100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > SkyHook5652
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 03/30/11 11:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeanniebean's ode to Universal TRUTH. Why Universal TRUTH = ALL INFORMATION Why there is no such thing as false information and why universal truth equals "All information." Universal Truth must be whole and complete therefore it must be all information, not just incomplete information. It must be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, untainted by lies and gibberish. Lies are sometimes mistaken for information and sometimes called "false information." All information must pertain to truth. To call a lie "information" or even "false information" is incorrect. False information is not truth. Incomplete information is not truth. A lie is not truth. A million lies or false statements does not have one bit of information in it because information must pertain to truth. Only information is useful and true. "False information" is a contradiction in terms because it would be meaningless. A false statement is useless and a lie and it is not truth and is not information. No matter how many lies a person tells or how many times they tell or write them, it can not be called truth or information because it is no more meaningful or useful than white noise or static. Show me any so-called "information" that has been deemed false that is considered "truth." It does not exist. Therefore, information must be true to be useful and it must be complete to be considered universal truth. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeannie wrote: If you think about it.... sex is pretty disgusting. All that grunting, screaming and sweating.  It can't be anymore disgusting that Christians singing "We Love That Old Rugged Cross". How's that any different from singing, "We Love That Old Dangling Noose?" From my perspective sexual grunts and moans are a lot "less" disgusting than listening to songs like "Onward Christian Solider" etc.  I guess I'd rather have sex than go to a prayer meeting.  That title is kinda telling isn't it? "Christian Solider" Interesting combination that...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... As I understand it, photons cannot have gravity because they have no mass.
Would not that justify the existance of an object that has absolutly no gravity? (all things having a balance) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Where do morals come from???
|
|
sky: Which leads to my idea of where morals come from - an analysis of the data one has regarding the effects of certain causes, as compared to the effects one wishes to cause. In other words, the more closely one believes a certain action will come to producing the result(s) one wishes to achieve, the more moral that action will be believed to be... Example - One has the following data regarding the effects of a cause: Badmouthing your friends will lose you friends. An effect one wishes to cause: Increase in the number of one’s friends. Analysis of the data one has regarding the effects of certain causes, as compared to the effects one wishes to cause: Badmouthing friends will decrease the number of one’s friends. Moral: Don’t badmouth your friends. That is an (admittedly extremely oversimplified) example of “Where I think morals come from.” That works with the common meaning of morals(as in lessons regarding good/bad behavior) and doesn't conflate morals with morality. I believe it is a fine example which illustrates your point rather nicely. Well done. On the flip side however, it logically works the other way around as well. If one wishes to decrease their number of friends, then the moral would be to badmouth your friends. I am not in disagreement here, but would note that the end necessarily justifies the means by this reasoning, and because of this all manner of despicable human behavior can be justified using this method. What if one does not like another? Would badmouthing the unliked person being a good thing to do? It seems that it would have to be if we followed your construct. "...an analysis of the data one has regarding the effects of certain causes, as compared to the effects one wishes to cause." If person A wishes to create certain enemies for person B, then an analysis of the data available to A could conceivably warrant A's telling deliberate falsehoods about B in order to perpetuate those effects. It follows from the construct given that the moral would be to spread deliberate falsehoods. If morals are held to be relative, then that is logically consistent. That is one reason for me to hold that morals and morality are not the same thing. An act cannot be both, good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral. It violates the law of non-contradiction. If something can be both, moral/immoral simutaneuosly, then it is neither. Two different people have either different "data regarding the effect of a certain cause" or different “effects they wish to cause” and these differences lead them to different conclusions regarding whether an action is moral or immoral. In that case, we have an action that is both moral and immoral simultaneously and thus neither moral nor immoral. Which could lead one to conclude that any difference of opinion regarding the morality of any action is never really a moral issue at all but something else. Just stirring the pot.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Where do morals come from???
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 02/18/11 09:24 AM
|
|
Which leads to my idea of where morals come from - an analysis of the data one has regarding the effects of certain causes, as compared to the effects one wishes to cause. As in one's being able to confidently recognize mistakes through inversive examination? I'm not really sure that I follow you here. I mean, I agree that our having made and recognized past mistakes plays a pivotal role in how we think about things, which entails our thought regarding morality. I hold that there has been and still is plenty of mistakes regarding what constitutes morality.… In other words, the more closely one believes a certain action will come to producing the result(s) one wishes to achieve, the more moral that action will be believed to be. One has the following data regarding the effects of a cause: Badmouthing your friends will lose you friends. An effect one wishes to cause: Increase in the number of one’s friends. Analysis of the data one has regarding the effects of certain causes, as compared to the effects one wishes to cause: Badmouthing friends will decrease the number of one’s friends. Moral: Don’t badmouth your friends. That is an (admittedly extremely oversimplified) example of “Where I think morals come from.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Where do morals come from???
