My view of ‘gender’ is that it relates to a three-dimensional structure:

1. physical genitalia (at birth)
2. social role identification (3-11 years)
3. sexual preference (puberty)

The general assumption is that 1 is binary and determines both 2 and 3 in a ‘normal’ human being. Anyone who deviates from this is considered ‘abnormal’ in a variety of value systems. We have been increasing awareness and acceptance of a simple two-dimensional view that includes homosexual preference, but generally maintain that social role identification be irrevocably determined by either 1 or 3.

In reality it is social environment that determines the availability of social roles with which one can identify. Children dress-up and try on roles as diverse as they are given the freedom to: whether that’s doctors and nurses, pirates, princesses, superheroes, dinosaurs, dogs, ducks, etc...

Each time you tell a child they can’t wear that or BE that because they ARE something or someone else, you limit their overall potential. When a child identifies with a social role they’re actively prevented from pursuing, it causes dysphoria. These social role limitations we impose on our children to ‘protect’ them from bullying, etc are in response to the limited social roles we are imposing on our children. The bullying doesn’t come from the children, but is a result of the imposed social environment - influence from parents, teachers, media, etc.

Children don’t need to be told they’re not going to grow up to be a dinosaur. They’re smart enough to work that out for themselves, eventually - as long as we teach them to see the world for what it is. By the same token, they will learn that the clothing they wear can change how people interact with them. They will learn how they feel about that, and that their clothing choices go some way towards choosing the nature of their social interactions, but do not define who they are. If we take away this choice in some respects but not others, if we disallow the choices they make, then what are we teaching them about who they can be?

When you say ‘given enough time’ do you mean within the constraints of a human lifetime, or given unlimited time - which would render this human mind ‘in-human’?

What I am getting at is that existential depression is an egocentric view of life, where compassion subterfuges for such an abstract term denoted in economics as 'rational behavior'. Instead, I would characterize this state of existential ennui towards a more compassionate view of seeing the world as fundamentally lacking in such compassion.

What are your thoughts about this? It seems almost as if the childlike care for others, parents, and such is sublimated into something profoundly repugnant. Why does this happen or what happens in such individuals who possess this trait of care or compassion? — Wallows

Compassion is ‘suffering with’. It’s recognising that we all experience pain, loss and humility as a part of life, and we should connect and collaborate on this level with those around us. It’s not so much about eliminating suffering in the world, but about being prepared to accept our fair share of it.

Pity is failing to connect on this level: the suffering is either yours or it is mine.

We often claim to have compassion for those who are suffering, such as when we give our spare change or used/unwanted possessions to the poor. But this is not compassion, it’s pity. When we see that someone is suffering from hunger we recognise how that feels, but we refuse to accept that we should also suffer from hunger. So we eat our fill first, and then give the leftovers: this is pity. Compassion is inviting them to join us in the meal, or giving them the jacket we’re wearing.

In self-pity, we see another’s suffering as our own, and fail to accept that they are also suffering in their own way. When we realise that our parents’ lives are fleeting, that they will die, we recognise only how that feels for us to lose them, not for them to lose their life. We care that they will die, but not for them - only for ourselves. Our attempts to ‘understand’ how they might suffer are limited to only how the life they lose relates to us.

Buddha taught that life is suffering, and the only way to transcend suffering is to accept it in our own lives, instead of trying to resist it. But to accept suffering is not to wallow in it as such, or wear it like a badge of martyrdom, waving it in people’s faces as if I am the only one who suffers. To accept suffering in our lives is to simply absorb it and move on as if it’s just part of life.

Compassion is to recognise that when I see someone suffering from hunger, their suffering is not mine to solve, but mine to share. I will never eliminate suffering, either in my life or in the world. But I know that I can and should tolerate more suffering than I currently have in my life, if that goes some way towards sharing in the suffering of others.

God, in Its omnipotence, can restart the world at any point. It can erase all history from reality, and start the creation again. Say It will do that, for whatever reason.

1. What reasons should It have to do so?
2. How will this new world be different from ours?
3. Are the same souls going to be given to the newborns, or completely different ones as in this, our, world?
4. Can you think of a compelling reason why God would never want to restart the world?
5, Can you think of any compelling reasons why God would want to restart the world?
6. Finally, what advice would YOU give God with regards to changing parameters between our world and the newly created new and improved world? — god must be atheist

A couple of comments about my approach to the terminology, before I begin.

First of all, technically, I’m an atheist. In my view ‘God’ is a concept, not a being. It isn’t confined by OT/NT character traits or religious doctrine.

