and confronting very basic and taken-for-granted assumptions.
Everything is under the duress of intense interrogation, speculation and questioning. We must constantly challenge our assumptions to navigate the paradoxes and contradictions they otherwise naturally lead to.
I hope you enjoy our discussions, and feel like there's something of value, or at least something novel/ different to consider from them.
If I have invoked/identified new trains of thought or pursuits of reasoning/possibilities to pursue for someone else then I am exceptionally happy.
The irony here is that M.A.D may be the only reason the world is not currently, fully involved in WW 3.
Disagreement over Serbia started WW 1, Hitlers invasion of Poland was the final act that caused WW 2.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine has the same 'impetus,' towards a WW 3. I think M.A.D is the main threat that has stopped it for now.
Quoting Benj96
That IS the position of most/many panpsychists/dualists. I currently assign high credence to the proposal that consciousness is what the brain does and is a result of combinatorial brain processes.
A car is an empty shell without it's engine. It's engine's ability only 'emerges' from it acting as a combinatorial. It's parts have no inherent 'fundamental' of the overall engine's function in combination. Each parts presence and independent function is required but they don't all contribute a set of common, quantisable, fundamentals to the overall function of the car.
The standard model, QFT and quantum fluctuations can describe all matter/energy/forces (except gravity), in the universe. I find the proposal that there is a fundamental quanta that as a combinatorial, with other fundamentals (eg baryons, leptons, etc), produces human consciousness. The human brain DOES come from such fundamentals as quarks and electrons etc but I think the evidence that some other 'sprinkling' of a yet unknown fundamental, as the 'vital missing spark' for human consciousness, remains very weak.
It's not impossible but, as I have typed many times, the best I can do, based on the current evidence for panpsychism or/and dualism is a small raise, of a single eyebrow of interest.
I agree.
However, if consciousness is what the brain does, what "does" the brain? And what does the thing that does the brain, and what does the thing that does the thing that does the brain and so on.
It's like an infinite regress of processes accumulating into having a body, then having a body with a brain, and then having a sophisticated level of consciousness.
Just as hydrogen and oxygen lead to the emergent properties of water. Properties that neither oxygen nor hydrogen have by themselves.
These emergent properties are interactions between lower level properties. And those again are products of even lower level properties. Eventually we would expect the to be a final, base level property which has the capability to emerge into all more superficial properties.
This is what I'm saying. The capability for consciousness always existed, but the existence of consciousness didn't neccesarily exist, only the foundation, the capability for its future emergence.
I feel there is some clearing up to do. I am very much in agreement with you. I'm Inclined to believe that animal consciousness and human consciousness is a process of refinement of previous processes which eventually reduce to physics and quantum physics. I don't believe there is any inexplicable "woo woo" unaccountable factor that magically sparks consciousness.
I think consciousness is emergent. But it is the properties it gains from emergence that separates it from mechanistic physics and allows for subjectivity etc.
But what my whole underlying theory relies on is the omni-potential of energy to do so. A spectacular dynamism where energy can be non conscious energetic reactions or those that confer a state of object permanence and its conscious experiential states built on top of that stability.
In essence, consciousness was always a capability of energy but only defined by very specific routes of evolution - namely evolution into living systems with agency and independence.
Thats why I use the term God - that quality of energy to become both the general universe and the sentient occupants that appreciate/are aware of it. It is the perceiver and the perceived.
And birth is the grand integrator of the inanimate into the animate, death is the grand integrator of the animate back into the inanimate.
Dualism then is the ability of energy to manifest as either objects or subjects.
The term "God" in this case is not a sentient being nor a non sentient principle of physics, but rather "pure" "raw" potential to be either. "Becomingness". Potency in all respects.
We can call it a foundational entity. Or a foundational concept, or a underlying rule of existence. But none of these variations in definition detract from what has ultimately occurred - life. And contemplation of said life's place in the cosmos. And acknowledgement that life is built out of the inanimate. And the distinction between the two is profound.
Sure, but that's a Kalam style regression back to a first cause placeholder such as a big band singularity.
This is where we differ. I think there is no evidence that consciousness goes back further than abiogenysis. Not even back that far actually. When did the first set of self-aware, conscious creatures arise? I don't know but I like this top 10 list from the site Psychology Today:
Hypotheses About the Origins of Consciousness
1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years ago (panpsychism).
