True. So things that are occurring in the present moment are certain. Like London being the continuing capital of the UK.

What I was simply saying is there are other ways to qualify certainty.

For example, if something only occurs once in the universe. And is extremely brief. And we measure it and document it as certain -that it definitely existed in a defined state at a defined time. How long can we ve certain about that?

How much time must pass before we are no longer certain it occurred at all?

Which lends itself to my argument that from a scientific standard, it easier to establish certainty for things that endure the longest through time.

Does that make them any more certain? Perhaps not. But it certainly makes them more knowable as certain.

you make a good point. I guess self preservation is inherent to all lifeforms. Otherwise they would simply succumb to entropy and not be organised living systems anymore

could self be considered as how a consciousness acts out its consciosuness/awareness?
That way we could assume that different living things must inherently be conscious in different ways. Because the self -the body, its sensory organs and how it perceives its environment is different.

If an Alpha exists, its own justification for existence — Philosophim

I agree. I would coin this alpha with the term "potential". As potential is inherently defined by itself. It "is" that which can "do". Potential is as potential does. It requires no prior cause but does give rise to time and causality when it acts.

In my theory, that's due to adaptability, because our consciousness is highly synced to that survivability trait. So if some other animal started developing highly adaptable behaviors, then it might not be far fetched to assume that they may form consciousness in a similar form to us. — Christoffer

I have to agree. Necessity is the mother of all invention and I'm sure consciousness is no exception here. I would love to witness another animal make those leaps. Funnily enough it brings to mind the "planet of the apes" franchise. Its fascinating in the sense that it seems plausible. If it happened once for us when conditions were ripe, why think it impossible for other animals at the very least are closest relatives.

A concept of self is much more rare and specific, human babies clearly don't have it in my opinion, I would even say it's more of an idea that we are taught as opposed to an inborn attribute. — goremand

Interesting. I would argue that if something can experience fear, pain and adversity, then that must come from a sense of self to which such conditions are impressed upon. And I'd would say that at the very least, higher order animals certainly experience fear as they attack when cornered. That is "self preservation" and as the term would suggest it would seem to necessitate a "self" in which to defend. A certain expectation or demand to survive. An "I" that wishes to live on.

I believe separating "self" from "consciousness" is tricky. As I can only imagine something without a self as being in an non conscious state and one with a self as being conscious or at least unconscious with activity such as dreams and nightmares that lend themselves to a sense of self.

I think there are different levels of being conscious from plants being able to respond to stimuli to human beings who are aware of their thoughts or aware of being aware (meta-aware). — kindred

I agree. I think consciousness is far broader a term than we give it credit for. We too often coin the evaluation of consciousness as how it relates to our own, and that surely is, human bias.

Not to say if Earth is Earth. Derrida’s concept of iterability involves the idea that every repetition is an alteration, every recurrence is a difference — Lionino

I would agree. Like the buddhist concept that the same river can never be stepped into twice. Everything changes from moment to moment. So when we talk of "certainty" it is one of two things: a) that which cannot change and is eternal or b). That which is for the most minute of moments, for the briefest time, defined and certain. Before it changes of course.

It would suggest certainty at the two extremes of the scale of "Time", but for very different reasons.

Ah yes, 100% certain by any human lifespan I'm sure. However as we tend to expand our search to great magnitudes as astronomers do searching the stars, none of what you mentioned is indefinitely certain.

The sun will die, the earth will be consumed by it and so will no longer "orbit it" nor will the sun "rise from the east - the east of what?". Even less certain, London will likely not always be the capital of England, perhaps the UK won't always be recognised as such (welch and Scottish independence could see to that), as for living things well, should they go extinct, the sentiment "living things die" will from there on be irrelevant as there are no livng things left.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but when I say things with 100% certainty, I refer to those things that are as fundamental and enduring in the universe as perhaps the universe itself. "That which remains true and valid for the longest duration" - is how I measure their magnitude of certainty.

