[???] $\rightarrow$Anthropocentrism $\rightarrow$ Animal Rights Movement$\rightarrow$ Environmental Movement $\rightarrow$ The Cosmic Perspective

[???] $\rightarrow$ Geocentrism $\rightarrow$ Copernican Revolution $\rightarrow$ Heliocentrism $\rightarrow$ The Great Debate (Astronomy)

The mind's very own inflationary model mirroring the physical universe's (The Big Bang).

We are all connected — Niel deGrasse Tyson

We are way for the cosmos to know itself — Carl Sagan

Can you make me one with everything? — Karl Stefanovic (interviewing the Dalai Lama)

Eating one's cake and having it too. From The Paradox Of The One.

My suggestion is that understanding something means relating it correctly to the world, which you know and can know only through experience — Daemon

Mary's Room?

The question is, does Mary learn anything new?

I recall mentioning this before but what is red? Isn't it just our eyes way of perceiving 750 nm of the visible spectrum of light?

Look at it in terms of language. This :point: 0 is sifr in Persian, zero in English and sunya in Hindi but do we claim that the Persian knows something more from the word "sifr" or that an Englishman got an extra amount of information from the word "zero" and so on?

Likewise, does Mary get ahold of new information when she sees the color red? It's just 750 nm in eye language.

I dunno. :chin:

YHWH became a taboo word — Gnomon

He Who Must Not Be Named



WTF?

I wouldn't say the posture corresponds to an immoral act. Only cartoons/caricatures probably accept bribes that way. It's not very surreptitious at all if you can't control when this behavior is done and onlookers will be able to derive meaning from context quite easily. They'll say... oh, that guy has Erb's palsy and therefore most likely isn't a police officer... — Nils Loc

It looked like an interesting lead, you know, how a physical deformity (Erb's palsy) resembles the physical posture one would assume if one were offering a bribe to someone. It seemed as though there's a connection between physical illnesses and mental illnesses, specifically moral in nature (deformities of the soul).

By the way, this messes up my theory, have a read of this glowing character assessment of Jeffrey Dahmer (the Miluwakee Cannibal)

Friedman testified that it was a longing for companionship that caused Dahmer to kill. He stated, "Mr. Dahmer is not psychotic." He spoke kindly of Dahmer, describing him as, "Amiable, pleasant to be with, courteous, with a sense of humor, conventionally handsome, and charming in manner. He was, and still is, a bright young man." — Wikipedia

:chin: Hmmmmm

Well, taking my cue from Socrates, possibly others I'm unaware of, philosophy was/(is still?) an extremely lethal disease. I can't find a reasonable explanation for why anyone would want to follow in the footsteps of someone who was executed for doing what he did - philosophizing. It's as if philosophers, free thinkers in general, have a death wish. Are we like moths attracted to the flames (of veritas)? :chin: Something sinister about the truth. A friend once commented, I think it was more of a warning, that it was better not to understand.

Never mind. Gracias.

I said nothing about "God". The word isn't even mentioned. — 180 Proof

Deity — 180 Proof

The belief that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe — Wikipedia

:chin:

Yours is a very interesting, not to mention profound, perspective indeed but aren't you just playing with the word "God"? I dunno, it feels like you are.

Yes. The rest of your post is – assumptions to the contrary are – incoherent. Read e.g. Peirce, Dewey, Popper, Haack ... Witty. :yawn: — 180 Proof

This is how I imagine, even contemplate (strange loop-like) — 180 Proof

Your comment from Artificial Intelligence & Free Will Paradox

Merely from knowing the formula's meaning, one can infer its truth or falsity without any effort to derive it in the old-fashioned way, which requires one to trudge methodically "upwards" from the axioms. This is not just peculiar; it is astonishing. Normally, one cannot merely look at what a mathematical conjecture says and simply appeal to the content of that statement on its own to deduce whether the statement is true or false. — Douglas Hofstadter (Downward Causality - Strange Loop)

:chin:

??? — 180 Proof

the deity annihilates itself by becoming the universe in order to experience not being the deity. — 180 Proof

God Became The Universe

The belief that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe — Wikipedia

How? What does that mean?

Pandeism is "my omega point — 180 Proof

I can't parse how a deity becomes one or merges with the universe? Do you mean like a cyborg, one of the predicted futures of humanity when man and machine become symbionts?

That's because he inferred an overall tendency or positive principle, the "World Soul", which keeps the undulating universe on an upward track. In my personal worldview, that positive trend or principle is labeled "EnFormAction". It's similar to Plato's Logos, in that it's not just aimless Energy, but also the Rational power to enform. It's not just Tele-, it's also -Logical — Gnomon

That's a pretty nice way of looking at it. Yes, there are peaks and valleys, like a sinusoidal wave but the wave itself has an upward trajectory. :up:

Yin-Yang is an example of this - if we perceive two sides then the symmetry is complete, but only because a perspective exists that is neither yin nor yang, and therefore capable of perceiving the two sides. — Possibility

That third party would be subsumed by the duality it forms with the anti-third party. Every other party you invoke, if you so desire, will again neatly pair up with its opposite and will be absorbed into duet of yin-yang.

