Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by recursion

  1. Logic is logic, there's no distinction of different types of logic, only subcategories. Logic is pure and perfect, when done correctly, and forms the foundation of science. What do you define as "meat?" Consider when you logically deduce that there is a high probability that after the day it will be night, as you have seen it repeatedly follow that pattern and through your understanding of the basic probabilities implied by consistently repeated phenomena, you make that deduction. There is no salad in that, I use words very accurately, and without any fluff. If there is the perception of that, then there is specific understood ambiguity and you'll have to be more specific in order to identify what your concern is. As I have said a few times already, language is a method to communicate understanding. It is not a word puzzle, at least in the terms of communication (you can always make a word puzzle, but that is not with intention to communicate, unless it communicates understanding). If we simply ignore the definitions, we may as well be using random words instead. So, the idea that "... there are too many, and very little desire for any of the parties involved to redefine themselves for the benefit of accurate definitions" is ignoring the entire purpose of language and would lead to thoughtless rambling about nothing at all with no meaning, just to make some noise. "Religious people" have nothing to do with the present thoughtful, logical discourse that is at least the theme of this partaking. "Religious people," throughout history have often made errors, as well as what you would consider "non-religious people," or of athiesm, which in its modern form, is practically a cyclical thought-ritual, although I do see the facet of athiesm that deals with the exclusivity of material existence on all existence, and that existence is entirely irrelevant of ultimate truth, that the process of truthful deduction is a randomly generated set of agreement, and I do think those arguments are fairly easily fallacious. Also, concerning "religious people," they, as many others, have not found perfect logic and others, who are not much different, really (who also take hearsay and errorfull logic as fact), have chosen to insult them. I see it as one is more insulting than the other, actually. Also, the belief in God is inherent, archetypally, as it is a principle notion inherent in sentience than an ultimate sentient designer or creator exists (it is a common subconscious feeling or understanding of at least the notion that we may grow towards ultimate sentience, perhaps indefinitely). We certainly move towards it, so it makes sense that at the very least, it is a natural belief. It's simply extending a linear progression indefinitely. Considering that, the belief in a non-sentient origin is actually psychologically less natural. There is no instance in nature where were originated from a non-sentient being, and there is no reason not to be able to understand ultimate sentience and intelligence (humans can easily do linear progressions), thus it is unnatural to believe in the antithesis of it. The assumptive perceptive fallacy present in your question is that you need a material observation to perform logic, which is, at least, a major component of the process of truthful deduction (the other being the inspiration or inclination to begin and continue). The existence of pure logic itself is ultimate truth as well as is the existence of truthful deduction. In that truth that we can discern the truth of any phenomenon, potentially, with enough observations, is the truth that the perception of difference is required for sentience, which is also an ultimate truth -- that for life to exist, there must be a difference in perceptual existence, without it, sentience would never be able to emerge. If you continue with what you already know, but you actually make no error in logic, you will find that you have quite a bit of information regarding the necessities and fundamentals of existence itself. Existence has quite a few requirements, and so does sentience, which is built on existence. Interestingly, the material world is just an interconnected, essentially tautological system that is totally codefining (or at least nearly totally codefining -- perhaps if it had spawned from another material existence), and as such, with an understanding of existence and sentience and the requirements thereof, you can potentially create new functional material environments very alien subjectively but completely familiar from a sentience and search for truth perspective. It's very amazing if you can lift your head up enough to see it.
  2. No, the nature of science is to understand information found through observation, understanding, and perfect logic. When a true scientists says "the earth is over 6,000 years old," he knowingly is saying, at a deeper level, "the evidence that we have been presented or found suggests that the earth is over 6,000 years old," which on a personal level, I don't disagree with -- it certainly seems like it's over 6,000 years old, however just as it's really easy to build and destroy a pile of dirt, machine automation could easily fool our surprisingly egotistical and short-sighted society, both of which science is purposefully designed to avoid (with science there is no truth that is not absolutely true -- not that we make bold assumptions and we state it as absolute fact -- we understand the material fact is based on material observation combined with human understanding with adherence to strict logic). Error-free logic from a true foundation is fact, unequivocally. It is completely objective. Error-free logic from a true foundation (the process of truthful deduction and understanding of interconnected codefining existences or phenomena) is the essence of science, which I think actually stems from the technical definition of philosophy, which is the love of knowledge. To further reiterate, science is definitely, at the very least, entirely founded upon "the objective and error-free search for truth" -- to claim it is not is to claim it is the search for a lie or a search for truth filled with errors.