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 02/18/11 09:03 AM
|
|
Karma, to me, is simply a blanket label for all the parts of the cause/effect, action/reaction chains of events that are not observed or not understood. So for you Karma is just Hidden determinism?Edit: Which defeats the purpose of the whole idea of 'karma' from many people's POV: as system of moral cause and effect. Although I wouldn't have said "Karma = physics", I have no disagreement with either "Karma is [a] collection of laws of cause and effect" or "...defeats the purpose of the whole idea of 'karma' ... as [a] system of moral cause and effect" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Where do morals come from???
|
|
Karma, to me, is simply a blanket label for all the parts of the cause/effect, action/reaction chains of events that are not observed or not understood. So for you Karma is just Hidden determinism? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Where do morals come from???
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Tue 02/15/11 01:58 AM
|
|
What goes around comes around (karmic energy - being repaid in kind as you earn it) This presupposes that there exists some form of cosmic retribution, which necessarily presupposes some kind of moral agent capable of and willing to perform moral judgment upon individual human acts. I find that justifying such a claim is not as simple as making it. Karma, to me, is simply a blanket label for all the parts of the cause/effect, action/reaction chains of events that are not observed or not understood. Which leads to my idea of where morals come from - an analysis of the data one has regarding the effects of certain causes, as compared to the effects one wishes to cause. In other words, the more closely one believes a certain action will come to producing the result(s) one wishes to achieve, the more moral that action will be believed to be. And it is that belief which contitutes the subjectivity of morality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Got soul?
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 02/04/11 08:49 PM
|
|
<< Atheist For me a soul is the combined properties of a thing that make it that. For me its my personality, my attitude, my shape, my form, my lifestyle, my hair style, my passions, my joy ect. No need for metaphysical spirit juice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Got soul?
|
|
How many of you believe in a human soul? And if you do, how exactly do you define it? Modifiers for the term “soul” do not make any sense to me. Are you differentiating between human souls and animal souls? What about tree souls, or rock souls? Or do souls even exsist at all? Are we just self-aware, walking meat and nothing more? Existential angst, you gotta love it I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. Those are just rhetorical questions, but they do serve to point out the problem I have with the intrinsic bias of the question itself. It seems to be starting with the assumption that a soul is something that someone has, whereas I believe that a soul is what I am. For me, defining it is somewhat difficult because the only words that convey meanings anywhere close to what I intend, seem to be words that also carry unintended connotations. So with that in mind, my current favorite definition is “uncaused cause” - or “a causative entity which is independent of all other causes”. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
SkyHook5652
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Tue 10/19/10 04:11 PM
|
|
Thank you all so much for the positive thoughts, well wishes and prayers.
Just to update everyone, the diagnosis is metastatic gastric cancer, which means it started in the stomach and has spread to the colon, liver and lymph nodes. I'm going through chemotherapy now and it is working as well as can be expected. The prognosis is pretty good all things considered. It's not a very aggressive cancer so that combined with the chemo puts my "time frame" at anywhere from several months to a year or more depending on various factors. To all my friends in the Sci&Phi forum, thanks for some of the most stimulating and enlightening conversations I have ever had. Particularly the really involved ones with myself, Abra and Jeannie ".vs." the hard-core materialists. And although I may not be posting much lately, I am following most of the threads - and maybe I'll jump in if something tweaks my fancy. Again, thanks to all for the well wishes. And "I'll be back" is an appropriate phrase considering my belief system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
non dualists are fragmented
|
|
So do you like dualing? We were checked for sharp objects when we were in detox. Heck, some of the junkies couldn't even keep their spoons straight. As a resident assistant I was left in charge later after I went through Hope House which was a halfway house. I didn't make it through the program the first time. The first time I was still in denial but went through what the counselor said was Pollyanna. I had nine months living on this pink cloud. It wasn't wasted time though. The seed was planted; They sure screwed up my alcoholism and drug addiction. I had this mixed drink in my hand and through association with a picture I had seen in the Metro group I was able to see the alcohol as poison. The picture was of an old man in a dark-lit place staring into his glass of alcohol and in the glass was another picture of a skull and crossbones. My mind made the connection of poison because I had seen the skull and crossbones on old cleaning products I had seen. It was awesome; I had a Pavlovian response just like Pavlov had with his experiment with his dog with the food and bell. It was such a spiritual experience for me