You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. Of which, we have not been able to do.

If we are saying we "have to prove there is one", then the question is already flawed and what follows is just non sense, a spinning of the wheels and wasting time. The chap is coming from the point of a view of an atheist (Not a Creator), and yet asking the question, "is there a creator". The former can be answered, the latter cannot.

infinite regression.... — Nobeernolife

Not so, infinite growth is in opposition to infinite regression.

who created the creator? A super-creator? And who created that one? — Nobeernolife

Slow down a little, we are too far ahead, we didn't prove the first one existed yet! Or have we fallen into assumption again, and then describing the characteristics of our imagination?

A scientist who begins his experiment has to establish the "ground" first before he can start his tests. The best scientists are the ones who start from a position of "I know nothing". In so doing, the scientist has remained open. This means, he can accept the possibility of everything, and exclude the things he can test for. What is left will be either true or more closely representing the truth. Any other approach means we have started with a "position or assumed position", and from there are now trying to prove or disprove the position. We already know that everything in the outside world is in constant change, therefore the latter approach is likened to building a house on quicksand. The former approach allows a steady, careful and deliberate method for testing.

So the goal of the testing is to establish whether or not a creator / God etc exists or not. As we have a ground of "knowing nothing", let's use a framework to create a structure to work from, let's use the model of Nature (or as it used to be called, Natural Science). We can take any branch within nature, but lets just say, we'll look at a tree and see what we can discover about a tree after at it is life and therefore should contain any creator, if at all.

It begins from a seed, it is placed in the soil, and given sun, water and time, it becomes a big tree. So that's our structure. Now, there were some gaps in the example, for instance, we know a seed is very small. We also know that a tree (in our example) is very big - its an oak tree. How did that happen? Well, we added sun, soil, water and time and there was a tree.

Did the tree come from the sun? Did it come from the soil? Did it come from the water? Did it come from time? It doesn't appear to be in any one of these things, but it was most certainly apparent in all of these things. If we look at any combination of these elements, the tree was not found in any combination of them, other than in full combination. Ok, so what did combining all these things do to change the seed into a tree? Did we plant the seed and the next day it was a tree? No. The tree grew by combining these elements. So what is growth? Let's look at other examples of growth on the planet. In fact, everything on the planet is in a state of growth (or it's opposite). Everything in the state of growth has continuity, everything else is heading towards not being here. So there is an "unknown" force appearing to be evident by the facts of growth and its opposite.

In our experiment, we cannot go beyond this question. Therefore as scientists we have to conclude, we were not able to prove there wasn't a creator, but we can say, if there is one, it lies in Growth or its opposite.

So to categorically say, there is not a creator is to assume that whatever lies in growth or its opposite is not a creator, and yet scientifically, we were unable to prove that. As a manager once said to me, "Don't assume, it makes an ass| (out of) u | (and) me". Now the real question should be, what is your aversion to the concept of a creator or creating force?

Last one I promise, I just had to share this. It's not mine, I take no credit:

There was a man who died and was being taken to heaven by angels. The angels said to him, “We are going to take you to heaven, but first we will show you hell.” The angels then took him to a place where there was a great bowl, so great that it was as big as a lake. The bowl was filled with a nutritious stew. All the way around the sides of this bowl were people. Emaciated, starving, miserable people. These people had spoons to eat the stew with, and the spoons were long enough to reach the stew (about 12 feet). The trouble was, while they could scoop up the stew into the spoon, they could not get it into their mouths because the spoons were too long. So here were all these pathetic people, suffering and moaning in agony, constantly trying to eat the food that was abundantly in front of them - all in vain.
Next, the angels took the man to heaven. To his surprise, he saw the same scene! There it was, a giant lake-like bowl of the same stew, surrounded by people with 12 foot long spoons. Yet something was different here - all these people were smiling, happy, and healthy looking! “Why? What is the difference here that these people are happy and well fed?”, the man said to the angels. They replied, “Have you not eyes to see?”. The man looked more carefully, and observed that one person would scoop up the stew, and bring it to the mouth of another. Then someone else would scoop up stew and feed it to the other. The angels smiled and said, “Here the people feed each other. Here are the people that learned the way of Love.”

I guess deep down, we all know that to be true but, we are not very observant. — Zeus

This is the problem for sure. We are not really creators in life, we are discovers. We are rediscovering what we always knew. A famous chap once said, "Alas, I have searched the entire globe and there is nothing new to discover."

I guess it takes an extremely serious person to go beyond the mind's evil patterns, to cut through generations of conditioning and be a child again and question first principles. — Zeus

You're replies and humility touched me, thank you, as I said, I know no better than anyone else. I'm really simple that's all. There is a time to be serious but in general don't be too serious. Be like a child. Is a child serious? In some ways yes, but it most ways, no. They are just open. They learn quicker and in greater volume than adults, and all the time they are suffering pain with teething, and growing and what have you. They are amazing teachers to those who have open eyes. Don't take on too much all at once either, your not dealing with your generations problems, you only have to deal with your own, keep it simple. No one really knows you, and definitely not like you know yourself, so make sure you are honest with your self.

I'm simple, I know that when it hurts, it doesn't feel good. When I'm kind or caring, it feels good. Its very easy to over complicate everything, but everything is really simple really! I would recommend you follow your feelings and get to know them (not your emotions, don't follow them). Follow your heart, it is much wiser than your head! And protect your heart, it's important to you, don't let it get hardened so your can't feel it or hear (sense) it otherwise you truly will be blind.

