441

Re: Cookbook for Creation

I do know what you’re doing, and I appreciate the point you’re making, but I’ll reply anyway.

Maybe not to you. But that’s just what I’m saying - we all have our own interpretations of things. What I find compelling another may not (it may be worth pointing out that semiotics is by no means flawless, in my opinion. However, I do believe that the basic principals underlying it, especially with regard to meaning and how it is derived, are sound. Do you honestly believe that the number “9” is inextricably and intrinsically linked to the genitals and always has been, even before the symbol was created? If so, can you explain why?)

Again, the very fact that different people have differnet standards of evidence is indicative of the way that we all derive our own meanings from the signifiers around us. If we didn’t derive different meanings from the same signifiers, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion because we’d all agree on the same interpretations of the same symbols. If I didn’t derive a different meaning from the representations of the Tree Of Life than you do, then I’d agree with you, by definition.

I don’t think there’s much sloppy thinking in what I’ve shown you (although I wouldn’t necessarily say that about all aspects of semiology), but YMMV.

BTW, if you’re going to ape my posts properly, you’ll have to be more verbose. And have more sloppy spelling.

No, sorry. I mean, there’s a few details that match up to people that are or have been in my life, but that’s hardly surprising, is it? I mean, I’ve known many young boys of about that age with that colour hair, most notably myself and my brother, but friends’ children, nephews, cousins and so on. It’s hardly surprising that I’ve known a few children between the ages of 4 and 6 with brown hair in nearly 30 years, is it?

As for the old man, it doesn’t ring any bells. The only two people I can think of who even vaguely fit the description would be my Grandad about 20 years ago, except he has never been remotely podgy and about as close as he’s got to enjoying the fruits of life too much has been drinking too much tea. The other would be my stepdad about now who would be about the right height to the casual observer and has certainly enjoyed a fruit or two in his time. However, seeing as he’s a biker, he wouldn’t be seen dead in the clothes you describe. The only coat I’ve ever seen him wear is his leather jacket, and you’d not forget that in a hurry. He certainly has more striking distinguishing characteristics than having white hair, too, although I wouldn’t call him “husky”.

Certainly, on the specifics, I’ve never posed for any photo vaguely similar to that one.

So, no, sorry, nothing familiar about that at all.

442

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Hehe, to be honest you’re making it very difficult for me to defend my case My spider-sensens tell me that the next paragraph will be taken out of context and used to prove me wrong further on in this thread.

No, I do not think human cells are self-aware. Cells do not have the ability to actually create. Of course a formation of cells can create an organ and cells can recreate, but they do not have the power to create something at will. Our ability to create is unique. We can create almost anything, from spaceships to paintings. In other words, individual cells are not creative. They contain just enough info to be able to perform their task.

The actual reason why I think that cells are not selfaware, is because I think that in order to be selfaware one needs a brain.

I regret having to nuance my statement in this stage of the discussion. I should have made this distinction much earlier. I hope my answer satisfied you, but I’m afraid that certain individuals are starting to smell blood as we speak

Roel

443

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Thank-You, it was difficult to do it since I do have respect for you, even though at times you are frustrating me to say the least. I find it difficult to understand why you dont see behind the symbols and what they can represent.

The musical score was a simple one, but to me I just see dots and squiggles. To someone educated and who is in that line of endeavor, they actually mean something. I am sure you didn’t just suddenly know how to translate the symbols to music, but spent a great deal of time and energy in learning about the music and the language thereof.

The same is with myself and the Tree of Life. I have spent an great deal of time with what it symbolizes and can translate the “language” that is contained within it. It is quite astonishing to me that what I see so quickly, is missed by someone of your caliber.
Perhaps I have given you too much credit for looking beyond the outward appearances of things.

This is a symbol and has a story contained within its artistry. To me it is a reminder of where ones focus should be. As I delve into the mysteries of the Universe, it is easy to get so caught up in the beauty of the heavens, I forget what is really important in the here and now. As I peer into the mysteries, if I don’t look around as to where I am, I will most certainly step off a pretipace and fall to my doom.

The little companion is those who believe in you so much, they too just follow you as you step off into the void. Their eyes only on you.
This is a quick version of all the story behind the picture. It means many things to many people. I want to scream at you to open the damn door, and stop looking at the front of the door.

The greatest ideal behind all that I have been presenting is the potential of things. You certainly have a great potential to understand what has been placed on the table and to see into the mysteries, but you choose not to advance through the first veil. The first veil has embraced you within its grasp and you find comfort in its folds.

I have never posted a picture of myself in this forum, so here goes…

Now why would you say that I ape your posts?

444

Re: Cookbook for Creation

A gift perhaps…?

Also, are animals and plants not self-aware? Where does the line of self-awareness begin, and where does it end?