So no, sadly i have to disagree that there are trillions of things that are 100% certain in a longevital sense. They are certainly 100% certain in a brief moment. But i guess this is contingent on the semantics of what we mean or qualify as "certain". Archaeologist can never be 100% certain about anything beyond a certain distance in the past. They can offer at best the most appropriate explanation/theory. Time is the ultimate dissolution of certainty.

For me the more brief and rare an event is, the less scientifically certain we can be about it. Especially retrospectively with the passage of time.

And on the macro scale, change is only one of few things I can conceive that meets that criterion of "absolute certainty". On the micro scale of self referentiality, I think therefore I am, may suffice.

It’s probably also prudent to determine what is self reflection and what is self dramatisation. — Tom Storm

That's a very apt point. I have encountered many people who would adamantly insist on their virtues of self reflection and yet I couldn't shake the feeling that it was more smoke and mirrors than anything else. I'm sure they aspired to the notion of self reflection but in assuming the goal was reached without the hard graft they simply rendered themselves quite arrogant and overly self assured.

Yes. Everyone should do more of it. — Vera Mont

Succinct haha :)

As I see it, the religious world is filled with nonsense, but beneath this is the heart of our humanity — Constance

I would be inclined to agree. Remove the layers of dogmatic jargon, dig deep and at the heart of most religions and spiritual beliefs is humanity itself. The desire not only to understand who we are and where we came from, but to go one step further, and aspire to be better to ourselves and our world.

Many scriptures are at this stage just old stories, interpretative at most. But the underlying core, the thread that unifies them all, appears to be singing the same concrete hymn, one that is no less applicable today than when they were first written.

Carl Jung thought that solitude was a prerequisite for profound insight, for only outside of the circuitry of the self affirming values produced in a culture can one bring the whole affair to a halt. And the world can finally "speak".
3y — Constance

That is beautiful. As someone who is naturally introverted I often find solitude of great solace. And you're right, the psychologically is certainly one approach to the self ot makes sense to explore all approaches for their individual merits.

. Becoming a responsible adult is largely about cultivating self-reflection. But then learning how to be a happy mature adult is largely about not drowning in that self-reflection, and re-finding the ability to just be and do in a childlike way again, without losing the insights that the ability to self-reflect has given — Pfhorrest

I think there's great wisdom in this extract of your response. I do on a personal level believe i too often intellectualise what could be "simply do and simply be" and I do remember as a child how much freer I was from thinking about things and there was enjoyment to be had in that state. I'll take this on board and find balance hopefully between the adulting mind and "will" of the inner child so to speak.

I think we can know with 100% certainty that within an existing universe, change will always occur.

In a way that's like saying the most certain thing is that uncertainty will always exist (due to its link woth transience/transformation/change).

"what" God do atheists not believe in?

Meanwhile everyone else is actively either trying to define a God (theologians), open minded to a reasonable definition of God (agnostics) or settled with one they like (the religious).

How can you "not believe in god" and at the same time have millions of people still trying to define what "God" is or isn't?
"What" God? Does one reject?


Therefore I understand being a Christian God-atheist, a Jewish God atheist, a Sarah from down the roads God atheist. Because they're defined. They have a dogma.

But I don't understand when an atheist say I don't believe in "God". Because it already presupposes there is only one singular definition to which they refer. Their own one.
But this doesn't apply to everyone's concept of it.

I think of it in terms of potential and probability.

Potential doesn't require any prior existent. The ability to bring about existent things is a property of potential itself. Yet it doesn't require to exist at any time or in any dimension until its potentiates those things - time, space etc into being.

Therefore I'm replacing here the idea of "absolute nothingness" with "potential" - a single property that is not contingent on any other properties.

Then if you suppose that the probability of potential to potentiate is 1. Then it has no choice other than to "do stuff" (potential outcomes/possibilities). The first stuff being the dimensions of time and space in order to do more stuff within (matter and energy etc).

