s1eep

I don't truly believe he hit the nail on the head, and this wasn't really a theory it was meant to be for philosophical and scientific discussion. Since the day I posted this, I've found better ways to explain. Such as, when I say imagination encircles everything, I recently found that, I really mean our imagination encircles everything, as if we are, above, through mental ability, other natures, that we can, by just looking at a plant or something, create an image of the plant in our minds; no need for any doctrine or in-depth knowledge about the subject, just it's sensed individuality. So, we comprehend these things, without the worded science of today. Anyway, it's not stupid, I'm referring to something found through the observation of nature that I can't quite explain with words right at this second.

Well I am obviously in disagreement with "are complex patterns of neurons firing electrochemical impulses back and forth to each other". if you mean only that, there is also the cohesive, pulsating, self of the matter. Again, revert back to my statement about "My chemical reactions", because on further inspection you'll realize it contradicts you, that is until I'm engulfed in insults and formalized hate-speech, and my words are to you, but a forgotten memory. And I don't believe in God, I was using it as an analogy. I'm not disagreeing that it's chemical reactions, I'm just saying it's not only that. As for your [C], I repeat the before notion of "My complex sequence of organic molecules, chemical reactions", and ask you again to explain how the "My" manages to function with the proceeding... Me and OP seem to have similar standpoints... Just saying... Unless you're adamant to correct mistakes you may think he has made, I'm not exactly the last person he wanted to see... I think anyway.

My view is quite similar to yours... I don't believe we are chemical reactions, only, but also the final product of those chemical reactions; we are above the chemical reactions, as if we were God's of our own body. I, am a significance in myself, for how I'm sensed by others, for my footprint on the planet, and other things related to myself. To believe that I am only chemical reactions, shows I'm not experienced with my self or wise, I am experienced however more so with other peoples views of me---the me that's observed by another. I have the imagination to deny impulses sent by these chemical reactions. At the end of my life, when I am about to die, and I start to remember past times and the cohesive whole, the fact that I'm chemical reactions is the last evident truth that, or likely not to, cross my senses; and being that I apparently am only chemical reactions, this is obscure. And being critical with my belief, I think the universe is more so about unity than it is singularity (or individuality), and our language is categorizing things as individuals. We are united with the universe, but we have the choice to believe we are not (even though we are), and that seems to be the reason for all the disunity in society. Put it like this: they are not 'our chemical reactions', they are 'my chemical reactions'; how does the sentence, "my chemical reactions", make sense? By your definitions of self, that statement means 'chemical reactions chemical reactions'; what force leads to chemical reactions functioning as "myself" and "chemical reactions"? And my answer is, the bonding of these chemical reactions, the 'togetherness', their 'love', an abstract, flimsy concept, is a thing in itself, even though it's flimsy, incomprehensible through labelling things as singular . There are probably some things we can only comprehend whilst 'loved-up' or euphoric, maybe even under the influence of adrenaline, so no we won't be able to explain everything using these words because their visual artistry isn't as stunning as the natural world in colour and variety, we won't be able to comprehend unity by words, because they are an enmity between the united, but it's something that's prominent in the natural world, such as with males and females, we can comprehend parts at a time. If you follow the right path in life things just keep getting better and better.

I see my own beauty as well as the universes beauty.

You've got the wrong idea, I'm not condemning Atheism to anything other than disbelief in God, but I'm saying, most modern Atheists who the religious base their arguments on, are not actually good representatives of Atheism, especially towards people who are learning what Atheism is. In the same manner as Atheists saying all Christians believe in a man in the sky, clearly, some say they believe in something more believable.

Okay, yes, I'll agree but I'm also an educated man and I try hard to not go over the top; plus, I try very hard in support of movement in favour of the prosperity of Earth and humanity, especially children. Then describe for me the, what "World War III" is to war, but what, your description, is to human ideology. We often use very simple abstract imagery to represent complex events or concepts in our minds; I'm just wandering, in short, what's the common abstraction to describe the space exploration and advancement ideology? Simply populate, explore space?

The health of and scenario that our species and environment will be in, in 1000 years, under NASA and academia.

But, it's not only you who makes up the population. If anything, when I say these things it also implies I am forgiving in cases where the person knows what Atheism is.

I could have been more precise, but now you've explained that you know the differences between personality and properties, can we analyse their similarities? Some of these very properties, as OP says, turned into humans with personalities; their properties had an effect that I'm wondering if they are related to the effect of personalities of humans; are the properties of perhaps water, and the personality of humans directly linked ? Is the mind 'prompted' by 'VY Canis Majoris'. when we think of it?

