Quote:Quote:<hr>Wow. How funny. Are we speaking the same language, or what?
Firstly, how do you infer concrete and abstract equivalence from what I wrote?<hr>
I am glad you agree
Clarification insures maximum possible edification
Edited by: analog57 at: 6/19/05 3:06
Ontological Thought Experiment
Re: OTE with a sharp, Objectivist twist
How many trees does it take to create a "forest"? Edited by: analog57 at: 6/19/05 3:09
Re: OTE with a sharp, Objectivist twist
One needs to adhere to causality, in some fashion.
Causality implies "if then" statements of logic and is conceivably not limited exclusively to temporal processes. Abstract forms are in a sense "timeless".
Abstract forms are invariant under temporal translation, which appears to be very interesting, at least from our "time arrow" perspective. Then we realize that energy itself remains constant in both directions of time so then we see that energy itself is atemporal, in that it remains a constant under many different changes. It can neither be created nor destroyed.
Energy is Abstract
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>It's not a definition of Reality, but rather a logical truth about Reality. It is logically true, and thus beyond all dispute, that Reality is not nothing whatsoever.<hr>
'Pink invisible unicorns are not nothing whatsoever'. By the same rules, this should be logically true too, correct?
Please show me the difference between this thought and that 'Relaity is not nothing whatsoever'.
Quote:Quote:<hr>If you want to know my definition of Reality, it is this: Reality is that which is unchangeable, permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, and responsible for the existence of all things.<hr>
I might agree to all that you have said about "Reality" except IT being responsible for the existence of all things. You have simply removed Reality and placed it above all things. Reality IS ALL THAT THERE IS, not something removed from it all to be responsible for it. By just giving another name to Totality, it does not become more Real, or greater in status.
Edited by: Sapius at: 6/19/05 5:17
Quote:Quote:<hr>It's not a definition of Reality, but rather a logical truth about Reality. It is logically true, and thus beyond all dispute, that Reality is not nothing whatsoever.<hr>
'Pink invisible unicorns are not nothing whatsoever'. By the same rules, this should be logically true too, correct?
Please show me the difference between this thought and that 'Relaity is not nothing whatsoever'.
Quote:Quote:<hr>If you want to know my definition of Reality, it is this: Reality is that which is unchangeable, permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, and responsible for the existence of all things.<hr>
I might agree to all that you have said about "Reality" except IT being responsible for the existence of all things. You have simply removed Reality and placed it above all things. Reality IS ALL THAT THERE IS, not something removed from it all to be responsible for it. By just giving another name to Totality, it does not become more Real, or greater in status.
Edited by: Sapius at: 6/19/05 5:17
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Sapius wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: It's not a definition of Reality, but rather a logical truth about Reality. It is logically true, and thus beyond all dispute, that Reality is not nothing whatsoever.
Sap: 'Pink invisible unicorns are not nothing whatsoever'. By the same rules, this should be logically true too, correct? Please show me the difference between this thought and that 'Relaity is not nothing whatsoever'. <hr> The truth that Reality is not nothing whatsoever is important in the context of people mistakenly arriving at the belief that Emptiness equals nothingness. It can happen that when a person strives to understand the illusory nature of all things, he falls into the trap of thinking that nothing exists at all. It might seem absurd, but people in that situation tend to welcome iron-clad reasoning which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Reality is not nothing whatsoever. And then, once they have established this, they can continue to push on with their philosophical investigations.
The "pink unicorn" analogy doesn't work because we already know that Reality exists by virtute of the fact that we experience a world around us. By contrast, there is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: If you want to know my definition of Reality, it is this: Reality is that which is unchangeable, permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, and responsible for the existence of all things.
Sap: I might agree to all that you have said about "Reality" except IT being responsible for the existence of all things. You have simply removed Reality and placed it above all things. Reality IS ALL THAT THERE IS, not something removed from it all to be responsible for it. By just giving another name to Totality, it does not become more Real, or greater in status. <hr> I've already covered this by stating, in my definition above, that Reality is "everywhere and everywhen". So your objection here has no basis.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: It's not a definition of Reality, but rather a logical truth about Reality. It is logically true, and thus beyond all dispute, that Reality is not nothing whatsoever.
Sap: 'Pink invisible unicorns are not nothing whatsoever'. By the same rules, this should be logically true too, correct? Please show me the difference between this thought and that 'Relaity is not nothing whatsoever'. <hr> The truth that Reality is not nothing whatsoever is important in the context of people mistakenly arriving at the belief that Emptiness equals nothingness. It can happen that when a person strives to understand the illusory nature of all things, he falls into the trap of thinking that nothing exists at all. It might seem absurd, but people in that situation tend to welcome iron-clad reasoning which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Reality is not nothing whatsoever. And then, once they have established this, they can continue to push on with their philosophical investigations.