This issue I have encountered in this line of thinking is 1. Does potential have the potential to violate its own ability to be potential? Ie can it cancel itself out. I imagine not as it wouldn't be very potent if it immediately self annihilated.
2. Why does it seem to follow a logical stepwise emergence in a particular order or sequence?

Being simply conscious is not observation — Corvus

But you cannot observe without being conscious. And granted if you're conscious in a sensory deprivation tank then yes maybe all one has to "observe" or be aware of is their thoughts/ internal world.

But generally speaking most conscious people are observing. I use observing in the loosest sense - that is taking in sensations from (ie perceiving) the environment. Doesn't have to be strictly vision.

I think our discord here is one based on semantics/meaning.

People can observe within the context of scientific investigation or observe non scientifically, like watching a sunset.

All Science will degrade into superstition without observation. — Corvus

Obviously. But observation is not limited to science alone. The quality of the observations or the focus of observation, or how they're gone about is what defines whether it's scientific or not

that's a very good point. Sort of like a branching tree. We have the branch point before which it is the same (like a common ancestor) and after which it is unique or different. Or vice versa (convergence). Both used to give it point of reference or as you said context.

From my understanding, nirvana is the state of just "being". Because "being" is not confined to definitions. Who, what, why, when, where, and how things "be/are" defines them. By one or more parameters. There are definitions for what it is to be a human, to be depressed, to be in love, to be a molecule, to be viscosity or acceleration, to be fictional, to be a kilogram, to be a planet, a galaxy and so on and so forth.

But there is no such definition for "being" itself. Which overlaps with the Tao - an indescribable, non reducible, flow of transitions and change, lacking any true definition but nonetheless witnessed/observed.

Being is like an eternal continuum of possibilities. And I suspect someone in a state of full recognition or acknowledgement of the simplest sensation of being are relatively at peace. Things seem trivial in that regard. Not to be worried about. Death seems like an illusion because "being" in it's simplest form doesn't die. Dying is for the living. And again they are all definitions of one or more aspects of what it is to "be".

The issue is its not simple to achieve that state. And because the mind forgets, gets distracted, learns bad habits, its also not easy to maintain that state. Every single assumption, bias, prejudice, valuation, craving/desire, discrimination between things that you have in your mind are limits or boundaries between what it is to be "you" (in the sense of ego) and what it is to just "be" (no ego).

Oreos.

Death is highly motivational.
3d — Vaskane

It certainly is. It gives context to life. Just as the potential for failure gives context to success. Opposites are required for contrast, definition and thus relative meaning.

Think of all the planets you could terraform! That will be my next bumper-sticker:
The Universe Needs More Trees! — Vera Mont

Agreed. How exciting to witness the spreading of life to the far reaches of the universe. If we were immortal I'm sure agenda number one would be to garden the cosmos. At least they way we have an endless frontier to overcome.

I can easily imagine myself being busy for all eternity planting plants and never getting bored or tired of it. Trees, bushes, grasses, flowers. But mostly trees. I'd love that. — baker

Me too tbh. I love gardening. The prospect of having endless time to grow the reach of my horticulture plans and watch ot mature into a stately forest etc would be fantastic.

But the crushing reality is that one would have to bear witness to the inevitable destruction and struggle of their creation with time - climate change, ice ages, meteorites etc. I'm sure it would be reduced to ashes several times. Mass extinctions.

However long they the participant finds it to be ideal. — Vaskane

Interesting. And suppose we have those that do not want to die ever. Financially and economically they're at a great advantage. Would we need some taxes and policies in place to prevent them becoming absurdly wealthy or powerful if they plan to live eternally.

How do we level the playing field and make it fair if they have all the time in the world and others don't, even by choice?

memory recall should be limited to that of a mortal lifespan whereby 7 or 8 decades-old memories are continually "overwritten" by new memories — 180 Proof

I agree. I think there is need for the flexibility of mind conferred by forgetting. If one is to adapt to the ever changing conditions if life, an endless memory I would imagine would be more a hindrance than a help.