3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years ago (Reber).
4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years ago.
5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of neurons, around 580 million years ago.
6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) around 560 million years ago.
7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions of neurons, around 200 million years ago.
8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3,000 years ago (Julian Jaynes).
10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).
I currently favour number 5/6.
Interesting. What number of neurons satisfies a conscious state for you?
For me awareness is a gradual amplifying process.
Our awareness of things is a direct result of our scientific/technologic progress that elucidates new knowledge/awareness to absorb/adapt to.
For example, people 300 years ago were not aware of infectious diseases as a transmittable process. So they believed at best guess in malevolent spirits, curses and black magic that befell their family and friends to fill in the gaps.
Emotion and feels have stayed the same for most of our history. Anger, fear, anxiety, joy. These conscious facets are innate to being human.
However, knowledge has advanced steadily. And thus awareness of the true nature of the universe is slowly and surely coming into focus. Thus knowledge has shaped our conscious awareness - how we relate to the world.
The knowledge of even the most un-informed, uneducated of us today is still far more advanced than that of people 2,000 years ago.
I believe that evolution is the process of advancement of sentience. And competition is the pressure used to propagate new behaviours/adaptations based on simple probability/mathematics.
I think the way you are framing your musings, on the source of consciousness, is potentially very problematic, considering the current viewpoint range, of a typical societal cross-section (audience), that would represent humanity. You are trying to mix oil, water, gas and solid imo. Theism, science, panpsychism, dualism, don't have the common ground you suggest imo.
I think you'll find, they must all have a common basis fundamentally.
They are independent existants now. For sure. I agree in this respect. Categorically.
They are discrete, defined and restricted categories of human endeavour. Separated by their distinct paradigms and characteristics.
But that wasn't always the case. Alchemy for example = chemistry and "magic" or "mysticism". Now we have chemistry as a defined entity and spirituality or mysticism as another completely separate entity. Unrelated. Both are distinct.
But they weren't always like that. They diverged, as disciplines, from Alchemy.
Water, oil, gas and solids, ultimately, at the most basic level are all unified. They are all matter. They all obey physics. And physics can point exactly to the location of their divergence from one another.
In essence, nothing is ultimately discrete. Everything is a fluid spectrum.
There is overlap and interaction between everything. How we separate them into discrete, neat and classified groups based on predefined parameters/restrictions is a product of our need to isolate components (define).
The categorisation of nature into discrete interacting groups is how we gain knowledge of their individual behaviors and interactions, but it is also artificial.
Every grouping we make and impose on nature is an artificial construct based on similarity verses difference.
Nature innately doesn't operate by definition but as a soup. We are the component makers.
There has to be some cut-off point between self-aware/not self-aware. Perhaps it is down to something as mundane as number of neurons. So My current choice from that particular list, remains 5/6.
All the rest of what you talked about in your last post, merely refers to consciousness, since it arrived in the form of humans, does this suggest that you favour number 8 in the list?
Panpsychism/Dualism is at number 2.
What I would ask is "if the nature/quality of awareness progressively changes stepwise and slowly" is there need for a distinct "cut-off".
In the same way as we have a spectrum of colours that blend seamlessly into one another. And we cut through those transitions to qualify and quantity (by wavelength) individual categories like yellow, green, blue etc. When in reality Green blends seamlessly into blue. At what point is something green verses blue? Is that border the same for all people?
Are these borders arbitrary or definitive?
Beauty: That which is pleasing *aesthetically satisfying to the senses and/or emotions and/or intellect. (* as distinct from, but not antithetical to or exclusive of practical application, efficacy or expediency)
What is beautiful to me: harmony, coherence, concision, appropriateness, clarity, evocative power, emotional resonance. I also like a subtle choice of complementary colours and a pretty tune. (No, not the music that is better than it sounds, or the art that's intended merely to shock.)
I do understand that the specifics of what one considers beautiful - i.e. taste - is subjective, but beauty as a concept is readily communicable. Odds are, nobody outside the medical community could appreciate a beautiful thoracic scar; very few people can tell an ugly pig from a beautiful one; few see beauty in a chemical formula, but we can all understand that beauty may be seen from different perspectives and judged according to different criteria.