Secondly, by ‘world’ and ‘creation’, I’m not referring here to just the physical universe in time, although I have a feeling that’s what you meant. I find the dichotomy of physical/metaphysical increasingly unhelpful in these discussions, if we are to reach any real understanding of how ‘God’ relates to ‘the world’ and vice versa. But I’ll give the mental exercise a go anyway, if you’ll accept this interpretation:

1. Perhaps if it believes this world incapable of achieving anything worthwhile, ever.
2. From our point of view: in an uncountable number of ways. From God’s omniscience: no difference.
3. That depends on what you understand by ‘soul’ and ‘creation’ (and I think there is plenty of misunderstanding on this in doctrine). I would imagine that if ‘creation’ was to start again, whatever ‘souls’ are would either be part of that ‘creation’, or part of ‘God’. Refer to 2.
4. Because despite ALL the crap and the pitfalls and the setbacks, and despite how it may look from your POV, what this world has achieved and is capable of achieving is ultimately worthwhile.
5. Honestly, not from where I’m sitting.
6. I’m hardly in any position to give advice to God, seriously. All I can manage from my position is to do what I find I’m capable of in terms of interacting with the world to achieve something ultimately worthwhile, and then hope for the best.

I recognise this all sounds very ‘Pollyanna’ - as if I’m somehow ignorant of all the pain and suffering or irretrievable destruction going on in the world. As if I should be angry that everyone else (including God) is not doing their bit to fix the problems, or else beating myself up for not doing more. But to me, that’s like yelling at the football game on TV. It’s not achieving anything, really. Shut up and join the team yourself, or accept the result.

:up:
I’m intrigued by the title - It speaks directly to my current perspective.
I’ll have to add it to my reading list. Thanks!

The dualism of Descartes has hamstrung this discussion of ‘soul’ for centuries. If we follow the chronological path of modern philosophy through Descartes, we arrive at exactly where we are now: trying to understand what consciousness is and why we can’t seem to connect mind and body, while discounting ancient religious documents as failing to take into account modern philosophical or scientific thought - and then wondering at the gaps in philosophical or scientific thought.

The nature and capacity of the human mind enables us to explore connections that have little to do with their chronological proximity or their use of common language terms. These connections in philosophy are the content of human experience. How we experience the world as human beings essentially hasn’t changed for thousands of years. What we are aware of about our experiences, and how we structure those experiences as the ‘reality’ in which we interact has been the interconnected and collaborative task of spirituality, philosophy and science.

But we also have a tendency to fear, deny our fear of and then compartmentalise what we don’t understand - in other words, we haven’t been connecting or collaborating very well in many key areas of discussion.

When did philosophy abandon poetic language as a tool for connecting human experience? Rational language fails at the edge of reasoning and logic, but you can’t deny that human experience exists well beyond it...

Even if that is true, we cannot put history aside. History of something is its property. Two things, even if the same size, color, weight, shape and in the same location, are not the same things if they have different history. — elucid

You’re talking about the experience of an entity: its fifth dimensional aspect. With the same size, colour, weight, shape and in the same location in spacetime, two ‘things’ that reach this point coincidentally from different trajectories not only have different histories, but may have different futures, as well. When measured or observed in spacetime, they cannot be distinguished from each other in that moment, and would be the same ‘thing’ to an observer.

But from a five-dimensional awareness, they are two separate entities because we are aware of their different history. So even if they combine in that moment and become one physical ‘object’, the fact that we knew them to be separate prior doesn’t just vanish, but becomes a complex history of the object in the experience of the fifth-dimensional observer. Without this fifth-dimensional awareness of history, any observation of the two objects would merely relate three-dimensional spatial location changes to different points in time (the fourth dimension). When all of these are identical, there would be no way to distinguish between the two ‘objects’ at the point of observation/measurement.

Can’t say that was very effective, with such lmited options. Reminds me of the ‘Dolly’ magazine surveys I used to do when I twelve. I didn’t appreciate the attempts to corral my data then, either.

Don’t fence me in...

Allow me to approach this from a slightly different angle.

Sexual relations occur in living things as a method of preserving the information integrated in the organism as a result of its many interactions with the world over time. The proven systems of sexual reproduction prioritise not so much the faithful reproduction of the organism in its entirety, but the reliable extension of information contained in the organism beyond its own lifespan, and the capacity to then build on that information through integration.

Human sexual relations, evolving in this manner, produces progeny that relies heavily on long term interaction from other humans as well as the environment in order to acquire sufficient information just to survive - although this is not the prime objective. This structure initially makes for an extremely fragile offspring, but allows humans to be more adaptable to change in the environment, and develops their information processing, integration and collaboration systems to maximise effectiveness in the situation at hand.