Having said that, compounding experiences into rich rounded kernels of wisdom is important. Theses should carry through even of they were forged by memories long forgotten. We should inherit only the important essence of the previously highly detailed memories we had all those years ago that were lost.

It allows for novelty if we can forget.

good points. Life is definitely for me, as it seems also for you, more about quality than quantity. If experience is the measure of a life well lived, than the most intrepid explorers and experimenters, the most curious, attain a rich life much faster than the self contained. But I think I life well lived ofc is not as simple as doing as much as you can in the time you have.

At the end of the day, age aside, one's own reflections on their life as it draws to a close is the most important measure, as it is the only one that matters for them. Subjective. We merely need to avoid living in a state of regret whatever we do, or don't.

First, you're discussing amortality (one doesn't die of old age, but can be killed just as you can be currently), not immortality (you can't die). — LuckyR

Very good clarifications thank you LuckyR. I realised immortality as a concept is more nuanced in the various criterion involved

all very good points Vera.

Virtual immortality - as pure energy, reborn in new bodies, in heaven or in the Matrix - seems the only way that's even remotely possible — Vera Mont

I agree. If we could prove energy is innately conscious, than really we don't need to do anything at all. Death loses its total oblivion status and we can merely live out our lives as per usual knowing that when we die, we will become something else still aware in some capacity, somewhere, for some time.

The fear of death may be decreased perhaps. But I think people still fear losing control, losing memory, self identity etc in the same way I would fear getting alzheimers/dementia. But that fear I guess ends when the current self does. If we have indeed been recycled by mother nature through thousands of previous lives lived and remember none of them, then really there's a lot of security in that.

But for now death remains an enigma. Total uncertainty.

legacy wherein they may continue some kind of existence. — Vera Mont

I agree. But I feel legacy is much more within reach than we typically think. I Believe simply existing has an impact on everyone one meets. The butterfly effect.

Or even simply having kids. They are a physical and partly mental legacy of their parents. For some this is enough, for others more ambitious, they want to invent or write or create something of longstanding admiration, utility and/or social resonance.

If they're in perfect health, they can suicide any time, with no justification. Certainly, I don't feel that anyone except my spouse owes me an explanation, and I don't think the law has any business in such a private matter. — Vera Mont

I feel if we could stall ageing then this would be a great hurdle to overcome. To allow people to die when they want. Suicide may seem like a preventable mental health illness to someone with the current lifespan but if we could live for thousands of years, I think attitudes towards suicide would have to change. Perhaps it may even be celebrated as a point in time when someone feels their purpose or life has been fulfilled and they're finally content to let go of existing.

The biggest questions of immortality may involve the nature of ego consciousness and the nature of separate 'minds'. — Jack Cummins

Indeed, agreed. If the conscious "I" is universal to all living things and the "self identity" or "ego" is simply a thin ,temporary veil of separateness it could serve to support ideas of reincarnation, or general eternal awareness we all share but experience uniquely as living individuals.

I sometimes ask myself how would people's attitudes change if death was no longer feared or seen as an ultimatum. If we had proof that we still exist after death but simply change identity, would we be happier, would that confer peace of mind, would we identify or relate more with all other living things.

Facts "have large dogmas connected to them"?
Come on now, Benj. — Alkis Piskas

Scientific dogma= being testable, being repeatable through time as a measure of veracity. Objectivity has restrictions just like subjectivity does.
Scientific facts cannot apply to anything thay is single in occurrence. Things that are exceedingly rare and cannot be reproduced according to scientific dogma cannot be a fact. However not all facts are provable or measurable by scientific means. Ethics exists as a fact of life that we cannot apply scientific method to and yet dictates scientific exploration.

Come on now, Alkis.

And yet you offered me a choice between 2 scenarios with quite different conclusions. If the argument itself is nonsense as you say, why bother offer the options in the first place?
.
Your decision to type a response is itself a clarification that the post had enough value to you to warrant the effort of your input. Which to me sounds less like "nonsense" unless you can concede that you indulged in it for absolutely no reason.