  3. There is a lot of excitement in those theories and they are certainly not considered to be highly plausible with the social scientific consensus. In complete truth, they are spawned from desire to do what we have been trying to do for a long time, and in the excitement that the theorist carries, they miss some very important logical arguments, similar to what Aristotle did upon the theory of spontaneous generation (although technically it wasn't completely untrue, if you actually read what was being suggested). No, nothing physical can come from nothing, there is absolutely no way around that argument. Also, time cannot have existed for an infinitely long time ago as that would imply someone was created over an infinitely long time ago, that person being the person created before the person created an infinitely long time ago, which is paradoxical in that something can be created and have always existed. The notion that the universe stems from an eternal intelligence is actually a much more apt solution to the puzzle, particular when you understand some things are eternal, like the idea of differentiation, which would have to exist before time could possibly exist, and as such forms a necessary immutable basis for mutable existence. The same idea can apply to ultimate, or perhaps archetypal ultimate intelligence (although when considering existential fundamentals, i.e. what's necessary for existence to even exist, they are usually considered separate from the archetypes, which are human-based). No, it is not even an argument, it is definitive in nature. If science explains it in scientific language, then it has explained God, by the definition that God is whatever is responsible for the creation and/or perhaps sustaining of the universe. In other worse, "The Explanation of the Creation and/or Sustaining of the Universe," in this case, would be, by this definition presented, "God," whatever the explanation may be. Keep in mind intelligence is extremely non-random and a sentient machine hasn't been produced even on accident, as far as the majority of the world knows, at the very least. Sentience is a complicated and highly specific phenomenon, for which science has also no explanation. If what exists is indeed inherently sentient in nature, then the universe could plausibly be a manifest display of sentient systems (ourselves and other intelligences, with perspective, coherence, and manifest explanation seen as the occurrences of interconnected non-sentient phenomena), rather than a randomly generated pile of random entities that luckily formed what is extremely non-random and not of material (although seemingly evoked by material systems -- it could be a simultaneous production of a naturally ingrained propensity towards sentience forming from the nature of an inherently intelligent existential basis for the manifest world). I think if you suggest that what was said was that "God" is definitively the reason for existence, then it is true as it's definition, not assertion. Also, science that deals with the material world is codefining, but the process of truthful deduction is definite and immutable regardless of environment, although the application is variable. Also, if you consider the process of truthful deduction (the ultimate basis of science), then by its strict abidance you find what is ultimately true and also what is true with regard to environment. To do that, you must be completely error-free in your logic. Then, if you consider the sincere effort to deduce truth with absolutely no error or erroneous assumption to be kin to prayer, then upon the sincere effort you will find the truth, which can be considered the word of God, if you were to define it that way. I think a part of the issue is assumptive semantics rather than carefully understood and perhaps explicated definition, such that we may consider the same word to mean the same thing, rather than arguing whether or not apples are the president of the united states with two incoherent definitions of "apple", we can use the same definition of apple. It appears you consider the definition of God to be some dude born from some mother similar to how a human is born, instead of an eternal intelligence, from which all existence may exist. To consider it impossible is to ignore eternality in favor of temporal mechanics, and thus you have to ignore the understanding that the idea of what is true is timeless and thus eternal -- so long as there is manifest reality and sentience to perceive it knowingly, there is the idea of what is true, thus the idea of what is true precludes any manifest existence. The idea of an impossible from timelessness creation stems from a purely mechanic set of assumptions, which considering eternality and the paradox of mechanical creation from nothing or the paradox of a creation being created an infinitely long time ago (reviewed prior in this post), an eternal intelligence is certainly rational. Uncertainty, in its strictest understanding, is literally not knowing something and this is the foundation for general quantum mechanics, where behavior is largely unpredictable by humans and thus statistical approaches are preferred. When considering possibilities of phenomena similar to entanglement, there could be variables on the other side of the universe responsible for some of the unpredictable behavior. Strictly speaking, random only means "unpredictable," not inherently random with reference to everything in existence. Furthermore, completely random systems are extremely predictable upon a critical complexity (which defines "extremely predictable") as a whole and as it approaches infinite complexity, it becomes completely predictable.
