Good Friday

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Good Friday

Post by Walker »

Feynman said that a tree comes from the air, but that’s not true because he said it.

Biology of a tree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifk6iuLQk28

- From tree to air is entropic, but what about air to tree?

- What can air to tree be, other than the injection of energy from outside the system enclosed by atmosphere, which causes spontaneous chemical changes according to the design of natural laws, under those conditions.

- Consciousness of the tree is a mirror of the tree.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Good Friday

Post by Dontaskme »

Harbal wrote:
It is an entity capable of thought (see Descartes). It is also capable of forming impressions which are manifested within what it calls it's conscious mind. This mind is able to form impressions because of the data it receives from it's environment, brought to it via the entities senses and processed by the entities brain. The impression in the mind and the source of the data comprising the impression are not the same thing. The impression is just a representation of its cause.

So what you are saying here is that an object is the cause of the impression of the object?

Is that what you are implying, or not?
The entity does not believe it can be seen by the tree (at least this entity doesn't believe it can).
How can an object that cannot see, make an impression of itself? as you assume in the text here>
The impression in the mind and the source of the data comprising the impression are not the same thing.
If the mind is not the creator, then the object ''tree'' must be the creator according to you...the tree creates itself....but how can it see or know itself same thing? ...you've already assumed trees can't see...so what's seeing?..what's creating the impression..?
Last edited by Dontaskme on Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Good Friday

Post by Dontaskme »

Walker wrote:
- Consciousness of the tree is a mirror of the tree.
Yes, this is correct. I'm just trying to get Harbal to see this.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Good Friday

Post by Harbal »

Dontaskme wrote: The impression causer being what exatcly?
I can only describe the impression, not what caused it. Maybe a physicist could could give you some kind of answer.
Can the tree be separate from what's looking at it? to say it exists when you are not looking at it.. is an assumption that the tree is separate from you, but it is not....

The other entities are assumptions only, there is no way you can prove that they can see. Seeing can't be proved, it's already what's seeing...it's self evident.

We could play with words and say everything is part of the Universe therefore the looker and the tree are part of the same thing. Personally, I do not find that useful. The fact that you are talking about something called a tree suggests it is something to which you grant a "separate" identity. If you want to present a logical (in the conventional sense) argument as to why you don't think the tree is separate from me go ahead. The other entities seem to be existent and to be able to see. Therefore, I think it is for you to prove this is not the case, rather than for me to have to prove it is.
The tree cannot exist without a mind to vision it.
No, the impression of the tree in a particular mind cannot exist without that particular mind to vision it.
Where does the I come from?
Harbal wrote:That I cannot tell you.
Then how can you tell me I see?

You said I see the tree?
I imagine I'm supposed to say something like: I can see it and, if I'm close enough, I can feel it.
How does not knowing where I come from stop me from knowing where I am or seeing a tree.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Good Friday

Post by Harbal »

Dontaskme wrote:
Walker wrote:
- Consciousness of the tree is a mirror of the tree.
Yes, this is correct. I'm just trying to get Harbal to see this.
It's not a mirror image of the tree, it's a reconstituted representation of the tree, I'm just trying to get you to see this.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Good Friday

Post by Dontaskme »

Harbal wrote:
Dontaskme wrote: The impression causer being what exatcly?
I can only describe the impression, not what caused it. Maybe a physicist could could give you some kind of answer.
Who is describing? ..doesn't that imply a describer? a creator of the description?

Here you assume the environment is the causer? ..is an object that cannot see be the causer of that which is seen? according to your logic? :?

This mind is able to form impressions because of the data it receives from it's environment, brought to it via the entities senses and processed by the entities brain. The impression in the mind and the source of the data comprising the impression are not the same thing. The impression is just a representation of its cause.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Good Friday

Post by Belinda »

Dontaskme wrote:
Belinda wrote:Dontaskme wrote:
What I mean by ''verb world'' is ..for example: You are not the doer..you are the doing.

Basically there is no one doing anything, there is only doing. There's not one separate single person doing something...in reality there is only ''Everything'' doing something ...which is nothing doing something....meaning there is only doing.

Does that make sense?
It makes sense to me but unless you use standard philosophical terms I cannot be sure that what I guess you mean is what you do mean.
I'll try to paraphrase. I guess that what you mean is deterministic and fatalistic. And as deterministic and fatalistic there is no Free Will, but only the causal necessity of nature.

Do you think that if everyone believed " Basically there is no one doing anything, there is only doing." there would be less suffering in the world?
Dontaskme:Yes, that's the whole purpose of unconditional love taught by Jesus is to eliminate suffering from our lives. And to realise, remember,that no one ever suffered.

Belinda: I doubt if you know what Jesus taught. I will not remember anything as nonsensical as that nobody ever suffered.