There are a lot of painful things and people out there, and they will often try and convince you how awful things are. Don't let that sink into your heart. You know the condition is one of suffering out there, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out, just look around. But just because that's the outside condition, doesn't mean it needs to be the inside condition. My wife and I say to each other, if we lose site of this, "Don't let someone else behaviour be the reason for your behaviour". As humility grows, you can really empathise with people who are full of hate, because imagine you were like that and the pain you would be carrying around with you. If there encourage you to be unkind and what have you, don't engage. Be an example to them by keeping silent, because they will look at your silence and question there own reasons for being unkind, and then they might actually stop being unkind. We all influence each other, be it for good or bad, that depends on you. My experience has taught me I feel better inside when I do good things, and worse if I don't.

Study things that help you grow. The Buddhist had a pretty good grasp on all this, albeit from a negation perspective, but there are tons of others out who also get it. Eckhart Tolle is one, Jon Peniel, "Children of the Law of One" he gets it. And the message is the same every time, "Be simple, be kind, be caring, be compassionate, put others before yourself". The rewards are out of this world !!

Don't be too hard on yourself either, we are all mad in the outside world, that's obviously clear. But the bit in you that recognises it, is the sane bit. That's the bit to hold to. A man asked the doctor, "Doctor, I think I'm insane". The doctors said, "No sir, insane people don't know they are insane". Rather comforting I thought, when life is teaching the harder lessons in life. When things are really tough, remind yourself, "This too, will pass". It help to lighten the load.

I do wonder sometimes if all answers lie in compassion — Zeus

Absolutely right, so again, investigate it. Look to those who have talked about, what else do they have to say. You are unique, just like everyone else on the planet !!

But I don't blame quantum mechanics, but my lack of understanding. But I avoid deepening my ignorance by claiming that quantum mechanics is this or that. — David Mo

A wonderful demonstration of humilty leading to wisdom.

If you're associating Nietzsche with the mafia, you've certainly got it wrong. But the insecurity isn't in Nietzsche, it's in your reading. Just because there are some debatable things in Nietzsche doesn't mean that any reading can be admitted. — David Mo

Sorry, I was drawing the similarity of "efficiency" with my mafia example, in an attempt to simplify it. Apologies if you read my comment quite so literally.

Yes that's very true. I did mention that early on that money is a call on "products and services", or a claim on the future economy (same difference I guess). The point I was really trying to get across is that the system is only based on "confidence". As long as we all agree that x money buys x products, it's fine. However, the existing wealth in the system is always devalued by the introduction of more money, so those who already have a stake or claim, now have a smaller claim. I liken it to cutting up a pie. Adding more money is just cutting up the existing pieces into smaller bits. The technical terms for this is "inflation", and we can see very clearly why they are so worried about it (the Bank of England have to report every month on the inflation figure, if it goes over 2.5% then they have to come up with a solution for it and justify it). So, that gets difficult, so instead of that, we change the method that calculations inflation, so now we have, RPi, RPX, CPi, CPX, CPiH, etc etc. Do include house prices, don't include house prices. It's just manipulation of the numbers? Why is that important, because the system is based on confidence. If the news say, watch out everyone, inflation is rising, it's a knock to confidence, which will destabilise the system.

My dad in the 70s bought his house for £16,000. He sold it in 2000 (30 years later) for £500,000. That's what printing money does via inflation. Now, as long as wages go up in line with inflation, all is well. Trouble is, that can't happen because business has to make a profit and if we give all the money to the employees, we reduce or profits and then what is the point in owning a business if you make no profit. Wage rises creep around 1.5% whilst the inflation of printing money is around 80% (or whatever, no one really knows its so big). So, who is getting the difference? The bankers are. They are getting super super rich. As it was quoted, a banker can make 10 million dollars on a single transaction. A worker wont make that in a lifetime. Oh, I should have mentioned that population increase also puts a push on inflation as we all need a "basic standard of living".

That makes no sense to me. It's my money, therefore they owe it to me, not the other way round. — Echarmion

I appreciate it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't change the fact. I would test it, phone up your bank and ask them. If you owed the money in your bank account, then if they earn money off it, then they have to give you the money. As an example, HMRC do this correctly. If you over-pay them, recognising it is not their money and they have deprived you of such, they pay you interest. Likewise, if you don't pay them on time, you have deprived them of their money and they charge you interest. Banks do not work this way. Sadly, when you deposit the money, it's theirs, and you are now their debtor. This is how banks work. Sadly, most people do not know this and therefore carry a terrible liability with no reward.

That's really a problem with a capitalist economy in general, not specifically with fiat money. — Echarmion

Absolutely right, it is a flaw in the capitalist system which really in concerned only with "who owes what to whom". Fiat currency was just a way to allow more money to be created that wasn't linked to anthing (i.e. illusionary). That's why capitalism will fail eventually like all flawed systems. It is inevitable. Every flawed system in history eventually failed.