  4. It's only a paradox in a matter-based existence. There is another valid possibility that still abides by the scientific idea of repeatability of specific events without variance. While much of science is concerned with tests, if there are events that happen without human evocation, then those, too, can be observed in the same way testable phenomena can be observed. Thus, understanding the fundamental principles of existence, which is primarily logic (and more often associated with computer science and engineering, as logic and intelligence as of the same topic), is also of the scientific method. However, to restrict your understanding to "what did the rock do when I threw it," you would have never solved much of anything. It requires logical deduction and there is a great deal of information available from what the average person knows and simply logic, so long as the logic is completely error-free. This principle of logical deduction, in fact, is how the vast majority of profound discovery happens (simply viewing data without understanding any of it cannot actually produce profound insight, just measurements). So with that in mind, we should try and understand the concept of eternality. The concept of truth, or a difference between one thing and another, is a timeless concept, thus if time was created, this concept would have existed prior, as our manifest reality relies on truth (without it, we literally could not exist). The common atheist argument, and it is not a scientific argument because in order for it to be considered scientific, it needs to be without error, is that either the universe always existed or that it came from nothing. I see no way around the flaws in each, them being 1) If the universe existed and I was created, then the person created before me was indeed created before me and continuing, there are an infinite number of beings created before me, thus it was over an infinitely long time ago that another being existed, which is logically impossible, and 2) It is a logical paradox and impossibility in material science for something to come from nothing, there is no way around it, no matter how hard you beat around the bush. However, if existence is instead founded on truthful collaboration between codefining entities and eternal existences (such as the idea of truth or truthiness itself), then it is indeed possible for life to have come from an eternal intelligence rather than a nothing. To understand that the concept of differentiation is timeless predicates understand the possibility of eternal intelligence, as sentience itself is a timeless emergence from a hardly understood, very specific, and hard to accidentally create arrangement. As such, if you remove yourself from codefinition (material existence is codefining), you will find certain truths, such as the idea of differentiation, the idea of harmony and disharmony, and other non-random components of any existence that can harbor sentience. Thus, it is possible to understand the concept of an eternal intelligence as well and how it may truly be. The Heisenbreg uncertainly principle is a principle, however the idea of randomness is a presentation of doubt. Thus it is truly divided in science as to whether it is possible to trace particles. Still, you can consider the statistics of randomness (a large part of chaos theory, if you remember), and understand that through understanding random behavior, you can deduce non-random behavior from the greater system, leaving possibility to trace anything. You have what appears to be an infinite amount of reference points surrounding you, which from its mass correlation may very well present a clear view of all history, as well as current statistics regarding the location of any pieces of history, if they are encapsulated in a recoverable way. Also, remember that we do not know if the uncertainty we perceive in quantum mechanics is indeed (absolutely) random, partially random, or non-random. It is logical to conclude that it is probably no more than partially random, as there is much information that is unavailable, and randomness is, in its essence, unpredictable behavior. And to briefly reminisce over the basics of chaos theory, the average of a completely random system approaches the bias (in physics, we hypothesize the bias may be a representation of 0) with less error as there are more independently random variables in the system. For the last question ©, the topic was reasons for a fear of future damnation, to which I reply that it is of wisdom, responsibility, and care to consider future judgement with present actions and there is no evidence to suggest that your body will not be resurrected physically in at least near-perfect form (respectful to what it was) in the future upon a global agreement of what the truth is and the ideal law (or agreement between all sentient and knowledgeable life), and you will be judged according to it, by beings significantly more developed than people today generally are. That being said, with that exact thing being prophesized for as long as it has been and the surprisingly unknown 19 code in the Qur'an (which presents remarkable statistical improbability -- indicating possibly alien influence), I would definitely not push any limits of acceptable behavior and if it is indeed true (there is no true evidence to suggest contrary), no deterministic argument will change that you are who you are and you are accountable, just to make that clear. For your last comment, I just answered why considering future judgement is a wise and responsible thing to do, not to mention that everyone now will thank you for not being a deterministic jerk or worse.