445

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Just as an interesting side note…
The dream I had before the one with Trollface within it had a new type of spacecraft. I asked the “creators” what it was made of. They said it was a blend of aluminum/titanium and acrylics linked together in a molecular format to make a type of liquid when heated to a high temperature.. The liquid was then injected into molds to shape the metal/plastic into a continous, streamlined form, and then allowed to cool. The craft was lightweight, strong and the acrylics sealing any possible gaps between the metals and increasing the integrity of the overall construction.

446

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Thomas your cute! and so sophisticated too…

Roel, you can’t even begin to imagine how ridiculous that atheist lamenting of yours sounds to me.

With all do respect, maybe the world would seem more realistic to you when teddy bears begin to bully you for milk and cookies… )

I dunno, maybe the atheist cannot find Gd for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman?

Its obvious that you do not believe in Gd, because it implies an effort of the will…

447

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Why Thank-You, Cat. If only I was younger…

448

Re: Cookbook for Creation

They seem to be very close to you, more along the lines of an inner circle of the family. The picture may be metaphorical, “most” dreams are not literal. The timelines for these kind of things is not easy to narrow down, so perhaps it may be something in the future. Time will tell.

449

The End is Near

But your ego just can’t pass up any opportunity to try to make someone wrong. Yes, I know how it is. I used to be at your level of maturity.

Sorry Mr. “I believe in shades of grey”, you cannot simply state things as if they are boolean facts and expect people to believe you. Metaphor is not neccessaily “is” or “is not”. Quite a few metaphors have both metaphoric correspondences as well as direct correspondences. Take my example of a system schematic. When control computers and components and connections are shown on a schematic, it is metaphoric with respect to some elements, such as the physical sizes of the components and their physical proximity to each other. Yet on other levels it is not metaphoric, but direct correspondence, such as the actual number of physical elements and how they are connected in serial or parallel. Such is the Tree Of Life. Yes, the numbers are metaphorical because of the power of numerical symbology that humans have adopted and agreed upon. But the structural aspects of the triads are direct correpondences. The fact you continue to ignore these is merely a reflection of yourself and your ego. Which leads us to…

You really are controlled by your ego, aren’t you? The answer should be obvious, but I will explain for the weakminded. Just as the mishap on Newton’s 2nd Law was intended to reveal your psychological need to make others wrong, this experiment was to make obvious your tendency to ONLY select those elements of my argument which you know you have a high probability of proving me wrong. Anything even remotely “risky”, where your ego might undergo a bruise or two, you leave alone. Look at the long list of topics that you have never addressed or try to debunk. I’ve only recently begun labeling them with (recurring theme), but there are many. Indeed, the entire concept of “relationships” you won’t touch with a 10 foot pole. Perhaps that is because you are smart enough to know that all meaning comes from relationships, and how the human mind relates one thing it knows/perceives to others. Furthermore, you are eerily silent on the other topics that you know I am right (and therefore have no hope of making me wrong), such as energy, matter, motion, mass, space, and time…and their relationships to one another. Yes, these have very specific, adopted meanings in science. As such, you see no potential in them for you to prove me wrong. Evidence ignored.

And once again you confuse physical with functional, and ignore their distinction. I’ve offered on more than one occasion to school you on the difference between the two, as well as operational. Obviously you are too afraid to be shown you are not knowledgeable in something. Just like you could not bring yourself to admit you ever did anything stupid. You squirmed and wiggled, and simply refused to admit to something that we know that ALL humans have done at least once in their lives.

Yes, it is, if you only consider its physical aspects. But what you do not understand is that “Cognition” and “Locomotion” (or “respiration”) and “Reproduction” are functions. The triad I have given you represents the three primary FUNCTIONAL aspects of humans. You see only to focus on “what they are” rather than “what they do”. In the world of accepted meanings (and systems engineering) we distinguish these as nouns and verbs, matter and motion. There are those important concepts again! I really wish you would “get on board” and address what I am talking about, rather than what you wish to debunk.

And no muscles would function without a continuous supply of oxygenated blood. It would seem you have not got to the “real” root of locomotion, now would it? That would be because you focus on nouns, rather than verbs. Here is a clue to systems engineering: Operations are time-based, and they are completed by a balanced integration of functions and physical elements. Functions are motion-based, as they transform (verb) some input (noun) into an output (noun). Physical elements, and the environments they operate in, are matter-based, and they are designed to specifically perform a given function or functions. There. Now you have just been given the primer to ARO 201 Introduction to Systems Engineering that I will be teaching this fall. Hopefully now you will cease being wrong (yes, you are) by focusing only on physical aspects.

And in this you prove to yourself and all that rhetoric, rather than seeking truth and progress, is your only goal. Hence your fetish with proving others wrong, and your unwillingness to address points of valid science. Even Barthes himself called semiology a “tentative” science.

When the debunker is not aware that s/he is underinformed, s/he can and does present heresay as if it were fact. Beyond this obvious problem, chronic public debunking discourages people with otherwise valuable information from taking part in a public discourse.

