Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Wayne92587]

“God”

The Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of “Everything” that exists in the material sense of the word is born of, is made manifest Reality, of the Immortal Spirit of God; the Immortal Spirit of God being Transcendental.

The Immortal Spirit of God ”Passion”, the Animating Spirit of the Universe, the seed of all Living Things; being all inclusive, of even a rock.

The Immortal Spirit of God existing as the insignificant inner innate motion, as vibration, an oscillation of the most Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singular Particle, “Singularity” in existence, the God Particle make a humming sound,"OHM."

The God Particle being meaningless, existing without angular momentum, being motionless, exiting without velocity of speed and direction; Each Individual Particle itself, not being relative, having no numerical value, having the numerical value of Zero-0.

The God Particle is a Singular Particle, but not One-1 of many; the God existing as a Transcendental Metaphysical Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity filled with an untold number, Quantity, of Omnipresent Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities within the omniscience of a State of Singularity known, spoken of, as being a Transcendental, Metaphysical Quantum State of Singularity.

The Singular God Particle being all inclusively of the State of Singularity having the possibility of being Transcendental.

The First Singularity of One-1 being a Singularity of Zero-0, upon being displaced, attained relative a numerical value of One-1 by becoming the First is a Series, was coined, was automatically, was Metaphorically converted, into a Singularity having a relative numerical value of One-1.

After having been displaced, attaining angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, The Reality of First Cause, as in the Butterfly Effect, became the direct material cause of the System of Chaos that made Manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word.

Transcendentally speaking a Singular Particle having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, the God Particle, was Transfigured, was metamorphically converted, Transfigured, was reborn a Singularity having a numerical value of One-1, the Reality of First Cause.

[Wayne92587]

The Transfiguration of a the God Particle was the Affect born of Displacement, a Singularity of Zero-0 having been displaced, attaining angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, The Reality of First Cause, as in the Butterfly Effect, became the direct material cause of the System of Chaos that made Manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word.

[Scribbler60]

The God Particle is a Singular Particle, but not One-1 of many; the God existing as a Transcendental Metaphysical Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity filled with an untold number, Quantity, of Omnipresent Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities within the omniscience of a State of Singularity known, spoken of, as being a Transcendental, Metaphysical Quantum State of Singularity...

Transcendentally speaking a Singular Particle having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, the God Particle, was Transfigured, was metamorphically converted, Transfigured, was reborn a Singularity having a numerical value of One-1, the Reality of First Cause.

Deepak, is that you?

http://wisdomofchopra.com/

[Wayne92587]

Who the hell is Deepak???

[Scribbler60]

Who the hell is Deepak???

Deepak Chopra, purveyor of all things "woo". Please see the link I supplied.

[Wayne92587]

The Reality of Everything has a Cause?

The Reality of First Cause, The Transcendental Reality of 0/1 does not have a cause.

The Reality of First Cause was the born of an Event that became the series of events known as Cause and Effect.

The Event being the displacement of a Singularity of Zero-0, which being Transcendental, transcended the Darkness, without cause was metamorphic; as an Affect, was converted, was reborn, became the First Singularity to have relative a numerical value of One-1.

The Affect of the transcendence, the transfiguration, the metamorphic change in the nature of the Motion, a Singularity of Zero-0 was reborn the Reality of First Cause.

By definition, in order for a Singularity to have a numerical value of One-1, said singularity is required be the First in a Series of events, must become the beginning of a process, such as the Evolutionary Process, become the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time.

Prior to that beginning of the Creation of the Creative Process; God, the Reality of Everything was meaningless, the possibility of existence being Uncertain, “nothing” being measurable as to location and momentum; the innate, inner motion of a Singularity, Time, Space and Motion each a Singularity being meaningless.

The Immortal Spirit of God, although Eternal, the innate inner motion of a Singularity was meaningless, exited without intent, without purpose, without meaning.

The Reality of Everything existing as an omnificent State of Singularity filled with an untold number, quantity, of minute Singularities having no relative numerical value, having a numerical of Zero-0.

[Count Lucanor]

No, we are exploring entirely new territories to all that you refer to above.

I thought the context had made it clear that when I was referring to "no new territories here", it was in relation to my supposed "refusal to consider and reflect for even a moment". I had considered and reflected on this for quite a while, so between you and me, it's not new territory.

Recent technological events have not been so well anticipated, so any speculation is based on today's information. Really, a great deal of philosophy before the scientific age is effectively null and void as what were once-great mysteries become great discoveries.

Yet no amount of speculation can replace our acquired certainties. Theoretical physicists will keep testing ideas and that's fine, but it's easy to get carried away and start talking like the old philosophers before the scientific age. Sometimes, Kaku and Hawking are examples of that.