We may have a subjective ideas of what a god should look or act like; we can choose personal, unconventional, eccentric objects to deify, and people would still know what you meant by a god - particularly if you refrain from capitalizing it, because the people who believe in one of the popular deities tend to use the word as a proper noun and assume that when anyone says God, he means their god. So, there is this commonly-held concept of deity.
When you say everything is god, that has no meaning in any context that other people understand. I just consider it redundant: Okay, and? What is its function? "Everything" What does it want from me? "Nothing" How does it relate to me? "All ways and no way." So then, 'everything is' sums up the situation, and godhood doesn't need to be mentioned. Come to think of it, neither does the existence of everything need to be mentioned, since we generally take it for granted.
To me, the purpose of communication is to convey thought-content between conscious entities.
Quoting Jamal
I may have added : and a quibble over word usage. But just the one; I won't go on about it.
This is very true indeed. Popular "God" concepts are often assumed to be understood by the dogma from which they are derived: the abrahamic God variants, the Islamic god, the Greek Gods etc.
But we must not dismiss individually defined/nuanced Gods - as in ones that haven't been popularised or dogmatised but are very specific and particular.
For those examples, the best we can do is take them in a "case-by-case" manner and question the logic/reasoning behind them as a unique formulation in their own right.
I can't ofc speak for you or any other philosophical interlocutor in this case, but personally I enjoy the freedoms and expressive nature of such individual "God concepts" that have been/continue to be developed and are subject to scrutiny, rigorous discourse and hopefully ammendmen/refinement.
I think ultimately, theology ought to be as flexible and reformative as any other discipline. Dogma for me is analagous to arrogance.
And yes, perhaps the fact that the existence of a "God" being the fundamental premise of theology is in itself ultimately open to debate/harsh skepticism, but there is still enjoyment in the process of theists engaging in reasoning and trying to establish a description of existant that may satisfy a deistic terminology.
I'm open minded. For me anything may/does go. Until deterred from/convinced otherwise. I think as philosophers it's important for us to try not to be deterred from subjects we are skeptical toward just based on personal bias/preference.
In essence, anything of true merit ought to stand up to ridicule.
Why not? They have no significance to us, either as objects of worship, judges, helpers and redeemers or as philosophical and moral concepts. They are personal eccentricities, and thus fall outside the purview of theology. (Defined and nuanced have very distinct meanings.) We can dismiss something extraneous without ridiculing it.... unless it intrudes upon and obfuscates the proximal subject.
Quoting Benj96
That's a whole other conversation.
I agree that most of them are personal eccentricities - have no significance, worth, value of worship nor redemptive qualities. Perhaps 95, even 98, or 99% of Individual "God" notions may come to absolutely nothing of value, nothing new, nothing novel to philosophical pursuit.
But does that mean that "ALL" "God" concepts are inherently un-useful/pointless? Or is there always the slight potential to elucidate something applicable, logical and/or moral from this approach?
My belief is that there is a free or liberal "thoughtscape" - one not restricted by former religion nor restricted to dogmas. And perhaps this may or may not reveal genuine insight.
For me there is no automatic application of "nonsense" to theological points of view. I prefer to hear them out/give them space to air themselves/be articulated, and then ridicule, skepticism and rigorous lines of questioning can ensue.
Either they stand up to it or they don't. But I feel all views must be given their stage.
I think staying open minded to new premises is useful in unbiased philosophical endeavours.
But that's not what we observe, when we observe consciousness in action. A human can be made unconscious, so a definite cut-off point, between conscious and unconscious. Same with alive and dead.
The idea of linear gradation and opposite 'states' at each end of the gradation, is very common in the universe. Some stars reach a critical mass point and go supernova/collapse into a pulsar/collapse into a black hole, all based on cut-off points. An electron will orbit a nucleus, unless a critical energy input, pushes it away. These all involve cut-off points, and are clearly observed, in reality.
Quoting Benj96
What are you referring to? Coloured lights blending into white light? What do you mean by 'seamlessly,' when it comes to the physics of light waves/optics. When you see a spectrum of visible light you see definite borders, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. How would you apply your logic here to coloured paints? Colour borders are definitive. Paint one half of a wall red and the other half yellow and you will see a definite border, yes?
You can agree, but not with me. I didn't say that. I said we can't discuss something that has no meaning for us. Linear algebra is probably valuable, redemptive etc. But I do not speak the language and cannot discuss terms for which I have no definition. If someone versed in linear algebra uses words like gouda and cheddar, I'm likely to mistakenly believe they're talking about cheese, which i do understand.