Morality has developed from our capacity to acquire additional information about the environment in relation to hierarchies of value for the system: rating stimuli according its meaningfulness. The information structure that results suggests a distinction between the environment as a system and the organism itself in terms of what is deemed more valuable. Further information shows that within the environment we also distinguish other organisms whose values align with our own.

As family, tribe and community grows, further information demonstrates that what we assumed was the same value structure or perspective of the world actually develops a number of variations, particularly over time. Morality becomes a way of minimising these variations within the social group, as well as reconciling the values of the human organism with the values of the environment/world/universe as a whole. Many social groups anthropomorphise this universal value system as a way of interacting with it on a more personal level - similar to how they learn to interact with each other.

A prominent issue in terms of recognising a difference in what is valuable would be sexual relations. What I value or want as an organism is different to what you want - this is rarely so obvious as in a sexual encounter. It is here that an overarching perspective of what is valuable can be most useful...

Islam is relevant to everything...Islam is not a solution to peace, it is the problem to peace. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Wow. You and GCB make quite the pair. I’m not going to engage in your private war against Islam. And don’t try to tell me I owe it to anyone else to spread hatred towards another religion. The Muslims I know are beautiful, intelligent people who communicate nothing but peace and love to everyone they encounter.

I am wondering why you are reluctant to try to understand from both the man and woman's perspective? — A Gnostic Agnostic

Once again, well deflected. I’m not the reluctant one here. As women, we’re well rehearsed in understanding everything from a man’s perspective.

Well, if one is looking for hatred, oppression and bias, one may want to look towards the House of Islam, because that is where much of it is coming from. — A Gnostic Agnostic

And another deflection. You’re really quite accomplished at it! Sure - I’ll call it when I encounter it. But I’m not looking for it, as such.

If by 'dimensions' you mean 'independent (orthogonal) factors', as in 'factor analysis', then that might make sense. — fresco

From what little I understand about factor analysis, I would say no. By dimensions, I do mean dimensions. But then, I’ll admit that my ability to grasp mathematics is limited. So you might have to explain what you mean in plain English.

However, whether you concur on that or not, I suggest you need to take care, for example, with your analysis of 'text' as '2-dimensional', because contrary to the religious viewpoint (set in stone), post modernists claim that text shifts its 'meaning' over time, even for its author. — fresco

If you read it again, I did say the written ‘word’ or ‘declaration’ (not text) is 2-dimensional - as in, it has a fixed relative shape on a plane. The words, once written, don’t change. Meaning, on the other hand, can be up to six dimensional. This is why I said that one of the options was to:

- continually re-interpret the words in relation to the subjective experiences. — Possibility

You correctly identified what you are yourself doing: deflecting (away from Islam). — A Gnostic Agnostic

I’m simply querying the relevance of Islam to the text.

If you're a woman who is unable to put yourself in the perspective of a man, that is a limitation you have. The whole point is Adam and Eve can see past each others own limitations which is how they grow together. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Don’t worry, I’m certainly able to - but when there is the perspective of a woman in the text, I often choose not to - and I shouldn’t have to reject the perspective of a woman in order to not be ‘limited’. I should ask if you are able to put yourself in the perspective of a woman - if you were, then you wouldn’t be writing about women in this way...

It is not about ignoring the physical, it is about transcending it, which is precisely what spirituality is. — A Gnostic Agnostic

This I agree with.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m in agreeance with much of the Gnostic viewpoint in general. But when you declare this an interpretation ‘in modern day’, then I have to call hatred, oppression and bias as I see it. Between you and GCB, I have to say, it’s not a favourable impression of Gnosticism in practice.

This is the temptation: Eve gives the fruit to Adam. the lower organ commands the higher organ, which should be the other way around. — A Gnostic Agnostic

??? And I sure hope I’m reading this one wrong...

This is exactly how the religion of Islam (ie. Muhammad) views women. If a woman is raped in Islam, it is her fault as the man blames her for what she was wearing, or how she was eating a banana etc. The men who blame/shame women for their own iniquity is what is evil - and they take the kingdom of heaven by force, because they can not get it any other way. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Sorry, but this is deflection. Stop using the example of Islam to paint yourself as the ‘good’ guy. The religion of Islam is no more ‘evil’ than Christianity. This story is not a response to Islam.

You see, a reader is supposed to use their own conscience and put themselves in the perspective of Adam. You ate from the tree. God is asking you if you ate from the tree. What is your response?

Adam could have taken responsibility and not brought the woman in and all, or he could have blamed the woman. What would have happened if he took responsibility? — A Gnostic Agnostic

Again, deflection. As a woman, I don’t put myself in the perspective of Adam - so what would you say is the story’s message for me?

This is not a story where the reader is meant to ask himself: Do I blame/shame or protect women? If it were, then we wouldn’t have to wonder what would have happened if he took responsibility.