The "pink unicorn" analogy doesn't work because we already know that Reality exists by virtute of the fact that we experience a world around us. By contrast, there is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: If you want to know my definition of Reality, it is this: Reality is that which is unchangeable, permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, and responsible for the existence of all things.
Sap: I might agree to all that you have said about "Reality" except IT being responsible for the existence of all things. You have simply removed Reality and placed it above all things. Reality IS ALL THAT THERE IS, not something removed from it all to be responsible for it. By just giving another name to Totality, it does not become more Real, or greater in status. <hr> I've already covered this by stating, in my definition above, that Reality is "everywhere and everywhen". So your objection here has no basis.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Their properties differ, but their existence, as a fact, is identical.
analog: The "fact" of existence is a given. That must be accepted as a self evident truth. But the existence of a "singular" human thought and the existence of a mutually, and statistically-invariantly-percieved existence ARE different from each other. <hr> I'm not really sure what you're driving at.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Abstract and concrete, form a complementary duality. <hr> If there were no humans and no abstractions at all, the concrete would still conintue to exist - don't you think?
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Of course, but that doesn't make them any less existent. Thoughts obviously have their limitations, but so does everything else. Trees cannot run and dance, for example, but that doesn't make them any less existent.
analog: Thoughts within a human mind can be categorized as subsets or "sub-realities" of some larger, uniformly perceived reality - both exist as a "fact" but both are categorically different. <hr> If Reality is the totality of all there is, then the concrete world is a mere subset of Reality as well. Moreover, concrete physical object are just as illusory and empty of inherent existence as thoughts are. From this deeper standpoint, there is really no difference between them at all.
Again, I'm really sure what point you are trying to make, other than to reaffirm the standard, conventional view of the world that most people believe in.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Their properties differ, but their existence, as a fact, is identical.
analog: The "fact" of existence is a given. That must be accepted as a self evident truth. But the existence of a "singular" human thought and the existence of a mutually, and statistically-invariantly-percieved existence ARE different from each other. <hr> I'm not really sure what you're driving at.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Abstract and concrete, form a complementary duality. <hr> If there were no humans and no abstractions at all, the concrete would still conintue to exist - don't you think?
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Of course, but that doesn't make them any less existent. Thoughts obviously have their limitations, but so does everything else. Trees cannot run and dance, for example, but that doesn't make them any less existent.
analog: Thoughts within a human mind can be categorized as subsets or "sub-realities" of some larger, uniformly perceived reality - both exist as a "fact" but both are categorically different. <hr> If Reality is the totality of all there is, then the concrete world is a mere subset of Reality as well. Moreover, concrete physical object are just as illusory and empty of inherent existence as thoughts are. From this deeper standpoint, there is really no difference between them at all.
Again, I'm really sure what point you are trying to make, other than to reaffirm the standard, conventional view of the world that most people believe in.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>If Reality is the totality of all there is, then the concrete world is a mere subset of Reality as well. Moreover, concrete physical object are just as illusory and empty of inherent existence as thoughts are. From this deeper standpoint, there is really no difference between them at all.
<hr>
Then when a thing exists in concrete reality it is automatically included in "abstract reality" and/or the understanding. Therefore the existence of a thing in concrete reality is greater than its existence in the understanding alone.
:hat
Logic wins again
<hr>
Then when a thing exists in concrete reality it is automatically included in "abstract reality" and/or the understanding. Therefore the existence of a thing in concrete reality is greater than its existence in the understanding alone.
:hat
Logic wins again
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>The "pink unicorn" analogy doesn't work because we already know that Reality exists by virtute of the fact that we experience a world around us. By contrast, there is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.<hr>
Yes we do experience a world around us but is that a Fact for sure? You just said in another thread that it could be a simulation. So haw can you be sure that it is a fact? It must be convenience of the situation I guess.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I've already covered this by stating, in my definition above, that Reality is "everywhere and everywhen". So your objection here has no basis.<hr>
I don't know, I think "everywhere and everywhen itself IS Reality", rather than the other way around. Especially when you say that Reality is responsible. Do you see the difference?