Not at all. But we can talk about most of them, using a common vocabulary.
Haha. I laughed a lot at that. Yeah tbh the convo really span off topic to considerable degree. But I didn't have the will to try move over to a new post so just went with it because it's mostly universeness and Vera and myself pursuing this new train of thought in any case.
Quoting Vera Mont
I do empathise with this struggle. It is both frustrating in one aspect but in itself informative in another. In essence for me any conversation is entirely a process of defining. Defining (articulating) your views, defining my views in turn. Defining the difference between them and thus the words we use and how we use them, what they mean to us and how we construct our premises with those meanings.
It's one of philosophies greatest burdens and simultaneously greatest strengths. A dichotomy.
Quoting Vera Mont
Sure. And yet we did discuss it meaningfully. You articulated your points. I articulated mine. We exchanged views. For it to be truly non-discussible would be for it to not be put into words at all. For conversation to have never taken place, the subject never considered or argued.
When the word "God" is read by you, it conjures some idea in your mind. Some meaning related to the word. Even if the meaning is "does not exist" or "cannot be used meaningfully" or "not of value personally or socially".
That is still a meaningful statement that gives me information about your thinking, mind, attitudes etc. The exact nature of your relationship to the word.
You stated earlier that if my concept of God is "everything" then "so what?" what's its function, what does it do? How can it be beneficial to adopt the terminology? Does it have any behavioural or moral imperative? Does it impact your life in any way? In essence, what does my view of such a god existant have to offer you?
In truth it doesn't. Its just a word at the end of the day. My question is does me calling it God while you call it entity or universe or reality, whatever you wish, change anything about the description?
If you and I describe an apple, and I called it pomme and you call it manzana, does that change anything about the description, function, application or characteristics? No right? Because these words are just idiosyncrasies of language based on the same experienced object.
I have personal reasons to adopt the G term. You have personal reasons not to. So there is difference there. For whatever specific reason. I don't think those differences are actually a bother, nor reason to convince one another otherwise.
My choice of term is because of 1). My persisting personal awe/amazement that I experience when delving into the depths of its existentialism
2). The immortality of the concept (you can attribute it to the conservation of energy in an non deistic sense - something indestructible).
3). The potency of the concept (an origin story as well as an explanatory tool for consciousness and the external world)
4.).The presence of the concept - being something that permeates everything and 5). Choice - the free will to explore it in any way you wish. To relate to it in every way consciously possible.
To call it whatever you like.
6). Logic. A primary mover, notion, rule or law that is elegant, unrestricted, can put relationships and associations between things into some harmonious accordance. Something that clears the misconceptions, paradoxes and illusive nature of reality but is also empowering as logic and reasoning can be used constructively to help people just as it can be abused and misused to exploit /manipulate people.
For me the term fits well. For you it may not. Neither case means we are at neccesarily at odds with one another on the content. Just the term of referral.
If I had to replace the term God with something equivalent, it would be "Potential", as it satisfies the same criterion for me.
We only have one side of that event to make inferences from. It's inherently biased. The perceptions and conclusions of the living witnessing the death of a person. We have no insight into what the dying person experienced in the process of death because afterwards, the walls to communication are up.
We cannot outright confirm definitively whether the "I" fully stopped or became something un recognisable when compared the the "human 'I' " - the standard by which we assume consciousness to exist. The same reason we often don't consider animals, plants or other living things as conscious or with agency.
For example, the ocean makes waves. They exist briefly, then crash and resume the state of being flat ocean. They were always ocean, but only briefly wave (a unique state if being).
If we apply that human awareness, we can say they were briefly humanly aware (a wave) , but does that mean when they die (return to flat ocean) all awareness is lost? Or is there a fundamental consciousness ocean they return to?
Agreed. There are cut off points that determine our definition of something. That doesn't detract from the fact that we do not know where the cut-off point for awareness/consciousness is. We only know what the cut-off for human awareness is (birth and death).
But we have difficulty with defining the nature of consciousness itself, not as it manifests in human form, but as a concept in its own right.
