Thread: The Eternal Authority

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

Yes. I think so. I listen and communicate with guides (one being my higher self, "the mother", the other, my animus, "the father") every night in dreams and in between dreams. From what I've learned, life shares a universal mind. Yes, there is a mind behind creation, and we are part of that mind, because there is only one mind.

That said..



This is too true. I can't prove anything I say. I could be totally crazy. And I am OK with that.

Often I have seen materialists demand evidence for 'God'. When asked what they would accept as evidence, the common reply is that it is not up to them to answer that question...the onus is on the theist to provide whatever evidence they will, so that such can be considered and either debunked or accepted.

The oft seen statement from materialists is that the universe doesn't require a creator-mind [a god] as it is able to exist without one. I have never seen supporting evidence for the statement being true, so assume that it is a belief/opinion.

When it comes to theists, while they certainly have different ideas as to what/who the creator is, they do - as you point out - generally have their subjective experience, and that is enough evidence to convince them of a vaster reality involved with the one we experience.

Providing evidence that there is an intelligent mind behind this existence, means having to work with whatever physical things are available which can be used for this purpose, and so far, human language seems to fit that criteria.

Originally Posted by VVilliam

If there is a mind behind creation, wouldn't it be possibly to interact with said mind? Wouldn't it be possible for said mind to interact with the individual?

And if interaction did occur, wouldn't that represent data which can be compiled and from that process, a clearer overall picture formed, backed up by said data?

Yes, can and does interact and can be proven beyond any doubt, to one's self.

Someone may say "what good is that?"

Hell of a lot of good to the person who experiences the proof and no longer has to wonder. True, it offers nothing to anyone else. So what, they can go find their own answers.

If there is some sort of objective intelligent Creator—apart from the abstract version of God that subjectively exists as a psychological apex sitting at the summit of that proverbial pyramid that stands for the hierarchy of human values as already mentioned—His reverence is questionable given the precarious state of worldly affairs which include the many injustices that go unchecked. We could live in the Matrix, and there may well be an Architect that weaves perceptual illusions for brains in vats, but what evidence do we have to believe this proposition other than pointing to reality itself and say that there is a chance it could be fake—or even that the chances we might be living in some distant future where computer simulations logically outnumber a single physical reality are greater? Saying I don't believe in the Matrix is tantamount to saying that I am not convinced such is the case. Why believe in something for which there is no sufficient evidence, right? Having said this, I am not asseverating with 100% certainty that there is no Matrix as such an assertion would require a burden of proof.

If God exists as a supernatural and immaterial entity, I really don't know what to do with this and what would constitute evidence for His existence other than to point to possible clues in the physical world and all we can do is think in its terms because that is all we know. Because of this, I don't see how anybody can reasonably state that they know God exists for sure; at least the agnostic understands why such cannot be claimed. We can't even use psychedelic experiences as proof of an ultimate or unseen reality given that the brain is prone to delusions and the dreaming mind can pretty much create anything human imagination can conceive. Can anybody here honestly say their dreaming minds are reliable? Every night when we dream (in the absence of lucidity) we are pretty much lost in disjointed and nonsensical plots divorced from reality—courtesy of a temporary sleep-induced psychosis. Having said this I am not claiming that there is nothing beyond this physical plane of existence, which allows me to attempt to steelman dualism and what I think is, by far, the best argument against materialism:

MARY'S ROOM

'Mary is a great scientist who has investigated the world from a black-and-white room via a black-and-white TV monitor. She specialises in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". What will happen when Mary is released from her black-and-white room or is given a colour TV monitor? Will she learn anything or not?'

There is the what it feels like to see blue. If this quale exists and cannot come from the study of colour, only through perception, then Mary learns something new when she steps out into the world to witness it firsthand even though she already has all physical knowledge of colour in place prior to stepping out, thus suggesting that not all knowledge is physical. Before testing how rigid the suggestion is and expressing my thoughts on it, I would love to see what you guys make of this ...

In this line of thinking, it's worth remembering that geniuses like Gödel and Penrose have alluded to the act of understanding seeming to be an impossibility within a computational system and that perhaps quantum effects play a role in manifesting comprehension as a necessity to define its absence. It is interesting to know that three quarters of mathematicians are Platonists, i.e., they believe the language of mathematics represents a realm more real than this world and independent of minds but which necessarily provides the underpinnings for everything that exists. For anyone who is interested in delving into this, here's an in-depth conversation:

https://youtu.be/N9NsCmi-5Qw

It's an episode of The Wright Show with philosopher Jim Holt as a guest where it is explained that there are essentially three ontological worlds in Platonic theory: The physical (cosmos), the mental (consciousness), and mathematics (divine realm where perfection is possible). In any case, it is only a postulation and consciousness remains puzzling. The question that the physicalist poses of how consciousness arises from unconscious elements seems far more puzzling than why a mirror reverses left and right but not up and down ...

the main problem is that an absolute truth that someone fully believes cannot be found in data, arguments or material proof, but from the person itself. As i experienced, people cant be convinced with total logic, but they have strong faith in their own beliefs, the ones that come from themselves. Even knowing it, i want to share what i think is the truth according to logic, just for enjoying the discussion.
All that exist can be called god. If nothing exist then the nothingness itself does, and it is the whole, then god still exists, as a whole. This is true because negating his existence is accepting it. Then, as god is all, everything exists inside him, so everything exists because all needs to be in "all" If you negate the existence of a single thing, then that would be nothing, and nothingness is still inside god. As everything exists, everything exists (all possible worlds, universes, time changes, every causal probability, etc) So, if you dont want to call the "whole" god, any sort of being or entity you identify as god exists in the whole as a necessity, so god exists, congratulations If you want to call your cat "god", then its fine!
I dont want to write a novel, so for the sake of myself and the ones reading it, so i just massively summarized the reasoning and only told about the existence of god, so please tell me if you want to hear a more detailed thing or to share my thoughts about anything else

Hi and welcome to this discussion, thel!

It sounds like pantheism to me, which is what Spinoza subscribed to and to an extent, possibly poetically or out of respect for the pious, Einstein. This sort of God is, at least, demonstrable unlike the deity that is claimed to exist outside the universe in some theistic arguments.

But you also went beyond pantheism in the second paragraph and I am not saying this is necessarily your argument but I have heard something along those lines from a theist who called The Atheist Experience show to challenge atheism by saying:

'If nonexistence does not exist than God's existence is necessary, but if nonexistence exists then God's nonexistence is identical to existence. Either way, the entire ontological underpinnings of your entire world view collapses into reductio ad absurdum; you're equally baseless in all your knowledge claims as you are in all of your ignorance.'~Caller Mike on The Atheist Experience

Mike's falsification, although seemingly plausible at first, is, of course, a fallacious specious argument: nonexistence is not a thing, besides, where does God come in when atheism is merely a disbelief in God, not necessarily a claim that God definitely does not exist—as Matt Dillahunty, who usually hosts the show, has stated time and time again. De facto atheism, or agnostic atheism if you prefer, is merely a suspension of belief in gods/deities until proved otherwise in accordance with the God hypothesis. God in Mike's statement can be replaced with just about anything, such as a unicorn, and demonstrating the existence of something shouldn't have to involve playing a semantic game where what is meant by nonexistence is blurred by oxymorons and contradictions.

I am also not fully convinced by 'Mary's room' thought experiment as Daniel Dennett has pointed out that when we say Mary possesses the full extent of physical knowledge of colour, such knowledge could include an understanding of how and why our neurology would give us the experience of qualia, thus supporting the notion that nothing new would be acquired when stepping out.

Im afraid but i think there isnt any person or philosophy that tells the same as me, at least from my point of view. It has a conception of god similar to pantheism, but it has some differences that i wont explein to not make this long.
Mikes argument is from my view very uncomprehensible and even badly formulated. Ill try to put it more clear. What i meant is that it doesnt matter if somethings exists or not, because it will be inside the whole, and the whole exists because it needs to. negating the existence of the whole, (then negating the existence of everything) is accepting that nothingness exists, then the whole would be nothingness, therefore accepting the existence of the whole. I dont see what mike meant, but the objection you put is that nothingness, or nonexistence is not a thing. We are then accepting the existence of the whole. If nonexistence is not a thing, or doesnt exists, then something needs to exist so there isnt nothingness, then accepting the whole, blabla. the second objection is that the argument implies that accepting the existence of something implies accepting the existence of the whole, and therefore the existence of unicorns, for example (reasoning below for the sake of the reader) thats true, and i dont think it really weakens the argument as its just a conclusion following it, that may be hard or easy to believe depending on the person. The method used to get there is a weak one, as you said, i agree that logic and semantic, or empirical reasoning is not convincing. (science isnt either then, and i think so) But better methods normally involve the person getting the truth by himself and not from other source, so we cant really discuss in other terms sadly
In my opinion, the mary's room has a formulation issue. The qualia of seeing blue color cannot be obtained from anywhere else than seeing the blue color. If she replicates perfectly the phisical(and mental) process of seeing the sky, for example, then she would be seeing the sky, as the same as being outside seeing the sky. Where she is and if the sky is physically there or not doesnt matter. If the proccess can be fully replied, then she would be seeing the sky even inside the lab. If the process cant be replied, then she would need to walk outside. The point is that the perfect qualia and the "real thing" is the same. If asked about if the proccess can be replicated with absolute knowledge, i would say it is, as its absolute, its obviously possible to trick the brain to think theres a true sky there if you know how to.

* (not needed for read)If the whole exists, then it cant be something inside it that doesnt, so everything inside him exists, so unicorns exist, and a creator being, and the christian god, a universe where we didnt eat cheese, my cat, blablabla. If something inside it doesnt then it would be outside it, and this cant happen because the whole is the whole, so the whole totally exists, doesnt exist, and exists in every part, etc, and so does everything inside it, so unicorns totally exist, totally doesnt and totally exist in part, but its all the same as you need to accept the existence of the whole. The wholes existence can be negated, but its accepting it. Then, you accept the existence of unicorns because they are in the whole.

I see what you are saying and my apologies if I compared your view to Mike's. Your philosophical squaring of the circle certainly makes more sense than what some theological apologists come up with, and that what I mainly tend to have a problem with for several reasons ...

After having my wife's energising cakes, here's another essay! I can imagine many Earth-like planets, which happen to be within the Goldilocks zone of their solar systems; have appropriate orbits and tilts; and many other factors that render them hospitable to life. These planets didn't necessarily evolve lifeforms identical to the ones found on Earth, and many won't survive in their orbits long enough to evolve biological complexity to the extent that we see on our home planet (if we imagine catastrophic cosmic scenarios, like, for example, their mother stars of a make different from our sun might blow up or turn into black holes).

Many planets will only have microbial life even if they happen to be hospitable Earth-like celestial bodies. But, for the sake of argument, let's say some survive long enough to evolve more complex life. You might get some where only plant life evolved. Others, you might get plants and creatures of the same mental capacity of the irrational animals we have here and no sign of intelligent civilisations. Even rarer, you might get some with humanoid primates, with capabilities no different to that of apes and no serious intellectual development.

We must remember that the majority of hominid species here on Earth went extinct due to natural catastrophes when the planet was still cooling down from its formation and the crust shifting violently. We were the lucky ones. By the time human beings evolved consciousness, it was like waking up from a vague dream to a lucid violent world coming into being before our eyes. This frightened us, and, needless to say, there was no explanation for what was unfolding before us, no Divine Creator saying, "It's my world in the making." We'd live no longer then two decades, many of us died of bad teeth, bacterial agents, and many other afflictions that we had no explanation for. It got to the point where we thought powerful invisible agents, such as gods, were angry about the way we behaved and needed to be appeased with sacrifice. But we also paid attention to what was practical in nature, and, needless to say, things got better. We live longer. This is on Earth.

Earth, as a planet that bears evolving life, managed to overcome certain hurdles (Dawkins can go into detail on this) that allowed it to yield intelligent sentient beings such as us. We evolved into something of unprecedented sophistication in terms of evolutionary adaptability and we continue to evolve. These natural hurdles that Earth surmounted are what made other life-friendly planets fail. If Earth is on the third level, many didn't get past the first. Earth could be a needle in a haystack. Life could be rare in the universe. Intelligent life even rarer (and the chances of finding this are quite slim if all we do is look for signs of civilisation that resemble ours). Even rarer, or non-existent, are those planets who managed to get past the "fourth stage." (Imagine ultra-advanced aliens with huge heads with flying saucers, imagine what you will.)

Anyway, this is my take based on the chaos that I see around me, the order that sometimes arises by chance and is set in motion, and the absence of intelligent design in nature (there is no evidence for a holy father looking out for us). As Voltaire would quite tellingly say, "God is not on the side of big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best." And, just to illustrate how those who claim with absolute certainty that a miracle has taken place are also making the temerarious claim of presupposed completion of knowledge about how reality works, here is an excerpt from Anatole France's Le Jardin d'Epicure (The Garden of Epicurus):

"If an observer of a genuinely scientific spirit were called upon to verify that a man's leg, after amputation, had suddenly grown again as before, whether in a miraculous pool or anywhere else, he would not cry: "Lo! a miracle." He would say this: "An observation, so far unique, points us to a presumption that under conditions still undetermined, the tissues of a human leg have the property of reorganising themselves like a crab's or lobster's claws and a lizard's tail, but much more rapidly. Here we have a fact of nature in apparent contradiction with several other facts of the like sort. The contradiction arises from our ignorance, and clearly shows that the science of animal physiology must be reconstituted, or to speak more accurately, that it has never yet been properly constituted. It is little more than two hundred years since we first had any true conception of the circulation of the blood. It is barely a century since we learned what is implied in the act of breathing."

By the way, I cannot fault your take on Mary's room as it seems intuitively right. I'm still mulling it over, tbh ...

hehe, thats the point where we go into the depths Thats totally true. A christian god existing somewhere has the importance that you give to it. Thats one of the main differences with pantheism. The pantheists give importance to the whole while the argument i exposed doesn't. as for the argument, the whole has the same importance as an unicorn. Lets say that everything exists, then what determines the importance of something? We could say that the decision of the whole is superior than a mouse's, but every part of the whole shares the same properties as the whole itself (you can substitute an apple instead of the whole and do the same argument) so it "is" the same thing, if two things are equal, then they are equal. So, its up to the whole, or to the apple, to make the decision and to make the importance of that decision. Lets take a human making the decision to make it clearer (an apple making it would need a bit of explanation ) So, the human can give something the importance he wants, and give the importance he wants to his judgment, deciding that the apple has the importance of nothing/doesnt exist and then choose to see it as just his opinion (judging his preception as a human, part of the whole) or to see it as an absolute truth (judging his perception as the whole's) But the point here is that he isnt wrong, both affirmations are totally true because they are made from the whole itself. The whole may choose to make his decision less or more important, in other words, and the only influence in the decision is the whole itself. its your decison to think that the universe, cosmos, the little life in this universe, etc. have influenced you to think that something like a god has no importance (or doesnt exist) or that its your own decision to believe it, because both are absolutely correct! What we do, what we are, is our own decision, the decison of the universe and the decision of a cat in another world. The guy looking at the mans leg growing could call it magic, a miracle, a demons will, a scientific discovery or think he did it by praying to someone, and it would be right.