If the universe has symmetry, then it does NOT follow that every property or quality of the universe is symmetrical at every level of awareness. Gravity is qualitatively different from matter, which is qualitatively different from particles, etc. So it does NOT follow that ‘for every thing there must be an anti-thing’. 2 does not necessarily follow from 1. — Possibility

Name a thing that doesn't have an anti-thing.

Also, what's awareness got to do with dimensions? Can you provide a link that explains this connection between awareness and dimensions? Or is it just a theory you invented?, in which case I'm not interested.

Omega Point — Gnomon

Read about it but only very superificially - it basically gives a scientific spin to the Christianity's prophecy of the Second Coming - resurrections en masse, technologically achieved of course.

But it gives us a lot of positive plausible information to consider, when faced with hopeless negative apocalyptic worldviews. :cool: — Gnomon

Yep, it's a refreshingly optimistic view of the future, not the plethora of hackneyed doom and gloom predictions we're so used to hearing/seeing on TV and, don't forget, the lone individual on the street corner carrying a placard with the words "GAME OVER".

I wonder which of the two futures will come true? It doesn't hurt to look at the bright side, does it? :chin:

You never know, you never know. Have you heard of OOP Art? We can't just reject theories out of hand. Mind you, I'm not trying to make a case for my hypothesis. G'day.

Much obliged.

Now it makes sense. The consonants had a prefix/suffix that was constant. So, for instance k could only be ka and never ke or ku or ki or ko and t could only be too and definitely not tu or ti or ta or to or te to use English vowels for demonstration purposes only. Thus the written word tk, no sweat, is to be read as took. No ambiguity at all.

However,

1) That means a very small word bank for ancient languages. I find that hard to believe but that's not an argument.

2) It still seems very intriguing to consider my theory that a single book in an ancient language, containing only consonants, could be many books all at once, each book emerging from the same text by using the correct vowel permutation. Perhaps there's a key in these texts themselves.

This hypothesis actually makes sense because most writing those days, those that were deemed important at least, were written on stone (walls/blocks/etc.). Space was at a premium. Ergo, my hunch, that one sentence of only consonants could convey more than one meaning, the right sequence of vowels revealing them. :chin: I dunno.

blst — Wayfarer

You forgot an "h"! :lol:

Again: This does NOT work with the english language. You're completely overlooking the radical differences between language systems as well as the lack of vocabulary in ancient language. The Tanakh only contains about 8700 distinct words and about 2000 roots. Modern hebrew has about 33.000 words.

English in comparison is estimated to historically have over a million word definitions. About 170.000 words are currently in active use. — Hermeticus

I see. People those days had a limited vocabulary. So with the possibility space for words being small, it wasn't really that hard to guess the correct vowels to be inserted/affixed/suffixed into/to a given combination of consonants. The natural question then is why adopt a more complicated writing system when all that guessing & extra layer of context hunting could be done away with a single stroke - writing down the vowels? Were ancient writers über geniuses, one book, containing only consonants, could be multiple books, each narrative/account recorded a matter of inserting different, the right, vowel permutation?

For example:
Consonant permutation: Trn th thr chk

1. Turn the other cheek [one book]

2. Train thee their chook [another book]

Many secrets maybe hidden in ancient texts. I know this is taking it a bit too far but what if all of science too is one of the books contained in ancient texts? We just need to find out the correct vowels to add to the consonants.

I understood that the point is that it is a name that could not be spoken, because to speak the name was to profane it.

Observant Jews and those who follow Talmudic Jewish traditions do not pronounce יהוה‎ nor do they read aloud proposed transcription forms such as Yahweh or Yehovah; instead they replace it with a different term, whether in addressing or referring to the God of Israel. Common substitutions in Hebrew are Adonai ("My Lord") or Elohim (literally "gods" but treated as singular when meaning "God") in prayer, or HaShem ("The Name") in everyday speech. — Wayfarer

Will get back to you later.

It worked to some degree. — Hermeticus

:ok:

Not perfectly though — Hermeticus

So, not perfect but good enough. How exactly? An illustration please. Thank you.

Also there's the aspect of context. I can even _____ out whole _____ and you'll still ____ what I'm saying. — Hermeticus

The problem with that is one has to first have a context and for that some words have to be understood but then that's precisely the problem. See below:

1. Rd Ppl = Red Apple OR Rude People.

I'd venture to say they are incapable of using tit-for-tat strategy. My actions toward bugs I encounter probably won't ever come back to bite me, as I think you are saying.

However, that would also apply to the situation you describe in which giant lifeforms arrived on Earth. As I mentioned, if I were in a situation in which I encountered a civilization of intelligent, flea-sized people, I'd very much want to take advantage of the size difference and establish dominance. I think that's a pretty understandable and reasonable wish for any guy though. The opportunity to be worshipped as a god would be almost irresistible, and the possibilities would be endless. Why let them have self-determination, if through sheer force, I could force them to engineer their society in my own image? I'd flatten any structure that didn't at least in some small way idolize me. — IanBlain

It looks like we don't have a choice - this is the elimination stage of the game of life (@schopenhauer1). Kill or be killed.