Quote:Quote:<hr>The "pink unicorn" analogy doesn't work because we already know that Reality exists by virtute of the fact that we experience a world around us. By contrast, there is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.<hr>
Yes we do experience a world around us but is that a Fact for sure? You just said in another thread that it could be a simulation. So haw can you be sure that it is a fact? It must be convenience of the situation I guess.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I've already covered this by stating, in my definition above, that Reality is "everywhere and everywhen". So your objection here has no basis.<hr>
I don't know, I think "everywhere and everywhen itself IS Reality", rather than the other way around. Especially when you say that Reality is responsible. Do you see the difference?
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>analog: Thoughts within a human mind can be categorized as subsets or "sub-realities" of some larger, uniformly perceived reality - both exist as a "fact" but both are categorically different.
DQ: If Reality is the totality of all there is, then the concrete world is a mere subset of Reality as well. Moreover, concrete physical object are just as illusory and empty of inherent existence as thoughts are. From this deeper standpoint, there is really no difference between them at all.
analog: Then when a thing exists in concrete reality it is automatically included in "abstract reality" and/or the understanding. Therefore the existence of a thing in concrete reality is greater than its existence in the understanding alone.<hr>
This flippen quotation mark thing is epidemic. Are they "sub-realities" or sub-realities? If the former, why? "Abstract reality"? You mean, there's no such thing? Or you can't think of a word for the referent?
DQ: If Reality is the totality of all there is, then the concrete world is a mere subset of Reality as well. Moreover, concrete physical object are just as illusory and empty of inherent existence as thoughts are. From this deeper standpoint, there is really no difference between them at all.
analog: Then when a thing exists in concrete reality it is automatically included in "abstract reality" and/or the understanding. Therefore the existence of a thing in concrete reality is greater than its existence in the understanding alone.<hr>
This flippen quotation mark thing is epidemic. Are they "sub-realities" or sub-realities? If the former, why? "Abstract reality"? You mean, there's no such thing? Or you can't think of a word for the referent?
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>This flippen quotation mark thing is epidemic. Are they "sub-realities" or sub-realities? If the former, why? "Abstract reality"? You mean, there's no such thing? Or you can't think of a word for the referent?<hr>
<a href="http://www.unm.edu/~caps/caps-handouts/ ... es.html</a>
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Quotation marks may also be used to call attention to individual words or phrases
<hr>
<a href="http://www.unm.edu/~caps/caps-handouts/ ... es.html</a>
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Quotation marks may also be used to call attention to individual words or phrases
<hr>
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>Quotation marks may also be used to call attention to individual words or phrases<hr>
That doesn't change the "fact" that it's annoying as "hell". The "emphasis" in your head doesn't "translate" well when "other people" read what you type. Also, the "reader" wonders whether you are "quoting something from a book you read" or "whether" it is "just" emphasis.
How many people were "cursed" with a teacher that did the quotation mark thing with their fingers "while they were talking"?
Personally, I think it's much better to italicize or <span style="text-decoration:underline">underline</span> key words. It's much less distracting for the reader, has the same effect, and the half-second it takes to add them in gives me enough time to wonder whether or not the added emphasis is even necessary.
That doesn't change the "fact" that it's annoying as "hell". The "emphasis" in your head doesn't "translate" well when "other people" read what you type. Also, the "reader" wonders whether you are "quoting something from a book you read" or "whether" it is "just" emphasis.
How many people were "cursed" with a teacher that did the quotation mark thing with their fingers "while they were talking"?
Personally, I think it's much better to italicize or <span style="text-decoration:underline">underline</span> key words. It's much less distracting for the reader, has the same effect, and the half-second it takes to add them in gives me enough time to wonder whether or not the added emphasis is even necessary.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>That doesn't change the "fact" that it's annoying as "hell". The "emphasis" in your head doesn't "translate" well when "other people" read what you type. Also, the "reader" wonders whether you are "quoting something from a book you read" or "whether" it is "just" emphasis.
How many people were "cursed" with a teacher that did the quotation mark thing with their fingers "while they were talking"?
Personally, I think it's much better to italicize or underline key words. It's much less distracting for the reader, has the same effect, and the half-second it takes to add them in gives me enough time to wonder whether or not the added emphasis is even necessary.<hr>
Thanks for the helpful advise mookestink. I will endeavor to minimize my use of quotation marks in the future :D
How many people were "cursed" with a teacher that did the quotation mark thing with their fingers "while they were talking"?