This leds to another point, even deeper things that we do have a reason or a function why we do it. then why we do these? I will skip a really long develop because i want to hear your thoughts on it. lets just say that (as i believe) we want to be ourselves, or the whole wants to be the whole, and we are mostly unconscious that we are it, so we slowly gain more and more sight, eventually becoming ourselves. We are unconscious because we unconsciously choose it, so as we become more conscious we decide to be more conscious, and we have more influence on that because we are more conscious, etc. That's indeed an exponential expansion, and it might be the expanation of why there's so little intelligent live "out there" A point, with the sight to just exist, needs an insane amount of time to evolve into a line, much less to a shape, so as an object, an animal, a human, etc. There isn't necessarily more points than humans, but we perceive them as that according to our sight, so we decide there's less humans than points. (in theory, a stone is just a way less conscious ourself, so we can say its "alive" if we wanted to)

So maybe expanding our sight and perceiving other realities/dreams (as one thinks they are more or less real) might lead to us "fulfilling our desire", or at least will lead to have a clearer view, haha.

Summerlander- "Saying I don't believe in the Matrix is tantamount to saying that I am not convinced such is the case. Why believe in something for which there is no sufficient evidence, right? Having said this, I am not asseverating with 100% certainty that there is no Matrix as such an assertion would require a burden of proof." Good not to assert 100%. To keep the matrix theme: Anyone who had not taken the red pill would not believe in the Matrix. However, by the end of the second movie ask Neo why in the world he would believe. Nothing he could say would convince you. Even if he floated into the air as proof it merely proves some science or trick is going on you do not know the details of. Failing to take the red pill you can never be convinced. Taking the red pill you can never un-see the matrix. We can admit at any point Neo may have been dreaming or perhaps never left the matrix but was still having generated VR in which he thought he escaped, but one can always over complicate a story with talk like that.

Why would YOU believe? You wouldn't. Why would you trust me? You shouldn't. Why would someone who took "the red pill" ever doubt again? They won't.

Thel- I am not following that. Hindu thought starts with 1) something exists 2) it seems to move 3) that movement seems to create patterns.
No one argues that nothing exists. I will argue that none of this is real in the way most think. I will say it is far more like The Matrix analogy than anything else, but "something" exists, whatever it is. I do not however see how admitting that equals "everything must exist." All apples are fruit does not equal all fruit are apples. What exists is everything, but that does not mean everything that can be imagined is part of that. It seems like a play on words.

okay, thats getting really interesting!First of all, if anyone wants a brief recap just tell me so you dont need to read all the posts.

Sivason- it is indeed a play of words, but its the most we can get using words. I know its not enough, but ill try to answer the objections anyway:

Hindu thought is correct, it just substitutes consciousness with movement, the "scale" being according to movement instead (point, lines, patterns, shapes, etc as something has more movement) it can be also done with unity (points unite in lines, lines in patterns..) or apples, as stupid as it seems.

Yep, you can argue that none of this is real in the way most think, and its correct, but what i mean is that you theoretically can make that statement an absolute truth, as it theoretically is, but the truth is that now you cant consciously do it before expanding your consciousness so its consciously equal as the whole. In other words, to consciously change the infinity you need to consciously be the infinity. We are mostly unconscious of ourselves, so we can change things according to our consciousness. Thats why we can do way more things in dreams, as we have more consciousness to do so. consciousness can be substituted for awareness, as being aware of the world is being aware of ourselves, as we are indeed the whole. Im sorry i wrote that before going to your objection, i just wanted to clarify what i meant before.
Well, the words play goes like this: We agree that what exists is everything, so the whole exists. The point is that the same reasoning to accept the existence of the whole can be applied to an apple, so the apple also exists. I explain.

For the whole: negating it is accepting nothingness exists, so nothingness its the whole. If nothingness doesnt exist then something needs to exist for nothingness to not exist, and what exists is the whole.
Now we substitute it for the apple:
-The whole exists as a whole, so everything inside must exist or the whole doesnt. A compound of 5 apples cannot exist if one apple doesnt, so the whole (a compound of everything) cannot exist if something inside doesnt. Now, why everything imaginable, like an unicorn needs to be inside? We do the same thing, if its inside, it exists, if its outside, it doesnt. But the point is it cant be outside because even if the unicorn doesnt exist, it exists as nothingness (same as the whole) and therefore it needs to be inside of it, and then exist. Every imaginable thing exists because nonexistence is existence. It exists, but is the decision of the whole to see it as nothingness, as an unicorn or as an apple. The unicorn is there, but is still your decision to see it as nothing or as an unicorn.
I bet you are not that convinced, hehe. A logic argument is very weak, even when its "necessarily" correct. In the end, its your decision to be convinced, so we obviously trust more the knowledge coming from ourselves. Also note that the argument takes every belief as true, so it should agree with everyione. If you say its stupid and useless, thats also true, because its everything, including a stupid and useless argument

*why the whole is equal to every part of it is not argumented, ill do if you want to, is just more logic and semantic thing.