Perhaps the only consciousness that exists is human consciousness, but then we must contend with not only how 1). Other living things behave as we do but 2). How inanimate/dead material and its energy - from food - sustains a conscious being and is used to be conscious, when what we ate 10 years ago is no longer materially or energetically in our bodies and this happens 8 times throughout a human lifespan and yet the conscious identity persists despite the exchange of energy and substance - nothing being physically the same.
Where do we draw the line? In what specific state of arrangement is energy and matter conscious, or are they always some form of conscious? Is it an innate property that they possess?
Just as solipsism suggests only one mind possesses awareness and panpsychism suggests that all matter and energy is conscious. The true emergence of it can be anywhere within in this polarity/dichotomy.
This is an oxymoron. Spectrums and quantized, discrete, compartmentalised things are contradictory to eachother.
You can divide a spectrum into discrete categories with borders. And you can place discrete packets into order as a spectrum removing borders.
But that doesn't mean they're the same. It means they're interchangeable based on approach/premise. Whether it is organised into multiples or left as a seamless whole.
Light operates in this way: as a wave (spectrum) and particle (confined/ restricted category/item or packet).
Quoting universeness
Depends if you're colour blind or not. Perception plays a part in determining differences. An animal that only sees black and white would not make such a determination between yellow and red for example. Only shades of grey.
It not only depends on physiologic ableness but also depends on the culture by which you descriminate different colours. For example a namibian tribe does not discern blue from green but uses the same word for both, as they believe they are shades of the same larger colour set.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour%3fhs_amp=true
https://www.reddit.com/r/badlinguistics/comments/af2a47/a_primitive_tribe_in_africa_cant_distinguish_the/
The universe is not itemised. It is a seamless transition of interactions between space, matter, energy, time etc. Humans itemise. We are the discriminators, the categorisers, based on human perceived differences between things, and thus we developed language simultaneously applying different words to different categories to describe their relationships and build a knowledge of the universes content and workings.
The universe is 1 thing. And simultaneously it is a billion things. The difference is how many categories we want to/need to create in order to compare focused sections of the whole with other sections of the whole.
I do enjoy your pretzel-shaped constructions! (Beauty, like humour, as Emperor Cartagia said, is subjective.) There is that nugget of rock-salt in the middle: "it". I often muse on "it"'s infinite variety of applications
Quoting Benj96
The meaning: a name given to a conceived supernatural entity that people hold in awe, and from which they expect supernatural responses. Many such have been popularly accepted and chronicled.
The meaning exists; your application of it doesn't fit any definition I understand. Very much as if the mathematician were going on about equations where Gouda equals and does not equal Cheddar. I can't say he's right or wrong, if his equation solves a problem or not, because it sound like gobbledigook.
Quoting Benj96
Exactly. So what can I do with it? Nothing. I could have ignored it and kept driving, but questioned it instead. I suppose that tells you something about me, too - but surely not something you didn't already know.
Quoting Benj96
No; nothing changes: it remains obscure, fanciful, poetic and redundant.
Quoting Benj96
Right! So if you said Allah, Obaluaye, Caishen or Thor, I would know what you're talking about. If, however, you described an apple as oval, bitter, hard, bright yellow, small and red, large, soft and purple, striped and pulpy and sour, green, inside and out, growing on the ground from a tree, I would not know what you're talking about.
Quoting Benj96
Evidently. I said so early on. I do not have access, and you may forgive me for saying I do not desire access, to your inner motivations.
Quoting Benj96
None whatever - at least, no more personal than my reason for using the words 'chair', 'apple' 'beauty', 'west', 'it' or 'the'. The words were already fixed when I got here.
Quoting Benj96
I'll answer this one via PM, for decorum's sake.
I absolutely accept this. No qualms here. Its not for everyone for sure. And I dare not impose such ideas as definitive, un-arguable nor fact.
I simply enjoy pushing the proverbial boat out and seeing what people make of it. And I think the term "God" has such a quality of being inherently contentious, challenging and in need of rebuttal in all its forms.
Even if my methods are most unconventional/unorthodox or take the path least tread.
The gap between theological belief and skepticism is one I would ideally like to close or at least reduce. By finding commonality between the two. I would love a theory that satisfies all pursuits and dogmas of the various disciplines we have committed to the pursuit of knowledge, meaning and origin.
I think the only way of unifying such a concept/motivation is to take all roads in equal esteem and focus on the similarities between them rather than the differences that push them apart.