Personally, I think it's much better to italicize or underline key words. It's much less distracting for the reader, has the same effect, and the half-second it takes to add them in gives me enough time to wonder whether or not the added emphasis is even necessary.<hr>
Thanks for the helpful advise mookestink. I will endeavor to minimize my use of quotation marks in the future :D
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Anslem's original argument:
<a href="http://weka.ucdavis.edu/~jp30/phi1/phi1 ... 1-4.pdf</a>
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Anselm's argument
1) God exists in the understanding, but not in reality
2) A being having all of God's properties plus
existence in reality can be conceived
3) A being having all of God's properties plus
existence in reality would be greater than God
4) Therefore, a being greater than God can be
conceived
5) But, by definition, God is the being greater than
which cannot be conceived!
6) Therefore, (1) is false; God exists in reality as well
as in the understanding
<hr>
<a href="http://weka.ucdavis.edu/~jp30/phi1/phi1 ... 1-4.pdf</a>
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Anselm's argument
1) God exists in the understanding, but not in reality
2) A being having all of God's properties plus
existence in reality can be conceived
3) A being having all of God's properties plus
existence in reality would be greater than God
4) Therefore, a being greater than God can be
conceived
5) But, by definition, God is the being greater than
which cannot be conceived!
6) Therefore, (1) is false; God exists in reality as well
as in the understanding
<hr>
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: If Reality is the totality of all there is, then the concrete world is a mere subset of Reality as well. Moreover, concrete physical object are just as illusory and empty of inherent existence as thoughts are. From this deeper standpoint, there is really no difference between them at all.
Analog: Then when a thing exists in concrete reality it is automatically included in "abstract reality" and/or the understanding. Therefore the existence of a thing in concrete reality is greater than its existence in the understanding alone. <hr> Again, I have no idea what you are trying to prove. Do you even know yourself?
There are ways in which thoughts are greater than physical objects. For example, thoughts can propel the mind into deep philosophic insight, which is something that no physical object can do.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Anselm's argument
1) God exists in the understanding, but not in reality
2) A being having all of God's properties plus
existence in reality can be conceived
3) A being having all of God's properties plus
existence in reality would be greater than God
4) Therefore, a being greater than God can be
conceived
5) But, by definition, God is the being greater than
which cannot be conceived!
6) Therefore, (1) is false; God exists in reality as well
as in the understanding<hr> As a proof for the existence of the Christian God, this argument doesn't work. This is because the Totality itself is infinitely greater than any Christian God could ever be. All it reveals is the desperation of Christians to make their insane beliefs intellectually respectable. But then again, that's always been the purpose of theology.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: If Reality is the totality of all there is, then the concrete world is a mere subset of Reality as well. Moreover, concrete physical object are just as illusory and empty of inherent existence as thoughts are. From this deeper standpoint, there is really no difference between them at all.
Analog: Then when a thing exists in concrete reality it is automatically included in "abstract reality" and/or the understanding. Therefore the existence of a thing in concrete reality is greater than its existence in the understanding alone. <hr> Again, I have no idea what you are trying to prove. Do you even know yourself?
There are ways in which thoughts are greater than physical objects. For example, thoughts can propel the mind into deep philosophic insight, which is something that no physical object can do.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Anselm's argument
1) God exists in the understanding, but not in reality
2) A being having all of God's properties plus
existence in reality can be conceived
3) A being having all of God's properties plus
existence in reality would be greater than God
4) Therefore, a being greater than God can be
conceived
5) But, by definition, God is the being greater than
which cannot be conceived!
6) Therefore, (1) is false; God exists in reality as well
as in the understanding<hr> As a proof for the existence of the Christian God, this argument doesn't work. This is because the Totality itself is infinitely greater than any Christian God could ever be. All it reveals is the desperation of Christians to make their insane beliefs intellectually respectable. But then again, that's always been the purpose of theology.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: The "pink unicorn" analogy doesn't work because we already know that Reality exists by virtute of the fact that we experience a world around us. By contrast, there is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.
Sap: Yes we do experience a world around us but is that a Fact for sure? You just said in another thread that it could be a simulation. <hr> A simulation is still not nothing whatsoever. So yes, it is a fact for sure.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: If you want to know my definition of Reality, it is this: Reality is that which is unchangeable, permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, and responsible for the existence of all things.
Sap: I might agree to all that you have said about "Reality" except IT being responsible for the existence of all things. You have simply removed Reality and placed it above all things. Reality IS ALL THAT THERE IS, not something removed from it all to be responsible for it. By just giving another name to Totality, it does not become more Real, or greater in status.
DQ: I've already covered this by stating, in my definition above, that Reality is "everywhere and everywhen". So your objection here has no basis.