Everything I have said supports my case; the 'soap-boxing' was in response to a question. Like you, he didn't understand, but managed to ask a non-relative question of his own. My response was a bit off-topic, but it was all in support of my case against someone's inefficiency, stupidity created by stupidity. Can you provide me with a description, preferably in imagery (you can try and paint me a picture using words, metaphorically), of how our 'sophisticated' civilization and space exploration regime will be like in 1000 years at the current rate? My guess is no where near what it's made out to be by the general population. You have repeated yourself, "I don't know what you're saying", isn't this soap-boxing in a way? You're just expressing your beliefs and implying you have greater intelligence or wisdom than I have; rote-egoism; you don't understand and you feel the need to tell everyone that you don't understand, you even criticized me for a mistake that was inevitable because of how conversation works (he didn't understand remember; so I couldn't reply on topic, I had to go off-topic to meet his level of understanding; he is the one who brought his education up---what he was taught). Again, you want others to not understand like you, you're ignoring what I've said completely, and you're drifting off into your own judgement of me, this is the epitome of preaching and 'soap-boxing'. People are apt to work things out, people who try to work out what I'm saying may do that. A picture can say a thousand words, it can also say a thousand pictures, a sound can refer to any picture or moment. There is no reason to "give-up" reading anything, which is what is being promoted here, "giving-up", not trying hard to make sense out of things, instead of rationalizing with the person, rationalizing with the words alone, as if the person has a tranquil word-based imagination; doesn't literally envision what he thinks with any clarity. I can understand what I mean, but I cannot explain it in a way that is enlightening or definite enough for you, in your language, but I can explain it using imagery to myself or those under me/those who know me, or by utilizing the natural wordless world.

Okay, you notice the differences between personality and properties, but you can't notice their similarities? I think intelligence is also ridding ones mind of stupid concepts.

Because I'm not destroying, natural resources, or close natural resources, collectively, the Earth, or being the cause of future children's suffering with my actions, beliefs or personality. We need these to survive. Go ahead and argue reasons why 'survival is not our objective', 'there is no good', but I've said this before, if you are unable to eat, you will die, so do "you" truly deserve an opinion if you cannot live properly under the concept of you? You even believe if you lived life knowing only yourself, you wouldn't know anything... Scientists often revel in the beauty of the universe, but insult the livelihoods of animals, calling them stupider. Children have wild dreams of technological advancement and space exploration, but the reality is much different. As I said in a different thread, world dies and some humans in bunkers on Mars, not universal civilization. Why allow imaginative stupidity dictate real things, why not show people the real imagery, the real predictions of what life will be like for us in the future following what NASA or academicians believe?

Energy is it's personality here, or what I mean when I say personality; it's characteristics, attributes, mechanisms; what I would call it's 'nature' but it's probably not accepted.

Okay, noted. However, your opinion and enjoyment is not enough to support technology or as I called it "the destruction of natural resource", now, I also mentioned that destruction of natural resources was also natural---this means, we can destroy Earth-bound resources, and use them for our own needs and wants but be balanced with the Earth itself, what is to be considered, rational good living on Earth; we can harmonize with our environment by making tools, correct, or using what we were born with as tools, our body and senses, our reproductive organs and creative ability, also correct. If the advancement of technology leads to the end of the world, then we did not accomplish what the natural resources would have in their untouched (to any major degree) state; there is the fact that I'm more human than you, because my mind is attracted to things it should be, I'm interested in and devoted to the prosperity of the Earth and the future children of humanity; if I am, which I am, then if I want to advance, then, I can see that you're not really the same as me, this advancement, you might claim that "I'm dreaming of", or have already reached that conclusion, is real if I want it to be, the possibility is there for a prosperous Earth and to support future children. I am wise in knowing children are born, and combining this with the rest of life I know, I have aged, I know the sleuth of the universe, I'm in awe at the memories of many experiences of nature, the imagery of thought. I don't think humans would be as stupid civilization-less as you think, and don't think animals are anyway, they find harmony in the chaos in nature, plus, if we didn't create civilization, and the Earth lasted for billions of years, it wouldn't be different or more enlightening in the future, for life?

What if it's own type of intelligence is purer or higher, on a different level altogether; water does not turn to ice, because it decides to, you are right, it has no recollection of self, it doesn't determine things by thinking about them beforehand like humans, but, the atoms that make-up water, have certain personality. and together even more, they do not think about turning to ice, as you say, they turn to ice---the effects water has with other things are predetermined, it's self is automatically, or mechanistically, doing the things it would do if it met other things, it makes it own mark in nature by playing a certain role that other things, matter and energy, inter alia, formulated.

A typical Atheist, the majority of Atheists that make up the public voice for Atheism, would say something along the lines of "I don't believe in heaven", or "Heaven is nonsensical", and add disbelief in heaven to something an Atheist ought to do; simply, full devotion to today's scientific discovery. Even though, that is not the definition of Atheist, it's what I'm referring to when I say the typical, anti-religious, Atheists.