Thel,

Everything you've said is redolent of a marvellous and intriguing story by Jorge Luis Borges (a giant literary luminary once admired and visited by the great Christopher Hitchens in Argentina) entitled The Library of Babel. To me the story serves as a philosophical analogy for human beings living in a bewildering cosmos in search for truth and meaning and often seeing what they want to see, a kind of pareidolia, if you will. It certainly expresses an element of a myriad possibilities coming to fruition and certainly pertinent to the spellbinding powers of language. Notice that the library is sufficiently vast (not infinite) to incite meaningful stirrings in the fallible humans, who, had they been immortal and eternal, would have been at a loss to find purpose and novelty; as Kafka once said, 'The meaning of life is that it ends.'

The story is about a mystical library containing a vast number of interlinked hexagonal rooms, each lined with books. Each of these books contains 410 pages and together they bear every possible random permutation of alphabet characters and basic punctuation. Thus, the library contains, of course, mainly nonsense, but the inhabitants of the library are convinced that there is mysterious meaning in those pages, especially when they come across phrases or words that have arbitrarily fallen into place amongst the random combinations of letters. Imagine having housed there every possible sequence of characters! Every book ever written and every book that could ever be written will be included there somewhere! Which means that your autobiography will be found on the shelves, along with the book that correctly predicts how you will die (as well as the book that tells you the steps to take to avoid that particular death). This causes cults to spring up, and throughout history, sections of the library are destroyed by groups such as the 'Purifiers' who which to rid the library of what they deem to be nonsense. You begin to see the genius of Borges. Others believe that a book must exist somewhere on the shelves that contains the key to understanding the collection's contents, and they search for the messianic 'Man of the Book' who will have read it and can unlock the library's secrets.

The Library of Babel contains a nihilistic premise which isn't considered by the groups who believe the library must contain some kind of profound meaning and significant truth to be found; purpose is derived in the search to unlock 'secrets' while the real truth is that the library might as well be empty, something humans are reluctant to contemplate precisely because it ostensibly threatens to render their existence and chosen ventures pointless and ultimately fruitless—as though a cosmic voice taunts us with the statement, 'You think you're special? Think again ...' Nihilism is anathema to the majority of people, thus many appeal for consoling religious narratives in an attempt to avoid a dispiriting concept about the world. With this in mind, here's a profound quote from someone who carefully observed human expression as we progress into a post-Enlightenment world and try to do away with superstition:

'We think we can congratulate ourselves on having already reached such a pinnacle of clarity, imagining that we have left all these phantasmal gods far behind. But what we have left behind are only verbal spectres, not the psychic facts that were responsible for the birth of the gods.'~Carl Jung

Sivason,

Morpheus had a brilliant approach. He never told Neo what the Matrix was prior to offering the pills. As he put it, 'Nobody can be told what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself.' Which would have aroused my curiosity. (Just because you're a sceptic doesn't mean that you are not curious or open to discovery.) If Morpheus had proposed to show me something, I would have responded with, 'Okay, show me.' I would have undoubtedly taken the red pill because I care about truth—and seen as I am the kind of person who stands by the philosophy that I'd rather a cold, harsh truth than a consoling lie, I would've taken it quite well upon finding where the figurative rabbit hole leads. But Neo has a profoundly human reaction that most would have (and I suspect even I would have experienced a slight pang of existential terror) upon seeing it for himself—what the world is really like and that his life had been a lie. He even tries to deny it to himself when he mutters (and I paraphrase), 'No, it's not true. That's impossible! This can't be happening ...' At which point Morpheus tells him, 'I never said it would be easy, Neo. All I'm offering is the truth.'

I am still, however, waiting for someone to offer me that red pill. Then I'll believe in the Matrix. The blue pill doesn't warrant my consideration because, as Morpheus puts it, 'You go back to Wonderland and believe whatever you want to believe.' Well, I don't just want to believe whatever is fanciful. I don't value flights of fancy. I just want the truth. I want the demonstration. It's about waking up to what the world is really like.

By the way, The Matrix quadrilogy is brilliant. Yes, I also loved the last one! It is full of profound meaning and Jungian archetypes. One can interpret the whole thing as some kind of psychological individuation. And the religious connotations are obvious. It is the human story, the struggle, the search for truth, sacrifice rebellion and heroism. Neo is the hero archetype, the Saviour, the Christ-like figure, an Osiris. The machines and the Matrix itself is Satanic, the father of lies, the serpent of the world that challenges all of us, the force that attempts to deny the past and threatens to erase the mistakes from which we can all learn and progress in a vital heuristic process, which, slight spoiler alert, pertains to The Matrix: Resurrections narrative.