I cried. It broke me free through all of my mental blocks and I was able to accept the first step. It was no longer just these sick people I felt sorry for but I could feel sorry for me. Recovery was then possible and the panic attacks left me. I could make it beyond the fifteen minute time period. The agoraphobia and the claustrophobia both lost their hold on me. Sanctuary was not just a building that had recovery; Recovery itself was sanctuary. The dendrites and axons were flooded with insights and my synaptic nerve endings were tingling with excitement. I was able to bridge the gaps in what was told me in counseling sessions, group therapy and my spiritual experience. Tabula Rasa was no longer a blank slate as my mind started to adapt to the programming. It was still dark but that was just the fog and they told me if I kept going to meetings the fog would eventually lift. But that was okay because that little spark was enough to light my path and I no longer had to stay in the cave of denial. Since then I have even been sanctuary to others lost in the opaque world of denial. spiritual experiences are powerful and transforming. I was just relating how I think all illness has a primary spiritual component. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
non dualists are fragmented
|
|
FOr example, I tend to use the example of a gamer playing a MMORPG as an analogy for my own spiritual beliefs. The character being the body, the computer being the mind, and the player being "me". Would that fall under the label of "dualism" as you are using it?>> Yep that would be it, very good. Non-dualists are no more right than dualists, and I was casting a hook to anyone that has something to say about that. My ex is into advaita non-dualism and he has narcissistic personality disorder. I read some of the sites he still posts and it impresses me how these people are so concrete and self-rightous. I have more to say on that, but this was the gist.It's tough all around. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
non dualists are fragmented
|
|
So what exactly is the dualism you are referring to?
FOr example, I tend to use the example of a gamer playing a MMORPG as an analogy for my own spiritual beliefs. The character being the body, the computer being the mind, and the player being "me". Would that fall under the label of "dualism" as you are using it? Just trying to get a clear idea of what's being discussed. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me, evaluation of right/wrong can only be done against one’s own goals and purposes. That is, if an action produces positive progress toward my goals/purposes then it is “good”. If it produces negative progress, then it is “bad”. I know no better way of “being true to myself” than that. (Noting that any particular goal/purpose may be identical to anyone else’s, but that does not make it any less one’s own as well.)
The blame/responsibility/accountability thing starts to run over into the “reaction” side of the cycle and usually ends up at punishment or retaliation and is really just the exact same philosophical issue with the sides reversed. (“Is punishment right if it does not result in any desireable change in the actions/intentions of the punishee?”) Side note regarding Intention.vs.outcome: In a materialistic/billiard-ball world, can the “outcome” ever be said to be reached - other than by measure of an arbitrary time span? Aren’t the ripples always spreading? And because the ripples are constantly and continuously spreading, shouldn’t the intention and outcome necessarily be evaluated against each other in order for either to make any sense? I honestly don’t see how either of the two can be separated from each other and still have any significant meaning. Just some (admittedly not always too terribly coherent) thoughts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Moral dilemna
|
|
The idea that life is "Sacred" is truly an insane idea for anyone who truly believes in a spiritual existence... That is so profoundly true I just had to quote it. I see so many people who profess a belief in the basic spiritual nature of life, but then turn around and talk about how "precious" life is. But if life is basically spiritual in nature, then it is, by definition, immortal and eternal. (Note: I left out the last phrase in the quoted sentence because it seems to imply that spiritual existence somehow starts when the body dies and stops when a new body is (entered/assumed/taken over/whetever). Personally, I believe the spiritual existence is permanent and eternal and bodies are transient. For comparison: a player does not disappear when a game is over and reappear when a new game starts. It is the game that disappears and then reappears.) JMHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gods and Goddesses - The dreamers who experience the manifestation of their dreams and/or nightmares as if they are lucid physical realities. Beautifully put.  We even now know how the trick is done, at least in part. And it should be obvious to all the dreamers who the dreamers are. But some of the dreamers are so lost in their dreams that they haven't yet awakened to the realization that they are indeed the dreamer. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 06/02/10 04:58 PM
|
|
Cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjective and objective.
Works for me. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
UFO'S
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sun 05/23/10 09:47 PM
|
|
while you are at it you might as well praise the easter bunny,santa clause,the tooth fairy, and your brain... ...says the person who speaks of aliens as if they weren't fiction...might be hard though,,,,... all are fictional...:rofl |
|
|
|
|
Previous