Universal Entropy, would be the most convincing evidence for me, that the stages of existence are 'comes into', 'IS', and 'IS no more'. I also accept the conservation of energy law as true, but I see no compelling evidence that energy, in any fundamental form/state it is proposed to have, is self-aware/conscious.
Your OP was about capitalism and the money trick. Such often invokes responses, that cite poor human morality, as the foundational reasons why such vile systems are able to exist, within human society. This leads to the currently claimed sources of human morality being brought up. This leads to theism Vs secular humanism and this often leads to science Vs theism/theosophism.
I think that's how your OP 'travelled.' I am fine with that but I know the moderators and some of the more 'nippy' TPF members, want to strictly stay with the OP boundaries and not allow every thread, to end up with members back to arguing about science Vs theism/theosophism.
Quoting Benj96
Energy and mass are different states but they are also equivalences. There is no mass proposed within the big bang singularity, only very hot, very dense energy. This is the only 'state,' imo, when the notion of solipsism has any value and not even then, because you have to claim that some property of the energy contained in that original hot, dense singularity, is the source of consciousness.
I don't think that proposal has any value and the first manifestation of anything that could be called consciousness, came into existence, some time after abiogenesis.
Quoting Benj96
No, it doesn't, borders created via monochromatic shades of light and dark, are just as real as borders created by colour difference.
Quoting Benj96
As we have typed many times. We are OF the universe and We itemise, because all the galaxies don't merge seemlessy. I have no problem with perceiving everything in the universe as 'connected' by the notion of an underlying 'fabric' called spacetime or as one big set of quantum field excitations, but I think it's also valid to talk about 'free particles,' and independent objects. I remain bemused, regarding why you choose to use any of the points you have made in this thread, to justify your declaration that you are a theist and by doing so, think that you have any chance of finding common ground between theism and atheism. You just get rejected by both sides.
Anyway. Yeah, capitalism and the money trick, needs to be diluted in human society, to the level of 1 part oil slick in 8 billion parts water, whereby the water dominates, and not the tiny presence of the oil slick.
What would be compelling evidence for you?
I see objectivity and subjectivity as an axis with 2 poles. Subjects perceive objects from their subjective end, and objects don't perceive objects on the other end (because of lack of subjectivity).
That's fine but the middle of such an axis is what confuses me. At some point in the transition from object to subject (from food, water and oxygen) into babies brain there is the emergence of awareness or sense of self.
And also in living systems as you said somehwere along from abiogenesis.
I just wonder, could this axis between object and subject not be one of decreasing entropy/ increasing organisation?
For me this seems less arbitrary than randomly selecting a point in our ancenstry or in the gestating foetus where consciousness "All or nothing" suddenly switches on or off.
If its based on orders of complexity, then consciousness may not have even began after abiogenesis. The systems preceding the first cell would have still had to be pretty complex.
The issue with associating consciousness with complexity or negative entropy, is that the most organised and lowest state of entropy was the singularity. And entropy (disorder) has been increasing ever since. If consciousness is based on order/complexity and the decreasing entropy of life systems, then it's not a huge irrationality to think that perhaps the low entropy of the singularity is also conscious
As for proof or compelling evidence? I doubt we would have anything more than reasoning and choice of beliefs or rationalisations at our disposable.
Yes I agree theor borders are real too. What I was saying is 2 separate distinct colours can appear as the same "grey" on a monochromatic scale if they are both of the same light/lux value, regardless of their hue/tone or chroma. There's 3 aspects to colour. Brightness is only one of them.
In that sense if a yellow and red of the same brightness is put into monochromacy. They will both be the same indistinguishable grey. They will however be discernible from black or white.
Quoting universeness
I'm glad it amuses you. It doesn't however upset me that my approach may not firmly be classifiable into that of heavily dogmatic and arbitrary religious views, nor into the stringent "repeatability as provability" paradigm of objective science in a world with variable degrees of constancy (repeatability).
If they both laugh me out /reject inclusion thats fine. As far as I know though, theism doesn't have any criteria for what a god ought to be in order to be included as theistic in nature. You just need to use the G term instead of the term universe or any other.
If I called myself a objectivity-subjectivity or material-immaterial dualist the content of our convo would have remained the same.
I like the term because of the moralistic translation of "balance" we see in nature.
Equilibrium. The design/structure of the it seems both rational and ethical (not by human standards - babies dying of cancer) but by mother nature's ones.