Paraphrase is not acceptable when a specific question is being asked. And that would be called a tactic of rhetoric. I notice you still cannot provide any evidence for your belief.

And you’ve provided exactly ZERO data, evidence, or even reasoning to back it up. It is typical in the world of science that when probabilities are invoked, there is some form of logical and quantifiable basis for them that can be exhibited. If you cannot provide such basis, then I submit that your use of probability as an argument is as useless to you as your ego.

Oh, I cracked your code a lot further back that you seem to know. The evidence of the topics and concepts that you refuse to even touch are littered along the roadway of these posts. What is really sad is that you were not even willing to state, much less provide the standard refutation for, the classic argument for God that myself and my colleague have been following. As with the other topics that lie by the roadside, there is little left to surmise but that you know it is, indeed, the strongest scientific argument for God, and thus why you will not touch it. I give Roel more credit than you, because at least he was willing to attempt to tackle it head-on. You pay homage only to your ego, who tells you “don’t go there…he might make you WRONG.” It is sad that this appears to be the thing you fear the most in your life.

There is scant purpose for even continuing to try to have a conversation with a person who will reduce any arugment to “but no symbols really have any inherent meaning” as his way to make himself right. While the tentative science of semiotics may claim this is true, the fact is that humanity has decided that such nonsense does nothing for progress. It is nothing more than mental masturbation and a last-ditch tactic to save your “rightness”. The fact that you are now reduced to this last-ditch tactic exhibits that I have made my point, and got close enough to providing viable evidence for the link between science and God that it got you scared. My point is made, and I therefore have nothing left to say you to.

However, I will provide a final post in this thread to openly discuss the teleological argument for God that you avoid… for the sake of explaining the significance to Roel. At least he is interested in a two-way street.

RMT

450

Time To Tie A Bow Around It

Roel,

And yet none of these arguments you have given have even come close to the “standard” refutation for the telelogical argument for God. I have been incessant in pushing you on this because I hoped you would reach that point, and finally clarify your objection to how I apply my science in the same terms as is used in the classic refutation for the telelogical argument. What I cannot quite figure out is if you honestly were not aware of this form of arugment for God and its classic refutation, or if you do know of it and were simply avoiding it because you had a hunch I could boomerang it back on you. In any event, trollface’s stonewalling and debate tactics have caused me to lose interest in this thread, especially since it is clear that we have pushed you both far enough that you felt threatened that someone would actually provide evidence that you could not refute with sound logic and evidence of your own. The fact that you both refuse to provide even a smidgen of basis for your anti-telelogical probabilities tells me you find this to be a Pandora’s box that you are unwilling to open.

However, it is time to bring it all out into the open. For there actually is a very good argument against the teleological refutation for the existence of God. But first let me quote some key points of this link I have provided:

  1. “While it may be possible to disprove the existence of some particular God, it is in general impossible to prove the nonexistence of all conceivable Gods. Rather than try to do this, most atheists argue that merely disproving all rational arguments for the existence of God is sufficient to show that God’s existence is less probable than his nonexistence; by Occam’s Razor, the burden of proof lies on the advocate of that alternative which is less probable.”

Note how this approach relies on probability. Note also that the burden of proof lies with the advocate for the alternative which is less probable. Now you know why I was pushing for you to justify your assignment of probabilities. Since you cannot, the burden of proof is on you, since it is clearly more likely that the universe (and its tight tolerances) were purposefully designed, rather than coming about by accident, especially when you consider nature’s tendency towards increased entropy, rather than decreased entropy. But we are not done yet…

  1. “The teleological argument, or argument from design, states that the universe manifests order and complexity which could not have arisen ‘by chance’ and so must have been designed by an intelligent Creator God. Critiques of this argument typically seek to demonstrate that natural laws are sufficient to explain the order and complexity found in nature.”

And now, this last sentence, is what leads to my “final act” in this comedic-drama. It is now time to tie a ribbon around this gift and send it out. You see, you were never able to claim that “natural laws are sufficient to explain the order and complexity found in nature” because the natural laws of nature ARE the work of our Creator, and these very natural laws are what have formed the basis of my argument.

The reason that “God = Energy” is reasonable to believe stems from a basic concept of dualistic forces in our universe (there’s that 0 & 1 recurring theme again). In order for creation (and human advancement) to take place, dyadic opposites must be reconciled. Whether you consider sexual or asexual reproduction, there is always a dyad of forces that must come into play for the reproduction to take place. In electrical circuits, without an anode and a cathode, there would be no current flow. In gravitation, it is the mutual attraction of bodies that permits Keplerian motion to result. In all things, the forces of a dyad must be reconciled for there to be progress. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” This is why the basis for the I-Ching are the solid and broken lines. They form the eternal dynamic of Yin and Yang, and progress is only achieved with a balance of both.