And your justification for that claim is? — Echarmion

Those holding the wealth do not give it away to the poor, who are in greater need of it. In fact, the wealthy then pay "accounts / advisors" to tell them what to do with it to make sure they don't lose it. These "experts" are no more then people who understand the law, and therefore how to circumvent it. Otherwise, the wealthy would pay more in tax, but they don't, they pay less. If I am an employee on PAYE, I have no control over my tax, in fact, I don't even see it. If I am a Director, I can manipulate my tax liability to almost zero. In the form of dividends. Until 4 years ago, a Director dividend was balanced by what they call "tax credit". Dividend tax was 20%, tax credit was 20%. I don't need my accountant to tell me that means I used to pay nothing in tax on dividends.

I think what you're describing would commonly be referred to as "capital". Investments that keep generating returns. — Echarmion

No, I was describing assets. There are 4 elements to a financial statement. Income, Expense, Assets, Liabilities. The difference between income and expense is called "cash flow", beit negative or positive. Assets are considered "long term" or "fixed". There's plenty of info out there on this, so little point me repeating it. People who sells assets do so to raise "capital" or/and to reduce liabilities.

echnically my car makes money, because it gets me to work. And if we're treating individuals like a business, all the necessities of life would be assets, since they are required for you to function. One might exclude stuff like TVs or gaming consoles, of course. — Echarmion

Your mixing two things together that are not mixed. Your car gets "YOU" to work, you earn the money, not the car. If your friend gives you a lift to work, your car has not contributed to you "earning money". They are not the same thing.

examples of wars helping an economy (like the US in WW1), but for the countries that the war is fought in, it's usually pretty terrible economically (see all other participants of WW 1). — Echarmion

I'm sorry, but you missed the "elephant in the room". WW1 was nothing in comparison to WW2 for the US economy. Henry Ford was called in to be the manufacturing arm of the war machine, and sold the assets to the UK, who only recently finished paying them off. What pushed the move from wooden boats to metal ones? And why? What was so great about "modular construction" and why did it yield a 10-fold increase in production?

The US joined WW2 in 1941, what turned the tide against Germany was that for the first time in the entire war, the US contribution meant we outstripped the production of new assets. It's common sense, think about it, during wartime, the opposition are blowing up your assets and you are doing the same. If there isn't a resupply effort, the entire arsenal will be wiped out very quickly, hence the reason that aerial support (bombers) target manufacturing installations and "strategic assets". You blow up the oppositions tank factories, and ammunition factories, and mass stores of such.

I do agree, for the people, the ones who have to live through this hell, it's a terrible and awful thing. But for the economy, its very good or they just wouldn't go to war in the first place. Every countries economy is the "crown jewels" and therefore all decisions are made with this in mind.

I totally get it, i have the same view of Homer. Some how a reconciliation of complexity and simplicity has to take place.

The sysem of money is a closed loop. The more you print the more you devalue it, until, like early germany, you need a wheelborrow of money to buy a loaf of bread. I still have a 1 million Deutsche mark note!

Whatever the measure of wealth, it is in a constant state of atrophy. Otherwise wealth would be static.

The poor already have no wealth, it affects them not.

Very true, but lets not forget all the weapons we need to make to. That helps the economy big time. Tanks, bullets, uniforms, food, fuel, missles, aeroplanes, boats, etc etc. Billions and billions worth.

He is not a nihilist, as many claim; he is more an organizer, an elitist, a classifier, and solution-searcher — god must be atheist

I totally agree. I'm been thinking the same this morning. These people Plato, etc. all lived in a time very different to ours. With different problems and no where near the detailed info (and accessibility to info) we now have. In some ways, you got to hand it to them given what they had, they tried their best.

But one has to ask then, what place does surrender have in this philosophy?

Dr Spooner, you gotta stop, enough already! :smile:

I see my thoughts are conditioned and contradictory so, any kind of self-analysis I feel will yield unfruitful results — Zeus

You are not trying, more effort is needed. What is learning? Do you learn when you get things right, or when you get them wrong? Learn like a child. Or do you just want the answers? The answers are useless unless you know why the answer is the answer. Do not use others as a reflection of who you are or what you are, they (and I) don't know any better than you! Just maybe been here a bit longer, that's all. Don't care too much about what people think, it's a trap and will crush your soul.

Imagine a child learning to walk said the same thing? "I know I can't walk yet and crawling around is hard. Nobody tells me how to do it. Every time I try and stand up, I fall over again. Perhaps I shouldn't bother trying to standing up."

Change the attitude to, "I never know what will happen because life is in constant change. However, whatever life throws at me, I will always try my best. I will do a bit more than I'm asked to. I will try a bit harder than I did before. I'll keep trying and I'll never give up. If it doesn't work, I'll try something else, I'll keep trying because one time it's going to work (50 no's and a Yes = a Yes!). I will help others. If someone falls and I see it, I will help them up because if I fall I'd like someone to help me up. If people are hurt, I'll comfort them. I will always tell the truth. When I go to sleep (whenever that is) I will ask myself, did I try my best today in the things I did and then promise to try even harder tomorrow. I will look back on my day as I drift off to sleep. I wont complain about any of it, some lessons are suppose to be hard. If I give up, I'm dead, put me in a box."

Your first statement is right, how many people are kicking their heels at the start line. Get your life in balance. How? What ever you feel, do the opposite to the same degree. If you feel sad, do things that make you happy. If you want something really bad, give it to someone else. Treat life like you'd like to be treated by life. Balance is the opposite to what is, so be observant and keep an open mind. What you think today, will be different tomorrow and different again the day after. We never know what will happen, so don't hold tight to your ideas or positions, they will all pass into other ideas and positions. If you hold them tight, they will hold you tight and you will be trapped (anchored by them). Be prepared to give up what you previously thought at any point, or life cannot help you grow.

