I am right on the topic.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:35 amYou are out of context.
You do not need mind. You ARE mind.
Mind needs 'changing existence' it needs the appearance of 'something' in order to know itself. Appearances can only be known in reference to what otherwise cannot be known.
“No one has lived so close to his skeleton as I have lived to mine: from which results an endless dialogue and certain truths which I manage neither to accept nor to reject.”
Truth needs no proof.
Another proof of mind
Re: Another proof of mind
Re: Another proof of mind
Yes you are right on the topic, therefore there's no need for this right to be proved. Is all I'm saying to you.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:04 pmI am right on the topic.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:35 amYou are out of context.
You do not need mind. You ARE mind.
Mind needs 'changing existence' it needs the appearance of 'something' in order to know itself. Appearances can only be known in reference to what otherwise cannot be known.
“No one has lived so close to his skeleton as I have lived to mine: from which results an endless dialogue and certain truths which I manage neither to accept nor to reject.”
Truth needs no proof.
Proof is only to show another person your right. But even that proof is not needed, for everyone is right.
Re: Another proof of mind
Ok.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:52 pmYes you are right on the topic, therefore there's no need for this right to be proved. Is all I'm saying to you.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:04 pmI am right on the topic.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:35 am
You are out of context.
You do not need mind. You ARE mind.
Mind needs 'changing existence' it needs the appearance of 'something' in order to know itself. Appearances can only be known in reference to what otherwise cannot be known.
“No one has lived so close to his skeleton as I have lived to mine: from which results an endless dialogue and certain truths which I manage neither to accept nor to reject.”
Truth needs no proof.
Proof is only to show another person your right. But even that proof is not needed, for everyone is right.
Re: Another proof of mind
When we tell someone else they are wrong, it's only because their way of seeing something, is not how it is seen from the other's perspective. That doesn't actually mean the other someone is wrong, the other is always right in their own personal knowing. All knowing is an absolute truth, because there is only ''Absolute Truth''.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:24 pmOk.
Lies, are told by the ones who are looking through the wrong end of the telescope, yet, even to say that is an absolute truth.
Everything is ok. It's only not ok, when there's no one around to say it's ok.
Re: Another proof of mind
bahman wrote:
The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".This I know. But this obviously wrong since we are also causes of some events too.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:49 pm
The prime mover did not create the causal chain once and for all and then vanish, but is the constant ground of causes of every event.
The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
Re: Another proof of mind
If what you do is not originated from you then it is originated from God! So our sins also originated from God. Why does God keep us responsible for our actions?Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:05 pm bahman wrote:
Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".This I know. But this obviously wrong since we are also causes of some events too.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:49 pm
The prime mover did not create the causal chain once and for all and then vanish, but is the constant ground of causes of every event.
The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
Re: Another proof of mind
Sin is a human idea. The going ons of the natural world are just the way they are. Sin is a Christian idea, whereby god laid down rules to live by. What I think is, man discovered god in himself, or rather, not separate, and realised to keep in touch with god, he/she had to maintain certain ideals of purity, that is, the body and mind needed to remain pure enough for god to “enter”. Over time, these rules became written in stone, that is, they became cultural norms. But rather than being rules, they were “conditions” for gods appearance in man.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:13 pmIf what you do is not originated from you then it is originated from God! So our sins also originated from God. Why does God keep us responsible for our actions?Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:05 pm bahman wrote:
Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".This I know. But this obviously wrong since we are also causes of some events too.
The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
It also happens that, many of those sins were also important for larger groups and societies to survive without unnecessary conflict and infighting. Therefore such groups would have been stronger, more stable and long lived compared to others. Having rules to ensure stability allowed the continuation of culture, which also contains collective knowledge and tech-knowledgy.
Once those rules became cultural norms, they were imposed on others by an external governing and judging body, and thus, the impetus to self govern was taken from people, instead of those rules being for the purpose of inner spiritual work, they became a way for people to judge others, and by extension, the man made idea of God, the creator of these rules, or the one who seemed to care about them. The funny thing is, one of the very rules was, do not make an idol or image of god. The very thing man was doing in the Christian religion was forming a mental image of what god is. And so, slowly they lost touch with gods reality, being replaced by their mental image of god. The very condition for knowing god, was “sinned” against by Christianity. And so, their religion was stillborn.
Of course over years, individuals regained touch with the truth of the religion, but those individuals tended to keep that truth to themselves, while handing out the stillborn version to the common folk. It became more about controlling the laypeople and not about the truth of god.
Re: Another proof of mind
I agree with what you said.Dimebag wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:46 pmSin is a human idea. The going ons of the natural world are just the way they are. Sin is a Christian idea, whereby god laid down rules to live by. What I think is, man discovered god in himself, or rather, not separate, and realised to keep in touch with god, he/she had to maintain certain ideals of purity, that is, the body and mind needed to remain pure enough for god to “enter”. Over time, these rules became written in stone, that is, they became cultural norms. But rather than being rules, they were “conditions” for gods appearance in man.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:13 pmIf what you do is not originated from you then it is originated from God! So our sins also originated from God. Why does God keep us responsible for our actions?Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:05 pm bahman wrote:
Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".