So when I said: "In truth, it's those who believe that the far future either contains apocalypse or roughly "more of the same" with a few tweaks are in fact the ones "on mental holidays". Such an attitude completely ignores the history of humanity, of the Earth and of the universe itself" it was neither a modal fallacy, as I explained, and hardly speculative, given that the only options are apocalypse, stagnation or advancement. Given the history, continues advancement seems by far most likely.

Your unrestrained optimism in the unstoppable march of humanity towards progress by the hand of technology (AI) is the retelling of centuries-old romantic views of history that started after the Renaissance. Not divine providence anymore, but a secular one, carried out by scientists. But we know how that went on with two world wars, atomic bombs and the military industrial complex. And today we can see how humanity is doing in South Sudan, to mention just one of the many places where the faith in social progress has been betrayed. And we are to expect that it is progress and sustainable ways of life that we are going to carry to the next frontier? Technical progress has not been, and cannot be by itself, the passport to a better social order. That's what history has taught us. And instead of looking for salvation in a dreamy tomorrowland, we should focus on some immediate dangers and unsolved problems we are facing today, some of them very much related to an unsustainable view of technology.

The future is open, many things can happen, including regression to states of minds and social practices that we think are left in the past. Cultural commentators have talked about our age as the New Middle Ages. Every major social system has thought of itself as the zenith of human progress, but Rome and many others fell to their own mistakes and the sword of their "barbaric" enemies.

I have wondered whether what we refer to as God simply represents an ideal that, perhaps in the far future, may approximately be realised by what life becomes after solving the problems of survival for billions of years? (trying to get back to the topic - you are right, I strayed).

I think everyone speaking from a secular point of view acknowledges that religions and gods are projections of real human necessities, solved in a realm of fantasy. This is a social construction and any reference to it as an individual experience, ineffable and not subject to the broad reach of culture, politics, etc., is seeing the trees, but not the forest. We could reach a better state of affairs for humanity, without it ever resembling gods, heavens and magic. If one looks at why people get attached to things, like say video games, one might find that it reflects real human needs, which a technological platform helps to satisfy. But that's a purely contingent object of culture and there's no reason to elevate video gaming to the level of a universal human practice or an essential part of human nature that the future must be in compliance with.

That's a technological utopia, we have had them before.

Not at all. It is the only logical possibility if catastrophe doesn't strike. Why are you so sure that the future will be roughly similar to today when nothing ever stays the same? This strikes me as a kind of reflexive pessimism, one that sees "The Great Filter" as a near-certainty rather than a remote possibility.

I never said "the future will be roughly similar to today". It's always different, even when it carries on with things from the past. It's not a predestined future, one that we cannot escape from (except that it will come) and that we will watch passively as it unfolds on its own as the "only logical possibility". It will be what we make of it and is thus open to all possibilities.

[Sy Borg]

So when I said: "In truth, it's those who believe that the far future either contains apocalypse or roughly "more of the same" with a few tweaks are in fact the ones "on mental holidays". Such an attitude completely ignores the history of humanity, of the Earth and of the universe itself" it was neither a modal fallacy, as I explained, and hardly speculative, given that the only options are apocalypse, stagnation or advancement. Given the history, continues advancement seems by far most likely.

Your unrestrained optimism in the unstoppable march of humanity towards progress by the hand of technology (AI) is the retelling of centuries-old romantic views of history that started after the Renaissance. Not divine providence anymore, but a secular one, carried out by scientists. But we know how that went on with two world wars, atomic bombs and the military industrial complex. And today we can see how humanity is doing in South Sudan, to mention just one of the many places where the faith in social progress has been betrayed. And we are to expect that it is progress and sustainable ways of life that we are going to carry to the next frontier? Technical progress has not been, and cannot be by itself, the passport to a better social order. That's what history has taught us. And instead of looking for salvation in a dreamy tomorrowland, we should focus on some immediate dangers and unsolved problems we are facing today, some of them very much related to an unsustainable view of technology.

The future is open, many things can happen, including regression to states of minds and social practices that we think are left in the past. Cultural commentators have talked about our age as the New Middle Ages. Every major social system has thought of itself as the zenith of human progress, but Rome and many others fell to their own mistakes and the sword of their "barbaric" enemies.

Sorry, but the evidence is 100% with my view. The facts are there - 3.8b years ago the Earth consisted of rocks, chemicals the the first microbes. It never fallen back into that state and regression has always been followed up by, not just progress, but progress at an unprecedented rate. So the conservative view is to expect some continuation of civilisation's trends towards institutions and collective intelligence.

This is uncertain in the same way as a child is not guaranteed to live to an adulthood. That is, failing disaster, progress is inevitable. Any other view is basically emotion-driven woo wrapped in rationalist clothing. There is zero difference between emotion-driven pessimistic projections of the future and emotion-driven optimistic views of a loving anthropocentric God. Each time, it's emotions rather than reason that drives the opinions.