It reflects indeed what i mean. The importance of the library's content is up to the humans. The library, as the whole, is the absolute truth, a meaningless bunch of words and anything we can imagine until we, ourselves, make a decision on what it is, as we are more conscious than the library itself. This leads to the final part of the argument: your consciousness/awareness determines your influence on things. If you are only aware of yourself as a point and nothing else, then only you as a point and nothingness is what you perceive, what you are. if you are aware of yourself as a human and a four dimensional space, then thats what you will perceive, your decision is absolute even if you are unconsciously making it.

The books unconsciously want to be books, and then be as important as the cults, or purifiers, or anyone decides.
Then we cant just decide to be gods because we are making the decision consciously, and we unconsciously made the decision to not be conscious enough for some things. But our consciousness is enough to expand itself as little as our consciousness can, to be more conscious and then go faster, etc. What seems to be true is that the degree of consciousness is unconsciously tied to itself, or our awareness of things, as we are more aware, we go from changing only our minds to whole worlds when we unconc. think they are our mind (dreams) Then we get to the main issue: for what?
Well, when you make a decision in the "waking world", it embodies the desire/reasons of a human, but in a dream, its the desire of the dream itself as your mind is the dream, as you command what you are, if you dont have enough awareness, the dream wont change according to your will, etc. So, as the reasons/desires of everything collapse into one conscious will as we "ascend", its reason for doing something (for existing) should be the true meaning of why we are here and why we eat cheese, of course. Given we arent able to make conscious absolute truths until that state, "why" is a really strong question. We cannot know. In my opinion, my beloved Occam's razor may have a place here. You can look for the answer on the infinite library, as the answer must be there, or you can search in your own mind, trying to be more conscious, as the answer must also be there, given you are searching in the whole in both cases. Is just way easier to follow the simpler path, as its theoretically the same, but is unconsciously easier to do so, and i can give the very convincing proof of the massive diference of decision power in dreams compared to the waking world, and the seemingly stronger beliefs that come from our mind instead of these coming from things "external" to ourselves A simpler solution also simplifies the problem, after all.

I certainly agree that Occam's razor is a brilliant tool in getting to the bottom of things and doing away with superfluous material. It is interesting that you emphasise the responsibility that humans have to interpret and decide for themselves because they are conscious, and the library is not. The library is just the truth, the logos, reality itself devoid of interpretations. It reminds me of what I said earlier regarding the biblical interaction between God and Job, which I take to be merely a psychological event, not an objective one, illustrating how the human mind, faced with difficulties, asks, 'Why me?' and the cosmos barely bothers to reply, 'Why not?' So we face this impersonal reality and, in search of the ideal, the Telos, we embody the heroic mode in the face of adversity. Like Neo ...

This is what I said earlier:

'The only way the Bible makes any realistic and ethical sense is if one posits the constituents of its parables to be psychological referents presented metaphorically—including God, which biblically stands for the potentially useful abstract idea of God as the Telos of all summits that can be conceptualised in a human mind.

'Take the parable of Job, a good man who started out as a happy and faithful follower of the Lord. Along comes Lucifer who proffers that Job's loyalty to God is contingent upon his blessings, and that without them, even such exemplary man would renounce his faith and die. Disconcertingly, the Almighty takes the Devil up on his wager, resulting in Job enduring terrible losses and afflictions. We are pressed to wonder how could God allow such maladies to befall a man who remained faithful to Him until we eventually come to the only logical conclusion that both the Deity and his dark angel cannot be regarded as objective entities in order for the whole exemplum to make sense as a narrative describing a psychological process and an undeniable truth: bad things happen to good people! If you insist on a strictly literal interpretation where its Biblical characters are actual beings then the more cryptic and mystifying God's rejoinder to a befuddled Job begging for answers will appear:

"Where were you when I Iaid the foundations of the earth? Have you ever in your days commanded the morning light? Where does light live, or where does darkness reside? Can you lead out a constellation in its season? ..."

'Carl Jung would have said that God would have to be unconscious to Job's predicament as perceived through mortal eyes, or else the man morally thrashes his Lord hands down—so the parable ostensibly prepares for or leads to the birth of Christ, where the Father tries to understand the human perspective through the Son whilst simultaneously setting a good example for everyone. I prefer to go one step further and entertain the absence of God as an objective reality altogether and cut the poetry!'

All is brilliantly exposed. Just wanted to clarify that if we follow the logic argument from before, the library has consciousness, but less than humans, as its conciousness even in the smallest grade, is necessary for the library to exist, and a bit more to exist as words instead of lines, for example.

I have nothing to truly object about the Job story, Jobs view is true for Job, Gods for God and yours for yours. But that wouldnt be fun, and its sunday, so ill go inside it a bit. My answer is simmilar to the theists, but i dont think the little awareness of gods reasons should make humans view less true, because your view is truly what you see, god influencing on it or not. It indeed makes no sense for us that a being who is love makes evil things to those who dont deserve it, but thats our view tied to our awareness of things, and gods view is superior just for being god, as your view is superior to a stone just for being a human. Gods existence as love can be consciously dismissed as nothing/nonexistent, but it will still exist according to pure logic, even in your view.