  5. Your first statement is a bit erroneous to what I had said and in no way has God been defined in this discussion as "an invisible friend," although intelligence itself is invisible (of a system, not a specific material). If you'd like to define "friend" and "God," we can adjust the understood definition of "God" and discuss from there. I think we are referring to "God" as in an intelligent creator of what we know to exist. Remember to stay level in conversation -- anything else indicates personal unfounded bias, often through emotion and not through logic or error-free thinking. For the third paragraph, I did not seek to provide evidence. That's a huge fallacy in error-free thinking, to suggest that what truly is abstract evidence (an understanding of an interrelated environmental phenomenon rather than ever specifically anything -- in material environment, everything is inter-related and codefining) is more important than logic. I can throw millions of numbers at you, but without an understanding of truth, you would get hardly little, certainly not Einstein's theory of relativity, or an understanding of uncertainty. Tautology is self-definition. If you define a==b, then saying b==a is tautology. It's not a fallacy at all. Furthermore, in a interconnected material environment, everything is essentially tautological, as everything is codefining. No, it was the general "we," as in the common person with regards to the reader of the post. It's not an unusual literary method, in fiction or non-fiction. Non-journal scientific articles included. What you're referring to is acceptance of a null hypothesis, which is acceptance of truthiness nonetheless. Your suggesting a semantic difference, not a logical difference. Remember that language is a way to share a common understanding, not simply a word puzzle. Clearly and what I thought was fairly obviously, I'm referring to truthful appraisal (I think it's clear I wouldn't seriously say every casual appraisal of something is true, in the strictest semantic sense). For reference, the question was "And what is "false theism"? People who believe in a different god/sect than you?" I admit I only answered the second half. With that answer (see my post prior to this), we can understand that the problem with the question is that we are differing on the definition of God. As mentioned, to refer to multiple gods, would be simply to refer to a higher power of any sort. And as an answer to the first question, I think definitively that is called idolatry, and is what I was considering to be "false theism." Please refer to my statement prior in this post regarding the nature of interconnected systems being definitively logically tautological. I actually understand language and I am well versed in all of the rules of English, although I do sometimes deviate in my writing, particularly with commas (and dangling particles), as I feel it could be better organized. Perhaps you are still learning the fundamentals of language and are stuck on common phraseology, but what I said was in perfect form, although perhaps a bit of a tongue-twister. I suppose it could have better been said (or at least more easily read) as "it is a particular classification of logic." Calling me a foreigner would be similar to calling you a chatbot, for not recognizing language on a logical level, with strict understanding of proper semantic structure. Let's leave insulting out of this, as I feel I am too adept at this to lose such a frivolous argument and it only serves to detract from the topic.
  6. I apologize if I did not. I think I checked before I wrote that, however it might have been a different forum. The point remains that language is used to communicate understanding, not usually semantics. Thus, I can make a sound representing something I understand and if you perceive the same understanding, then language has been effective. Two people will often read a slightly different word with the same word as it's understood differently. Suppose the answer to how existence exists is referred to as "God." What I'm saying is similar to if x+2 = 5, then x=3, as in if God created the universe, then whatever is responsible for existence (at least manifest existence), would be God, by that definition. Science has not replaced that nor has it demonstrated any ability to provide what would actually be a more specific definition of God, assuming "God = who or what created the universe, [new scientific explanation with many attributes] = who or what created the universe, thus [new scientific explanation with many attributes] = God." I'll reiterate that you must remove personal or social bias in your understanding. Realize that if God is the one who created the universe, then the scientific explanation for the creation of the universe would be God, were it to be specifically defined. To state that your definitionless "God" did not create the universe is to state nothing at all. Still, there is one other perspective, that the universe was never created, it just always existed, which is a bit preposterous, I think, as that means that despite the fact that I was created, and another was created before me, then someone was created an infinite amount of time ago, implying an infinite amount of time has passed, which is an error. The philosophy of science is an integral part of science, without which science would not function at all. Still, what I said was not exclusive to philosophy by any stretch. Furthermore, science is inherently strict logic, and better logic creates better science as logic is the only accurate method of truthful discernment. As science is directly concerned with the truth, it is of unequivocal importance that science be in perfect accordance with it. If science deviates from the truth, then it is blasphemy, as far as science is concerned at the very least. To suggest to simply ignore what the truth is and what perfect logic can entail, from a strict scientific and logical standpoint, means to completely get rid of science in its entirety. Without perfect logic, which is required to understand the truth, science would say absolutely nothing at all. This is actually starting to become a philosophical conversation, as we're dealing with the general nature of science rather than deducing truth through strict logic and error-free understanding.
  7. See above for the answer. I'd like to ignore it though, it's a bit of a distraction from the conversation. Perhaps I'm just a bit over-reactive. I think you may have skimmed too quickly. Please reference the referenced material in the same greater quote box and let me know if there is any ambiguity. Thanks. (By "Jesus manifest had the effect that you see today," I'm referring to the historical effect of his person.)
  8. I don't look daft at all. However, I suppose it does depend on your perspective. If you seriously doubt the ability of the human species to master what is just a complicated lego set, then perhaps I see your perspective. Also, you may be unfamiliar with modern technological intelligence, of whom who aren't, do perceive the solution to what amounts to a set of mathematical equations is just a matter of time. I suppose in that case, you are the daft one to suggest such an extreme level of incompetence for the human race.
  9. If you are talking some possible discovery in the future. I really don't know if what you think possible could happen. I could be pessimistic and say I doubt if humans would be able to achieve this. You seem to have strong religious views and this as well. What sort of philosophy is that? Well, usually we can keep something burning forever with the right materials. That statement didn't have to do with religion, but rather intelligent capability and concurrently physical ability (aided by intelligent creations). It is certainly a reasonable (and commonly understood) possibly that machines that will not unlikely be able to think much more quickly than us and that machines can already do logic on very simple to understand perceptions much faster than we can. Things like temperature and correlated burning materials with general object statistics are very simple observations, so I see it looks fairly certain that we can definitely keep the sun burning. In addition, with the eventual (as it seems) mastery of the physical universe, we should be able to prevent the universe from its possible destruction. I think it was mentioned earlier, that that requires the assumption that you are only your conscious self and that your subconscious behavior is irrelevant of you -- a kind of quasi-virtual perspective of dualism. However, I think it is generally agreed that you are the entirety of yourself, including your body as well, but not including the environment around you. So with that said, I think I finally see what you're suggesting -- that subconscious decisions completely override conscious ones and thus yourself. I would like to provide the counter-argument that you are actually making those decisions with who you are and the processes and deliberations that you, as a person, choose to undergo in order to find conclusion, and that your conscious self is like your voice, in that you initiate speech before you hear. In this case, your choice is still dependent on who you are and what you think is a good way. It is interesting that meditation is sometimes thought of a way learn to understand yourself from a level deeper than consciousness (i.e. similar to understanding that you initiate your speech and then you hear it). As a consequence of the argument of self-ability, I think the feeling of doing something deliberately and the conscious desire to do something is indicative of free-will.
  10. I think we can allow the Earth to be sustained indefinitely. The sun is a fairly understood being, and it's certainly possible to allow it to live indefinitely, so long as the possible collapse (or other theoretical catastrophe such as the thinning of matter or something) can be prevented (it seems at the rate we evolve, we will certainly be able to do nearly anything in the future, so it's not unlikely this universe may never die and the sun is able to be sustained for the entirety of the existence our ability). I'm, in part, a musician and I can count without too much difficulty a tenth of a second. The psychological limit for the transition from impulses to pitch perception is at about 30Hz, much much faster than a half of a second, implying cognitive responses/perceptual acknowledgement occurs far more quickly than half a second or even a 10th of a second. However, what you stated has little to do with the actual speed of perceptual acknowledgement and simply iterates over the speed of electric potential through the neurons, but the point remains that half a second is far too long.
  11. Let's be 100% accurate. Science sees a connected story that suggests, with what we have observed, various things about the world. But, as you must understand, if you accept that as ultimate fact, you are the fool. In a hundred to a thousand years, we could very well leave the planet and change the apparent history and no monkey would be able to differentiate as we will have gone through that process already. So while science suggests something, we must always understand later evidence may revoke that suggestion. It's been some time. I'll have to find the evolutionary rate and diversity through time charts. You're free to look them up and predict the rate of evolution. I think you'll find that it occurs much more quickly than the popular scientific consensus. If God created the universe and science seeks to understand everything about manifest reality, then yes, God is an important topic that science desperately sees to either explain or find an alternative to, of which it has not really done anything (it's literally, unavoidably, and inarguably a logical paradox that something comes from nothing, and I think scientists should refrain from making the assumption that they've found it, regardless of how many noble prizes they'd like to imagine they'd win). Perhaps I misunderstood, but you just stated that understanding the possibility of existence itself is not a concern of science, which seeks to explain all manifest existence as well as psychological existence. I think I've already answered why "The nature of God, sentience, truth, and existence are very pertinent to science today," previously in this post (as a response to your question, "Why?"). Science has taken a bit of a diversion from its fundamental basis, which is the objective and error-free search for truth. It's turn into almost robotically measuring things (at least in the eyes of much of the public, who often misunderstand science). Science is greater than just measuring things and running statistics on that data. It is really a search for truth of all existence, material (such as through physics) and ideological (such as through psychology). Science itself stems from the realization that there is only truth when the statement is always true and as such we get the scientific method, which is an elaboration and specification of the actual fundamental of all intelligent/knowledgeable thought, logic. Also, philosophy is conjecture, logic is fact, so while I see where one might get mixed up, I do not consider logical discourse to be philosophical, at least not with a movement towards the perfection of logic. In addition, the existence of everything is well within the realm of science. It seems you are seeking to avoid answering some of the more important questions regarding existence, which is the focus of science (as well as the focus of many things, like philosophy, which uses ambiguity to generally understand various notions and is being replaced by a split combination of psychology and materials science, and history as a separate facet of it). "Philosophy" is merely "the love of knowledge," once ambiguous, but today the search for what's true is becoming more defined, with rigor and precision. I say sentience cannot be described, not that it cannot be defined. It's not necessarily a fundamental truth or fact, it's just a truth that concerns our modern society -- that no one can properly define sentience (and by sentience, I mean, the entire culmination of independent-thought, self-identity, self-awareness, and the corollaries thereof). It does not mean it's undefinable, it's just our technical understanding is very unsophisticated (and rudimentary).
  12. Please don't ignore sentences and then take the others out of context. As I would have required pages of material to fully explain what I stated, I made sure to announce that "Here's an explanation that skips a few pages of explanation, so hold on to your head, lol." It would certainly take a few pages, but all of my logic is founded on strict logic without error (you are certainly welcome to accurate criticism but defamation or personal attacks is not a congenial way -- I have no beliefs which I hold without the strictest logical foundation, although upon the perception of its developed statement, it may seem unfounded, which I do understand). In my understanding (remember for this discussion it would be too wordy to explicate the entire foundation of this logical paradigm), Jesus manifest had the effect that you see today. However, if you understand Jesus to be the truth, in spirit, and in manifestation the truth incarnate, then it makes sense that the truth and the way to the truth has had a profound impact on all of developed society. Yes, you are right in the second reponse. I believe the bible had more reason than just to be a scientist alien who decided to tell us about some cool stuff. I think one should understand it in its intention and remember to not accept anything that is not coherently true and seek an alternative explanation -- it seems that the way I just stated is the only way for it to be of universal truth and as such, if God is the supreme intelligence, then it seems that he would have intended it that way (as well as the immediate way, for perhaps the freeing of repressed and oppressed good people -- during which violence is understood completely -- without it suffering could very well have been tremendously worse) and we should realize it as we grow in intelligence).
  13. You did not read everything except for that one sentence apparently. I said, when you read, you do not understand the words written but instead you think about it and through your mind you come to an understanding. So yes, in your statement I see it is true that you are cynical and insulting, and thus I read what is true. In a better example, to consider that "God" created to universe, you'll have to equate the definition of what created the universe with God. If something created the universe, then that would be God, if nothing created the universe, then that would also be God. Reading through assumption an cynicism is a heavily biased an inaccurate way to understand anything. Understand that language is designed to instill a common understanding, not to have a bunch of random sounds which we randomly respond to. Logic (I am, in trade, a programmer), is to create a thought process without any error or flaw. Personal opinion is not logic, so you certainly did not understand the meaning of what I wrote (this goes back to Strange's reply, which did not understand the nature of language). There is no inaccuracy that coalescent systems are required for independent though and self-reflection (the process of self-reflection inarguably uses multiple systems which are interconnected, or coalescent, which gives rise to the emergent phenomenon of self-reflection). In response to the third response, simply ignoring what we're defining religion as (remember words have no meaning unless they are agreed upon) is definitely counterproductive and results in the increase in ambiguity and concurrently the increase in incoherent discussion (discussing different things which happen to be associated with the same word). The last statement you said is a HUGE one. There is universal truth, regardless of environment, and that is the process of truthful deduction. Founded on that process of truthful deduction, we correlate our perceptions to create a coherent language of understood phenomena and it is all founded on what is truly universal truth (the process of truthful deduction). (I see no alternative and it seems a bit absurd to deny it, but if you do see an alternative to the process of truthful deduction being truthful and universal, please inform me, as this is an extremely important thing -- all knowledge is based upon it.)
  14. In reference to my statement that I believe things objectively, it is certainly true, at least to the point of maximal intention (human error aside). Let's first understand the definition of evidence. Without looking it up, we understand that evidence is a form of clear objective support for a possibility to be true. This includes logic, as all appraisals are founded on error-free logic. Thus, to claim "there is no evidence" would be to suggest that with the entire capability of all human thought, no evidence can be found. A more accurate statement would be, "I have not perceived conclusive evidence," or perhaps "there is a possibility of evidence but it is pending social agreement." The second question brings up a good point. In the discussion of God's existence, we must understand a common definition of "God." In generality, God is the ultimate intelligence and the creator of the universe, thus monotheism is usually the topic, as when regarding an absolute fundamental of the construction of existence itself, there is definitively one instance for anything defined as truly "ultimate." Polytheistically, the word "god" refers to a ruler or someone of high power, so to question is a ruler or someone of high power existence would be generally considered absurd with regard to the modern intelligent consensus. I am aware of tautology. Tautology is actually not an insult, btw, it is a technical existence of a form of logic. However, what I stated was technically not tautology but instead a simple definition. If you read the preceding paragraph to that statement, I was referring to the truth in its essence -- which is actually the search for truth and not a isolated fact. The process of deduction of truth is a universal phenomenon required for thinking life. Thus, the ultimate truth is, at least in large part, the actual process of finding the truth, which exists regardless of environment or language. When we understand something is true, if we are critical, independently thinking beings (many people often do exhibit the antithesis of that, but it is shunned in science), we have used the process of truthful deduction to find that. And that truth that we found, if God is the one who delivered the truth, would be the word of God. Clarifying, if there is something true and God created what we know as true (aside from the necessary existential phenomenon of "intelligent life" that is the search for truth), then the truth is the word of God. This is more a clarification of definition that a logical deduction, so I can see what it might have been mistaken for tautology (which again, is a perfectly valid logical method -- although it is mistakenly used as an insult). To continue with the validity of tautology, consider a perfectly interconnected universe (or existential system, technically, as our existence goes beyond material to complex abstractions fairly removed from the material world), as such, the universe would then be a tautological universe, in that the every component is connected completely such that it is essentially a cyclical system. When cyclicity is applied to a logical system, we call it tautology.
  15. I also do not think that "fear of damnation" is the most significant contribution to the support of religion. However, considering the permanence of things and the likely tracibility of all matter, energy, and actions with the plethora of reference points we have (to track past events with, even at a sub-atomic level), it is a component of wisdom to be thoughtful of future judgement. As a reply to the second point, I think a great flaw in popular "scientific" thought is that science provides any explanation whatsoever to the initial creation of the universe. It is literally a paradox -- that something can exist from nothing. I think the desire to explain reality in a definite way leads people to assume science, through its understanding of what are essentially complicated legos, would have some sort of explanation for one of the most pressing questions of all thoughtful human history. This would also apply to religion, however, traditionally religion has been strongest with societies that were not material-based, but thought-based. To think that a thinking being was responsible is certainly not an invalid idea, considering they were wondering where the thinking beings that they are came from. The ability to self-identify and to perceive oneself is very non-random, such that even modern engineering and psychology cannot explain the existence of sentience (as in the ability to be aware of oneself, to reflect personally, to have personal identity, and personal attachment). As mentioned earlier in this post, considering future judgement is actually not fallacious logic; it is actually a sound consideration. A natural propensity of problem-solving beings is to continuously search for a solution until either exhaustion, the perception of futility, or the solution has been been found.
  16. I'm not sure of the specifics of the question. It is clear that truth is non-tangible in the literal sense, however in understanding it is a definite concept. Learning and accumulating information is separate from the actual process of its digestion and appraisal. The actual process of truthful deduction, which is of the truth in its most fundamental essence, is immutable, exists regardless of environment, and is shared among all life. A grasshopper uses the process of truthful deduction, however basic in its development, to find the most optimal decision. This process the grasshopper uses is the same process we use to discern truth in order to make a decision. I think what's more important than whether or not people are able to suffer is the existence of choice and responsibility. If God (the assumed creator of the universe for this statement) wanted, he could have forced everyone to live in great restriction, but we would never understand what it means to be just or responsible, thus leaving us with a likely artificial perception of choice (in addition, there would be no history or explanation to anything, leaving much to be desired in the process of understanding complete truth). Also, consider that 500ms is half a second -- hardly a fast reaction time at all. What did God really do that would make him guilty? Every instance of suffering is directly due to an independent being or existence separate from God (the most plausible accusation would be the existence of entropy, which seems unavoidable in a coherent evolving system -- that things do not gravitate towards opposing existences would be difficult to understand). You make an interesting observation -- that many people do not see life as similar but instead only other members of the same species. All life includes at least a basic ability to make judgement, which implies a basic ability to search for truth.
  17. I am using perfect logic, to the best of my ability. Please stop attacking me and provide logical discourse.
  18. Some of these are very poignant to people. Suffering is almost entirely caused by other people, although you can consider other beings a shared cause as well (such as diseases and hurricanes). The problem is disagreement or false agreement (which leads to halting progress as well as violence). If we were all to realize that the truth is the only commonly agreed upon knowledge, then our wars would subside. Attempts to falsify the truth or hinder thinking are thus attempts at sustaining the existence of war and violent disagreement (not saying that's what you're doing, just I've noticed there is a significant looseness to some of the arguments I've been seeing). Please be scientific. I understand this is the religion section, but that in no way means the rigors of perfect logic are reduced. The nature of God, sentience, truth, and existence are very pertinent to science today so please try to be helpful to those who would like the world to truly understand truthful discourse without error in logic. Sentience, truth, self-identity, the nature of understanding, and free-will are all very specific, objective topics and freely shooting off opinions and erratically steering the discussion are not helpful (it's reminiscent of dirty politics). I hope the others are not stirred emotionally by what is indicatively attempting to delay the solving of some of the world's greatest problems (if we bring emotion into our scientific discussion or diversion or personal opinion, we will never finish the discussion, and as responsible, reasonable people on a science forum, we should seek to avoid that -- in addition if we don't solve the world's problems, one of the large ones being "what exactly is the objective truth," then people will continue to suffer, so there is definitely a very serious side to this as well). I say this with reference to referring to objective topics as "abstract," which is reminiscent of diversion (whether intentional or not). Bringing the discussion to what materials are required to facilitate the coalescent systems which evoke sentience and self-awareness as well as self-maintainability and independence, we can probably conclude that there is more of a specific logical structure with certain variability than there is a real necessity for any elements. Furthermore, the elements are simply higher-order constructions of matter-energy, which we don't fully understand, so yes, you're right, there are likely other materials that could form the systems from which sentience emerges.