Part of this negativist faux-logical fantasy is the unfounded assumption that the fates of humans will be uniform, despite the clear evidence of history. Only emotions could bring a person to disregard billions of years of natural history and thousands of years of human social history to believe that the troubles of the unfortunate will cause civilisation per se to crumble, as though Buffet's and Trump's fates are tied to those in Sudan. Plenty of humanity is doing better than at any time in history. I would say the fates of Trump and the starving in Sudan are about as tethered as those between cows and connoisseurs of steak - there is a connection, but for only one party is that connection at all serious.

Yes, may will die and suffer, and those protected by drone armies will consider it to be shame, nothing more and continue on, disappointed at the loss of custom and resources.

I have wondered whether what we refer to as God simply represents an ideal that, perhaps in the far future, may approximately be realised by what life becomes after solving the problems of survival for billions of years? (trying to get back to the topic - you are right, I strayed).

I think everyone speaking from a secular point of view acknowledges that religions and gods are projections of real human necessities, solved in a realm of fantasy. This is a social construction and any reference to it as an individual experience, ineffable and not subject to the broad reach of culture, politics, etc., is seeing the trees, but not the forest. We could reach a better state of affairs for humanity, without it ever resembling gods, heavens and magic. If one looks at why people get attached to things, like say video games, one might find that it reflects real human needs, which a technological platform helps to satisfy. But that's a purely contingent object of culture and there's no reason to elevate video gaming to the level of a universal human practice or an essential part of human nature that the future must be in compliance with.

In other words, the nature of gods is changing. For the sake of logic and accuracy we need to parse the various gods that people believe in. Those who see God as the ground of being are closer to secularists than to their literalist fundamentalist brethren.

Whatever, humans have seen potentials, and these may be dressed in a deity's finery or seen through a scientific futurist's eye; the difference is shrinking.

[Dark Matter]

Wayne92587:

You make a lot more sense than Greta or CL, but maybe that’s because I’ve had thoughts along the same lines. Most people are unaccustomed to lateral thinking and mock that what is beyond their grasp.

[Count Lucanor]

Sorry, but the evidence is 100% with my view. The facts are there - 3.8b years ago the Earth consisted of rocks, chemicals the the first microbes. It never fallen back into that state and regression has always been followed up by, not just progress, but progress at an unprecedented rate. So the conservative view is to expect some continuation of civilisation's trends towards institutions and collective intelligence.

Nope, sorry, but you have 0% evidence. The facts of the natural history (if we assume it's appropriate to call it history) of inorganic, lifeless systems, are the facts of predominantly deterministic closed systems, in which causal regularities are observable and predictable in accord with the underlying material laws (thermodynamics, movement, etc.). To apply the same concept to living systems is what is known as naturalistic determinism, but the processes involved in the behavior of organic matter are mostly non-deterministic. And particularly, when we talk about the more complex forms (where something like civilizations can emerge), the intrinsic properties of rocks and chemicals alone are not sufficient to explain their behavior, in other words, these biological forms are not reducible to such rocks and chemicals.

This is uncertain in the same way as a child is not guaranteed to live to an adulthood. That is, failing disaster, progress is inevitable. Any other view is basically emotion-driven woo wrapped in rationalist clothing. There is zero difference between emotion-driven pessimistic projections of the future and emotion-driven optimistic views of a loving anthropocentric God. Each time, it's emotions rather than reason that drives the opinions.

So, failing disaster, progress is inevitable? But isn't disaster in the same path of progress? And I don't buy the simplistic forced alternatives: is either an optimistic technological heaven (noticeable, not different from the heavenly worlds of godly creatures) or a pessimistic dystopia. Why? Why is the future closed to these predetermined options? Why can it be what we build from the present conditions, given the present conditions?

Part of this negativist faux-logical fantasy is the unfounded assumption that the fates of humans will be uniform, despite the clear evidence of history.

The evidence of human history can only show what has happened, and what we can do at the present time with it. It does not show what inexorably will happen, as if it were a movie to watch passively. The evidence shows that what happens is what humans actively participate in doing. They have the leading role in the movie and it unfolds unpredictably.

Only emotions could bring a person to disregard billions of years of natural history and thousands of years of human social history to believe that the troubles of the unfortunate will cause civilisation per se to crumble, as though Buffet's and Trump's fates are tied to those in Sudan. Plenty of humanity is doing better than at any time in history. I would say the fates of Trump and the starving in Sudan are about as tethered as those between cows and connoisseurs of steak - there is a connection, but for only one party is that connection at all serious.