The point of the OP was that considering the beginning assumption, hypothetically speaking ofc, it does lead to - as far as I'm concerned anyway - a reasonable logical relationship with the Omni's. The post was not actually about whether you believe the first statement to be true or not. That is entirely up to you and what you believe or don't.

What I wanted to highlight is that, if "God" was a state of awareness achievable by the conscious mind, then the Omni's paint a familiar picture.

We, the universe and everything in it, becomes 'the will of god,' so, the significance or 'lack of,' any event, either real or imagined is 'forever,' assigned by god exclusively. — universeness

But if every aspect of the universe is part of the "God entity" who's will are we speaking of exactly. If consciousness is the ability of the universe to personify, than one will is divided into many. Often in conflict/ opposition.

For me if absolute determinism existed, choice wouldn't. And if choice doesn't than we are automatic dead mechanistic operations. Except consciousness doesn't feel like that. It feels like awareness. There's no sensible need for awareness in a fully determined system. Rather i would say consciousness résides at the frontier between the determined (the past) and the yet to be (the future). Time perception also seems pointless in a determined system.
.
Lastly there are 2 states at play here - the Triuth (capitilised) as the fundamental basis for existence, and secondly the truth (lowercase) - a state of being aware of it. One is an origin entity, the other is a state of mind. I'm discussing the Omni's as being relayed to people. Not the universe. Knowledge is a mind thing. Omniscience and omnipresence would be sensations or states of awareness carried within minds. Not one single universal being. See the difference I'm trying to establos for the argument?

True. But beliefs can sometimes be mistaken, not so, facts — Banno

So what do we say for things that have such a rare exception that they have been assigned "fact" status, but over time the probability of the rare exception eventually comes to fruition and leaves us scratching our heads as the "fact" no longer definitively accounts for what it's meant to. And someone says oops maybe that fact wasn't that factual afterall. Was that fact mistaken?

We can retrospectively scrap the fact or replace it with a more precise definition that accounts for this rarer exception. We can say hell that is just an "outdated belief" but before we were asserting it as collectively agreed "fact".

The simple point I wished to highlight is whilst facts are certainly very convincing and long lasting, there is always the possibility they are wrong or not universally true..

If all scientific facts were absolute, then there would be no possibility for scientific progress, because that requires rewriting the relationships, definitions and specifics of what came before. An update. Updating the facts.

In that sense one can argue science as a collection of beliefs that are testable, repeatable/consistent. But then one must ask testable with what degree of precision? No instrumental method, no measuring device is absolutely 100% precise nor flawless. And as the tech we use to measure things advances and becomes more sensitive, some "facts" that were established as repeatable with, figuratively speaking, sticks and stones need to be readdressed or replaced because they're not repeatable with say a laser or even less so with a particle accelerator. And that dissonance between old facts and new ones needs to be rationalised or synthesised into new facts. Precision and fact are related. Facts can be mistaken to any degree. If they can't, then we have no true facts at all.

I thought one was entitled to ones own opinions, but not entitled to one's own facts. — BC

Not sure it's as cut and dry as that. Every widely accepted fact began as one or a handful of people's opinions or beliefs based on the evidence they personally gathered or the arguments they formulated in support. Then people either rejected or accepted them over time.

Where does opinion end and fact begin. This is relatively arbitrary and certainly a moving target as far as the border is concerned.

magnetic pole has nothing to do with the direction in which the earth is spinning. In order for the sun to rise in the west, the earth would have to come to a standstill, and then start spinning in the other direction. — BC

Read it again and think so more. The direction earth is spinning was arbitrarily assigned. The only thing definitive is that earth is spinning in one relatively consistent way. But East, West North and South are not fundamental to space. They're ideas, constructs that we use to orient ourselves and everything in motion.including the earth and how the sun tracks across the sky from horizon to horizon.

Compasses were designed to stabilise this and make orientation consistent. So if the magnetic pole reversed and we used the same compasses without any modifications the needle would point west when it should actually point east and point north when it should be pointing south.