This is a story where we are to look at the situation we’re in, and ask: where we would like to be in our relationship with God (however we understand the concept)? We can’t wish to be unaware of our fragile selves interacting with the world - we can’t un-eat the fruit, and we’re past pointing the finger of blame. Whatever we suffer, we’ve brought on ourselves, whether God is a ‘being’ or not.

So we cannot ignore our relationship with the physical world, but we should really be paying more attention to - and seeking to connect and collaborate with - what we don’t yet understand about the universe. Whether we call it God or Gnosis or something else is irrelevant. It exists, and it has much to teach us, if we’re humble and courageous enough to learn.

You application of 'societal function' to 'self' tends to be circular from the pov of 'self' as a social acquisition, constructed by a value laden communal language. — fresco

The way I see it, awareness of ‘self’ as a subject and source of value preceded the language, and contributed to its development as a system for structuring value. This appears evident from a distinct lack of ‘communal’ language, despite the translatability of ‘I’ across human experience.

I can't make sense of your 'dimensions' analogy. Maybe you could rehash what you are saying in terms of 'nested domains' ....e.g. personal, group, societal, national etc ...in which different rule mechanisms operate ? — fresco

Nested domains are inaccurate as a structure for value systems, because some people will attribute more value or significance to their national identity than their personal one, or vice versa, for example.

Value systems are a five-dimensional structure: they relate subjective experiences to each other and to events and objects in time not necessarily according to spatial or temporal structure, but according to hierarchies of significance.

So one’s subjective value structure develops from their most significant or valuable relationship interactions. This can sometimes appear as ‘nested domains’ when viewed logically, but in the midst of an emotional interaction, for instance, this apparently rational structure in theory can go out the window in practice.

Religions, like most societies, make use of significant and valuable relationships to try and homogenise this value structure, but as numbers grow and diversity in experiencing spacetime events and objects threatens homogeneity, the social ‘entity’ protects itself by creating or manifesting some sense of continuity in experience to unite observers and minimise change across spacetime.

Tradition, ritual, symbolism, mythology, language, art and written texts are all attempts to ‘realise’ a more universal value structure. Four dimensional structures such as rituals and spoken language, as events recurring in time, lend themselves to a certain amount of fluidity. Two dimensional, written declarations from significant ‘authority’ are less flexible. They’re more effective in terms of reach, but decidedly less effective in terms of an accurate account of the value structure as it pertains to three or four dimensional reality.

Sorry, it’s a tricky concept - is that any clearer... or less so?

If you don’t know how one does anything, how can you be sure they haven’t done anything?

A major societal function of religion is rationalize and regulate the sexual behavior we inherit as primates. This accounts for the 'sanctification' of male chauvinistic and polygamous tendencies.
Even those dissenting cults like gnosticism tend towards male-female dichotomy in their mythology ('logos' versus 'eros' being the Jungian subtext) even though those labels are more nebulous in their application with respect to biological gender, thereby conforming to modern pc trends. — fresco

A major societal function of religion is to regulate or structure the effect of internal experience on external behaviour. Moral law seeks to impose a single value structure upon all subjective experiences, and disseminates this law by reducing it from a complex and fluid five dimensional nebulous structure to a two-dimensional structure of words (eg. book or stone tablet). To then impose this structure onto the experiences of others, one must either:

- continually negate, oppress or eliminate those subjective experiences that challenge the 2D structure’s accuracy; or

- continually re-interpret the words in relation to the subjective experiences.

Alternatively, we could recognise the 2D structure as one of many reduced interpretations of a five dimensional, nebulous value system that is relative to the observer (pointing to an overarching sixth dimension of pure relationship between all matter).

Even here. I argue hard to win while hoping to lose and thus actually gain something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk&feature=youtu.be — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It’s not the mark of a ‘good arguer’ (ie. one who genuinely sees benefit in ‘losing’) to stoop to abuse and belittling their ‘opponent’. Collaboration cannot be achieved while you still see the discussion as an adversarial argument. You actually have to completely dismantle the war metaphor, and see others as contributors to the discussion, rather than opponents in a win-lose situation. Let them guide the language use, for instance, and argue your point from their view of the world. Your gain is not so much the win, but the ability to translate your knowledge to another perspective. And their gain is knowledge. That’s what you call win-win.

Given the number of Christians that run from me due to not being able to justify their immoral views, I would say I am a great success then.

Cowards can never be moral. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

There’s a difference between silence in the face of information that is offered with compassion for their view, and running away from insults. Cowards never learn anything, except how to run away.

And moral self-righteousness is not ‘tough love’. Tough love requires a mutually loving relationship to begin with. You can’t correct someone’s thinking with abuse - your approach is no better than the fundamentalists you hate so much.