I don't think my "God" theistic view is very human centric, it doesn't favour our human biased perceptions of injustice as absolute /universal injustice.
I've now given several reasons why I like the term God. I can't possibly go on explaining more. I just made a personal choice and more importantly one that I'm not enforcing or insisting anyone else adopt. I don't see any issue with that
Direct communication, scientifically scrutinised.
Quoting Benj96
No, because increasing, LOCALISED organisation/complexity/birth etc, does not slow increasing universal entropy. The universe on it's largest scale is moving from low to high entropy.
Quoting Benj96
It's a faith based jump, and that has proven quite pernicious to the human race, as it spawned all religions and theosophism and that has caused a lot more evil imo, than it has good.
Quoting Benj96
No, there are differences in the monochromatic shade they produce, the hue of yellow and the hue of red are different so they would not produce the exact same shade of grey, even though the difference may nor be so clear to the human eye.
From technopedia:
The hue of a colour pixel is one of the very fundamental concepts in digital image processing. Along with saturation and brightness (brilliance), hue makes up the three basic aspects of any color. A color is far more complex than its name because of the variety of shades available in each color. In digital image processing, pixels with slightly different colours have slightly different RGB code (value). This is because of slightly different dominant wavelengths of that colour which constitute the hue. A pure hue is completely saturated, meaning no white light is added.
Quoting Benj96
I typed 'bemused,' not 'amused.'
bemused: Adjective meaning puzzled, confused, or bewildered.
Quoting Benj96
I accept your reasons, but disagree with them, as I think your use of the term god and your declaration of yourself as a theist, does not help combat the pernicious affect of both, in the human society we both live in at present. That's all I mean Ben, you give sustenance to pernicious concepts that we need to rid ourselves of. But yes, that's just my personal opinion.
How do we ever make that comparison? What quantity of life or "consciousness maybe" offsets 16 jumbled up galaxies?
If I dream for 1 hour last night did the level of complexity of information exchange offset 100 years of an asteroid breaking up as it hurtles through the void.
Of course this is very far fetched and I don't neccesarily give it much credence myself but am suggesting it more for sh*ts n giggles.
But anyways, gravity pulls shit toghether, energy pushes them apart. Is gravity working with entropy? Or against it?
For it seems like it's tidying things up and keeping them in regular predictable and orderly orbits. How then does that increase the entropy?
Perhaps this is the yin yang equivalence of energy and matter. Energy disperses, and as it does so precipitates mass into solidity and then contracts towards itself into solar systems.
For now it seems like entropy probably still dominates as a whole. I leave a small bit of room for possible states that might see the opposite and balance the books. A neat equation.
I have no idea what logic you are trying apply here? The expansion of the universe is increasing and 'stuff' falls into black holes, and wont come out again until the black holes evaporate over an immensity of time. This is the basis of the eventual heat death of the universe, as most of the current content of the universe will end up inside black holes, star reproduction will end and it will not be possible to concentrate enough energy into the localised creation of new combinatorials.
Quoting Benj96
Gravity is an attractive force/consequence of the presence of matter/energy.
All forces involve a transfer of energy. Force and energy are therefore strongly related concepts.
Your second question is bizarre in that it suggests the bizarre notion of 'entropy' and 'gravity' existing as entities that might be perceived as 'working together' or not. Gravity exists due to the presence of 'excitations' and combinatorials, within spacetime. Very large concentrations of combinatorials such as galaxies are gravitationally bound and will not dissipate due to increasing expansion but most of the content of galaxies will end up inside black holes and the distance between all galaxies will continue to increase so gravitational effects will continue to decrease over time.
Entropy ensures the heat death of our universe. No immediate concern however as the heat death will take a very large immensity of time.
Here is an interesting summary from a science based website:
If the universe continues expanding for a very long time, eventually galactic superclusters will rip apart, followed by local clusters, galaxies themselves and eventually individual stars and atoms. If humanity's descendants are clever about which arrangements of matter they use to instantiate and power themselves, however, they can prolong their existence almost indefinitely. For example, even black holes produce some power through Hawking radiation, which life could cluster around and use to its advantage even if stars have burnt out. Living indefinitely in a continuously expanding universe would be no picnic, but is probably preferable to living in a closed one that collapses back in on itself in a fiery Big Crunch.