As most who have visited my website know, my theme in life is centered around the fact that Science and Spirituality are dyadic opposites which our dominant societies have purposefully sought to keep apart… to avoid any reconciliation. In forcing this separation, to the point of militancy sometimes, this is precisely how BOTH the scientific AND the spiritual communities have kept us, their “subjects” under their control. As with any other dyad in life, these two things must be reconciled in order for the human race to achieve its next phase of evolution. The fighting you see in the world today is, indeed, the “final battle” prophesied by many sources that will lead to “ascension”. The reconciliation of Science and Spirituality will not only lead to our next phase of human evolution, but is also summarily destroys the refutation of the teleological argument.

The old thought that “natural laws are sufficient to explain the order and complexity found in nature” has no legs to stand on once you full equate God with those natural laws, and that is the same as fully reconciling and integrating the scientific and spiritualistic views. It is evident that both science and spirituality are seeking to answer the same “big questions” about the meaning & purpose of our existence…and how it all works. The fact that we, as a human culture, have not attempted to fully integrate these two tools of truth is what has held us back from living in a world where there is clearly enough for all. Compartmentalizing these two tools of man is what has lead to the perception of “not enough”.

To those who insist on treating science and spirituality as two separate, distinct, and utterly unrelated tools of mankind, all I can tell you is that history puts you in dubious company. Any and all efforts to forcefully keep opposing elements and viewpoints apart has ultimately failed. We saw it in South Africa, and we saw it with the Berlin Wall. America discovered its power when it adopted the precept of the “melting pot”. It is only the two-party politicians, who continually seek to divide our country, that are acting to prevent our further maturation, both as a country and as a species.

Enjoy your atheism and ignorance while you can. But mark my words, there will come a day when each of us will be forced to integrate our views on science and spirituality, each for ourselves. You can laugh and scoff at me as being “unscientific” about this now. But I assure you, the premise of integrating disparate opposites is well-founded in both science and spiritual traditions. The day will come, and I pray that you will have the courage to harken back to these discussions (and other times in your life when people have encouraged you to “look deeper”), and pull together the resources you will need to make the leap across the Abyss.

May God Bless,
RMT

451

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

Wow, Ray. Just wow. Even though it seems fruitless, I’ll still come back to this when I have the time. Just a couple of things regarding your last post.

You’ve given me a first when you Strawmanned yourself. Now you’ve given me another first. This is the first time in any debate, ever that I’ve been told that I have been proven wrong because even though I didn’t claim one thing that you were bizarrely trying to lead me towards, you can still show that argument to be wrong.

I’ve been told that I’m wrong because my arguments have been disproved before. I’ve been told that I’m wrong “jest because I am” before. But I have never, ever been told I am wrong because arguments that I haven’t made and wasn’t going to make have been shown to be wrong.

Do you honestly consider this to be logical or rational at all?

452

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Right back at cha.

The operative word in that sentence is “can”, though. Anything can represent anything to anyone. This is why Freud leaves something to be desired (well, not the only reason). If he claims that a train going in to a tunnel must always represent sex, then he is worng. It might do, for sure. But it might represent a million different things to a million different people. I think Freud saying that says more about Freud than it does about whoever he’s psychoanalysing. It certainly says more about the one or the other than it does about trains or tunnels.

Just for clarity, I realise that Freud said “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”, and I don’t think he had nothing of merit to say whatsoever, I just think his work has flaws and has an over-emphasis on sex.

Well, not that much time and energy. I get the point you’re making, though. But what you’re saying is exactly the point I’m making. We all derive our own meanings from the symbols around us. You may not be able to read the music you posted, but you recognise it as music. But it’s by no means universal. As a mundane example that many may be familiar with, guitar tablature is similar but not the same. Same for drum tabs. For something completely different, look at this: http://bol.sapp.org/data/gif/c01.gif

That’s Indian tabla notation. It’s a different thing entirely. We codify what we want to codify how we want to codify it.

I can accept that you and others derive meaning from these signs. What I cannot accept is that the meaning is inherent in the signs themselves. I can also accept that the Tree Of Life can be representative of things, such as organs, if you wish to interpret it as such. Or a path to self-enlightenment, if that is how you wish to see it, just as the notes on the stave represent the specific tones and rhythms.

Again, what I do not accept is that there is one universal “truth” behind it, or that the significance is inherently and inextricably imbued within the signs. Some have found their path to self-enlightenment through the 12-step programme of a rehab clinic. Others through pithy, trite little myths as told in the “Chicken Soup For The Soul” books. Am I to believe that the meaning they derive from these things has less value than the meaning you derive from yours?

And yes, you can say that no matter how you represent it, the music is the same. But music has no higher meaning. All music is is compression of air. Just as all I see the Tree Of Life as is a representation of things. I do not believe that there is any higher meaning there, either. There’s nothing inherently “right” there any more than there is in the concept that Zeus is the king of the gods.