Give me a moment please. This happens once every millionth blue moon for me. You can imagine how thrilled I am. This must be what nirvana feels like. A great many thanks to you 180 Proof.

My intention was to formulate a simple argument that demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is the only moral end, in order to stimulate discussion over what other moral ends there might be. I believe this argument also demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is always the highest-prioritized ethical end.

I am of the opinion that no real ethical theory can be as formulaic and dogmatic as this. Ethics is guided by a plurality of different, sometimes contradictory, prima facie duties, re: W. D. Ross. Reducing suffering is one of these duties, and is one of the strongest ones, but neither it nor any other duty can lay claim to having ultimate priority — darthbarracuda

I'm of the view that the abolishment of suffering is/should be our primary objective, first order of business, for the simple reason that it (suffering) is, among feelings, the most potent in terms of its capacity to hinder/impede our judgment and, that would basically gum up the works, every and all plans we make would be of such poor quality that it would've been better to simply let the chips fall where they may. Suffering is, I mean to say, incapacitating - our first port of call is to reduce/eliminate it.

That said, should we be thinking let alone planning? No, according to some. It's complicated! :confused:

Two ways one can come to the conclusion that an x exists:

1. x is real [oasis]

2. x is an illusion [mirage]

So is

3. Consciousness real

OR

is

4. Consciousness an illusion

?

This is an interesting state of affairs because if 4 is true, an illusion would have to recognize itself as an illusion? Can something not real become aware that it is not real? A nonexistent thing comes to know of its own nonexistence? How can that be done?

P.S. The Buddha did it. See :point: Anattā. It must be mentioned though that what the Buddha was referring to was a self and is consciousness that, the self?

It all seems to boil down to minimizing annoyances and grievances that will definitely arise whether more on the lonely camp or the social camp — Manuel

:ok:

One cold winter's day, a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another... — Manuel

Familiarity breeds contempt vs Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

I don't know about the one per se, but your OP reminded me of Schopenhauer's porcupines:

"One cold winter's day, a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another..." — Manuel

I vaguely recall reading that - the porcupine principle (balancing safety in numbers with protecting one's privacy). It looks the point to living well is to have a foot in every camp, have the best of all worlds, eat one's cake and have it too. Thanks for reminding me of this gem of wisdom.

I Work Alone

Sometimes, this lone wolf attitude arose because of some past trauma. They may have had partners, sidekicks, love interests, or other teammates die on them and wound up thinking that working alone won't get anybody else killed. — TV Tropes

The Team

split along particular roles based on complementary skills and personality traits that contribute to group dynamics in their own unique way. — TV Tropes

Also, Divide And Conquer vs Alliance

See :point: The Paradox Of The One

I Work Alone vs The Team (TV tropes)

Non sequitur. No. — 180 Proof

Why? How?

This depends... — Accounting

On?

I will grant that there is no logical necessity between having a life and suffering, however I think it can be reasonably assumed that any real life (not imaginary) will inherently involve some degree of suffering — darthbarracuda

That is the hard truth we all (the living) have to come to grips with. The relationship between suffering and life is nuanced though - all suffer but some suffer more than others, very much like what Napoleon the head pig in George Orwell's Animal Farm delcares "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others". This then requires a more sophisticated approach, taking into account the inherent complexity, to life & suffering.

Yes, this does indeed reconcile them quite well. However (and I should have specified this so forgive me), what I had in mind was a sort of monism where what is considered to be physical and what is considered to be mental are identical. — Paul Michael

To me, that would be pissing in the wind. Monism, physical and mental, together, are incompatible, mutually inconsistent unless...the following makes sense:

1. All is mental (idealism).

That is to say,

2. The physical = The mental

---

3. All is physical (physicalism).

That is to say,

4. The mental = The physical

Ergo,

5. All is mental (idealism) = All is physical (physicalism) [From 1, 2, 3, 4]

:chin:

Careful, Fool. Don't confuse mortality as a 'genetic imperative' with ethnic cleasing & mass-murder. That Ought doesn't follow from any Is. — 180 Proof

:ok:

Some things are physical AND some things are nonphysical. There, reconciled.

... to make room for descendents. After all, genomic self-replicators self-replicate or perish: without mortality, I think, natality would not be sufficiently urgent or adaptive in nature (for vertebrates). — 180 Proof

Space is at a premium. Lebensraum (Hitler, 1 September 1939).

Aristotle said one gave rise to the other — Valentinus

It makes sense though to claim that relativism/subjectivism (?) is self-refuting: Subjectivism/relativism itself must be relative/subjective, sawing off the very branch that supports it but only if relativism/subjectivism claims to be objective/absolute. Does it?

Nah, not your usual 'chasing cars and catching bumpers', Fool. :joke: — 180 Proof

:grin: