Is any purported work of sacred scripture the word of God?

[Greylorn Ell]

...
No, Ar_UK has not read it and is unlikely to do so. That is fine with me. He does not peruse my posts before replying to them, and the same reading style applied to the book will leave him ignorant of its content. I'd like to be able to bundle copies of "Digital Universe..." with Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book." Arising is curious though, and IMO is on an honest search for truth. He'll read DUAS after I'm dead, claim that he conversed with that annoying, arrogant old fart, and privately wish he'd have done so at a higher level while I was alive.

I read the posts where you reply to me. It's too much to read all of a persons posts and personally I prefer to have one-to-one conversations.

I well understand how to read a book as I've been doing so from a young-age and the one thing about a philosophy degree is that you learn to read very closely and over a vast range of thoughts. Because of this I find it doubtful that I'll read your book as I really can't be bothered to wade through the polemics I've seen so far to get to the thought and since its apparently a religious metaphysics based upon physics I find it not to my interest.

Auk,
I'd been reading since I was four years old, and also thought that I knew how. Dr. Adler's book was a revelation, and has changed the way that I read everything.

Since you've read the core of my book on line already, you should be able to answer all the questions you've previously posed. So they must have been posed to either waste my time or set me up. I submit that you've done a piss poor job of reading it, given that you cannot tell the difference between religion and theology.

Because my explanation of things involves the interaction between conscious, highly intelligent minds and the stuff of the universe, it is necessary to develop the properties that such minds must have, and determine a sensible origin for their existence. That is theology, not religion.

An honest theology would limit itself to the nature and properties of a creator, and that's what I do. And yes, I do so in the context of physics instead of bullshit. "Philosopher" wanna-be's who imagine that they can understand anything about existence without learning physics are too foolish and simpleminded to bother with, no different from conventional religionists, insufficiently informed to discuss anything more complex than sports and movies.

Religions get invented when humans come up with a primitive theology involving extraordinarily powerful and intelligent gods, and then get the notion that they are qualified to understand why those gods would have bothered to create a universe, much less a batch of confused humans.

I'm aware that in years to come after others have read DUAS, there will be no end of nitwits trying to use my unique theology to invent more religions. So later, in parts of the book you've not read, I did my best to get them a leg up on their work by offering four different answers to the motivation questions that my unusual theology raises. So I've offered, in effect, four different religions. I also stated my personal favorite, and proposed in the book that more-imaginative writers will have much more fun with these possibilities.

Now, I have a few questions for you, which you will be able to answer if you've read the first eight chapters and understood them.

1. What is the one property that beon must have in order to develop consciousness?

2. What components of the physical universe are not a form of energy?

3. I mention a simple characteristic of humans that everyone is aware of, that does not exist in animals, and explain it using Beon Theory. What is that characteristic?

Q1 can be answered in fewer than 10 words, Q2 and Q3 in a single word. Ideally you will be able to answer these simple questions off the top of your mind, without going back to the text. Thus I anticipate a customarily prompt response, with correct answers, of course. However, I'd be delighted if you can answer those questions at all, however long it takes, because then, and only then, you and I can have an honest conversation.

It makes no difference to me whether you like my ideas or not-- in fact, I'd prefer that you did not. However, no one is qualified to either like or dislike an idea which he does not understand. Such understanding is the only basis for a coherent conversation about the merits of ideas.

[Blaggard]

How to make an Ikea religion. Great, as if we didn't have enough mad cults in the world blowing up buildings and proclaiming their God has by far and a way the largest phallus, someone has to print an instruction manual on how to end up at Wako being shot at by the FBI or TFA or SWAT and eventually taking a cyanide cocktail. I don't really think you are helping anyone Grey. No offence...

"In years to come there will be many false prophets"

Jesus H Christ.

It makes no difference to me whether you like my ideas or not-- in fact, I'd prefer that you did not. However, no one is qualified to either like or dislike an idea which he does not understand. Such understanding is the only basis for a coherent conversation about the merits of ideas.

I am starting to revise my opinions about anyone being entitled to one. Opinions are like assholes everyone has one, it does not mean you should exclusively talk shit out of it.

I dislike your views, on 2 bases, they add nothing, they are unlikely to promote any sort of wellness in the current human condition.

Ah wait 3 and they are completely unprovable and always will be.

I know I am just a troll, blah, blah ferking blah. But I can assure you trolls are out to incite and care about your mental status, I on the other hand care about nothing other than pointing out your inaccuracies.

1. What is the one property that beon must have in order to develop consciousness?

2. What components of the physical universe are not a form of energy?

3. I mention a simple characteristic of humans that everyone is aware of, that does not exist in animals, and explain it using Beon Theory. What is that characteristic?

1) A large ego, and a will to control, free will being subservient, and a need to control the human race via their alien powers and their servants on Earth called the Illuminati.

2) none at least none that are not related to it.

3) Delusions of superiority and grandeur, aka egomania in some who seek power, a drive to socially condition others as a means to control hence our very obvious nack of being controlled by anyone who knows a few psychological tricks and hypnosis, a drive to kill and harm others for things that are not about survival, a tribal set up, that is not about the groups well being per se. A need and will to dominate or be dominated by others, and a need to know boundaries, a means to rebel and not serve the groups common purpose, and an ability to do so regardless of their social or alpha, beta, gamma status amongst the pack.

Since beon theory is not a theory or even a hypothesis it is not possible to explain why human beings are a bit tragic using it. So I wont.

[Greylorn Ell]

He'll read DUAS after I'm dead, claim that he conversed with that annoying, arrogant old fart, and privately wish he'd have done so at a higher level while I was alive.

LoL

By the way. when i say science im not talking about people , but the method.
Emotion in science method used by man is seen in so many places.
Oppenheimers " i have become death, destroyer of worlds" and Bainbridges reply " now we are all sons of bitches"
Maybe the most well known.
A measure of passion is a good thing in learning and discovery. The desire and imagination is fundamental to our species.
And has for good or bad, taken us from root grubbing tribal life to what we have now.

The emotionless application of science the method was truly blown away [excuse the pun] in new mexico when "The Gadget" An implosion plutonium design " used on Nagasaki" Fat man..
detonated at 05:29:21 july 16 1945.

I'll check amazon out for Digital,,,,,,,[good title name btw.]
As a reader with manyyy thousands "the number is lost in the stacks" packed into this meat computer called my tired old brain.
I have my way of reading.
Suffice it to say if i can read Kants "critique of pure reason" your book HAS to be a walk in park.

If i wrote a book it would be more like Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World . [the movie]
I do love a good adventure.
Aubrey's joke to passionate and overserious naturalist and scientist Dr Maturin.

Capt. Jack Aubrey: If you had to choose. If you were forced to make a choice. If there was no other response...
Dr. Stephen Maturin: [Exasperated] Well then if you are going to *push* me...
[the doctor studies the weevils briefly]
Dr. Stephen Maturin: ...I would choose the right hand weevil; it has... significant advantage in both length and breadth.
[the captain thumps his fist in the table]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: There, I have you! You're completely dished! Do you not know that in the service...
[pauses]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: ...one must always choose the lesser of two weevils.
[the officers burst out in laughter]

As in life
If we all chose the lesser or two weevils. Human history would be vastly different.

Prill

Prill,
This is an entertaining and instructive post. I only have one working ear, and it operates with an attenuated bandwidth that has trouble with Brit accents, so when I watched M & C I missed the joke. Thanks! I'll watch it again so as to appreciate the leadups.

You wrote, "Suffice it to say if i can read Kants "critique of pure reason" your book HAS to be a walk in park." That depends upon what you mean by "park."

Kant is way smarter than me, and he had different interests coming from a background where our knowledge (and his) about the mechanisms of our universe were in their early stages of development. My park is different from his, and reading my book does mean walking in my park. And I do have one, since I live in the boonies.

My walks in my park start with a quarter mile of dirt road, where I sometimes encounter a car or pedestrians exploring the territory outside the campground to which they've driven and parked. I then walk through the campground, avoiding its tenants, crossing a little bridge that leads from campground into a nice forest service trail, an easy trail with steps made from old railroad ties leading up into some mountains, through a bit of acacia brush that will scratch the hide.

The trail threads through elevations higher than a mile, and includes a few benches along the way, because flatlanders only think that they have the same endurance at that altitude. I walk that trail with a pistol in one pocket because there are rattlesnakes in these mountains. I also carry a knife to cut out the flesh from a bite site, because rattlers are evolving without rattles (humans are too stupid to realize that the noise they make says, go away and leave me alone, and I'll return the favor by eating rodents, so they shoot snakes that only wish to mind their own business).

My trail has ups and downs and wends through diverse territory. It also has branches, some marked, some discouraged by the placement of a row of easily stepped-over rocks. There are no structured benches on the branch trails, which wind higher into the mountains, and through denser brush, but there are plenty of boulders to park one's ass on, take a breather, water, maybe even a picnic lunch, and marvel at the wonder of your own existence. Or, just drink beer.

The best thing about those trails is that if you happen to meet a tourist up there, he will most likely be a kindred spirit.

What I'm saying here is that Kant's park is safe, formal, and nicely laid out, full of people walking their dogs, and therefore littered with dog shit. My park is different, and the only dog sign I've found on its paths are some big dog's bones. A first time visitor who thinks that he does not need to sit on the benches (end of chapters) will miss the content. So, please, as you read, stop and communicate.

[Blaggard]

What I'm saying here is that Kant's park is safe, formal, and nicely laid out, full of people walking their dogs, and therefore littered with dog shit. My park is different, and the only dog sign I've found on its paths are some big dog's bones. A first time visitor who thinks that he does not need to sit on the benches (end of chapters) will miss the content. So, please, as you read, stop and communicate.

See Kant's park is safe from dog eggs or as you say full of them, another nonsense, that is not what he said remotely but you are using a straw man to attack it; you're abusing his arguments because you never really got them.

A first time visitor will miss nothing, a first time visitor is not some numb nut. The subject you propose to enlighten people on must be sound, but it seems you have no more right to expose philosophy than you have to expose science.

The notions of criticism, Kant's duty based ethics, the moral majority, the realism, ie that it may or may not be empirical are all important to his overriding thesis, but then I doubt you ever read Kant any more than you learned about biology, so this word salad is the usual uninformed bias of a person who indulges in speculation without actually learning the subject. Grey you are really not going to convince anyone by these means, learn philosophy, learn biology and then preach about it. Else you are just farting in the wind and trying to catch the smell as it blows past. And no offence this sort of thing is neither big or clever. Despite how clever you imagine yourself to be.

Genuinely I am not getting at you for the sake of it, it's just your reason is gebrochen and verkackt.

[Arising_uk]

...Auk,
I'd been reading since I was four years old, and also thought that I knew how. Dr. Adler's book was a revelation, and has changed the way that I read everything....

Did you keep reading? As I'm still reading at 54 but I will take a look at Dr Adler's book as anything concerning the improvement of ones abilities is of interest to me.

Since you've read the core of my book on line already, you should be able to answer all the questions you've previously posed. So they must have been posed to either waste my time or set me up. I submit that you've done a piss poor job of reading it, given that you cannot tell the difference between religion and theology.

Theology is the justification of the religious mind.

Because my explanation of things involves the interaction between conscious, highly intelligent minds and the stuff of the universe, it is necessary to develop the properties that such minds must have, and determine a sensible origin for their existence. That is theology, not religion.

Nope, that is metaphysics and a certain type of phil of mind.

An honest theology would limit itself to the nature and properties of a creator, and that's what I do. And yes, I do so in the context of physics instead of bullshit.

Like I said, a justification of the presumption that there is a singular 'creator' from ones current cultural box.

"Philosopher" wanna-be's who imagine that they can understand anything about existence without learning physics are too foolish and simpleminded to bother with, no different from conventional religionists, insufficiently informed to discuss anything more complex than sports and movies.

Much like physicists who think they can be metaphysicians without reading any philosophy. So you are talking about wanna-be metaphysicians whereas in philosophy some of us have read Kant to understand why not and Leibniz to understand how, if one considers oneself a natural philosopher that is.

Religions get invented when humans come up with a primitive theology involving extraordinarily powerful and intelligent gods, and then get the notion that they are qualified to understand why those gods would have bothered to create a universe, much less a batch of confused humans.

No, religions get invented when humans come up with a metaphysics and ontology to explain the phenomena, theology is what happens afterwards.