Sap: I don't know, I think "everywhere and everywhen itself IS Reality", rather than the other way around.
Especially when you say that Reality is responsible. Do you see the difference? <hr> The purpose of creating a definition of Reality is that it creates a minimum set of criteria which allows one to judge what exactly Reality is. I agree that including "everywhere and everywhen" and "responsible for the existence of all things" in the definition can seem a bit redundant, but I think it is important to emphasize the point that Reality, if the term is to mean anything at all, needs to be the root creative principle which produces all things.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: The "pink unicorn" analogy doesn't work because we already know that Reality exists by virtute of the fact that we experience a world around us. By contrast, there is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.
Sap: Yes we do experience a world around us but is that a Fact for sure? You just said in another thread that it could be a simulation. <hr> A simulation is still not nothing whatsoever. So yes, it is a fact for sure.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: If you want to know my definition of Reality, it is this: Reality is that which is unchangeable, permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, and responsible for the existence of all things.
Sap: I might agree to all that you have said about "Reality" except IT being responsible for the existence of all things. You have simply removed Reality and placed it above all things. Reality IS ALL THAT THERE IS, not something removed from it all to be responsible for it. By just giving another name to Totality, it does not become more Real, or greater in status.
DQ: I've already covered this by stating, in my definition above, that Reality is "everywhere and everywhen". So your objection here has no basis.
Sap: I don't know, I think "everywhere and everywhen itself IS Reality", rather than the other way around.
Especially when you say that Reality is responsible. Do you see the difference? <hr> The purpose of creating a definition of Reality is that it creates a minimum set of criteria which allows one to judge what exactly Reality is. I agree that including "everywhere and everywhen" and "responsible for the existence of all things" in the definition can seem a bit redundant, but I think it is important to emphasize the point that Reality, if the term is to mean anything at all, needs to be the root creative principle which produces all things.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
No, David, I don't think that's an argument for the proof of the Christian God at all.
Quote:Quote:<hr>5) But, by definition, God is the being greater than which cannot be conceived!<hr>
That is an argument for Buddahood.
Quote:Quote:<hr>5) But, by definition, God is the being greater than which cannot be conceived!<hr>
That is an argument for Buddahood.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Buddhism dosen't have a god, so how is it an agrument for Buddhahood?
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Buddhahood, or self-nature, although it cannot be described or defined in any way, is not the highest reality in this sense, it is flat and includes all within it.
I guess the term "is the being greater" implies to me a hierarchy.
I guess the term "is the being greater" implies to me a hierarchy.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Leyla wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>No, David, I don't think that's an argument for the proof of the Christian God at all.<hr>Well, Anselm was a Christian theologian and he certainly intended this argument to be a proof for the existence of the Christian God.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Anselm: But, by definition, God is the being greater than which cannot be conceived!
Leyyla: That is an argument for Buddahood. <hr> Is Buddahood greater than Nature?
Quote:Quote:<hr>No, David, I don't think that's an argument for the proof of the Christian God at all.<hr>Well, Anselm was a Christian theologian and he certainly intended this argument to be a proof for the existence of the Christian God.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Anselm: But, by definition, God is the being greater than which cannot be conceived!
Leyyla: That is an argument for Buddahood. <hr> Is Buddahood greater than Nature?
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Anselm was one of the so-called "Schoolmen" of the early Xian (Catholic) Church - along with people like Aquinas. His Ontological Argument was explicitly an argument for the existence of the Xian God.
Dan Rowden
Dan Rowden
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>Well, Anselm was a Christian theologian and he certainly intended this argument to be a proof for the existence of the Christian God. <hr>
Really? Well, his intentions might have been pure, I suppose...
Quote:Quote:<hr>Is Buddahood greater than Nature? <hr>
I have more to say on this later.
Really? Well, his intentions might have been pure, I suppose...
Quote:Quote:<hr>Is Buddahood greater than Nature? <hr>
I have more to say on this later.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>Anselm was one of the so-called "Schoolmen" of the early Xian (Catholic) Church - along with people like Aquinas. His Ontological Argument was explicitly an argument for the existence of the Xian God.<hr>
Wait a minute. We are talking about the Holy Babble God, right? I don’t think he was a (5) at all. I thought he was a misemotional, homophobic moron with delusions of grandeur who had to send in his ill-begotten son in an attempt to redeem himself. I suppose it all depends on what your notion of greatness is.
As far as I can see, his argument (as stated above) is explicitly an argument for the existence of any God.