Listen to the words (often) of the song, "Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)"

And there's quite a substance to that, I feel — Zeus

Then investigate it. Play with it, test it. But in all this, keep your enquiry straight and true. He said "contradictory", you said, "conflicted". Investigate them both and make sure they are the same. There might be a very subtle difference between the two, and that difference could be where your stuck. Or not. You got to do the work and test everything, especially you must test what "you think you know" because as you highlight, its where the "conflict" could be. We are all learners at life.

That's outdated. Now you first bury the person, then defeat his arguments, then whack him, and finally dig a hole. — god must be atheist

Priceless, now that explains why we never leave the desert anymore.

Wars are usually pretty terrible for the economy. — Echarmion

To be honest, you could google search this one to get the answer. War boosts an economy like nothing else. Read a little history and you will see very clearly.

You have unusual definitions for both "wealth" and "assets". What I was going for is this: I can actually use my wealth to acquire things I want. Therefore, it can't be all illusory, can it? — Echarmion

Yes we do appear to have different definitions of wealth/assets. You see, anyone with wealth has one objective, to hold on to that wealth for as long as possible (delayed gratification). The fact you say you can buy stuff with your wealth, suggests its not wealth, it just savings, or money in the bank. Will your wealth be able to buy you the thing you want in 20 years time? In 40? In 3 generations. That's what wealth is. Just because your "money" is good today, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow, hence why nearly all wealth is tied up in inflation-beating assets (houses, businesses, long term government loans, etc) and no wealth is left in a bank account, or non inflation vehicles.

Assets are things that make you income. Yes you can pretend that your TV and your car and all that "stuff" is an asset because someone said it is, but its not. It doesn't generate income, instead it ties up your capital (an bad thing) and then loses money whilst making you no money. Do you see?

Not an asset
You buy a car for £5000 of your own money. After 3 years you sell it for £3000. You have lost £2000.

An Asset
You buy a car for £5000 of your money. You hire it out for £200 a day. In year 1, you have hired it out 25 times. You have earnt £5000 in hire fees, covering the initial cost of the car. Year 2 and 3 you hire it out for 25 times each year (50 more times). By year 3, you have eared £15,000. This covers the cost of the car, the repairs and fuel and you made profit. After 3 years you scrap the car and send it to the scrap yard.

Of the two scenarios, which ones was an asset and which one was a liability? Just because the guy selling the car, or the guy selling the TV tells you its an asset, doesn't mean it is.

While money is fundamentally connected to debt, it hasn't been directly convertible for decades. And even when it was, it was mostly a theoretical exercise. Money works regardless. — Echarmion

Yes, it was detached from the Gold Standard in the 70s (when "I promise to pay the bearer x pounds in gold") meant you could walk into a bank and ask for the gold equivalent - no one did, but that was to build confidence. Don't for one moment imagine that this is not the case, it's just not the case for the people in street. Take China, when they massed up a load of dollar bills for their trading with USA. What did they do? They demanded the equivalent in gold and the USA gave it to them, they had too. Nowadays we have "fiat" currency backed only by confidence, because you and I cannot exchange it for gold. What can we exchange it for? Goods and services, that's all. It's not connected to debt, it is debt (it is: who owes what to who). It is a debt on the future economy, i.e. you will call the debt in (ask for the value) at a future point.

Ask your bank who owns your deposited money? They own it, not you. You are their debtor! They are a business, and businesses that fail are perfectly entitled not to pay their debts (that's you). So the Government or the Fed or whoever say, "Don't panic, the tax payer will guarantee you will be paid back) if the bank fails, the tax payer will have to bail it out (you will end up paying yourself back as a tax payer). Basically, this is the snake eating it's own tail. What a clever move by the bankers. Imagine I could have a business and get that type of guarantee, it would make life a lot easier because now I have no responsibility for your deposit what so ever. If it fails, so what, the tax payer picks it up.

As long as there is confidence, money works. In the same way if we all agree a banana is worth the same as a car, we can exchange one for the other. Money will continue to work provided everybody doesn't ask for it back all at once, and provided the bank doesn't fail. Why would a bank fail? Because now they own your money, they can sell it to other people (loans). You carry the liability, their earn the interest/reward.

But they don't have all your money, because they sold it on the loan, if you ask for it back, they haven't got it. But provided a low enough number of people ask for their money back, they can give you another depositors money!

If everyone asks for their money back.... shit, they haven't got it, close the doors and shut down the websites so they can't draw it out! That's what happened in Cyprus. In the UK, we led the lamb to the slaughter in the form of Northern Rock, who went bankrupt in a day when all the depositors lost confidence in the bank and demanded all their money back, but they didn't close their doors! This was in 2007.

No problem, you're very welcome. I found a good book on wealth called, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad", I think I had the 2nd book (Rich Dad Poor Dad 2). It was fantastic and gave a balanced view on wealth and was a good guide between all levels. It would certainly be more helpful than my ramblings!

Yes you could, and to be fair, that's how people look at it now. So again, its not based on "need" its based on "maybe needed" and it becomes a reason not to give it away and the imbalance remains.