Civilizations, however, have crumbled. Repeatedly, since there have been civilizations. They can last thousands of years, but nevertheless, change, evolve, transform into something else. What state is our current civilization moving into? We have some clues, some evidence of how it is doing now and where it might be going to. Is that already fixed, predetermined? Are we doomed? Or, are we headed to a future of unprecedented social success? We can say none of the above, as nothing is guaranteed, but we can say that right now we're not not were we would like to be in terms of social well-being, despite the fact that since almost a century ago our material problems in relation to access and exploitation of resources had been technically solved. History shows, I repeat, that technology has not been the holy grail of social success. We can achieve social success, it's in our hands, but not in the AI fantasies.

In other words, the nature of gods is changing. For the sake of logic and accuracy we need to parse the various gods that people believe in. Those who see God as the ground of being are closer to secularists than to their literalist fundamentalist brethren.

There are no gods and no nature of gods. There are projections of human desires and explanations of the real that have taken the shape of socially-constructed myths about spiritual realms. We know those were superstitions and we should move forward without them. Trying to rescue those superstitions, now disguised as other mysterious forces blending in the natural world, is truly moving backwards.

Whatever, humans have seen potentials, and these may be dressed in a deity's finery or seen through a scientific futurist's eye; the difference is shrinking.

The problem is: futurists usually are not scientifically-minded, but sci-fi minded.

[Sy Borg]

So, failing disaster, progress is inevitable? But isn't disaster in the same path of progress? And I don't buy the simplistic forced alternatives: is either an optimistic technological heaven (noticeable, not different from the heavenly worlds of godly creatures) or a pessimistic dystopia. Why? Why is the future closed to these predetermined options? Why can it be what we build from the present conditions, given the present conditions?

Merry Christmas to you - you are almost there.

The high tech heaven and dystopian apocalypse are the same event - it just depends on who you are. Each is unarguably already here to some extent so this comes down to matters of degree. There is no in between option, not with seven billion people and increasing on a planet with rapidly decreasing accessible resources and unbalanced natural systems.

[Count Lucanor]

Merry Christmas to you, too. Whew, I had time to slice the turkey!!

Whatever happens, it most likely will not be a final state. As always, either catastrophe or apparent social bliss, it will be a stage that will set the future stages. The historical references are not that far: the first two world wars brought pessimism and despair, but the shallow happiness of the consumer society and the "American way of life" also dissipated. I'm doubtful that someone could have anticipated the events that unfolded; I mostly think it's the present that counts the most, always with our sight put in an open future with many possibilities.

[Sy Borg]

As is usual on social occasions, I spent as much time this Christmas communing with dogs as with humans. We seem to have more in common :)

I agree with your post, especially the "not be a final state" observation. Catastrophe and bliss, winners and losers, have always existed concurrently in life, with the former usually benefitting from the woes of the latter.

The consumer society is a blip, mere decades. Due to chaos theory, the shorter the time frame, the more volatile and unpredictable. Still, a mind as sharp as Carl Sagan's can make a a fine fist of it:

have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), the lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.

[Count Lucanor]

As is usual on social occasions, I spent as much time this Christmas communing with dogs as with humans. We seem to have more in common

I agree with your post, especially the "not be a final state" observation. Catastrophe and bliss, winners and losers, have always existed concurrently in life, with the former usually benefitting from the woes of the latter.

The consumer society is a blip, mere decades. Due to chaos theory, the shorter the time frame, the more volatile and unpredictable. Still, a mind as sharp as Carl Sagan's can make a a fine fist of it:

have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), the lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.

When I was writing that it was doubtful someone could have anticipated the events, I stopped for a second thinking "maybe just a few brilliant minds". Who else but Carl Sagan.

[Sy Borg]

Still, it seems that CS's prediction was just an extrapolation of trends at the time rather than anticipation of an emergence. The harder question to answer is what AI (condensed collective intelligence) will do if it develops a mentality more sophisticated than our own.

How well can a dog understand human activity? Already the collective intelligence of institutions is too complex to be comprehended by most individuals, which is why their mouthpieces in the media can so easily manipulate them. Now, like a dog who has been kicked too many times, increasingly the masses are ceasing to trust the media, diminishing the media's legitimate role in disseminating genuine and relevant information. The result is as per Sagan's prediction, and is in essence a loss of trust in humanity and, especially, the powers that be. The loss of trust has reached a point where there is significant suspicion of the truthfulness of humanity's bodies of knowledge, built from generation to generation for the betterment of those to follow.

It is this stored aggregation of hard-won experience, at times at the cost of great suffering and danger, that separates humanity from other species. Break down trust in science and traditional learning and you break down human society itself, effectively tending further towards a regressive Lord of the Flies type scenario.

Theism, to that end, causes no problems when sufficient logic is present for believers to embrace the ever more-distilled "God of the gaps". The destructive aspect appears when significant "spiritual" subcultures pit their mythology against rigorously tested bodies of knowledge, showing complete contempt for the intelligence and sacrifices of their forebears like ungrateful teenagers, and such short termism has consequences. Adults appreciate the problems of short term thinking, but the growing army of superstitious "kidults" seemingly do not.