Well, following the argument, everything exists necessarily for eveything to exist, so does evil, but this can be seen in a more clear way: evil is needed for love to exist. In an even more clear way, if love is consciously perceived as nothing, then so does evil in your conscious view. You cant perceive love without perceiving evil (we can go on a discussion on this point if you want to) So if you want love to exist as a god of a world (god meant as a phisical being in full conscious control of a single world) you need to create evil, to perceive love yourself, and by analogy for the world (yourself) to perceive it. Then, you can erase the evil when everyone in that world/yourself is fully conscious of it, as if you dont fully perceive evil you cant fully do the same with love. You are absolute love in this particular world, so you love it enough to make them see love and suffering till they/you are fully conscious of it. Another marvelous use of the razor: you just substitute yourself for god and the universe for a small world you have full control of, like in a dream. We cant understand its reasoning but we can simplify the problem by seeing a simpler solution. Note that Jobs view is still as true as he sees it, even if he sees gods actions as nonsense and then thinks god is an evil being. Theists just would say that Jobs view is fake and irrelevant as he is less conscious and see it as an absolute fact, which isnt true because they arent able to consciously make an absolute statement because they are humans

It sounds like you are suggesting that anything that exists, even if devoid of a complex organ such as the brain, has to be minimally and inevitably conscious (or, at least, proto-conscious)—which is ostensibly congruent with animism or panpsychism. I don't know if this is the case, which would paint consciousness as a fundamental that existence itself cannot do without, but it is certainly getting a strange revival in philosophical circles—even David Chalmers, who originally defined the hard problem of consciousness is taking it seriously.

Jungians speak of the coniunctio, the conjunction of opposites: light defines darkness and vice versa by necessity. Good and evil. Love and hate. Life and death. Consciousness and the unconscious! The Yin and Yang ...

I can tell you what happened to Job: despite understandably experiencing a sense of injustice and demanding answers for his bad luck (which is only human) he remained faithful to God and was rewarded at the end. And yes, nobody can speak for Job because they are not Job and we, as a species, cannot deal in absolutes.

'One thing I know is I know nothing.'
~Socrates

Speaking in these terms, God is an unattainable ideal for humans. It's not God's fault and it is not our fault either. We can only do so much as limited mortal beings. But what we can do is be good, noble, courageous and heroic. We can be the best version of ourselves as inspired by the Telos, the king of ideals. We will never be God, but we can be exemplary human beings. We can face whatever life brings no matter what—the burdens of living being our proverbial cross to carry.

Which is why it should make sense for Christians to follow Christ.

Originally Posted by Summerlander

It sounds like you are suggesting that anything that exists, even if devoid of a complex organ such as the brain, has to be minimally and inevitably conscious (or, at least, proto-conscious)—which is ostensibly congruent with animism or panpsychism. I don't know if this is the case, which would paint consciousness as a fundamental that existence itself cannot do without, but it is certainly getting a strange revival in philosophical circles—even David Chalmers, who originally defined the hard problem of consciousness is taking it seriously.

This is what I believe, too. Everyone and everything has some level of consciousness. One time I was walking down the beach on Cayo Costa, and I found this beautiful, enormous dead sand dollar. Perfectly whole. Biggest one I have ever seen in my life. Well, this is going to sound crazy, but after a minute of holding him in my hands, I heard in my head "You found me! YAY! I big. I eat. Eat eat eat! Get big!!!" Clear as day. I named him Pancake.

Another time, I had found this beautiful large lightning whelk. She's purple from mineral stains. So gorgeous, and ancient, 11 inches long. When I was holding her in meditation, I heard "The island, the island, I want to stay there." (guilt, I had taken her home), then "Don't worry, you did not hurt me. I dried out in the sun a long time ago." Some day I will have to return her home to Cayo Costa.

I believe everything has some level of consciousness, but it can vary from thing to thing. Obviously, things that have been alive have more, and some "nonliving" things, such as crystals. Other things have less (furniture, manmade objects).

Summerlander- Yep! I have one personal issue with the viewpoint, tho. I dont like to use our conscious control, as little as it may be, to limit oneself. Im not saying that one needs to use all of it to be more conscious/aware or to be a better person (both can be correlated or even the same thing if you want to), but i dont see the need to put effort on limiting where we can get. Yeah, God, and a being exactly like me that can remember to clean up the house, and one that can be aware of one more thing at the time, is an unattainable ideal now, but it doesnt need to be impossible to get there from your view unless you want it to. Playing with words again, if a little effort keeps going indefinitely, it would get to any point (if the effort wants to keep going, of course) I also see following a certain person can also be a limit, as you want to be as Jesus, but what after? Unless you think Jesus is the absolute perfection (that can make the will of the whole true, as he would be the conscious whole) Jesus becomes just another limit that you dont necessarily need to implement in order to fulfill your wishes, as i see it.

