Faith

[samadhi]

broken,

I agree there is nothing mysterious about consciousness.

What would be mysterious to you?

[Peter L]

Madness!

This isn't philosophy.

[Peter L]

...

What an ugly piece of thinking.

Bitch?

[Iolaus]

Jason,

You failed to note that I said we can arrive at a conclusion based on patterns. Surely you can see that we can not arrive at a conclusion of anything, if we have to examine every single case. I don't know what inherently provisional science is.

But you did agree that you arrived at the idea(that humans always act for reward) by self-observation and introspection. How then do you(or do you?) propose proving, using as evidence, or even knowing about, rewards which humans are not conscious of? An unconscious reward is a contradiction in terms as far as my views on this particular matter are concerned. Can you give me a real or even hypothetical example of an unconscious reward, and also tell me why it should be called a "reward"?

I am really not sure I can answer it. Perhaps you should consider doing such an introspection yourself, tell me where you differ, and give me the example. It is obvious that many people do not know all of their own inner motivations, and of course not ones that are both physiologic (response to pheromones) and yet below the level of conscious awareness. So there is more than one type of unconscious motivation. A reward of this type could be chasing the girl that you're not sure why, getting laid and feeling satisfied, albeit not in love. Why would you not call that a reward? A different type of unconscious reward which one sees quite often, is when a person, ostensibly unhappy, refuses all real help to solve the situation, like my mother does, because she gets her reward, perhaps her identity validated, by remaining in her misery and having insoluble problems.

Is not! Nah nah!

(all is self)
Well, some see it, some don't. No argument.

Let me break out another challenging hypothetical. What if evolution has programmed humans to act in some ways that do not lead to reward? Some acts may favour passing on a human's genes at the expense of the individual human's overall happiness. Is this not a possibility?

You have not understood me. Never mind the evolution jargon, the answer is that in this situation of course the person gets a reward! If dying for your children so that they might live is the thing you want most, then you do it. If you don't want to die for them, you don't. In this case, passing on one's genes is more important than a certain amount of gratuitous longevity.

Tell me, how do you think you measure the amount of pain versus the amount of pleasure inherent in various scenarios that you can choose between? And is it measured in metric or imperial?

Jason, your mind is full of cobwebs. It is a chaos. Furthermore, you are contrary.

DHodges.

The second law of thermodynamics is obviously irrelevant here, as it applies to a closed or isolated system. The Earth is not such a system, receiving a constant supply of energy from the sun.

A pathetic and much used answer.

Go read (just google it) A Second Look At the Second Law and then come back.

maestro,

The problem is that you guys have not defined consciousness.

Well, it sure as hell ain't a computer with a camera.

[Jason]

Jason,

You failed to note that I said we can arrive at a conclusion based on patterns. Surely you can see that we can not arrive at a conclusion of anything, if we have to examine every single case.

What do you mean by "conclusions" exactly, in this sense? "Provisional theories"?

Do you think the idea, that people always act for reward when making their choices, is a provisional theory?

A different type of unconscious reward which one sees quite often, is when a person, ostensibly unhappy, refuses all real help to solve the situation, like my mother does, because she gets her reward, perhaps her identity validated, by remaining in her misery and having insoluble problems.

As far as my perspective on these matters goes, an 'unconscious reward' is a contradiction in terms. If your mother is not being consciously rewarded I'd say she is indeed acting without reward.

"Reward" is an experience that manifests within consciousness. That's the definition I'm using here.

J: Let me break out another challenging hypothetical. What if evolution has programmed humans to act in some ways that do not lead to reward? Some acts may favour passing on a human's genes at the expense of the individual human's overall happiness. Is this not a possibility?

I: You have not understood me. Never mind the evolution jargon, the answer is that in this situation of course the person gets a reward! If dying for your children so that they might live is the thing you want most, then you do it. If you don't want to die for them, you don't. In this case, passing on one's genes is more important than a certain amount of gratuitous longevity.

Your example is flawed. I specifically said that these actions would be done without reward, without the person gaining from them.

Unconscious processes and lifeforms may be a possible product of evolution, yet these unconscious and thus unrewarded creatures and processes can still carry out actions and choices. A flower turns toward the sun, your body processes nutrients and so on, without consciousness and without a conscious reward system. To suggest that every choice or action is always the result of a reward system is problematic. Further, I see no inherent reason why even conscious choices must (all) be based on a reward system.

J: Tell me, how do you think you measure the amount of pain versus the amount of pleasure inherent in various scenarios that you can choose between? And is it measured in metric or imperial?

I: Jason, your mind is full of cobwebs. It is a chaos.

Perhaps. However, I'd say my thoughts and discussion on this matter have been more open-minded, subtle and advanced than yours. Maybe that means your mind has more cobwebs and chaos than mine does, at least in this little nook of it.(I hope you realize the "metric or imperial" bit was said in humour.)

Furthermore, you are contrary.

That's true. At least part of it is me intentionally being devil's advocate. I think challenge in these things is healthy and valuable, even if it is sometimes a little bit contrived. But the challenges I have made to you here are all sincere. Flat out agreement would be insincere, disrespectful and assuming less of you, as far as I'm concerned.

I hope you realize I'm not completely opposing your ideas, I've already said that I think the theory is insightful, interesting and useful, it's just that I think it is provisional and has limitations.