Yeah, I’ve studied the Tarot. However, when you said “It means many things to many people” you were exactly right. Again, everything you’ve said actually agrees with what I’ve been saying.

Another spin on the card is that the Fool is happy. He is the only care-free card that exists. He has his dog to save him from fallive over the edge. He has everything he needs and cares about right with him. Why should he wish for any different?

But in any case, it’s only an apt analogy if there really is some great universal truth that I’m ignorant of. In my opinion, there isn’t. You never know, it may be you who is the fool - happy in your ignorance - and I am the unhappy soul who has to bear the knowledge of the truth that we are all ultimately alone and unloved…

453

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

I can assure you that I have never purposely avoided any of your questions. Which reminds me. I’d still like to know if you think that, for instance, a rock is selfaware.

This says more about you than it does about me. But alas…

You had more chance proving me wrong by taking a closer look at my reply to Azkabans post, rather than starring in your own comedy-drama. You may be a good engineer, but you’re a bad actor. May I add that where you think my reasoning is flawed, you fail to come up with good arguments and proof yourself.

My post to Azkaban was, in a way, inconsistent to what I’ve written earlier in this thread. Although I still maintain that energy is not selfaware and that it’s merely a requirement to create, I have been reviewing my opinion about whether or not, for instance, human cells are selfaware. I was even considering the possibility that perhaps selfawareness is recursive on multiple levels in our universe. This thought kept me from sleeping for quite a while last night, but in the end I came to the conclusion that, for now, this is just a loose assumption.

I’ve claimed that you are abusing and/or overapplying science to justify your own believes. Now regardless of the fact whether I am right in thinking this, it is not my intention to scoff or laugh at you.

We’re living in the present Ray. I’m interested in the truth. I hope you will at least learn to challenge your own believes, because by the looks of it you’ve comforted yourself in the thought that your believes are the absolute truth.

Roel

454

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Sounds like the next generation of Apple PowerBooks )

455

Re: Cookbook for Creation

This post is about Gd coming into existence!

There is no time…There never was any time, and there never will be any time…Time as a separate thing does not exist… Language itself seems to defy our attempts to understand time. Phrases such as “the beginning of time,” or “when time began,” serve only to reinforce our intuition that time is forever, that it could not have had a beginning… There may be different varieties of time, as there are differing kinds of infinities, but time always was, is and ever shall be! To imagine a time without time, a space beyond space, eventless time and the sheer nothingness of purely empty space seem to be logical and psychological impossibilities… The question is not whether time is real but how is time real?.. Gd coming into existence!

Time is nothing by itself and cannot be understood apart from physical processes. For example, perceived time is a local experience of change, but against an absolute background time. We feel time passing because our bodies are running clocks. **Stop all such clocks and eternity (another kind of time) will remain… ** Gd coming into existence!

In other words, our time is a kind of illusion, requiring perceiving minds and running body clocks to experience events, *but is nothing by itself. * There is a tendency to have *absolute time * somewhere in the background while remaining true to times specific observed aspects… Again Gd coming into existence…

A purely relational theory of time goes one step further by claiming that it makes no sense to talk of absolute, background time in which the foreground time we experience flows and that all conceptions of eternity and absolute time are merely imaginative constructs, psychological illusions that illustrate our need to end the questioning process.

To imagine time flowing, to think of it as a *separate entity * apart from everything else, is at the very least a marvel of abstraction, a programmed experience including everything that will ever happen to us… into which everything has been programmed by Gd…

This programmed experience interlocks without ever meeting, It is as much outside of us as any world of space-time and matter would be, to give us the world we know in which we think that we see a tree or receive a telephone call is simply the length of the program given to us by Gd… We are literally on tape, experiencing a given world as if we were seeing it in the ordinary way, but the live world from which it was recorded does not exist. There is no world outside the program… To us this is as real as it gets!

I would conclude that the universe is made of mental objects … In the ordinary sense of reality, nothing exists at all… Hmmm, the universe is beginning to look more like a *great thought * than like a great machine…

Space and time are the forms that mind puts on things-in-them-selves, as they exist outside our perceiving minds and these moumenal things have no spatial or temporal qualities in themselves. The universe we see springs into being only when minds work , unconsciously, on things-as-they-are, in what we call perception… A real universe outside our minds…

Strangely at time, the importance of the observer, the entity that experiences the scheme of reality. We struggle to differentiate between what is in us and what is out there; or more properly, between what we imagine the universe to be and what it may in fact be… Pull on a thread and a whole arm of the suit may unravel… This is a limitation of living inside a system and lacking the luxury of an unconditional viewpoint…

**My conclusion is that Gd, a personal being who created the universe out of nothing, exists, loves us, and will one day resurrect us all to live in heaven forever… **

Adieu, Lebewohl, Auf Wiedersehen, Guten Tag, Gesundheit! )

456

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

  1. How do you define “self-aware”?
  2. Do you assign self-awareness any sort of time span requirement?
  3. Are animals (including such as dolphins, chimpanzees, and Golden Retrievers… my favorite) self aware?