It is a beautiful woven fabric of logic inconsistency and twisting words that leaves the reader in a continual state of uncertainty about what the hect he is really trying to get at. That, however, is the precise point of the writing so that what ever then follows will be accepted on the basis it has no point on which to turn or hang to create a competing narrative. Nowadays we call is manipulation.

They are certainly not the first, Plato - Republic, narrating Socrates who has presented such a purely brilliant logical arguement for justice and a sensible city, but only once he has confined the frame of reference to an extent that any arguement to the contrary has been eliminated - before they start the logical debate.

The mafia did the same thing. If you gotta "wack" a guy, you don't take him to the desert, wack him, then dig a hole. By the time you done all that, someone else might turn up. Now you gotta wack them too, and dig another hole. Jees, your gonna be out there all night digging holes. Instead, you dig the hole first. Then you take the guy out to the desert and wack him and bury him.

My apologies, for the repetition. Understood, lets keep away from money. So before money, land owners would have been the wealthy. They would have had wealth from generation to generation based on family name, etc. One could not deny there being land or not, and so wealth was self-regulating. Two or more people couldn't make a claim on the land. Either someone owned it or they didn't.

I was taught the value of delayed gratification and it has served me all my life. I have watched as others don't value this, and want their reward right now, or even better, they want the reward before the effort goes in. Wealthy people are like the latter, they are getting their reward now but their cost will come later. Those without wealth are like the former, they will get there reward at the end. Now, as I mentioned before, if you have more than you need, why not give it away? It seems most logically. I believe perhaps this is where prestige comes in, they don't want to give that up.

That said, plenty of land owners have done just that and given up land to the poor, or to those with greater need. If everyone had that attitude, what would the entire wealth system look like?

There is of course, other wealth. Wealth of knowledge, of health, of friends, etc.

Perhaps because prestige is the primary source of wealth? — Zehir

Is there no prestige without wealth? Is prestige just "what you think other people think about you". For instance, does prestige have a place on a desert island on your own? Does it have a place in anything other than a group of 3 or more people? I'm not sure I follow this, so I will also define what I understand wealth to be.

Wealth is having "more than you need". Wealth can only appear if you have gained more than you put in. In terms of the super rich, they deem wealth in terms of how many generations hold on to that wealth. As the system is finite (or would be without QE), if I have more than I need, then someone else in the system has less than they need. Therefore my wealth could be seen as taking from those who need it more than you. What happens to the wealth you have? It sits in an investment vehicle, or a bank or whatever and is not in circulation, it become stagnate. Why not give your wealth to the poor?

Here's a thought, why would you think wealth which has a negative effect on others and the system it's self, would create prestige? That is a super clever trick of the system to create the desire of "want".

Food and shelter are not the only things you can trade. What about tools. Or shiny things? — Echarmion

If you want to understand this better, read Plato - Republic, book 2. It describes exactly what is needed for trading and you we see very quickly, this is how we are set up now, and that globally we are like a massive city, but without any regulation on how much to produce of what (i.e. we no longer produce based on demand, instead we produce, then find a way to sell it).

Why are we assuming debts must be repayed, or repayable? — Echarmion

Because the piece of paper we call "money" is an I.O.U. Otherwise, it would be rather meaningless. It is a debt on future energy/profit what have you. Would you be happy walking into your bank and asking for your money, and they say, no sir, we have already paid out enough today thank you. Come back another day.

So my car, my TV and this computer are all illusions? — Echarmion

None of the items are wealth. The illusion is that if 5 people each have a ticket that says they are owed £1000, but there's only £2000 available, £3000 is an illusion in that it doesn't exist (times this by a billion). The items are all consumables items, continually devaluing to nothing. It would be hard to even call them assets, because they do not increase in value year on year.

How would that work, exactly? — Echarmion

This was a poor attempt at humor. Hopefully it wont work and therefore never happen. However, history tells us (taking Germany in the 1930s) that when you have nothing to lose, because their economy was so bad after WW1, war is a big boost to the economy.

I can't say I fully follow, but that may well be because we are looking at this completely opposite to each other or we understand the words differently. Where you see humility as part of suffering, I only see that in context of the ego (the selfish self that is false, and will die anyway because it was never real). For instance, if I say, "I'm sorry", do I suffer? No. Unless you say did my ego take a hit and get a bit smaller by being humble, in which case the answer is "yes, it did". That, I would see as a good thing, because where the ego shrunk, the soul grew. Is there a reward in humility, and if so, to what? I would answer, the soul was rewarded because it gained back ground from the ego. I definitely do not agree that suffering should be avoided. That's not even possible. The condition is suffering. Pleasure/pain are the same coin, just different sides - a pendulum swing. The degree you have pleasure, will then attract the same degree of pain. For example, I get pleasure from my car. Then it breaks down, get smashed, etc. I suffer, its painful. But only to the degree of pleasure I had from it. Why did the whole saga happen in the first place? Because I desired pleasure from the car, I attached the car to my sense of self. Because this is wrong, I suffered.

On humility, I see this in a young child who is encouraged to say sorry. They struggle to start with and will refuse. But, once they do it, and do it a few times, they then understand the benefit to it, and then they offer "a sorry" before you ask them. That is of course, if you explain what the sorry is for, and why it is necessary. If you just get them to "parrot" a sorry, then it has no value other than to appear like a nice thing to do - an etiquette.