Dam: There is pain, which is intelligent itself as the perfect indicator that there is something wrong with the good. There's nothing bad about pain, but when identification with the pain is issued by a thought, it becomes ''my pain'' not ''your pain'' and that is the suffering.


Belinda: Pain is not intelligent. Your use of English is aimed at mystification. Again! There is no possible doubt that pain is felt by the subject of the pain experience as you very well know.

Dam: Pain and suffering are not the same thing.

Belinda: I agree.

Dam: Notice the body does not suffer, the arm that is broken does not suffer the pain of a broken arm. Because an arm does not know it exists. Conscious knowing is awareness, awareness does not suffer either, only the mind suffers when it claims this is my pain. when in truth it's awarenesses pain only which does not suffer. Awareness knows that although pain comes and goes, it can never effect it.

Belinda: The word you want is 'affect' not 'effect'. What you mean to say is that conscious people can be aware of pain, and pain is all in the mind.

Dam: There is the appearance of free will. But nature will always determine the outcome of any free will take, and will act responsibly as a guide toward the right, the just, and the good... it's an intelligent universal natural law.


Belinda: No, it is not a natural law that nature cares about the right, the just, and the good. Nature doesn't care. Some mammals and birds care sometimes: nature as a whole doesn't care.


Dam: Nature doesn't intend to act, an act is taken as free will demands, the action is unitary, any reaction is the suffering of identification with the action.

Belinda: True, nature cannot have intentions. What you mean by the rest of your sentence is that a sentient creature suffers only as the effect of what they do of their own free will.

Note: I don't agree with your claims. I feel challenged to make sense of what you write. A general piece of advice to you is to write what you think in your own words
and don't try to parrot a garbled version of something someone told you.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Good Friday

Post by Dontaskme »

Harbal wrote: Therefore, I think it is for you to prove this is not the case, rather than for me to have to prove it is.
I notice how you keep passing the buck back to me.. and the reason being is because you are just too lazy to figure this out for yourself. I cannot get you to see this...I can only point you to it by using signposts ..inadequate as words are, they are a poor substitute, as the words are not what we are talking about, but what they point to.....so it is you yourself that has to ultimately see this.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Good Friday

Post by Harbal »

Dontaskme wrote:
Who is describing? ..doesn't that imply a describer? a creator of the description?
I am describing and the creator of the description is me.
Here you assume the environment is the causer? ..is an object that cannot see be the causer of that which is seen?
Yes, of course it can.

You are just going round in circles, I've indulged your stupidity for long enough now.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Good Friday

Post by Dontaskme »

Harbal wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:
Walker wrote:
- Consciousness of the tree is a mirror of the tree.
Yes, this is correct. I'm just trying to get Harbal to see this.
It's not a mirror image of the tree, it's a reconstituted representation of the tree, I'm just trying to get you to see this.
Re.. as in Re-flection... the effect being the cause of the effect.

How can an effect be the causer of the effect if it can't see what it is causing?

So where do get the 'I' in I see from?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Good Friday

Post by Harbal »

Dontaskme wrote: I notice how you keep passing the buck back to me.. and the reason being is because you are just too lazy to figure this out for yourself. I cannot get you to see this...I can only point you to it by using signposts ..inadequate as words are, they are a poor substitute, as the words are not what we are talking about, but what they point to.....so it is you yourself that has to ultimately see this.
Dontask, you have the mind of a child.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Good Friday

Post by Dontaskme »

Harbal wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:
Who is describing? ..doesn't that imply a describer? a creator of the description?
I am describing and the creator of the description is me.
Here you assume the environment is the causer? ..is an object that cannot see be the causer of that which is seen?
Yes, of course it can.

You are just going round in circles, I've indulged your stupidity for long enough now.
The object can only be the subject objectifying itself. The object cannot subjectify itself...Life can only come from life, not dead stuff.

The subject is One.

Hope you see that.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Good Friday

Post by Dontaskme »

Harbal wrote: Dontask, you have the mind of a child.
Yes, the intellect will never get this.

I knew from the minute the adults tried to ram down my throat the lies that they were not what I am.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Good Friday

Post by Dontaskme »

Harbal wrote:
I am describing and the creator of the description is me.
So it's ok to call the creator ''me'' but not the mind, because according to the ''me'...we don't know what the mind is...although we know what ''me'' is.

Well, I guess that makes perfect sense...thanks for the discussion anyway... and it's not stupidity, it's just discussion that's all. Stop attacking the mirror that cannot fight back. It's just a reflector of what you put in it.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Good Friday

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Harbal wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Apparently he is above such mundane earthling trivialities as making sense.
But why go on about it at the lengths he does if he doesn't care that nobody knows what he's talking about? He seems to think his words will automatically mean something simply because he's said them, despite the fact that he's repeatedly been told there's more to it than that.
The loved-up child of light can be quite earthling-like at times: ''why not just piss off if you don't like it?''
Post Reply