Not all religion is against science, religion is a concept that can be applied to almost anything if we extended our language; simply, God-belief is irrational. Do remember you're speaking to people who believe what typical Atheists believe... Even Heaven is not God-exclusive...

Technology is made through the destruction of natural resource; but yeah, it still applies, when someone tried to break down your house, they wouldn't have much trouble because it was like sand; it still retains interpersonal characteristics; when in combination with other things; knowing a consciousness is as, well, able, as it is, then I suggest that we have evolved to greater control these interpersonal characteristics of everything, enough to survive with our own personal characteristics, and when I say "we", I mean right back to our very genesis, when we, or what I associate also with the forces which led to our current state, were fish the sea, water in the clouds, and so on. Natural resource seems to be the perfect harmony---destruction is nature, also, it's our expression or ego in nature, but any wise man knows too much destruction is not beneficent. Our own relations to natural resources will be more heart-warming and intellectually stimulating than those made between technology and natural resources.

An atom perhaps, we are made of atoms, is there something in our make-up or psyche, I'm not too formalized with scientific definitions for things, that is atom relative? Are we an advanced/progressed/evolved kind of atom, as well as other things? Are there times where I act more like an atom than a human, or even act atom-like? I'd like to add I rarely post in the science sections and I am always hanging around once a few months in the philosophy and religion boards. Another way to explain; I know some other natural things aren't conscious, but can I imagine them somehow to be conscious, so it's relative, and this is some kind of above-this-nature bonding.

the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. "helping them to realize the nature of their problems" synonyms: essence, inherent/basic/essential characteristics,inherent/basic/essential qualities, inherent/basic/essential attributes,inherent/basic/essential features, sum and substance, character,identity, complexion It's not only saying that. You should critique the semantics of the writing, as well as individual parts, for now, I have to repeat myself in a different way, and knowing you, you'll end up saying, in the future, "you're repeating yourself"; again, I imagine, there are times where this has happened in the past, you're ignoring the idea being explained and moving on because it doesn't correlate with your dictionary. There are things you don't have words for, such as a scientist believing he should commit himself to science, then, here I have a religion, "Science-commitment-ism"; I clearly meant, 'everythingS', it's a word that I mean to imply, something that is an everything more so than it is itself; I do not consider myself a human, I consider myself nature, I am one of the everythingS; hearts and minds, males and females, energy and matter; insects, anything, everything, but none as their selves, them as them.

I theorize that we interact with everything, even the simplest natures, but we do not recognize these natures for themselves; rather we progress from their actions, or their substance, which had a hand in the progression which led to the current day, with the current matter, energies and universe. Thus any simple mechanic of a human, can be simplified to the cause of another nature; maybe imagining abstract concepts, combining two things together in an image to represent something else (different to the words we use which restrict everything to singles), is related to something very simple in nature, such as energy, or energy and matter. It's more a query than a theory, I'm not sure of myself, but. I'm wondering if everything is interacted with through complex algorithms in nature, as if everything had a greater awareness; what leads me to believe this is that I can imagine abstract imagery in my head that can apply to something intelligible, and there is beauty/ugliness to be found in the combination of things together, without the division of those things into individuals.

We can say that all the words applied to God aren't God-exclusive and can be easily applied to abstract concepts in nature. God is just feeding of imagination and nature; whatever truths or beauties lie in the God-related holy books, are most certainly not only God's. I will let you know... There are other against arguments for some of the things achieved through science, or how scientists view the world.

Can you not imagine a situation where people "would" do something; if we are discussing "what would" people do, we can assume, the saint will always do the good thing, and others different? We know the "woulds"? Can you not imagine a situation where the use of the word 'crackpot' is negative? Such as, a maleficent minded man calling someone a crackpot who is actually quite bright; it's nothing to do with you but it's supported by your example. and you're meant to be the ones to listen and learn from, the adults. I've experienced these situations, but I did not record them so I have no evidence, I guess, I appeal though, through the observation of nature, this is evident.

Okay, well my opinion is there, and I know that you obviously notice this, so I'll leave it at that. I'm not saying any of us are right, just my position is supported by evidence (that I have experienced); 'crackpot' having a negative effect in society. Unfortunately I haven't gathered this evidence, so I'll have to ask you to use your imagination and believe.

Against the accepted scientific theories, sounds about right, or just anti-science; at least here you make a bit of a sacrifice to spread calm in the minds of others... It's not an insult, science doesn't hate you, you, simply, don't agree with how humans have progressed so far with science, or the accepted scientific theories and reputable scientists.