  19. Objective truth is the agreement we are searching for (it is a science forum, rather than a personal opinion forum).
  20. There is a general lack of understanding regarding free-will as it's frequently defined ambiguously and with multiple conflicting meanings. Free-will does not imply that there is no physical process correlated with the greater being who we perceive as the self. When I say be specific, I mean to avoid the ambiguities in our definitions of things as well as in any of our communications. Yes, there is strong evidence of correlated physical action, but there can not be any evidence against the clearly existent phenomenon of choice. This is a popular topic with which people like to evade conclusion with preference towards argument. With science, the conclusive truth is our goal, not argument, so argumentative behavior seeks to destroy our search for ultimate truth. In conclusion, if you are a person, then you make those decisions based on what you know, think, and believe. You have the free option to chose, although we as intelligent, sentient (or near-sentient) beings do gravitate towards the truth, as the truth is the only indisputable conclusion. As such, people can be indeed held responsible for their actions, and the deterministic fallacy that is claiming I did not chose to do such a thing, "nature made me do it," is unfounded. The only possible aversion that the deterministic argument may provide is that the person was incapable of performing the correct judgement, however that does not change that it is the person that makes the decision. Science is a great thing in this regard, as it has essentially institutionalized the following of perfect thought, giving rigor and social consistency.
  21. Please be specific in scientific discourse. We, as scientists, teach rigorous and error-free logic as well as clarity and specificity. Also, most fallacies do not need to be named as they are easy to explain, and it helps facilitate conversation and demonstrate understanding (fallacy naming has become a popular choice for pseudo-intellectualism, although it originally stemmed from sincere thought). There is no neuroscientific evidence for free-will, as in, there is no evidence for or against its existence. A lot of it is semantic discussion rather than logical discussion, but we know science has not an understanding of sentience, and this is a large hurdle we need to overcome.
  22. You're making the unfounded assumption that you are only your consciousness. Also, there is no neuroscientific evidence for free-will, there is only understanding of the coalescent systems which evoke sentience, not sentience itself.
  23. As this is a science forum, please keep personal emotion removed and be strict with your logic. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere. A good topic that's related is the nature of belief. I provide the argument that no one believes anything except the nature of truthful deduction and we can accept notions to allow us to navigate in our environment and understand the interconnectivity of physical and ideological reality in a predictable and fairly dependable fashion. The reason for this postulation is that belief stems from what is true. At the deepest level, the person will agree with anything that is absolutely true, by definition, so also at the deepest level, the person only truthfully agrees with the truth and everything else is technically a supposition. With that understanding, we understand there are no chosen beliefs, just chosen misconceptions which arrive through false logic. Thus, athiesm is not a belief, but a supposition that there is no God, based on various statements.
  24. I think that may be due to a mis-definition of free will. What a lot of the materialist universe argument entails is that there is no true self, that is it an illusion presented by unexplained phenomenon. However, while that may have truth to it, there is no denying the fact that you can make decisions based on what you know, who you are as a person, and other personal and/or environmental variables. Randomness is unexplained, definitively, so as long as there is an unknown, we will perceive randomness. Through these randomized occurrences, we make decisions based on self-identity, either through the abiding to hearsay or through logical thought. As there is definite truthiness in existence, there is a way to personally decide on what is the best course of action, giving free will to the person. While free-will or making a decision personally does not necessitate independent thought, it may perhaps be that will is most free when it is based on an independent assessment of the truth of what is, thus the ability to logically deduce a course of action based on a non-controlled identity and person provides free-will. A deterministic perspective is a self-less perspective and in that there is contradiction, for to perceive, there must be the self.
  25. You make some interesting points. Wave-particle duality is only a best-fit guess and is in no way truly understood. I think it's important and commendable to try and find a better fitting solution and we understand there is possibly some missing information (about anything, from wave-like gravitational distributions under specific conditions, to the induction of entanglement).
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.