Answer those questions and I will provide you with my answer to your question.

And why is this? Do you take this as an insult? Or are you ashamed of either of these traits?

You must be confusing me with trollface. I am not here to prove anyone wrong. I am here to share knowledge of experiences beyond the mundane. You were the one asking for proof, and so I obliged. And I have no need to jump on Azkaban’s bandwagon. He is doing fine by himself. In case you did not know, he is one and the same with the friend I mentioned who goaded me into “baiting” trollface. I’m sure he will chime in when he sees openings that are too good to resist. Unlike me, he is a man of few words… but he chooses them well.

  1. I have provided a great deal more proof for my views than you have for yours… and scientifically based at that.
  2. You continue to mention logic, and yet you never address Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem which, essentially, told us how limited any closed system of logic is, given that an uncountable number of unproveable and contradictory statements can be formed within such a closed system. Furthermore, logic is a man-made system that is based solely on our limited observations and perceptions… yet another reason it is incomplete, because it does not encompass what mankind does not have the ability to know.

Yes, you’ve claimed it… but you have not explained, specifically, how. Please don’t tell me that THIS would be asking you to prove a negative! Can you provide a bit more of a detailed, yes, even logical, refutation for my “abuse” and/or “overapplication” of science? Maybe even telling me how my last post, discussing balance of opposites, is incorrect?

Speak for yourself. I seek to live across all times. I have lived before (as we all have, but some may not believe it), and I have achieved brief connections with at least two of those former timelines. I have also seen “dreams and daydreams” from various points in my life come to pass…some joyous, some not so. Some might say in this I “saw the future”, others might say I “saw the potential of the future and simply brought it about.” What I ask is: Is there really such a difference between the two?

You paint me as if I never challenge any of my beliefs, and that is simply not true. However, in the realm of how all energy in the universe integrates to form a system that some call God, yes I am quite comfortable. And I have explained why, sometimes in great detail. It all is derived from an ability to balance… in this case, faith and proof. Those who do not acknowledge their levels of faith rarely ever learn how to use it to their advantage in navigating life’s time flows.

We’ve been through this one before, and I am not sure you ever acknowledged it: You have absolutely no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. Sure, you can “bet me” that it will, and you may be “right”. But that is not proof. What you have is faith that it will rise tomorrow, and/or that you will continue to exist in your current form to see it. And yet you hesitate to extend the faith that you have to anything beyond what your senses can perceive. Do you have no faith in the images and perceptions that appear in your mind during REM sleep, or during other times of altered consciousness? Do you not think that the universe brings you EXACTLY what you need to know, EXACTLY when you need it, and in the EXACT form you need to make use of it?

Yes, the tolerances in our universe are amazingly tight. And yet there are people who believe we do not live in a perfect universe…or a perfect world. We do. I hear you complain about evil, and suffering, and all sorts of other “bad” things. And yet, if the universe was “perfect” in the way you might think of this word, how would those whose purpose in life is to address and resolve “bad” things be able to practice (and learn) during their lives? How would we ever know what is “good” if there were no “bad” to compare and contrast it with? All things serve their purpose, and it is only up to each human mind to understand this, for that is one of the first steps in the path to finding the Creator.

There is, indeed, a great deal of comfort in knowing that all will be provided for me exactly as I need it to during this incarnation. And it will be called-forth by no one less than myself. Can you imagine the peace of mind if you were to know that you would never, ever make a “mistake”? Being able to release anxiety about the future is one of the greatest blessings that the path of ascension can bestow on one who seeks it. Do I stumble, and sometimes lose my way on that path? You bet I do. But each day I do my meditations in an attempt to wipe-out such doubts. Because doubts like this are “about being only human”. I know I am much more than that, and I aspire to achieve that.

I am constantly climbing my Tree Of Life. I encourage you to do the same. If you think you are happy and content now, you might be quite amazed at the levels of happiness and accomplishment you can achieve by expanding beyond what you perceive yourself to be. Wouldn’t you think it wonderful to be able to look towards each new day without anxiety or fear…knowing that everything would come to pass perfectly for your coordinates of Massive SpaceTime?

Good luck in your quest, whatever it may be!
RMT

457

Re: Cookbook for Creation

The meaning isnt inherent in the symbol itself, or the ink on the paper as it were. The author had a concept or story behind his creation and this is the language to be understood. The “mark” taken to be a symbol and what “the author” placed within its form.
If I am looking at a musical score, I see nothing of significance, but I do know it means something. In order to unravel its mystery I need to become educated on how to read it. You read the score I posted and you did not see it as an empty black spot on your screen. To you the symbols come alive ( so to speak ) and you even probably can “play” the notes in your mind.
I find you to be hypocritical in this thought process. You see a muscial score and know full well the symbols represent notes and specific sounds. Certainly you can “say” they are of no significance, but this is absolutely not true. With an attitude like that, Thank-God you werent around Bach or Wagners time. They poured their souls into their musical creations and would you tell them that you saw nothing of significance when they showed you what they created?