I find it amusing how a story with a naked man and woman must be about sex. There’s exegesis, and then there’s apologetics...

I find that Adam tried to blame his own iniquity on the woman. He was asked a question by god regarding his own conduct, and he could have either taken responsibility for his own decision/action or scapegoated the problem onto the woman who handed him the fruit. He chose to scapegoat the problem onto the woman.

In modern day I see this as men who blame women for their inability to control themselves (ie. when a woman is raped it is her fault). The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is taken here as the sexual reproductive organ and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as sex. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Adam said his actions were caused by Eve’s actions, and Eve said her actions were caused by the serpent’s behaviour. All three were ‘punished’ in their own way. Why single out Adam’s culpability or scapegoating here? Oh, wait -

Because man is the archetypal bestower, women are the archetypal receiver such that all transactions good and evil are bestowed by the man (either good or evil) to the woman. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Seriously? In modern day? I realise that it may sound like you’re sympathetic to the woman’s position here, but trust me when I say you’re a long way off. Adam is not the only one here responsible for their decision/action.

Personally, I find it very difficult to liken this story to a rape situation - unless you portray the woman as an empty, passive receptacle being enacted on by all other characters. Is that really how you see women?

Try that and let me know when and where you succeed in changing a recalcitrant and obtuse religious mind. I have asked this of many like you and am still waiting to see a result. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

What are you expecting: a written testimonial? I’m happy to pry the occasional mind open just a smidgeon. If the response I get is silence, I’d say I’m making inroads.

I have seen too many nice guys get shit on more than I do. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I’m not so afraid to get shit on anymore. It’s no reason to communicate hatred, anger or violence, in my book.

Biblical stories are about all of us.

Were you afraid when you went to school? Of what? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Everyone is afraid. Most refuse to admit it - they hide their nakedness, so to speak. At school I was often afraid of being wrong, of not making friends, of being laughed at...these fears hamper the learning process both in and out of school. Courage in the face of pain, loss and humiliation is the path to knowledge.

Would you deny your children the tree of all knowledge and an education? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No, but we’re not talking about denying this. Hypothetically, it would have been a significantly easier education if we weren’t so afraid.

Would you think they were their best when as bright as bricks? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No, but hypothetically I would have thought they missed an opportunity for a more efficient education here.

I will reiterate that I don’t believe Eden ever existed. It represents a ‘perfect’ situation the authors wished they could have been in, not where they believe they once were. The problem is that Jewish and then Christian doctrine pushed for a more literal interpretation to support ulterior motives, bringing in this concept of ‘original sin’ that I don’t believe exists in this text at all.

GCB: In many ways I agree with the Gnostic viewpoint. What I don’t agree with is your attitude toward those who don’t agree. In my view, ignorance isn’t solved by vitriol, but by compassion.

Using our best (so far) processes of acquiring information and knowledge we have deduced that the universe has over 13 billion years of existence. Compared to human intelligence (the intelligence humans project through their conscious interaction but not the intelligence operating their life mechanisms), the intelligence manifest in the operation of the universe is unimaginably advanced. However, humans, having designated themselves as beings, have been attempting to conceive of another being - GOD - but with capacities greater than those witnessed in the universe. Why? — BrianW

Early humans - in developing a cognitive awareness of value in relation to observing, sensing and feeling as well as remembering and thinking about experiences of the environment (past, present and future) - soon recognised that there was a hierarchy of value for the organism (the ‘self’) that is distinct from the rest of the environment, as ‘other’. What the self needs to sustain its life mechanisms, the ‘other’ may also need for something else, bringing conflict. Humans learned to distinguish between different ‘others’ in the world, and attributed hierarchies of value to each ‘other’ in relation to the self. Some, they discovered, were larger, stronger, more intelligent than themselves. If they attack they might be killed, if they hide then they starve, but if they connect and collaborate, then perhaps they can learn something...

They also recognised an overarching hierarchy of value in the environment that portrays the self as vastly inferior: smaller, weaker, more temporary, etc. With courage, they began to seek out and attempt to understand this superior sense of ‘other’ that exists in the world, yet has no form. What they have called ‘GOD’ is a personification of this ‘other’ intelligent observer - one that sees humans as smaller, weaker, more temporary and less knowledgeable. They imagined themselves in a relationship with an all-powerful, all-knowing creator ‘being’, and through this relationship they began to learn about the world, to extend information systems beyond their own lifetimes, and get a sense of the universe beyond their own physical existence.

But as much as we hope for a ‘being’ that fulfills this role, there isn’t one. Not really. It isn’t the existence of a being, at any rate - it’s the relationship that matters. As long as we forge a relationship with what we don’t understand about the universe and existence - as long as we strive to be aware, to connect and to collaborate - then I think there is hope for us.

