Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Rahz]
    #24730708 -

Quote:
That god is nature is self evident in my view, that's how I came to it, the evidence is in nature, I didn't learn on the moon, I learnt here on this planet.


I the think the question of whether God is nature is largely definitional.

Quote:
My god loves us conditionally, but it always provides and is capable of change and adaptation, embetterment and progress.


I don't understand how your idea of God can love us though. What is the source of the love? Are you saying God has human like emotions or that love is an eternal property of existence?

Quote:
I would conclude that nature in my being is composed of atoms and energy, it is true, and I have my explanation as to how I have become. I've given fair thought to other possible explanations and I'm fine to keep them as plausible though not yet proven, within at least my own mind.


Fair enough. I actually like the way you stated this. I would agree that nature in our beings appears to be composed of atoms and energy, but I think that raises the question of what knows that. Do the atoms and molecules know that? In other words it seems like in order to be aware of the atoms and molecules we can't be identical with atoms and molecules. We are the knowing of it. It's betrayed by our language. We don't say "I am a body" we say "I have a body".  And I wonder if this knowing couldn't be equated with the spirit of nature. Perhaps our true being is this knowing. The mind, the brain and the body allow us to become aware of ourselves they in themselves do not possess the ability to know themselves. This is something like what I feel Spinoza believed regarding intuitive knowledge being eternal.

Quote:
I dunno if Spinoza would agree specifically with me but if he came to the future I would be hardpressed to believe he didn't over time develop some proportion of unbefore seen, experienced or pondered entities, patterns and ways.


Of course but so what? While much has changed since his time, there is also much that has remained the same. Hence we may also assume that while some of views would change if he came to live in our time, some would also remain the same. We don't really know which would be which, so I would suggest we refrain from speculation on the subject and focus on the philosophy as he stated it.

Quote:
If the adrenals are absolved, and the heart is torn out, and the brain is removed, can you suggest there is cognitive activity?


No longer in that body but in other bodies, yes. I'm suggesting the knowing element is not particular to that body. All bodies share and make use of the same knowing element. Apart from having a different body and a different mind, what makes you different from anyone else?

Quote:
If you put a powerful enough magnet against your usb drive you could tare apart that information, but it'd have to be strong enough to take the iron from your blood cells, floppy disks are much easier to damage with a magnet. It's not impossible to lose the data of a game character if it is only stored on a pc or a usb drive.


But if it could be stored at all, then it would already be possible to retain after losing the body.

Quote:
I don't think we're living in a computer simulation, I think our minds, including our brains, allow us to be capable of processing sensory information from our environment into the visions and experiences and memories we as human beings have. In the sense that it's a simulation I would only say its through mental synthesis which is a holographic sort of perception of mind in which we can construct our own experienced visual imagination. We take in visual and physical stimulus and can put upon our experiences and observations the will of our imagination.


Well the point is, we COULD be living in a simulation. It would certainly explain a lot in my opinion, and it would also mean we could potentially live other lives in different simulated realities. Many people have reported experiences of the veil of this simulated reality breaking down, and then becoming aware of a larger reality. This might not be delusion.


--------------------
The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra

Edited by Peyote Road (10/23/17 02:00 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24730766 -

Quote:
I don't understand how your idea of God can love us though. What is the source of the love? Are you saying God has human like emotions or that love is an eternal property of existence?


My god feeds me through the fruit and vegetables of the soil and bathes me through the release of water in the hydrologic cycle. This to me is conditional love in the sense of providing for my survival, yet also throwing forth challenges and physical dangers.

What is the source of love? What is the power of vanity? 

Quote:
Fair enough. I actually like the way you stated this. I would agree that nature in our beings appears to be composed of atoms and energy, but I think that raises the question of what knows that. Do the atoms and molecules know that? In other words it seems like in order to be aware of the atoms and molecules we can't be identical with atoms and molecules.


The structure of the atoms knows that with a retained form of energy that might be called a memory.

Quote:
We are the knowing of it. It's betrayed by our language. We don't say "I am a body" we say "I have a body".  And I wonder if this knowing couldn't be equated with the spirit of nature. Perhaps our true being is this knowing. The mind, the brain and the body allow us to become aware of ourselves they in themselves do not possess the ability to know themselves. This is something like what I feel Spinoza believed regarding intuitive knowledge being eternal.


"I am embodied."

Whatever would happen if Spinoza came through the time machine, I think he may be interested in the sciences of our time, like microwaves, toasters and TV's etc.

Quote:
No longer in that body but in other bodies, yes. I'm suggesting the knowing element is not particular to that body. All bodies share and make use of the same knowing element. Apart from having a different body and a different mind, what makes you different from anyone else?


'No longer in that body but in other bodies.' is your answer to whether there is cognitive activity when the adrenals, heart and brain are removed?

My DNA and my fingerprints make me different from anyone else for one, but my elongated ancestral lineage bridges that gap over time.


Quote:
But if it could be stored at all, then it would already be possible to retain after losing the body.



So hypothetically, if you could put what makes a human a human onto a usb, I suppose you could lose the body, though the usb still wouldn't be indestructible and I see no reason for the data to be incorruptible.

You could be delusional, but y'know we're not born knowing everything in the world and as some leader once said, "Being ignorant is not so much a shame as being unwilling to learn", what he forgot to add is that the world isn't flat.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Edited by sudly (10/23/17 04:49 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24730785 -

sudly said:
My god feeds me through the fruit and vegetables of the soil and bathes me through the release of water in the hydrologic cycle. This to me is conditional love in the sense of providing for my survival, yet also throwing forth challenges and physical dangers.



That might work if you bastardize and degrade love to a metaphor.

Love (being a feeling) also requires perception of such.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24730790 -

If you expect unconditional love you can, I don't expect it from my god.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24730793 -

"Care" would be sufficient in the context you gave.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24730798 -

Quote:

My god feeds me through the fruit and vegetables of the soil and bathes me through the release of water in the hydrologic cycle. This to me is conditional love in the sense of providing for my survival, yet also throwing forth challenges and physical dangers.


How is that the same thing as love though? A farmer feeds his chickens and gives them a house to live in. That doesn't mean he loves them.

Quote:
What is the source of love? What is the power of vanity? 


?

Quote:
The structure of the atoms knows that with a retained form of energy that might be called a memory.


How do you know the structure of atoms knows that?


Quote:
"I am embodied."


What do you mean by "I" and what do you mean you are embodied? You just said a structure of atoms does the knowing. A structure of atoms is already physical so there is no need to refer to it as embodied.

Quote:
Whatever would happen if Spinoza came through the time machine, I think he may be interested in the sciences of our time, like microwaves, toasters and TV's etc.


Indeed he might. That doesn't prove anything.

Quote:
'No longer in that body but in other bodies.' is your answer to whether there is cognitive activity when the adrenals, heart and brain are removed?


Yes, I am saying obviously if you remove the brain there would be no cognitive activity. I don't understand the point of the question. It seems entirely obvious.

Quote:
So hypothetically, if you could put what makes a human a human onto a usb, I suppose you could lose the body, though the usb still wouldn't be indestructible and I see no reason for the data to be incorruptible.


if it could be uploaded onto some type of incorruptable database it could be eternal. Too bad Spinoza's not anymore to ask how he envisioned it.


--------------------
The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24730803 -

I can't say my god doesn't care in that there is provision for what is necessary for my health, welfare, maintanence and protection but this doesn't replace or take away from a conditional love.

Quote:
Conditional love

Some authors make a distinction between unconditional love and conditional love. In conditional love: love is 'earned' on the basis of conscious or unconscious conditions being met by the lover, whereas in unconditional love, love is "given freely" to the loved one "no matter what". Loving is primary. Conditional love requires some kind of finite exchange, whereas unconditional love is seen as infinite and measureless.


Some people have 'earned' their inheritance, some people still have to.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24730807 -

I didn't read the whole article and thread so I apologize if my comment has already been covered....

Incase you haven't figured it out yet, the legal system in place in the 21st century was at its beginning designed to fairly provide circumstances for all parties to have equal rights.

That doesn't work as smoothly as some authorities would enjoy so over the course of about the last 150 years things have been slowly changed.

If you aren't smart enough to understand how to negotiate your way out of a court room or wealthy enough to afford an attorney who understands how to do this you pretty much face the full rath of whatever prosecutor who has your case. They railroad defendants who don't understand how to protect themselves. I'm not a lawyer, just a dude. I recently helped a friend who was accused of B&E out. The evidence collected was a roap and a pillow....? WTF?

Can you fingerprint a roap or a pillow or provide ANYTHING that links my friend to that pillow or roap?

No, no you can not!

I brought that up and all of a sudden the prosecutors argument started to fall apart.

It ended with the judge telling me he doesn't know where I got the magic dust but that is only the second time in 32 years he has ever seen that prosecuting attorney let a felony drop down to a misdemeanor.

Innocent until proven guilty?
Or
Guilty until proven innocent?

FTW!


--------------------
There are three distinct realities occurring simultaneously.

The first involves a single point or object.
The second involves that point/object's relationship with other points/objects.
The third involves their relationships in motion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24730812 -

sudly said:
I can't say my god doesn't care in that there is provision for what is necessary for my health, welfare, maintanence and protection but this doesn't replace or take away from a conditional love.



God has no love for evil, that is a condition.

A caring god doesn't equate to a loving god, as your comparison alluded.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24730818 -

The Abrahamic god is evil, no question about it.


My god has no will.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24730823 -

sudly said:
The Abrahamic god is evil, no question about it.



I don't think that is necessarily true, it was people that wrote the bible and sometimes as a means of control over other people.

I think it takes contemplation of the many religions to find the diamonds in the ruff.

To take everything literal is to miss the punch line.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24730824 -

Quote:
How is that the same thing as love though? A farmer feeds his chickens and gives them a house to live in. That doesn't mean he loves them.


Being conditional love, the farmer could conditionally love his chickens for the eggs they provide him with, and they'd still live the same chickeny life for it.

Quote:
What is the source of love? What is the power of vanity? 


??

Quote:
How do you know the structure of atoms knows that?


Because the structure of my atoms know that.

Quote:
What do you mean by "I" and what do you mean you are embodied? You just said a structure of atoms does the knowing. A structure of atoms is already physical so there is no need to refer to it as embodied.


I my mind, and the structure of atoms that make it up do the knowing. This being a part of me I see reason to call it embodied.

Quote:
Indeed he might. That doesn't prove anything.


If Spinoza was around today why wouldn't he agree with me? A fancy feed of modernism would likely fill his idea that god is Nature. If not, :shrug:, makes no difference to me.

Quote:
No longer in that body but in other bodies, yes. I'm suggesting the knowing element is not particular to that body. All bodies share and make use of the same knowing element.


What the hell is a knowing element?

Quote:
if it could be uploaded onto some type of incorruptable database it could be eternal.


And incorruptible? Is has to god damned be incorfukinruptible?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24730855 -

teknix said:
sudly said:
The Abrahamic god is evil, no question about it.



I don't think that is necessarily true, it was people that wrote the bible and sometimes as a means of control over other people.

I think it takes contemplation of the many religions to find the diamonds in the ruff.

To take everything literal is to miss the punch line.


"To take everything literal is to miss the punch line."
Y


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24730957 -

The Abrahamic God is demanding, not evil.

The allowance of forgiveness is compassionate and understanding, not vindictive.

We are part of the universe we observe, so Dawkins is mistaken.

How much life in relation to all life in the universe have we even observed?

To say something about the entirety of the universe the entirety of the universe should be surmised in the least.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24730970 -

It's a fact that Dawkins doesn't know the entirety of the universe.

That quote is both pompous and absurd.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24732093 -

I demand you love me or I'll send you to hell for infinity.
I could not adore your gods twisted ways.

We are part of the universe we observe, how does that make Dawkins mistaken?
We have only observed life here on Earth?

The entirety or the universe should be surmised? So we should speculate without evidence for confirmation?

Quote:
Surmise: a supposition that something may be true, even though there is no evidence to confirm it.


What he said sure is descriptive of Nature.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24732127 -

Quote:
Being conditional love, the farmer could conditionally love his chickens for the eggs they provide him with, and they'd still live the same chickeny life for it.


He could, but he could also hate them or be indifferent to them and only care about the prophet they provide him. So as usual, you respond with a non sequitur. I never denied the fact that the farmer COULD love his chickens. My point was the fact that he feeds and houses them is not evidence that he does.

Quote:
Because the structure of my atoms know that.


This statement implies there is a difference between you and the structure of your atoms. How do you know the structure of your atoms knows that?

Quote:
I my mind, and the structure of atoms that make it up do the knowing. This being a part of me I see reason to call it embodied.


Once again, you imply a difference. The very words "my" mind, suggests you are the knowing principle that is aware you have a mind.

Quote:
If Spinoza was around today why wouldn't he agree with me? A fancy feed of modernism would likely fill his idea that god is Nature. If not, :shrug:, makes no difference to me.


My point was, we don't know whether he would agree with you or not. I personally don't think he would agree with you because in my opinion, he saw more deeply into the nature of reality and was far more logically consistent than you are.

Quote:
What the hell is a knowing element?


It's the observer.


--------------------
The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra

Edited by Peyote Road (10/23/17 05:04 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24732149 -

sudly said:
I demand you love me or I'll send you to hell for infinity.
I could not adore your gods twisted ways.



I'm curious where in the bible or other religious text that it says that?

Quote:
The entirety or the universe should be surmised? So we should speculate without evidence for confirmation?

Quote:
Surmise: a supposition that something may be true, even though there is no evidence to confirm it.


What he said sure is descriptive of Nature.


That supposition doesn't hold when there is evidence to the contrary.

We are part of nature as well.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24732301 -

Quote:
Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


Disgusting.

I don't deny we are a part of nature, so what's this evidence to the contrary?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly] * 1
    #24732318 -

Can you post the quote with some context, that quote by itself doesn't say love me or burn eternally.

The evidence is self-evident. We are the part of the universe that is observing the universe. If that part of the universe that is observing itself has compassion, then there are aspects of the universe that exhibit compassion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Burden of Proof
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Sclorch 8,159 81 01/16/03 05:22 PM
by Sclorch
* Burden of Proof OrgoneConclusion 845 13 03/05/08 08:59 PM
by backfromthedead
* I want proof..
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Walter1496211 5,590 97 10/19/07 11:26 AM
by Icelander
* Scientific Proof of God daimyo 2,775 18 03/11/06 04:01 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* aliens don't exist, I have proof
( 1 2 3 all )		 chodamunky 12,738 58 09/26/02 04:53 AM
by In(di)go
* Fade Proof and Resistant chodamunky 658 6 03/26/03 07:30 PM
by Sclorch
* Finally! Proof of Gods Existence!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Mad_Buhdda_Abuser 8,263 87 03/03/10 04:27 PM
by Evolution
* Love Truth and Collapsing Structure gettinjiggywithit 1,207 7 03/15/05 11:18 AM
by gettinjiggywithit

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,518 topic views. 1 members, 116 guests and 16 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 18 queries.