The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
It also happens that, many of those sins were also important for larger groups and societies to survive without unnecessary conflict and infighting. Therefore such groups would have been stronger, more stable and long lived compared to others. Having rules to ensure stability allowed the continuation of culture, which also contains collective knowledge and tech-knowledgy.
Once those rules became cultural norms, they were imposed on others by an external governing and judging body, and thus, the impetus to self govern was taken from people, instead of those rules being for the purpose of inner spiritual work, they became a way for people to judge others, and by extension, the man made idea of God, the creator of these rules, or the one who seemed to care about them. The funny thing is, one of the very rules was, do not make an idol or image of god. The very thing man was doing in the Christian religion was forming a mental image of what god is. And so, slowly they lost touch with gods reality, being replaced by their mental image of god. The very condition for knowing god, was “sinned” against by Christianity. And so, their religion was stillborn.
Of course over years, individuals regained touch with the truth of the religion, but those individuals tended to keep that truth to themselves, while handing out the stillborn version to the common folk. It became more about controlling the laypeople and not about the truth of god.
Re: Another proof of mind
A man's responsibility is a response to his power and his freedom. If he is relatively powerless he can't be responsible. Freedom and reason give power. For instance we educate children so they can be more free and more reasoning and thence more responsible.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:13 pmIf what you do is not originated from you then it is originated from God! So our sins also originated from God. Why does God keep us responsible for our actions?Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:05 pm bahman wrote:
Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".This I know. But this obviously wrong since we are also causes of some events too.
The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
Re: Another proof of mind
If man has power and freedom then something is originated from him.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:48 amA man's responsibility is a response to his power and his freedom. If he is relatively powerless he can't be responsible. Freedom and reason give power. For instance we educate children so they can be more free and more reasoning and thence more responsible.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:13 pmIf what you do is not originated from you then it is originated from God! So our sins also originated from God. Why does God keep us responsible for our actions?Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:05 pm bahman wrote:
Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".
The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10012
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Another proof of mind
What if one cannot infinitely regress through chaos, perhaps that is where God came from, and then causality came into play, what we comprehend as logic.Dimebag wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:09 am But, the problem or difficulty of appealing to the first causes is, it begs the question of, if you need a first cause then surely this applies to your prime mover, I.e. god also needs a cause.
What is more primary, god, or the demand that everything has a cause?
Re: Another proof of mind
Although, the conclusion is correct there is NO way to refute that the Universe is infinite and eternal.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:40 pm This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.
P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself
P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things
C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover)
C2 The Prime Mover is God (mind in my opinion)
Please note that this is hierarchical/vertical causation which simply asserts that anything changing is contingent and you need God/mind to hold it in changing existence.
When, and if, you ever learn what 'in the beginning' refers to, EXACTLY, then you will understand HOW and WHY thee Universe did NOT begin.
Re: Another proof of mind
By chaos do you mean the ungraspability of complexity? If that is what you mean by chaos then I would agree, the concept of an infinite regress is just that, a concept, not an actual possibility for calculation or discovering antecedent causes.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:04 amWhat if one cannot infinitely regress through chaos, perhaps that is where God came from, and then causality came into play, what we comprehend as logic.Dimebag wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:09 am But, the problem or difficulty of appealing to the first causes is, it begs the question of, if you need a first cause then surely this applies to your prime mover, I.e. god also needs a cause.
What is more primary, god, or the demand that everything has a cause?
What if, we apply the idea of god as, that in which causation occurs? It would seem to me that in that case, god would not require cause, as god would be the totality in which all seeming change occurs.
So then, it would not be that god causes all to happen, but that, god IS causality itself, viewed in the relative sense. In such a perspective, causality is simply what is. As to what started it, if we imagine that time itself began with the first cause, then, to ask a question what caused the first cause does not make sense, because causality requires change, which requires time.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Another proof of mind
"P2," is wrong. Aristotle made the same mistake. Neither understood momentum.
Everything that moves only moves itself and will continue to move unless something prevents it. In actuality, all change (change of position: motion, and change in motion: acceleration) is entirely due to the changing entities own nature. All change is the result of an entity reacting to other entities.
Since, "P2," is a false premise, the entire argument if fallacious.
Re: Another proof of mind
In the case of change in position, the first law of Newton, the object keeps its speed and move with constant speed if it is not forced. This is however just happens in abstraction when there is one object in the whole empty universe. Regardless, you can always choose a framework that the object is static within that framework. In the case of acceleration, however, this is always due to the interaction of objects with other objects. Therefore, P2 is correct.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:37 pm"P2," is wrong. Aristotle made the same mistake. Neither understood momentum.
Everything that moves only moves itself and will continue to move unless something prevents it. In actuality, all change (change of position: motion, and change in motion: acceleration) is entirely due to the changing entities own nature. All change is the result of an entity reacting to other entities.
Since, "P2," is a false premise, the entire argument if fallacious.