It’s when we convince ourselves that we know enough, that we have reached our potential or that what we don’t understand is not worth exploring, or needs to be destroyed, shut out, dismissed, ignored, etc - that’s when I think we’re in trouble...

That's nice! It makes me think of the differences between lower life-forms and higher degrees of consciousness. Meaning lower life-forms work mostly from instinct. Where higher life-forms (self-aware Beings) are born with more of a blank slate. Like the brain of a computer where data is entered/received to make the software work. — 3017amen

Not a blank slate - rather a more complex information processing system. That we are still prone to act on instinct should be obvious. The brain of a computer describes where we perhaps might have been had we not evolved from animals - had A&E not followed the serpent’s advice. Without awareness of the self participating in the world one is learning about, the amount of information one can process is hampered only by storage capacity and time. There is no fear of harm, no need to protect oneself or pretend to be less vulnerable...

But there is also no agency, no creative capacity, no genuine participation in the world. The brain of a computer can learn about the world while it follows instruction.

So you think that man's higherst form is to be too stupid to even know we was naked and having his moral sense as bling, as scriptures state was the state of A & E.

Would you deny your children the tree of all knowledge and an education?

Would you think they were their best when as bright as bricks? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

There is ‘knowledge that’ as awareness: an initial physical/mental capacity to integrate complex, multi-dimensional information.

And there is ‘knowledge how’ as experience: education and information acquired through diverse interaction with the world over time.

Understand the difference as it applies to A&E, and leave ‘God’ out of it for just a sec.

‘Knowing that’ we are naked has done us no favours. ‘Knowing how’ nakedness (awareness of vulnerability) affects the way one interacts with the world, both positively and negatively, needed to be acquired with experience by observing the world over time - and has long been hampered by the fears we acquired from being painfully ‘aware’ of our own nakedness.

‘Knowing that’ without ‘knowing how’ has contributed to much of the fear, hatred, oppression and destruction that humans have unleashed on the world...

If you would not say they learned ethics, what do you think is meant by their knowing and learning of good and evil? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

If you think humanity ‘learned ethics’ at this point, then you haven’t been paying attention. We haven’t even ‘learned ethics’ now.

‘Knowing good and evil’ (there is no reference to learning here, which is experience-based) refers to a knowledge or awareness of self in participation with the world, and thus a perception of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as it pertains to the self (ie. subjective and naive judgement). Their first sense of awareness was to recognise their vulnerability as an entity distinct from the world - their nakedness - and to fear it. From the POV of an entity interacting with the world, vulnerability is a ‘bad’ thing, because it exposes one to interaction from the everything that could be harmful to this entity. So the first action A&E take in interacting with the world is to yank leaves off a tree and hide their nakedness.

Knowing ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is different from ‘learning ethics’. A&E may have gained an initial awareness, but they were a long way from understanding what ‘good’ or ‘evil’ pertain to in any objective sense of the universe. That would take a wealth of experience gained over time (something A&E had within reach).

↪Pathogen that same applies to other philosophical questions - they're not questions physicists address. — Bartricks

Just because physicists don’t address it, I don’t think that means we can’t use what we understand about physics (and how physicists approach the boundaries of their understanding) to address questions such as the nature of free will, particularly in relation to determinism (which seems to be ensconced safely in the realm of physics).

In fact, the way physicists approach the questions of energy, potentiality and quantum superposition, for instance, laps at the question of free will. All they really have here are formulas pertaining to a value in relation to variable events in time (and shared subjective experiences) as ‘evidence’ that these concepts exist. For most physicists, that’s enough - but if they ever wondered about the nature of potential energy, for instance, instead of resorting to SUAC, perhaps they’d realise that energy’s potential exists free of the constraints of spacetime, just like the will. It is only in actuality (as an event in time) that energy is constrained.

That may seem like a moot point to most physicists, but their own participation in using these formulae to predict, plan for and manipulate the causal conditions of an event (ie. how their will operates outside of spacetime to initiate a cause) is overlooked because they endeavour to exclude themselves (as a subjective, interacting observer) from the equation. QM shows that some formulae become ineffective past a certain point without this variable, suggesting that we may have to rethink the way we currently map reality in order to obtain a more accurate understanding of our interaction with the universe moving forward.

The dialogue between physics and philosophy is important here - we need to acknowledge alternative (ie. purely subjective) values or significance experienced by different observers in relation to the same event in order to more accurately map this additional aspect to reality, which has already enabled us to interact with the universe beyond the constraints of spacetime for thousands of years. Understanding how an observer is aware of and interacts with potential energy to initiate events, for instance, takes us into the realm of a will that is potentially free.