It may well be we have a different understanding of the words, because I will be completely honest, I don't know what "prediction error as our sensory experience" means to you, as it suggests that perhaps your senses gave you false information? I'm not sure I follow. Again, I don't understand a lot of it, but as another example, "Instead of allocating energy to integrate the new information, the body allocates energy to generate a fight-or-flight response to this ‘offending’ information." Are you suggesting that there is not enough energy in the system to understanding something? The body has not allocated any energy in my understanding from or to the "fight or flight" response, because this is a release of hormones into the blood, excreted from the adrenal glands? Has energy been diverted from somewhere else to make the glands work? I don't know. I'm sorry, I'm not being facetious, I just don't completely follow the words. I'm pretty sure its just our difference in understanding of the combination of words.

There is a book called "Life after growth, and why 200 years of growth are over" by Tim Morgan, he was involved in the oil boom as a analyst. Very clever chap, and highlights that when the industrial revolution took off, instead of 12 people having to work to feed 12 people, now 10 people could work to feed 12 people. 2 people were now "spare" to think up more efficient ways of doing things. Money represents a debt on future energy. The financial economy is a shadow of the energy economy. As long as they remain in step, and making energy was cheap, the debts could be honoured. However, as the energy dries up, it cost more to get the oil and therefore the ratios go out of step. They are now so out of step, the financial economy could never pay back the debts it owes.

The wealth we perceive is an illusion because it cannot be repaid. Just look at Cyprus in 2008 when everyone panicked, ran to the banks and tried to draw their money out the bank. They closed the banks, then wiped out everyone bank accounts. They actually emptied everyone's bank accounts. Now, we say, that couldn't happen here, that's just Cyprus! Wrong. If people get wise to it, and start drawing out on mass, the banks will be closed and the money will be taken. Because there is no alternative, the money doesn't exist to repay everyone. So the entire system is balancing on a knife edge, held upright by confidence. As long as everyone has confidence in the system, they wont draw on mass and we should be able to kick the can down the road a bit more, and hopefully, it will be someone else's problem in the next generations!

By the way, whilst everyone is focused on the old corona virus, did anyone notice America are in financial meltdown and printing money at rates of 2 trillion? Imagine you tried to run your car on nitrous oxide all the time - flat out! That's what they are doing there by creating money from thin air, then pumping it into the economy to avoid a collapse. It doesn't avoid a collapse, it just makes it bigger and harder when it hits.

Tim's solution is a responsible one, he recommends instead of printing more money and making the problem even worse for future generations, we should "grasp the nettle" now, and destroy billions (trillions now) of inflated, fairytale money to get the two systems back in sync. Of course, the rich are not too keen on this, the truth is, it's the only solution. That, or start a massive war and hope they can kill off hundreds of millions of people and therefore the wealth will be destroyed by destroying the depositors instead.

Yep, there lies, damn lies, and statistics (in that order)

Excess thought in its most apparent form occurs when someone is suffering a panic attack. Granted the effect is in the body, but the cause is from the thought. Not all excessive thought results in a panic attack, because it depends on the nature of the thought. If the thought is of impending doom, especially if that is linked to ones life in the form of imminent death, then the panic attack occurs. If real physical death is felt to be imminent, then it doesnt occur the same way. So the panic attack occurs when the thought is there, but there is no real physical threat. Of course, there are degrees as in scale, sometimes it might just be anxiety or unease rather than full blown panic attack. Either way the origin is the thought.

In the sense excess thought profits nothing, is related to this topic title. The more thought there is, the less understanding there is. If understanding arises by negation or absence, then the more thought there is, the less understanding there is. For example, if you have a garden thats full of weeds, theres no room to grow fruit and veg. Thats not staying thought is not useful, its excessive thought that is unproductive.

Adding time into this muddys the water further. Granted, people do say they didnt have time for this or that, and present this as a reason for why the goal was not achieved, but was this challenged? Did anyone look at what the time was actually spent on. When ever time or money are used for reasons not to do something, usually this occurs as a clever excuse not to try in the first place, or to justify having spent the time in distraction and not on the problem at hand. Not always, but often and depending on the reason for the excuse. Once i was told, use the 5 whys. Whatever you are given as a reason, in response ask why. By the 5th time you will arrive at the real why, if not before.

In terms of time, again, it could be seen as an obstacle, or an illusion. Eckhart Tolle explains this fantastically, but i will attempt a poor repetition. Clock time, your watch time, does exist, but in the same way a tape measure exists. If you apply it to anything, then it has meaning. Without an object of relativity it becomes pretty pointless. All we really have is now, right now, this moment. You can say X happened in the past or will happen in the future, but either way when you think about it or remember it, you do so, in the now, this present moment. Consider anything in your life that didn't happen in the present moment? Nothing ever happens unless it is in this moment now. That said, eternity does exist, but it is this moment that is eternal. It takes quite some contemplating to really feel this, but once the penny drops, it is one of the big obstacles overcome.

If we create a frame of reference for ourselves, then everything after that point is within that frame of reference. If I imagine time as real i am trapped within the frame of reference called time. Time changes not, but all things change in time. Look for time, where will you find it? Yes, there is evidence of its effect if you ascribe the effect to time, but you wont find time. Dismantle a clock, you wont find time. It doesnt exist.