Moonage- Yeah! I may suggest that for seeing the consciousness of things the observer needs to have a required level of perception, so it might not be possible for other "grades" of conciousness (just wondering)

Originally Posted by thel

Moonage- Yeah! I may suggest that for seeing the consciousness of things the observer needs to have a required level of perception, so it might not be possible for other "grades" of conciousness (just wondering)

I think I understand what you are saying, and it sounds plausible. I can certainly say that before my awakening experience I had never heard anything.

yep, thats what i meant. Developing awareness may not only led to perceive "normal" things, but also to perceive completely new ones that were there but you werent able to hear/see. That would be amazing. Imagine all the new things we would discover if we keep improving our perception of things!

Originally Posted by thel

yep, thats what i meant. Developing awareness may not only led to perceive "normal" things, but also to perceive completely new ones that were there but you werent able to hear/see. That would be amazing. Imagine all the new things we would discover if we keep improving our perception of things!

Life continues to amaze. Welcome to the Age of Aquarius.

Originally Posted by Sivason

Yes, can and does interact and can be proven beyond any doubt, to one's self.

Someone may say "what good is that?"

Hell of a lot of good to the person who experiences the proof and no longer has to wonder. True, it offers nothing to anyone else. So what, they can go find their own answers.

What if the system provides the individual with evidence regardless of who uses the system?

Any such interaction which would provide evidence for any individual who uses it, could be considered 'good' just on that point alone.

Certainly if the idea that the universe is the product of a mindless chaotic process could be shown to be a fallacy, any arguments based upon the premise that order comes from chaos, could be dismissed.

Originally Posted by VVilliam

What if the system provides the individual with evidence regardless of who uses the system?

Any such interaction which would provide evidence for any individual who uses it, could be considered 'good' just on that point alone.

Certainly if the idea that the universe is the product of a mindless chaotic process could be shown to be a fallacy, any arguments based upon the premise that order comes from chaos, could be dismissed.

The problem is that somethings are going to require an open mind and a type of though involving something like prayer. If anyone openly and with good intention followed certain paths they should be able to get the proof they want/ But, having a bad attitude may make the path impossible.

Think of the thing that you want proof of as being omniscient and knowing your thoughts and intention. Now imagine it is a little arrogant and only wants to interact with those it finds worthy of its attentions. If you refuse to ask it to make itself clear to you, or you do so in a way that clearly expresses negative feelings or cynical humor let's imagine it will not waste its time. That automatically makes many ineligible for the process.

Think of it like this, but with honest curiosity being the item instead of forgiveness. Here goes. I say here is a process that 100% will lead to goal X. Step one is forgive the people who have wronged you. But let's say that is impossible; you can never forgive them. Well then it is impossible for you to use the process and you will never get to goal X.

Summerlander: I want to put this concept into the Matrix framework we were playing with.

One is stuck inside the matrix and Morpheus can only rescue a few people a week out of everyone. You probably need to do something to get his attention like asking questions and being honestly questioning the truth of what seems like a physical world of scientific law. Once Neo was noticed and had Morpheus listening he specifically asks "What is the matrix" and he clearly wants to know. Now (ignore him being some chosen one) what if he had acted like he was mocking Morpheus and in a sing song mentally handicap tone said "oh, ok, what IS the matrix, hah ha ha." Morpheus might not waste his time.

Here is the first step in this process I will propose. It may be a stumbling block like not being able to forgive someone. The step is:
Go alone somewhere and start talking out loud. Be open to the idea that a dis-embodied consciousness can hear you. Do not bother unless you are open to the idea because assume it finds its attention valuable. Call out hello a couple times and wave your hands about as if trying to make yourself easy to see. Now try to be open to the idea that a thing is listening and could choose to help you. Talk to it like it were a parent who may choose to assist a worthy child. tell it your doubts and why you lean towards science. Treat the conversation as if you were just talking to your father not some kiss ass bow before you BS. Tell it you would like to have a connection with it and to come to understand it better. If you have doubt express it, but honestly express an interest in experiencing anything that might help you be open to more. End by reaching your out stretched hand up wards as if needing help getting up to higher ground. Now, specifically ask to develop a relationship with it. Give it some period of time and feel free to keep asking. Be a bit persistent so it can see you are serious. Think of it as a parent and don't be a demanding obnoxious kid, but be a kid who really wants to learn something and makes that very clear.

That is only a tiny step in a process, but it is a step that will stop many many in their path and they will not get any sort of proof.

Thanks for your reply but I do not see how it answers my question.

Perhaps it is time to create a thread where I can show how the system I am speaking about works.

Originally Posted by VVilliam

Thanks for your reply but I do not see how it answers my question.

Perhaps it is time to create a thread where I can show how the system I am speaking about works.

I guess I do not understand what your question was. You ask if there could be a system to prove a creator type entity or mind that can be interacted with. I told you why I doubt that is possible. Your question seems to suggest we could prove a interaction with said thing. I am saying, said thing may not be interested in taking part in you process and that failing to address it with respect as a fellow conscious being destroys the process as I understand it.
Definitely do start a thread on that process and link it here or just explain it here if it fits with this topic. I would like to see it but doubt anything can prove something beyond the world of physics to someone who will automatically seek to prove it could be something else. Plus, the need to get this thing to cooperate. If you have found some way to force disembodied consciousness to interact with people when it does not want to I have trouble understanding how that could be.