The way I see it, there is no border between physics and metaphysics - it’s just a misunderstanding. And I don’t think using reason without any reference to physics is going to help you to understand what free will really involves.

That’s you, as observer.

A programmer can create a level he cannot complete, and then a cheat that enables him to complete it. In relation to the game-world, the programmer is omnipotent. Any constraints he may have are 'otherworldly'. — unenlightened

If an omnipotent being created a stone they could not lift, and then created a means to lift it, it would no longer be a stone they could not lift, and therefore not impossible. An omnipotent being has the capacity to make anything possible - even what is considered impossible from a certain perspective.

Wouldn’t any constraints on this being then be irrelevant to what is created?

What you’re talking about is a shared subjective 5D experience of a 4D event, and how it relates to 3D objects in a 2D space.

A ‘border’ aims to signify the moment of four-dimensional change in spacetime from one ‘country’ (as a 3D object) to another. It can be defined only in relation to the experience of others. An exact position of the border in 3D or 2D space remains ‘fuzzy’ until a shared experience can be observed (in relation to another observer), and then measured (in relation to other objects) and marked (on a 2D plane) - in mutual agreement.

At this point in the negotiation, one may wonder why a border needs to be defined in the first place...

So the border signifies a relationship between subjective experiences of a particular four dimensional event.

And, yes, an omnipotent being can, by definition, do anything logically possible. — PoeticUniverse

Potentially, yes. The question is HOW do they do it...?

All my references are to the block universe of eternalism derived from Einstein. I am for fixed will, but fairly trying to find if free will can be; I've only gotten as far as trying to make conscious free will instant and productive and thus not just showing what is past due to figurings having to take time. — PoeticUniverse

Your search for the will in action is a bit like looking for energy. I agree with you that what we understand to be the will appears ‘fixed’ in time, but that’s not much of a faculty, is it? I have empirical evidence that I have a will, that its effect on the universe is ‘caused’ by the sum of my subjective experience. What I struggle to verify is how that experience claims to be a ‘free’ agent based on what we can measure in time.

My view is that subjective experience, and by extension, the will, is not bound or structured by spacetime. The concept of eternalism was derived from a single quote by Einstein, taken out of context from a personal letter which pertains not to physics or philosophy, but to his experience of life itself.

Let’s put it back into context, and gain some perspective. Einstein writes, on the death of his dear friend, to the grieving sister:

“Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

He’s not talking to fellow physicists or even philosophers about an objective physical structure of the universe. These are words of consolation, sharing his own experience of grief and a view of his own approaching mortality (only five weeks later, I might add).

The disproportionate significance that philosophers have attached to this one Einstein quote is an example of how we experience the world: not as a sequence of events in time, but as an extended ‘now’ that interacts with whatever in our wealth of knowledge and awareness (experiencing past, present and future in a block universe) appears most significantly relevant, regardless of its temporality.

It is in this experience that the will is not constrained by spacetime - that it enables us to determine and initiate an event in time based on how our awareness of, connection to and collaboration with past, present and future events interact. But the ‘experienced’ freedom of the will is relative, even here. We experience more freedom than the 4D actual universe suggests, but the will is still subject to the relative value and significance we place on events, objects, stimuli and information.

It’s because we can also communicate our experiences, then recognise and critically examine other value systems, and even restructure our own through self-reflection, that the will gains even more freedom. And until we are capable of consciously exercising that amount of freedom with courage and wisdom, it really makes no sense to talk about any further sense of freedom at this stage, does it...?

Just a tip: pay attention to who you are responding to, especially if you’re going to get angry and abusive. You seem to be confusing the OP with a response by @alcontali.

I won’t disagree with a fair amount of what you’ve said - I’m only suggesting you take a moment to be aware before you connect, and use the reply arrow or @ button to direct your response to the correct poster, so they’re notified. That’s all.

Cheers

Seems like there's more hope to intervene in the actions of the 'now' production rather to the same that was carved in stone — PoeticUniverse

I’m finding it difficult to follow what you’re saying here - is there a word missing?

I’m going to bring Rovelli into the discussion again, with regards to this dichotomy of eternalism/presentism:

The fact that we cannot arrange the universe like a single orderly sequence of times does not mean that nothing changes. It means that changes are not arranged in a single orderly succession: the temporal structure of the world is more complex than a simple single linear succession of instants. This does not mean that it is non-existent or illusory.

“The distinction between past, present and future is not an illusion. It is the temporal structure of the world. But the temporal structure of the world is not that of presentism. The temporal relations between events are more complex than we previously thought, but they do not cease to exist on account of this....

...We do not have a grammar adapted to say that an event ‘has been’ in relation to me but ‘is’ in relation to you....