Absolutely right, there is an inherent flaw in thinking, i couldnt have put it better. Again, its the frame of reference. If thinking is the frame of reference, then everything following it has to remain in the frame of reference. Decates said, "i think therefore i am", framed thinking within thinking. He should have said, "i think i think, therefore i think i am". It has a place for sure, just like a starter motor has a place on a car. But you cant drive your car on the starter motor (well I guess you can but it will be painfully slow progress, and the starter motor will burn out).

I like the quote, it points to exactly this. Our experience is too rich for theories. Well of course it is, experience is not a theory. All is vibration, so it always was, so it always will be.

Driver: the starter motor is too slow to complete this 10,000 mile journey (moving at half a mile an hour)
Co-driver: No, the distance is just too far.

Everything on the outside is a reflection, therefore its all appears backwards. Look at your image in a mirror. Then look at a photograph of yourself, they dont match.

You put it beautifully, and more clearly than I, thank you. It is the rising above, or going beyond thought that I was suggesting, as you rightly say. I was tempted to draw the similarity between a clear pond of water, verses the same pond but with a stone thrown in. That was the obscurity i wanted to hightlight.

I definitely agree its not by avoidance, but by negation - by the absence thereof. If you consider children stories, they often have a moral code behind them but it is coded in a way that passes the conscious mind and therefore is accepted by the subconscious. Instead of telling a story about say, the monkey foot and wishes, why not just say to the child, "careful what you wish for, it may come true". The story style remains with the child, the direct approach is registered, then forgotten, incidentally suggesting consciousness being associated with short term memory but high intensity, and sub conscious being associated with long term memory, low intensity.

Creativesoul, thats absolutely fine, what do you have when thought is absent, for instance when a baby suckles, or a newly born fish swims? For a long time I had the same view, however looking at ego shattering experience or ego death, my view reversed. Each is entitled to their own opinion of course, variety is the spice of life.

Thats a fair point. I would suppose that mass consumerism has at its core the feeling of "lacking" or "not enough". It must have a cause, and the effect is the need to then fill that void. Especislly when there is clearly no need for it, and in some cases, physically destructive. When considering the waste produced it make one wonder why when demand when met, supply isnt then stopped.

I suppose it could be argued that the times were different and therefore the mortality of it wasnt questioned. That or those who approved of such things had the capacity, and the persuasion to encourage it. I would say all opinions should be considered otherwise there is no room for growth.

Interesting, this reminded me of my training course for Counselling. Very early on within the first 2 or 3 sessions, conformity came up as a topic and the tutor said, at the end of the class we will do a test on conformity. I was immediately intrigued. The class ran on, and we forgot about it. At the end of the class she chatted briefly about it, and then said "ok lets do the test, everyone stand up". Immediately everyone around me stood up, but I remained seated. She immediately announced that was the test. Everyone sighed, and then looked at me. I then became very nervous and uncomfortable. Shortly after this, I left the course and lost £2000.

I learnt my lesson that non conformity could be expensive.

No actual historical data is out there on frequency because war is not triggered by time, its triggered by either "not enough" usually resources, or threat to power, usually existing. 2nd world war, rise of fascism. Iraq 2, threat to oil revenue via currency change to euro, Afganistan, first threat to usa superpower since japan. Various old Chinese wars, land grabs (resources). Interestingly Seria were left untouched because politically there was a perceived better gain by blaming Libia instead, to Gadaffis misfortune.

Iraq 2, I remember Tony Blair saying, "we have a dossier showing Iraq can launch an attack in 45 minutes" as his justification for war and we went to war on this basis. We all thought that was a terrible threat, until it turned out the dossier was written for the Iraq 1 war, and was produced by a student at university. Such is the madness.

War is cold, calculated and will not be undertaken unless there is a land mass gain, or a power gain (or its negative, elimination of threat to existing power).

The very nature of the physical world is atrophy. Everything naturally is losing inertia. The only thing keeping the whole thing going is new growth. Sex is the same. Of course married couples will get bored of sex, thats the whole point especially when they are past child bearing age. Why would life waste its time encouraging them to have sex. That is, unless they are creative or love each other before themselves. Instead couples like this are given an even better opportunity. If you love someone only because you like having sex with them, atrophy is going to help you split up one day, or lead separate lives, or just hate each other. However, if you move beyond the animal instincts of sex drive, take control of your urges, then you will have something more valuable.

If we imagined that prople are so full of hate that the hate in them makes them so ugly, so utterly unlovable, no matter how much makeup they put on, that nobody wants to have sex with them. Would that actaully make sense. Why propagate a gene set that is completely out of balance. By natural selection (ie no one would touch them even with yours) then there is a benefit to the overall genepool.

So when someone goes looking for a match, a partner, are they looking for something that looks good stood next to them or do they want someone that loves them. Whatever you look for you will find, but don't be fooled, like a peacock fluffs up its feathers, so do people fluff up their appearance. But whether you match or not is usually decided when you communicate, not by a picture of what they look like. Dont judge a book by its cover.

The Dissintergration of many a society happened as a result of the lewd decline into sexual depravity. The Romans had their orgies, the Ancient Greek man liked to have sex with young boys, they also like to kill babies if they didnt look normal and parade naked in the streets (check out the meaning of a gymnasium), and in our society today, we have Tinder, Grinder and Dogging. Oh and internet pornography, oh and 2 girls 1 cup. Oh and human slavery for the purposes of sex working. And organised paedophile rings. There may be more I cant think of.