In that case either the compasses are redesigned or regions are re-allocated their opposite direction.. My point was simply to demonstrate that facts can change over time. Maintaining things as facts often takes some arbitrary adjustment or modification to keep them accurate.

absolutely Pantagruel. Excellently articulated. Beliefs are like a sea, some are fleeting and superficial splashes here and there, ripples, a vanishing perturbance, but some are more constitutive, some form the deep body of this sea. Massive and slow to budge, shifting sluggishly with the currents, others still are even deeper and even more stagnant/static. These are the ones that really define a a person - they shape the personality. The self identity, and thus they're of considerable importance.

Beliefs be them individual or collective inform and direct our behaviour and opinions.
.
So when we are faced with reality and asked what ought one believe when really "anything goes" ? The best place to start in my opinion is one of benefit vs harm. Quite pragmatic yes. But what beliefs confer more benefit than damage? Which ones are actually harmful as opposed to those which we simply find eccentric, bizarre or strange ?

A lot of societal issues revolve around that which is perceived as potentially threatening/offensive or fear worthy because of lack of understanding rather than something that is actually definitively destructive. And this is why we need to know when and where to apply tolerance over oppression and control.

no, zero is not a singularity. — Banno

Please elaborate. I find lack of argument in favour of "just so" arguments weak. If you want to go with gobbledegook then please explain exactly why it's gobbledegook.

. I understand a lot of what I say can seems non intuitive
or abstract/obscure. It's difficult to articulate such metaphysical concepts with language based on a material world. And I'm happy to accept fault or error but only after you reason with me your own views so I can gain insight into why I may be talking arse.

But "that's wrong" is not an argument, it's an unqualified conclusion.

We require that events occur in space and time in order to be coherent, but those attributes are not objective properties but are subjective. — Hanover

Precisely. We cannot ignore our own consciousness and the limitations that places on objective measurements. The universe wouldn't surprise me at all if it is fundamentally incoherent to it's own content (for example observers) which are restricted to experiencing time and space from a falsely standardised pov.

This could possibly mean that we are expanding "into ourselves", as an expansion into no dimensions mean that those particles and universal laws have no direction, no where and when to expand into. — Christoffer

This is sort of what I was getting at yes. Like a torus. A kind of self folding geometric process, expanding into itself where spacetime is something of a strange fabric that is both contracting into and expanding from itself. From different relativistic vantage points. We are having issues with locking in on a definitive constant if expansion as there is disparity between measurements through time. It's strange indeed and yes very speculative

the act of believing is something. So one can rephrase your sentence as can I really "something about nothing".

Its like saying "I believe in the lack of beliefs (nothing)".
A contradiction.

True nothingness is inconceivable. As all you have at your disposal to attempt it is "somethings" - ideas, thoughts, concepts, observations etc. And lest we forget you, the thinker, are also something. Nothingness is not achievable by the existing.

Have you come closer to an answer to the question about physically or metaphorically equating Energy & Consciousness? — Gnomon

Yes. As it stands, I believe energy requires to transmute into a form that it can interact with. Because information can only arise from interactions between things. No interaction, no information. And at speed C energy cannot interact with itself.

Mass is significantly more sluggish (inertia) than the massless energy hurtling at speed C. Mass is also stable and has duration through time and so can store information (a continuum of modification) And it can arise from free energy (E=mc2).

Consciousness requires this: this mass to store memory and therefore open up the ability to perceive chronological time; as well as an environment rich in free energy to subject that matter to modification - be it more stable or more unstable (natural selection and evolution).

The stage is then set for increasing complexity of energetic-mass interactions and refinement of both sensitivity to information and storage of information or "awareness" - knowledge and the sensorium.

Consciousness then for me is the natural result of the relativistic interplay between material and it's counterpart free energy and the information carried in that process of interaction.

Consciousness would be less a form of energy but rather an emergent property of 2 forms of energy (matter and heat/light) interacting under the process of natural selection.

Just as water is an emergent property of hydrogen and oxygens interactions.