I'm aware that in years to come after others have read DUAS, there will be no end of nitwits trying to use my unique theology to invent more religions. So later, in parts of the book you've not read, I did my best to get them a leg up on their work by offering four different answers to the motivation questions that my unusual theology raises. So I've offered, in effect, four different religions. I also stated my personal favorite, and proposed in the book that more-imaginative writers will have much more fun with these possibilities.

What's ironic is that you truly don't understand what it takes to create a new religion. Which is no surprise as you are just trying to justify the one you inherited from the cultural box you are in. Try L. Ron for how it's done.

Now, I have a few questions for you, which you will be able to answer if you've read the first eight chapters and understood them. ...

Why would you think this? As I've told you, I couldn't get past your polemics and exaggerations. For example, "The idea of a single Creator was invented several millennia ago", just nonsense and as such I find it impossible, due to a philosophical training, to be bothered to get past such stuff.

1. What is the one property that beon must have in order to develop consciousness?

To not exist?

2. What components of the physical universe are not a form of energy?

I've read your explanation of 'energy' and Newtons laws and I think you stretch his case. That you wish to call it a nickname just shows, to me, that you're trying to make it fit your religious beliefs.

3. I mention a simple characteristic of humans that everyone is aware of, that does not exist in animals, and explain it using Beon Theory. What is that characteristic?

No idea but for me it could be numerous things, opposable thumbs, self-consciousness, intentionality, laughter, tears, take your pick. Although I guess you mean 'handedness'.

Q1 can be answered in fewer than 10 words, Q2 and Q3 in a single word. Ideally you will be able to answer these simple questions off the top of your mind, without going back to the text. Thus I anticipate a customarily prompt response, with correct answers, of course. However, I'd be delighted if you can answer those questions at all, however long it takes, because then, and only then, you and I can have an honest conversation.

It's only you who has been dishonest apparently.

It makes no difference to me whether you like my ideas or not-- in fact, I'd prefer that you did not. However, no one is qualified to either like or dislike an idea which he does not understand. Such understanding is the only basis for a coherent conversation about the merits of ideas.

Your likes or dislikes are immaterial to me. Personally I prefer talking to those who can explain their ideas without all the bluster.

[Greylorn Ell]

...Auk,
I'd been reading since I was four years old, and also thought that I knew how. Dr. Adler's book was a revelation, and has changed the way that I read everything....

Did you keep reading? As I'm still reading at 54 but I will take a look at Dr Adler's book as anything concerning the improvement of ones abilities is of interest to me.

Since you've read the core of my book on line already, you should be able to answer all the questions you've previously posed. So they must have been posed to either waste my time or set me up. I submit that you've done a piss poor job of reading it, given that you cannot tell the difference between religion and theology.

Theology is the justification of the religious mind.

Because my explanation of things involves the interaction between conscious, highly intelligent minds and the stuff of the universe, it is necessary to develop the properties that such minds must have, and determine a sensible origin for their existence. That is theology, not religion.

Nope, that is metaphysics and a certain type of phil of mind.

An honest theology would limit itself to the nature and properties of a creator, and that's what I do. And yes, I do so in the context of physics instead of bullshit.

Like I said, a justification of the presumption that there is a singular 'creator' from ones current cultural box.

"Philosopher" wanna-be's who imagine that they can understand anything about existence without learning physics are too foolish and simpleminded to bother with, no different from conventional religionists, insufficiently informed to discuss anything more complex than sports and movies.

Much like physicists who think they can be metaphysicians without reading any philosophy. So you are talking about wanna-be metaphysicians whereas in philosophy some of us have read Kant to understand why not and Leibniz to understand how, if one considers oneself a natural philosopher that is.

Religions get invented when humans come up with a primitive theology involving extraordinarily powerful and intelligent gods, and then get the notion that they are qualified to understand why those gods would have bothered to create a universe, much less a batch of confused humans.

No, religions get invented when humans come up with a metaphysics and ontology to explain the phenomena, theology is what happens afterwards.

I'm aware that in years to come after others have read DUAS, there will be no end of nitwits trying to use my unique theology to invent more religions. So later, in parts of the book you've not read, I did my best to get them a leg up on their work by offering four different answers to the motivation questions that my unusual theology raises. So I've offered, in effect, four different religions. I also stated my personal favorite, and proposed in the book that more-imaginative writers will have much more fun with these possibilities.