To a point. As with the muscial score, if I told you I that it represented the song..“Stairway to Heaven” and you knew I wasn’t very knowledgeable with reading music, and I insisted that it was indeed the "truth’ of the symbols, and countered what you “know” it actually symbolizes with your type of reply, you would think I live a sheltered life with a paper bag over my head and cotton in my ears. Blind in one eye and can’t see out the other. Tell you what, next time you see a cop, run through a stop sign and tell him the stop sign doesnt have any inherent meaning and you dont really see any significance to it. And then follow that up with the statement that different people see different things and the badge on their chest just doesnt hold any meaning for you whatsoever. I dont know about England’s Bobbies, but try that on a County sheriff deputy and they would provide you with a full body massage with their flashlights. Ever notice in any pictures they carry big, long flashlights? Probably thought they were only used to emit light in the darkness, eh?

Thus is why we have developed The Tree of Life, to bring everything we learn in focus. To be able to construct a way of passing knowledge from one generation to another. As I said it is similar to a road map, created by those that went before us. To use the musical score as an example, the author placed the symbols on paper to pass it on to you, a musician, to re-create what he was inspired to give “life” to. We derive meaning from the symbols becasue we can read what they represent, as you can do with a musical score. If you want to split hairs, sure, I could hold it up to a rock and to the rock it wouldnt have any significance, but you know this isnt what we have been presenting. We are placing before you the concepts of truth for you to experience, not the ink on the paper. “Well, Golly Sarge , that looks like Black Indian Ink to me!”

Of course there is a truth. It is the perception that gets altered. I may see a shape and call it a diamond. You see the same shape and call it a square. Our descriptions are different, but it hasnt changed the truth of the object. However, this doesn’t apply to you, since you have never seen or experienced the object and claim it doesnt exist. The truth/significance behind the signs was put there by the authors who have done so. My quest is to translate what is was they experienced and authored into the signs to learn from the knowledge they “experienced”. Your statements are degrading to those minds that grappled with the mysteries of creation and authored the texts for the generations that followed. You basically are saying that they were morons that hadn’t a clue about the world they existed within. This includes Leonardo, Pythagoras, Newton, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. etc., any of the great scientists and thinkers that contemplated creation and experienced God. And where do you think the twelve step programs and “Chicken Soup for the Soul” got their inspirations from? Little Bo’Peep ?

Within certain boundaries. If I told you that card represented a sailing ship jetting out to space with cannons roaring and the sails snapping in the solar winds, with blue cheese gumdrops bouncing off the rocks, obviously I am not very capable at connecting the dots and if I was insistant on this description no matter what you said it’s context was, you would think I was a Jacka** just playing mental gymnastics.

If I be a Fool it was by not listening to those who have insisted there is no point in trying enlighten those who choose to be ignorant. And what makes you think I might be happy? I just might be the meanest, most corrupt, spitefull bast..d that in reality pretends to enjoy prattling on about God when I actually use my knowledge, experiences and skills to become that much more adept with Black Magic, and seek my pleasures through the conjuration of spirits and demons.

You never know…

“That” person at work thought demons didnt exist and dissrespected one by name ( my mistake for telling her the names of some ) until for no reason at all her ankle snapped in four places. “Gee Willikers, Fred, all ten of the folks sittin round didnt see nobody neither! And what was that stench?” Hmmmm…

And as we slip through the portals between the realms and learn about our true selves and witness the birth of new suns, the death of ancient suns, listening to the whisperings of God, and see all the Grand Majesties that existence contains, you may go get another beer from the fridge.

458

Re: Cookbook for Creation

It could be just that. A precurser to stopping invading aliens by sneaking into their mother ship and downloading a virus into their computer?

459

Re: Cookbook for Creation

“Cells do not have the ability to actually create.”

Definition: Create - To cause to exist; bring into being. Given this definition, I would say that when a cell divides it is creating another cell.

“So I’d like to stress that I personally believe that there is only one type of creation and you’re the one introducing a new type of creation.”

Are you trying to say there is more than one type of creation by separating what cells do from what humans do? If so, you’d be contradicting your own words. I agree with you that there is only one type of creation, but I think you are severely limiting its expanse as a result of your human-centric view.