The fundamental theory of the world must be constructed in this way; it does not need a time variable: it needs to tell us only how the things that we see in the world vary with respect to each other. That is to say, what the relations may be between these variables. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

The concept of ‘eternalism’ for me is not an objective global order of the universe. Rather it is the way each observer structures their subjective experience of the universe. My block universe differs in 5D structure from your block universe - even though we can agree on many aspects of it in two, three and even four dimensional structures.

It is disconcerting, though, that the pre-made occasions of eternalism's experience would be even worse that presentism determining events as it went along. — PoeticUniverse

How do you mean ‘worse’?

‘Totally connected’ doesn’t take into account the structure of these connections in consciousness. While they appear “to be everywhere in no time”, as you say, these events are nevertheless interacting with experience according to some form of structure: value/significance.

There is a tendency to look beyond time to ‘all possible events’ as a single dimensional leap, but in my view jumping from existence as actuality to existence as possibility misses a step in how we structure and interact with our reality. It is in being aware of the paths (potential) themselves - including how they each connect to our own capacity and the collaboration involved - that the will gains access to its ‘freedom’.

Personally I classify this as an epidemic of stupidity. Conscious stupidity. — Lucielle Randall

Zombie apocalypse, here we come...

Seriously, though - somewhere along the way, we came to a conclusion based on a limited view of the universe that we’re here because we survived, and we should be hell-bent on continuing to do so. This is what we need to ‘wake up’ from.

Just finished watching World War Z, and a thought lodged itself in my mind: what was the real difference between the humans that ‘survived’ and the zombies? It was that the humans looked out for each other, that they were prepared to connect and collaborate and even to risk their lives - not so that others could survive, but in order to contribute to achieving something. Gerry didn’t make it to the end of the movie because he was better or smarter or tougher - it was because he was part of a collaborative effort to achieve something more important than his own survival. Without that collaboration, he would have been zombified many times over.

The zombies, on the other hand, appeared to work collectively to get up that wall, but they were simply hell-bent on doing what drives them individually towards survival or advantage, even if it leads them to their death. The difference is subtle, but important.

Personally, I don’t think technology results in a ‘dumbing down’ as such. It’s each generation struggling to find a use for the increased availability of mental capacity that results from collaborative efficiency.

Is there any possible way to help those in need, and revive us, the younger generation, to become the leaders our world needs? — Lucielle Randall

Awareness, connection, collaboration.

I actually haven’t thought about the question of why we laugh - that’s one to ponder, for sure.

‘Survival of the fittest’ is an extrapolation (or a broad generalisation) of the theory of natural selection. It explains a prevalence of certain forms of diversity in certain environments, but it doesn’t satisfactorily explain the emergence of all traits. Especially not human cognitive or social evolution. I find attempts to make it explain these developments to be unsatisfactory at best. At worst, their apologist-style conclusions have actually been holding people back from developing the capacity that we have. This suggests there is more to evolution than natural selection - just as Copernicus recognised his calculation errors as suggesting there was more to the structure of our solar system than everything revolving around the Earth.

I will admit in this discussion that I’m reluctant to use the term ‘metaphysical’ myself, because of the perception of a dichotomy it creates between physical/metaphysical that I don’t believe is either accurate or helpful. In my view there is a dimensional difference between our capacity to experience ‘actual’ events in time and our capacity to experience (predict, plan for, recall, respond to, etc) events that occur in a different spacetime to ‘this/here/now’. It’s more complex, granted, but still a dimensional increase in information processing, not much different from that between an animal’s capacity to locate an objective in space and its capacity to recognise an object’s change or movement in time.

Could we agree that it seems to go beyond objective and subjective truths? And if so couldn't it follow that it is a real metaphysical language? — 3017amen

Point out a language that is not ‘metaphysical’.

I am going to be thinking about the so-called essence and existence of language, logic and phenomena there of....

My initial thought is that there is a metaphysical component to each language. — 3017amen

The way I see it, language in general enables us to share integrated information at a level beyond spacetime. It allows us to signify how new information would relate to shared elements of our experience, regardless of where or when they may occur.

So if I put two eggs in front of you, you may remember that the last time I put two eggs in front of you like this was when you gave me a piece of meat. If you produce a piece of meat, and I then put another egg down, you may take this to signify a request for more meat. If a few days later, my brother comes to you with two eggs and an expectant look on his face, you may take this to signify another request for meat. And if I then came to you at another time and drew two egg shapes where I had previously placed eggs, you may be kind enough to give me some meat on a promise of eggs - or you may just draw a piece of meat.

These events all occurred at different times - perhaps even a different place - so they would have no relevance to each other, except that they relate in how we experience them, and how you and I interact with each other through that significance.