What's ironic is that you truly don't understand what it takes to create a new religion. Which is no surprise as you are just trying to justify the one you inherited from the cultural box you are in. Try L. Ron for how it's done.

Now, I have a few questions for you, which you will be able to answer if you've read the first eight chapters and understood them. ...

Why would you think this? As I've told you, I couldn't get past your polemics and exaggerations. For example, "The idea of a single Creator was invented several millennia ago", just nonsense and as such I find it impossible, due to a philosophical training, to be bothered to get past such stuff.

1. What is the one property that beon must have in order to develop consciousness?

To not exist?

2. What components of the physical universe are not a form of energy?

I've read your explanation of 'energy' and Newtons laws and I think you stretch his case. That you wish to call it a nickname just shows, to me, that you're trying to make it fit your religious beliefs.

3. I mention a simple characteristic of humans that everyone is aware of, that does not exist in animals, and explain it using Beon Theory. What is that characteristic?

No idea but for me it could be numerous things, opposable thumbs, self-consciousness, intentionality, laughter, tears, take your pick. Although I guess you mean 'handedness'.

Q1 can be answered in fewer than 10 words, Q2 and Q3 in a single word. Ideally you will be able to answer these simple questions off the top of your mind, without going back to the text. Thus I anticipate a customarily prompt response, with correct answers, of course. However, I'd be delighted if you can answer those questions at all, however long it takes, because then, and only then, you and I can have an honest conversation.

It's only you who has been dishonest apparently.

It makes no difference to me whether you like my ideas or not-- in fact, I'd prefer that you did not. However, no one is qualified to either like or dislike an idea which he does not understand. Such understanding is the only basis for a coherent conversation about the merits of ideas.

Your likes or dislikes are immaterial to me. Personally I prefer talking to those who can explain their ideas without all the bluster.

Auk,

I'd have been happy with one fairly correct answer out of three, and you scored a perfect zero. Whatever you think you read, please don't attribute it to me.

The main point of the previous post was to determine if you had actually perused the portion of my book that you got to read for free. Obviously you have not done so, and have no understanding of my ideas. I cannot determine the cause of this. Could be from disinterest, prior-programming, or insufficient intelligence, three interrelated properties of the human mind. There is no point in further replies to you.

[Blaggard]

Auk,

I'd have been happy with one fairly correct answer out of three, and you scored a perfect zero. Whatever you think you read, please don't attribute it to me.

The main point of the previous post was to determine if you had actually perused the portion of my book that you got to read for free. Obviously you have not done so, and have no understanding of my ideas. I cannot determine the cause of this. Could be from disinterest, prior-programming, or insufficient intelligence, three interrelated properties of the human mind. There is no point in further replies to you.

Probably because most people have better things to do than read pseudo psychological religious bullshit from someone who is discernibly not right in the head.

No one understands your ideas, except you, because they are delusional fantasy and contain not an iota of logic or rational argument.

My answers were 3/3 because lets face it that's really what you are talking about, the flowing non sequitur factory based on a priori fantasy streams on like a river of bullshit cascading over a cataract of nonsense...

[Arising_uk]

...
Auk,

I'd have been happy with one fairly correct answer out of three, and you scored a perfect zero. Whatever you think you read, please don't attribute it to me. ...

Is that right, so handedness is not a unique feature then?

The main point of the previous post was to determine if you had actually perused the portion of my book that you got to read for free. Obviously you have not done so, and have no understanding of my ideas. I cannot determine the cause of this. Could be from disinterest, prior-programming, or insufficient intelligence, three interrelated properties of the human mind. There is no point in further replies to you.

Like most of your ilk you are a selective reader. I told you that I have not perused what there is available of your book as once I read obvious polemic propaganda in what purports to be a philosophical treatise I find myself disinclined to proceed to whatever meat there may be and so far it seems far and few between. Your idea that the universe is one substance with two interacting states is not new, we have a poster on this forum, Cerverny, who makes a much more interesting crystalline analogy of your 'aeon'/'beon' substance and uses the idea of a 'phase-change state' and entropy to make a model of our 'universe' with respect to this 'substance'. Your idea of a transmission/receiver model of consciousness is also old news. That you state Occams Razor and then add this 'beon' entity to explain consciousness seems incongruous? Whilst I do find myself agreeing with some of your words(although not many) I think that on the whole, in what is available, there is very little that one can actually use in a philosophical or, I suspect, a scientific sense. If you want to see what a true metaphysical ontology looks like you could do worse(and you have) than this - http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... eibniz.htm

[Greylorn Ell]

Is that right, so handedness is not a unique feature then?