I would also add, if society was innate or genetic then all human beings on the planet would subscribe to them but they dont. Societies have arisen as an antithesis to hunter gather groups, allow said societies to grow to a size that intimidates smaller groups into submission, usually for the control of resources. Just take a look at how the bigger societies treat the smaller ones. Watch how the military powers of bigger nations will swoop on smaller ones, but where the contest is evenly matched, very quickly turns to economic attack in the form of sanctioning. And if thats not effective enough, then phone the leaders of the other bigger societies and get them to introduce sanctions too. This is not negative, this is not anti democratic or whatever other name one may choose to call it, it is simply analytical fact. If its wrong, please demonstrate to the contrary.

If you fancy seeing how this has played out over the last 40 years, I recommend you watch Hypernormalisation.

I would argue just because the content is different from one society to another, tells us very little about the structure of the society. Plato created a structure for society, how each one was then understood and adapted slightly made very little difference to the over arching structure. Of course we can liken our cities to ant hills and termite mounds but there is one fundamental difference, each is in balance with nature and not against it, unlike our cities. I would lean to what in nature controls the growth of a termite or ant colony? How is its size limited as resources diminish. Perhaps we should follow the same path. Is there any balance in a system being in favour of less than 1% of the population, at the cost of the 99%.

Again i would argue, and certainly not for the advocation of anarchy which paramounts to chaos. Yes that is an option but one resulting in absolute destruction so not one I would vote for. My point here is, that a society that is effective for all concerned would need to be one based on order, but not of the few, but order by agreement of all. To hide behind the complexities of an existing system as a reason to say it cannot be known is to mix up content with structure. As you rightly highlighted, an ant hill is highly complex in its appearance but is structurally created by very basic rules, and hierarchies or order.

If you can show a model before Ancient Greek that represents closely to what we now see in our own cities, that fundamentally issues justice by those who are unjust, then I would welcome the opportunity to see it. Prior to Greek, we had the latter dynasties of Egypt but by that point they had also already become corrupta had lost there head. However, the earlier version of Ancient Egypt which were run as a well organised Theocracy showed what humans could achieve with co operation was greater than anything else. Of course we were told, probably by the Greeks, that Egypt was founded on slaves, although archeology has shown the people were actually well respected and looked after and actually loved their Pharoahs. Needless to day the pyramids and the like were built in a time when most others were generally still smash flint together to make fire and living in caves.

If my arguement sounds like anarchy then my message was not understood, that may be my fault for not explaining it well enough, if so I apologise. The point is, what we have now can only end is disaster because a fundamental flaw was built into the foundation from the start, being the objective to favour the few at the cost of the many, or simply exploitation. A beautiful house built on sand will still sink no matter how nice it might be for those living in it.

Upon contemplating my original comment further, I would rather say that dismantling the city may not be necessary if indeed it can be re-engineered. Whether there is enough time to do such a thing, I very much doubt, but it certainly would be possible.

In Platos Republic, he identified the problem of growth of the city. The city would start to encroach on the surrounding land because the numbers required to fulfil all the wants of luxury when everyone is single skilled, is massive and endlessly growing. For this, he chose the model of an obedient dog to model the soldiers required to "aquire" the land from those already occupying it. Qualities identified as recognising a friend and being nice, and recognising a foe and being murderous were deemed good. He went as far as to say that a dog was a philosopher and had wisdom. He also highlighted the necessity of limiting the competing narrative of theocracy, in the form of poetry, for these would clearly guide a solider to the contrary. He also recognised the need to balance such a person with a triumphant soul, for, as he said, who can defeat the soul, its unbeatable. He deduced that by music such a need could be fulfiled.

I dont know what the right answer is, perhaps at his time of writing it made perfect sense, but I see that it is not the answer for us today.

Society is a fabrication fathered by Socrates / Plato. All variations thereof have stemmed from this. Does it make sense that each person in the society / city is single skilled when this is completely contrary to nature whereby the strongest survive by their ability to adapt and change to their environ. If we likened society to cattle herding, then the whole process has been a method to group the masses together in order to serve the few, who were more interested in quality than survival, but nature tells us that in such circumstances, take swarming locusts for instance, the population swell to such an extent that they consume everything and then die, usually through starvation or disease. Instead perhaps, we should look to a flock of birds in the sky. A flock of millions will move together in beautiful synchronicity, without a leader, with no need of a privileged few and yet the result is one of harmony and balance.

They do not settle in one place and consume everything, instead they move around and allow that which has been consumed to re grow. In crop growing this is known as crop rotation, a resting of the soil at the appropriate time.

We could also liken this to cancer in the body. Cancer is simply cells that wont stop growing (cell transgression). The body is dealing with this all the time and has very good methods for eliminating these cells. The problem arises when the cells stop moving and therefore cannot be removed by normal elimination from the body. At which point the cells set in and a tumour develops. If the settlement site happens to be in an organ that normal distributes around the body (generally in the glands) then the cells are sent everywhere that gland has access to.

I would dare to suggest that our rise in physical cancer in the body is in perfect relation to the cancer our now "global city" dwelling, where countries are liken to districts. A reverse of the pattern would be needed to fix it. Our cities should be dismantled and everyone should become multi skilled in living and not single skilled in dependance. How we get there is an unanswered question.