Sky,

What you say concerning the ability to prove that a thing does not exist is true in some, if not most cases, however, I have not asked you to prove that a thing does not exist. I have asked that you provide a support base for your refutation which makes sense. The issue lies not in the determination of whether a thing exists. The issue here lies in a refutation you provided concerning the following claim that I have made on several occasions...

In order for one to be able to choose "better" one must know of "better".

If you care to come into the logical sandbox and make a refutation and then later be a smart-ass, at least do so carrying a little logic in your pocket and a shield on your chest.

Touche... No harm, no foul...

All in egotistical fun... which is but a mask.



Merry Christmas Sky...

Truly.

Well that just goes to show that we each have different issues - and different opinions as to what constitutes a "smart-ass". (And possibly even what constitutes "logic".)


Using your definitions of "chose" and "know", that would be a true statement. It's basically saying that you can't know something before you know it. No argument there.

My argument is this

- "better" is a personal opinion. It is not absolute or intrinsic to anything.

- At some point the opinion did not exist.

- Something caused the opinion to come into existence.

- I submit that what caused the opinion to come into existence was a decision.

Yes, I see what you mean Sky. We make decisions on what we think and feel all the time. We make decisions on what our opinions are. We can even make decisions about what is better: this, that or the unknown.

To make a decision is something we can do while physically doing nothing, but to make a choice, you probably have to let that choice be known.

"I'll have that one, you keep the other one."

The conversation between You and Creative is a total failure in communication because you two are speaking from two completely different 'realities.' You may as well be speaking two different languages. Your minds are just not operating on the same plane.

ain't it the truth....

creative has an ugly sharp edge to his diatribe....maybe he better try on those shoes before he thinks they're his!!!


lol

If you subscribe to the big bang theory, everything was once only one thing. This being so, we can only know the portions of one thing, which is essentially, all things.

Even if you're not a fan of the big bang theory, the idea that one has to have knowledge of a precursor to have the current knowledge would either lead to knowing the unknown/choosing the unknown at some point, or back to the idea that there is only one idea.

Plus we don't really know anything. We only know the forms of things, which are the illusory perceptions of what something truly is. The shadows in the cave, if you will.

Accepting that "better" is an opinion, one can only know of "better", and not know "better". Because to know "better" implies that one can know "best". When "best" is just a hypothesized action to attain an outcome for a certain situation.

If you have enough people, and enough pianos, and enough time, it's possible. Monkeys and Shakespeare. Yes, our general basis of thought has to revolve around things that we know of, but choosing things you don't know of isn't an impossibility.

When we are first born into the world, we don't know of anything. Unless you were to subject the idea of a priori, which would be self-defeating. We have to learn of things we know nothing of. We are forced to learn of the unknown and become conditioned to accepting what "is". The only logical argument I could perceive to this would be that these things were already known, and, as such, cannot be classified as unknowns. But then we would progress back along the time-line to whenever that which is became that which "is". Without people, money is just colorful pieces of paper with associated values based on a societal economic standpoint.

We, as a race/species, create things out of nothingness. We don't even have to know why something works to make something new or more effective.




I think this is an ample argument for the idea that we are our unconscious mind. We are our most basic reactions to situations that present themselves to us. Can the conscious mind have influence over these most basic actions? Of course it can. The unconscious is who we are, but the conscious mind has the control.

An animal is how it is without being cognizant. We couldn't say that the animal is not just because it doesn't think as we do. It runs off of base instincts and learned reactions to its surroundings.

When you're trying to figure out who you are, the most important question to ask yourself is why do I do ___? This is the unconscious mind at work. When we know why we are, we can change who we are by interrupting the unknown patterns put forth from our innermost being.

Michael....time to grow up .


try walking the walk ...just a little


most of the people here in this thread have given wonderful perspectives...but you are not flexible, for someone who wants to evolve into a true human being, who is studying with such fervor, you seem to have neglected the most valuable lesson of all.







humility

Creative posted:




If one believes all things happen "for a reason" as you stated above, then you can't believe in "pure random chance."

These two things contradict each other.

If all things happen for a reason, there is no random chance. There are only reasons.

Causes and effects.

No random chance. None.

The intricate matrix of cause and effect is so hugely complex that anything that appears random is just too complicated to know what the causes are.

Its the domino effect.

Tracing causes:

It would be interesting to be able to trace all causes for a single event. Impossible, but interesting to think about.

Believe it or not, all events, large and small, somewhere somehow started as a thought. Thoughts combined with and attracted other thoughts. Thoughts formed ideas, attitudes, feelings etc.

A guy gets up in the morning with a headache because a friend talked him into having a drink the night before, and he had one too many. The next day he goes to work in a bad mood which causes an unknown number of domino effects on his work day. He works in a factory building airplanes. He misses one small part on one plane.

A year later an airplane crashes and 120 people die. Between that morning with that guy and his bad mood, and billions of other tiny little unknown causes, a disaster happens. Was he the cause of the airplane crashing or was the airplane meant to crash and he was just one cog in the wheel of fate? The answer would depend on how you believe.

In any case, the part he played in the event was minuscule. There were billions of other causes at work that all began with a thought.

Each person who boarded that plane made the choice to do so. Each person was effected by many unknown causes, choices and decisions that brought them to that place and that plane at that time.

Some people did not board that plane and their lives were saved. One guy got stuck in traffic, another guy had mile heart attack and could not make the flight, a woman changed her mind at the last minute because her daughter had an accident.

So when something happens in your life that disrupts your plans, you might want to be thankful because it could be something that steered you away from a disaster rather into the arms of it.

There are no accidents, only causes.

No one knows the scope of the patterns that we weave. Is it random? It may as well be random because it is that complex; but it is not truly random.

This is a hard thing for some to swallow because they always want to ask the question why why why. Who is to blame?

Its not that simple. That question can never really be answered. So people blame it on randomness. The complex tracing of cause is only possible up to a point, and then we call it random.

Sky stated:


Creative responded:



For Creative:

All sky is saying is that "right" and "wrong" are opinions, not absolutes. Are you stating that is illogical?

Are you stating that "right" and "wrong" are absolutes or are you saying that "right" and "wrong" are just "labels?"

Aren't attributes just opinions?

Creative said:




Eat your Wheaties?

Are you implying that you are a tough customer?

You said, "I usually play nicer than some deserve."

Well this paints a nice (and and rather toxic) picture of your attitude of yourself and others.

And you give yourself credit for "taking it easy" on his claims?

I think you should just be your natural hard core un-nice self to all these others who do not "deserve" your niceness.

I think you should let it all hang out and let everyone see the real you. Stop claiming to be "playing nice."

Just try to be yourself.

When I went to bed last night, I assumed this thread had died a peaceful death and gone to heaven. Is this proof of reincarnation? :) More later.

I know this question was addressed to your self, but if I may, I'd like to state why I do it- that is, by stating and defending my ideas, while comparing and contrasting them with those of others, I wish to delve more deeply into the true nature of my own beliefs. I can't really think of any other good reason to be here, other than for social reasons. Now that I've butted in, I'm butting out.

Yes, I agree. I’ve been saying pretty much that same thing for quite a while. I think the key difference is in our purposes. My purpose is ultimately “increased understanding”. I’m not sure what Creative’s is. But once he starts in with the epithets, my desire to continue being logical goes out the window.

Some people are still struggling to define their reality and/or what is real and when they decide what they think is real, they proceed to seek confirmation.

That is why people continue to seek other people who agree with them. It helps them to build a foundation for their belief system that has some support.

That is why people love to quote their accepted authorities. Accepted authorities are things like, scientists and scientific knowledge, politicians and political statements, the major news media, the Bible, the Pope, authors and books, experts and individuals with degrees, etc.

No comment, nothing to add, just wanted to say


H E Y JB

Hmmmmm....

I recognize one here whom I admire for many reasons. My best wishes always go out to her.

To propose that this author is inflexible and has been without humility during this thread is an accurate statement considering the perspective from which it came.

Try on the shoes? Interesting proposition coming from another who has but very limited information concerning me, especially on a personal basis.

Perhaps I have forgotten humility.

Perhaps one like me should just keep their mouth shut during personal slights, which have been absolutely preposterous at times. Perhaps I should bow down just because I seem to be outnumbered here. Perhaps the best move for this man should be to allow another to maintain their dignity even when I do not agree with their propositions and/or claims.

Or... perhaps I should just recognize that each walks in his/her own way for his/her own reasons.

So be it.

So then, my lesson has been this...

I should just say **** off, and be done with it, rather than listening to another continually slight me and my personal character...

Be well Doc...



JB...

**** off... go talk to the sand, it is more on your conscious level anyway.

Sky,



I see what you mean...

Replace the term "better" with "A"...

And so this thread is now officially dead.

Hahaha I love this thread. Its the gift that keeps on giving!