Auk,

My mistake. I stopped reading your answer amid the first string of guesses, and neglected to read the handedness statement. You get 1 of 3. Kindly accept my apology for the sloppy reading job-- the same thing that I've accused you of.

[Greylorn Ell]

Like most of your ilk you are a selective reader. I told you that I have not perused what there is available of your book as once I read obvious polemic propaganda in what purports to be a philosophical treatise I find myself disinclined to proceed to whatever meat there may be and so far it seems far and few between. Your idea that the universe is one substance with two interacting states is not new, we have a poster on this forum, Cerverny, who makes a much more interesting crystalline analogy of your 'aeon'/'beon' substance and uses the idea of a 'phase-change state' and entropy to make a model of our 'universe' with respect to this 'substance'. Your idea of a transmission/receiver model of consciousness is also old news. That you state Occams Razor and then add this 'beon' entity to explain consciousness seems incongruous? Whilst I do find myself agreeing with some of your words(although not many) I think that on the whole, in what is available, there is very little that one can actually use in a philosophical or, I suspect, a scientific sense. If you want to see what a true metaphysical ontology looks like you could do worse(and you have) than this - http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... eibniz.htm

I read the first 20 points of Leibnitz' material, which seems consistent with what I'd learned about his monad theory before. It seems unnecessarily cumbersome, especially when compared to Beon Theory. Many of his statements are plainly incorrect, such as his notions about analyzing a machine that can perceive sensory information, which seem well contradicted by the existence of brains and computers.

He has an interesting take on perception though, and I intend to study it further. He mentions the concept of a creator, but so far as I've read this is mostly implied. I shall have to study further to determine the particulars of this concept as he uses it, and will be reading in search of useful ideas. So thanks for the reference! I won't be able to pursue this project for at least a month.

I am a bit surprised that, with Leibnitz' theory in mind, you did not see the simplifications and improvements offered by Beon Theory. Perhaps my style put you off. I made no attempt to write the kind of formal philosophy book you may have expected. I see my potential audience as ordinary but intelligent people who are interested in ideas about the nature of consciousness, and perhaps its purpose, and remain unsatisfied with existing ideas from religion and science, as well as philosophy.

I have found that individuals who have experienced some kind of paranormal shift in consciousness, usually something that beforehand they completely denied as a possibility, tend to be interested in ideas like mine. Out-of-body and near-death experiences are the most striking and convincing.

[Blaggard]

Is that right, so handedness is not a unique feature then?

Auk,

My mistake. I stopped reading your answer amid the first string of guesses, and neglected to read the handedness statement. You get 1 of 3. Kindly accept my apology for the sloppy reading job-- the same thing that I've accused you of.

I got 3/3 didn't I, no you don't have to post it, just say nothing if I got 3/3.

Blaggard winning the interweb since 1982.


I get the impression you tend to stop reading if someone does not agree with you.

ETA: see hubris further down*

[Lifestyle Business]

God is that omniscient, omnipotent who can devise a puzzle so abstruse even he himself can't solve it.
Therefore, the only reliable test of a scripture is: it's written by God if no mortal can ever possibly understand it. Anything people can read and interpret was written by people.

I suppose some would argue that if one understands God to be a benign being, then it might follow that the 'true' scripture is the one that actually communicates divine intention clearly, with as little obfuscation as possible.

[Blaggard]

God is that omniscient, omnipotent who can devise a puzzle so abstruse even he himself can't solve it.
Therefore, the only reliable test of a scripture is: it's written by God if no mortal can ever possibly understand it. Anything people can read and interpret was written by people.

I suppose some would argue that if one understands God to be a benign being, then it might follow that the 'true' scripture is the one that actually communicates divine intention clearly, with as little obfuscation as possible.

That would not be The Bible then.