460

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

So you want me to answer three questions in order for you to answer one? You’re a hard bargain! :slight_smile:

Well here goes:

  1. Are you saying that all this time you had no idea of what I define as selfawareness? The word is pretty selfdescriptive if you ask me. It means that you are aware of yourself as an individual or of your own being and actions and thoughts. That’s right out of the dictionary

  2. Yes. In my opinion selfawareness is finite; it ends when your brain stops working.

  3. It’s hard to say, since we are unable to easily communicate with animals. My guess is that animals are indeed selfaware. Like I said, it takes a brain to be selfaware. I can’t quite recall who said this, but I remember someone talking about levels of selfawareness and I don’t mean your supposed higher level of awareness. I think it was OvrLrd who got me thinking:

It could very well be possible that there’s a scale of selfawareness. For instance a chimpanzee has a selfawareness level of 8, where an ant has a selfawareness level of 1. Now you could rightfully claim that humans do not necissarily have the highest level of selfawareness. This allows for the **theoretical **existence of a being with a higher level of awareness.

No, I’m not that easily offended and I know better than to take this as an insult. I’m not ashamed either. I indeed enjoy being an atheist just as much as you enjoy being a believer, but the fact that you called me ignorant is simply a weakness offer. I’m pretty damned sure that I’m far from ignorant and thus labeling me as such, says more about you than it does about me.

Somehow you’re under the assumption that I am going to blindly accept that knowledge as the truth. Also, for some strange reason you believe that you have provided undisputable proof, which you have not. For one thing Energy is not selfaware.

Yes, that was the most hilarious (read: useless) act in debating I have ever witnessed in my entire life.

I’ll agree to that.

I’m opting for quality rather than quantity. You build your believes on wrong assumptions. Again, energy is not selfaware. You tried proving that statement as follows:

  1. we consist of energy
  2. we are selfaware
  3. therefore energy is selfaware

In my eyes, this reasoning is complete and utter nonsense and far from scientific. The fact that we are selfaware has nothing to do with the fact that we consist of energy. That’s why I asked you if you think a rock is selfaware, which you have failed or forgotten to answer at least two times in this thread. The way energy is constructed allows us to be selfaware.

Mmmh… I thought these theorems were primarily applicable to mathematics? Also you seem to be fond of these theorems (that incidentally rely on logic), yet you defy logic as it is a manmade system?! That’s not very logical, is it?

You may or may not have read it, but I really tried to explain where I think you’re abusing overapplying science in a previous post. I know you don’t agree with me, but the uncertainty principle was not applicable in our inside/outside discussion. I think this is overapplying science for two reasons.

  1. “Inside” and “outside” are mandmade definitions that do not rely on the position or momentum of a single particle. In fact “outside” represents almost an infinite number of particles. Now, the probabilty of 1 particle disappearing outside while we are inside is very small (based on past experience), but the possibility of an infinite number of particles disappearing while we’re inside is negligible. “Haha, negligible” you will say, “that means that the uncertainty principle is still effective”. I would have to agree to that, but in my opinion that would be overapplying science.

  2. Although the uncertainty principle has been proven, we do not know for sure if it’s applicable on our view of the universe.

Yes. But all times includes the present

Mmmh. You know, I personally don’t believe in transmigration of the soul (yet), but I must admit it would explain the existence of child prodigies and hyper intelligent people. It would be logical to think that someone like Einstein or Mozart is in fact someone with a “very old soul”.

I’ve thought about this and I believe that my “timeparticle” can provide an answer for phenomena like ghosts, souls and reincarnation. In short I think that it’s possible for timeparticles to “get stuck” in the state they are in and produce images of people that have already passed away. But as I mentioned before, I’m still working on it

Wow, that’s a coincedence… I think I have just explained why I do not agree with this statement.

They have proven to be HIGHLY inaccurate. Some do represent the past, present or even future, but in such a distorted way that I will not have absolute faith in them. I’ve had some reaky deja-vu’s, but I think the way I perceive reality when I’m awake is still normative. If you choose to think otherwise, alas, but please don’t claim that I’m ignorant for not doing the same.

True. And indeed the universe is perfect in a way. UNLESS you believe in a creator. The existence of a selfaware creator implies that good and bad are not in balance. That’s what my “complaining” was meant to show. Criminals often live their lives in great wealth, while innocent people in Africa have to suffer. If “good” and “bad” are divided randomly, this would mean that the fact that certain people suffer is purely coincedental. A creator, however, would be the cause of an unequal division of “good” and “bad” and thus responsible for creating an imbalance.

You have no way to measure my hapiness, therefore you cannot compare it to yours. The statement that I can achieve more happiness is again based on a loose assumption.

That’s just one of the loose assumptions you’re basing your statement on. Whatever makes you think I look towards each new day with anxiety or fear? If I feel any anxiety at all, it’s anxiety in the most positive meaning of the word. Which only makes me more happy

Which brings me to another question… do you think everything is predestined?

Thanks. The first quest I can think of right now is The Quest for The Holy Espressomachine. I don’t know what’s ahead of me, besides the coffeebean- and watersupplies being depleted. Good luck in your quest as well )