Re: How

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:51 pm

jackles wrote:blags you have a way of localising all philosophy to your experience.this habit is a test for any one trying to find a common .you seem to be assuming .

No I don't think so locality is at a location, non locality is not locational, you can't have your cake and eat it, it makes no sense.

My experiences are my experiences whether they could be non local is beside the point, as it has yet to be proven or argued logically. Q.E.D.

A holographic idea is all very well but it seems to be precluded by experiment atm, although there are always loopholes, people will argue ad mortem, and there's no reason why they shouldn't but it's still twaddle until they can demonstrate it.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:34 pm

blags the whole idea of buddism is to get rid of attachment to location.that is to achieve a feel that you are something more than an automatum of attachment to and in an event.virtue is the means to that end .to end that vice of attachment.the unmoving thing is not attached to the moving thing although it is both the maker and mover of all moving localised things.

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:43 pm

jackles wrote:blags the whole idea of buddism is to get rid of attachment to location.that is to achieve a feel that you are something more than an automatum of attachment to and in an event.virtue is the means to that end .to end that vice of attachment.the unmoving thing is not attached to the moving thing although it is both the maker and mover of all moving localised things.

No the whole idea of Buddhism is to get rid of the attachments and chains that bind you to mortality, to make you free from those deceptions that are merely desire. You can't just pervert a religion like that, it is not your playground to make false statements about non locality, Buddhists don't believe what you do any more than Taoists or Confuscionists or Shintoists do, this is your idea.

I can understand why you have got trapped in this non local idea, but your idea is just nonsense, it makes no sense does not pertain to any religion fundamentally and is just YOUR idea. I know well there is no use arguing with people about beliefs even if they are completely illogical, so I will leave our contention at that and hope you make a better argument in the future, but for now there's nothing to be served by talking around in circles, we have already said all we need to say, your choice to go on believing illogical nonsense is of course yours, good luck with that.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm

thats exactly what i am saying by getting rid of the chains of attachment of mortality which has to be a localised feeling of identity.one achieves nonlocal id.blags its not me who made this theory up you can google it.

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:02 pm

jackles wrote:thats exactly what i am saying by getting rid of the chains of attachment of mortality which has to be a localised feeling of identity.one achieves nonlocal id.blags its not me who made this theory up you can google it.

I am sure I can but it has nothing to do with religion and it probably makes no sense none the less. I don't see how you resolved your paradox though and I suppose I am not meant to, it is at the end of the day your belief not mine or any religions. As I say good luck with that, it's none of my affair.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:11 pm

blags .religions are at the end of the day talkin about love.love is sizeless and nonlocal of its self to any local event.its not man or woman and if you break a rock open it is there because you the observer are there every thing is made of consciousness.

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:15 pm

jackles wrote:blags .religions are at the end of the day talkin about love.love is sizeless and nonlocal of its self to any local event.its not man or woman and if you break a rock open it is there because you the observer are there every thing is made of consciousness.

Yeah whatever dude, do one, it's bs. No offence but if talking utter nonsense gets you off you do that. I am sure at some point someone will care as much as you do, but you are not making sense atm.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:30 pm

blags im havimg the last word here.nonlocality ha ja.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:07 pm

jackles wrote:can you blame the religious for rebuffing darwin when all there natural instincts push them to that rebuffing. ...

My mistake, I meant you as the religious. As has been pointed out to you, its only some sects of the religions that rebuff Darwin and in the main they tend not to understand that what they are rebuffing is a straw man. Are you one of these? Do you believe that the Darwinist say Man is descended from Chimps or Apes?

and there instincts are right.

They have no 'instincts', they take their cue from Authority. The same one that said the Sun moved around the Earth(please don't write in and say it depends where you stand, I know but I stand by mass size as the definer) and by 'instinct' that was also correct.

not that darwin was wrong but that dawins theories bring us to a critical point.

Can you say what that is?

darwin is right religions are right.both are right.how can they both be right.

Not sure what you mean by 'right' in this instance but it could be because they are not talking about the same thing.

nonlocality as omni presents thats how.just because you cant comprehend that doesnt make it wrong.it has to be right.the un moving thing moves the moving things.befor e time and space was the unmoving thing was.the unmoving thing existed before the moving thing existed.the nonlocal pre existed the local.that is logic.

And its been discussed a whole to better in Philosophy already. Try actually reading Leibniz, Kant and Spinoza. Barring that try the Scholastics.

The problem you have is that applying this logic means that your unmoved mover or uncaused cause must also be a moving thing or cause with its own unmoving mover or uncaused cause. Of course you can say we can't infer past the first one but then you'd also have to say we can't infer anything else about 'it'. So this;

the unmoving thing is the consciousness of the relativity between objects..and the consciousness of qm as an indistinguishable omni presents to all events.regs jackles.consciousness has awareness of its sizeless self .crikey !

is all hearsay.

Update your metaphysics and enter the world of Zuse, Fredkin, Bostrum, et al. maybe even go the Transhumanist route.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:23 pm

the critical point is dna and how consciousness relates to dna. local construct of dna relating to nonlocality.

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:30 pm

DNA is encoded according to quantum principles at an enzyme level as I remember some Boffins at NASA proved it in an article including a Nobel prize winner in the team, so it seems pretty reputable, I seem to remember there's probably a paper floating around the ether on it too; the enzymes use the odd behaviour to more quickly find strings of DNA to replicate. That however does not equate to consciousness although it does probably explain why mistakes happen in encoding of strands. Memories are retuned by use of a process called methylisation of DNA, obviously accumulating errors over time, which explains why they are often found to be faulty or false. At the quantum level our being is quite random, at the macro level we don't notice though, programmed to see things as they are not necessarily. Which probably explains why most people can't explain quantum mechanical properties very well, or at least they seem at odds with classical or common sense notions of cause and effect. Reality is weird...

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:09 pm

yes and will we ever get beond this point of saying in qm terms reality is wierd.i think we can say that qm is wierd and because of this the status quoe of the universe in terms of metaphysics remains the same.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:54 pm

jackles wrote:the critical point is dna and how consciousness relates to dna. local construct of dna relating to nonlocality.

Why? All living things have DNA but not all are conscious in the same way and especially not in our way, so why look to DNA to explain consciousness. Why not look at the CNS as the source as most things with such a thing appear to be more like our consciousness than those without.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:53 pm

because consciousness as is it is normaly understood directly relates to the dna construct of brains.i believe all consciousness is the exact same consciousness but with different brains sourcing it.in other words the brain deals with 3 or 4 dimensions.inside another dimension which is consciousness which is limitless.

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:57 pm

jackles wrote:because consciousness as is it is normaly understood directly relates to the dna construct of brains.i believe all consciousness is the exact same consciousness but with different brains sourcing it.in other words the brain deals with 3 or 4 dimensions.inside another dimension which is consciousness which is limitless.

What country are you from Jackles and I only mean that in a context way, but would be interested to know none the less?