I have only one thing I want to say in regards to this last page of posts. (A lot of things I could comment on . . . but wont)

Better, to me is NOT arbitrary and is not subjective in regards to the details, the desired outcome can be arbitrary and subjective in value to the person. (but I argue this is the exception not the rule) It comes down to laziness, or lack there of.

Something is either better or worse in regards to the desired outcome. It must always be so, and for all people that agree that the outcome is desirable. Even this is consistent for most things, and most folks.

Its agreeing on what is desirable that is the hard part of what is, or is not better for someone or something.

Skin: its function is to keep in the good things we want and keep out the bad things we do not want. Any tool that your skins uses that facilitates this, or adds to this functionality would be better then skin without that tool, unless death is your desired outcome.

A bowling ball: There are bowling balls that have weights placed inside the ball to help increase rotational spin, and increase curve.

If the exact amount of curve increase is the desired out come for everyone, then this bowling ball would be better for everyone and everyone would agree that it is better.

But because not everyone wants or desires the exact same amount of curve, or even curve at all . . . then this means that the outcome does not match and there for the idea that this is better is not fact for everyone because there outcomes do not match up.

MY point is that to argue over what is better or even the nature of how our minds come to the idea of what is better in my mind is silly. Drop the better, or worse, and go straight to the outcome.

What it comes down to in the bowling analogy is, do you want to maximize your strike potential? If yes then you will try to match the highest probability behavior to achieve this outcome. This has been shown to be a precise amount of curve into the pocket, and if you can spin the ball at a particular rate given the starting frame, then you can accurately reproduce a strike, no matter who you are.

My thinking is that people cannot break down complex outcomes because there are too many variables to break down, or not enough time (given the laziness factor) to break it down in any kind of meaningful way, and thus we guess, and do not want our guesses to be broken down and shown that the outcomes is less then desirable when done "our way".

If two ways are actually equally likely to result in the desired outcome in every situation (highly unlikely) and are equally intensive then it does come down to an arbitrary subjective decision. (exception not the rule)

I think 90% of the time we are just stubborn very emotional creatures who decide something and don't want someone else to show us how inefficient we really are.

Bottom line there really are things that are really universally better, or worse dependent on the outcome, and this has little or nothing to do with subjective anything . . . its just we are stubborn and don't want to admit we are being silly.

"Universally better" still depends on personal preferences. Do you want to exist or not?

Most people who exist want to exist or else they would not be trying to find ways to survive; they would be trying to find ways to destroy the universe or on the more personal scale, they would just die or kill themselves.

Bottom line is that people prefer to exist. If existence is the meaning of life, the purpose or the goal, then things that support existence are universally "better" and things that don't support existence, or things that might disrupt the space time continuum would not be "better."

So this is where I would agree with you that there are things that are really "universally better" only because I agree that we want to exist. Hence it is an agreement that since most of us want to exist, that things that support our existence is "better" according to us.

But that is still a preference and an opinion, and an agreement, not an eternal fact.

If the time would come where most of the people and other living creatures agreed that it would be better to not exist, then that opinion could change and things that support the non existence of things would then be "better."

I would take this a step farther and say that “universally better” can only apply to a “universally desired outcome”. And I don’t know off anything that can truthfully be said to be a “universally desired outcome”. Not even “existence” is absolutely universal as a desired outcome. There are suicidal people whose desire is to not exist. So in truth, there really is no such thing as “universally better” because there is no such thing as a “universally desired outcome”.

Now to be fair, I think that Billy’s point is more about the fact that for any specific desired outcome, there is usually a single process or method that will produce that desired outcome more effectively than any other and that process will always apply to that specific desired outcome. But I think it’s a stretch to assign “universality” to that – other than by making each and every desired outcome a universe unto itself.

And more to my point, we can’t forget that “desired outcome” must include all the by-products of the actions performed in the attainment. This is where the apparent “laziness” and “stubbornness” factors come in. In the bowling example, very few people want to spend the time and money required to reproduce the perfect strike. The “time and money spent” must be considered part of the “desired outcome”. Is the casual player “lazy” because he would rather spend quality time with his friends than practice for an upcoming tournament? No, he just has a different “desired outcome” than the professional player does, that’s all.

So again “universally better” can only apply to a “universally desired outcome” – of which there really are none.


BTW - Merry Christmas to all.

Exactly and good point that laziness is not the only thing that restricts the capability to find the most efficient means to achieve the desired outcome! I was being lazy and only listing one example of an impediment to the "best" route. I think there are all kinds of impediments that make our choices less then perfect in almost every situation, and this is why we get used to things being less then perfect, after all to be cliche we live in a imperfect world lol.

Merry Christmas!