Wait a minute. We are talking about the Holy Babble God, right? I don’t think he was a (5) at all. I thought he was a misemotional, homophobic moron with delusions of grandeur who had to send in his ill-begotten son in an attempt to redeem himself. I suppose it all depends on what your notion of greatness is.
As far as I can see, his argument (as stated above) is explicitly an argument for the existence of any God.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Again, I have no idea what you are trying to prove. Do you even know yourself?<hr>
It is an attempt to figure out how the totality of all that exists is universally conscious and intelligent.
Whole Reality = WR
Either WR[everything-the entity with all maximally great properties] can be defined it terms of itself or WR is defined in terms of something other than reality. Defining WR in terms of that which is not-real negates the argument completely, thus WR can only be defined in terms of itself.
Because WR can only be defined in terms of itself, then it is everywhere connected, without any non-real gaps... If a section of WR were to be somehow disconnected from itself, then that which is real would have elements that are not-real, a contradiction. Hence WR is everywhere connected and continuous within itself.
Intelligence is therefore a property of WR, because if WR is continuous within itself then individual intelligences are connected to WR and all aspects of WR are interconnected and interrelated. Intelligence is an emergent property of WR, and WR is everywhere intelligent. One could say that is simply not the case due to the perception of separation between different aspects of WR, but, that separation is ALSO an aspect of WR, thus it is irrefutably the case that WR is also intelligent.
It is an attempt to figure out how the totality of all that exists is universally conscious and intelligent.
Whole Reality = WR
Either WR[everything-the entity with all maximally great properties] can be defined it terms of itself or WR is defined in terms of something other than reality. Defining WR in terms of that which is not-real negates the argument completely, thus WR can only be defined in terms of itself.
Because WR can only be defined in terms of itself, then it is everywhere connected, without any non-real gaps... If a section of WR were to be somehow disconnected from itself, then that which is real would have elements that are not-real, a contradiction. Hence WR is everywhere connected and continuous within itself.
Intelligence is therefore a property of WR, because if WR is continuous within itself then individual intelligences are connected to WR and all aspects of WR are interconnected and interrelated. Intelligence is an emergent property of WR, and WR is everywhere intelligent. One could say that is simply not the case due to the perception of separation between different aspects of WR, but, that separation is ALSO an aspect of WR, thus it is irrefutably the case that WR is also intelligent.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>It is an attempt to figure out how the totality of all that exists is universally conscious and intelligent.<hr>
No wonder your beliefs are so random! You don't care about truth at all; you simply care about proving your bias.
It would have been a lot more respectable to call it "an attempt to figure out whether or not there is any way for the totality to be conscious and intelligent". There must always be a way for your beliefs to be proven false, and you must know what would prove them false; otherwise you are simply rationalizing an irrational belief.
No wonder your beliefs are so random! You don't care about truth at all; you simply care about proving your bias.
It would have been a lot more respectable to call it "an attempt to figure out whether or not there is any way for the totality to be conscious and intelligent". There must always be a way for your beliefs to be proven false, and you must know what would prove them false; otherwise you are simply rationalizing an irrational belief.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>No wonder your beliefs are so random! You don't care about truth at all; you simply care about proving your bias<hr>
Is the "ontological thought experiment" becoming a burr in your saddle? The "bias" appears to be on your end of this conversation... :lol
It is a logical inevitablity that consciousness is universal. That is to say it is a meta-consciousness.
1. With a little earnest thought, one realizes that the concept of "ultimate randomness" is logically absurd.
2. The laws of physics are time independent. They hold for all frames of reference.
3. Also, even if ...physical randomness was true, physical randomness would not exist without time, or "change" - from one state to the next.
4. If the physical laws are time independent then the physical laws, by definition, did not arise "randomly".
5. The laws of physics are a set of organizing principles.
6. The only true example we have of an organizing principle is that of a "MIND"
7. The universe came from a MIND
Is the "ontological thought experiment" becoming a burr in your saddle? The "bias" appears to be on your end of this conversation... :lol
It is a logical inevitablity that consciousness is universal. That is to say it is a meta-consciousness.
1. With a little earnest thought, one realizes that the concept of "ultimate randomness" is logically absurd.
2. The laws of physics are time independent. They hold for all frames of reference.
3. Also, even if ...physical randomness was true, physical randomness would not exist without time, or "change" - from one state to the next.
4. If the physical laws are time independent then the physical laws, by definition, did not arise "randomly".
5. The laws of physics are a set of organizing principles.
6. The only true example we have of an organizing principle is that of a "MIND"
7. The universe came from a MIND