[Leyla Shen]

...

What an ugly piece of thinking.

Bitch?

Ah, another one-line quoting genius of the compassionate kind?

Bitch Your Honour, to those who know me.

Tear down the wall!

[Carl G]

What if the conscious creator is the ALL?

In that case "conscious" wouldn't mean anything since there wouldn't be anything left over for it to be conscious of — since it is already everything.

Itself. It could be self-conscious.

Or precedes it.

This concept doesn't mean anything either since there is nothing other than the All. The All includes all of time, and all of the past.

Precedes materiality. Mind preceding visible Universe. Oneness manifest.

What if Consciousness precedes the rest of the ALL.

It is possible for a consciousness to be part of the All, but then there will always be something that caused it.

Except that there can be no Prime Cause.

What if the ALL issues forth from Consciousness.

This doesn't mean anything, since there is nothing other than the All.

Yes, my use of the word "ALL" was in error. What I meant was, what if All Form issues forth from Consciousness?

However, we are probably defining the same concept in different ways; Consciousness would ultimately contain All Form, and therefore be the ALL. But still, I think you are defining Creation (The ALL) as being unconscious, and I am saying it could be conscious.

[brokenhead]

It's quite funny, I find. When people discover that you have faith, they tend to swarm all over you and try to suck it out of you like starved vampire bats. Especially in this forum. It's amusing, because it never works. I suggest such leeches try faith for themselves instead of invariably trying to destroy it in others. Really, faith is a lot easier to understand than lack of it if you do your homework.

Christ. What an ugly piece of thinking.

I hate incoherent strings of stupid similes and patchwork metaphor in lieu of reason:

What I find remarkably more humorous is when the self-proclaimed faithful find a leech pool and obsessively jump into it, only to continuously complain that it is a leech pool and blame the leeches.

Apparently, it can’t be faith being sucked out of such faithfuls; else the leeches would clearly be bloated with it and the faithfuls left quite deathly dry…

Sometimes the truth hurts.

No one asked you to try on this particular shoe. But hey, if it fits...

[brokenhead]

Bitch Your Honour, to those who know me.

I thought that was Judge Judy.

[Leyla Shen]

It's quite funny, I find. When people discover that you have faith, they tend to swarm all over you and try to suck it out of you like starved vampire bats. Especially in this forum. It's amusing, because it never works. I suggest such leeches try faith for themselves instead of invariably trying to destroy it in others. Really, faith is a lot easier to understand than lack of it if you do your homework.

Christ. What an ugly piece of thinking.

I hate incoherent strings of stupid similes and patchwork metaphor in lieu of reason:

What I find remarkably more humorous is when the self-proclaimed faithful find a leech pool and obsessively jump into it, only to continuously complain that it is a leech pool and blame the leeches.

Apparently, it can’t be faith being sucked out of such faithfuls; else the leeches would clearly be bloated with it and the faithfuls left quite deathly dry…

Sometimes the truth hurts.

No one asked you to try on this particular shoe. But hey, if it fits...

Have you not noticed how infantile your thinking is? I assumed you had some idea, given your appropriate moniker.

[brokenhead]

Have you not noticed how infantile your thinking is? I assumed you had some idea, given your appropriate moniker.

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say to me bounces off me and sticks to you.

[Iolaus]

Jason,

What do you mean by "conclusions" exactly, in this sense? "Provisional theories"?

Is this a trap? Are you emphasizing that what we have are provisional theories because nothing is ever proved? But I am looking for a basic truth of human behavior, of probably the behavior of any entity in the universe. We can call it provisional if you like, so long as you don't say we have to contemplate our navels forever, before reaching some conclusions.

As far as my perspective on these matters goes, an 'unconscious reward' is a contradiction in terms. If your mother is not being consciously rewarded I'd say she is indeed acting without reward.

Well, Okay, but then there's no use communicating. Leaving the entire subconscious and unconscious out of the picture of human behavior!? I mean, that's just absurd. How can an unconscious reward be a contradiction in terms? So perhapas we are not really arguing over the same idea at all. All I am saying is that a person in any situation can only act as best suits him/her, and does not ever act in a way that suits them less. This does not mean they understand themselves, or can always accurately answer as to their true motives. This does not mean that a reward is always a positive, happy thing. It might mean dying under torture.

"Reward" is an experience that manifests within consciousness. That's the definition I'm using here.

The subconscious mind is very much part of consciousness.

Your example is flawed. I specifically said that these actions would be done without reward, without the person gaining from them.

But passing on one's genes IS the reward!
Where did you give an example of a person acting without reward?

Further, I see no inherent reason why even conscious choices must (all) be based on a reward system.

How can any person ever act except in the way they most wish to? It's impossible so far as I can see.

Perhaps. However, I'd say my thoughts and discussion on this matter have been more open-minded, subtle and advanced than yours.

I don't think so. Your thoughts are mostly irrevlevant arguments and you seem to be in denial. Being open minded has nothing to do with it. I find your mind a bit closed. In a meandering sort of way.
Actually, I'm not sure its meaningful to say my ideas are insightful and useful, but limited. Either it is true as I say, or not. If not, then it isn't provisional or insightful or anything, just wrong.

[Leyla Shen]

brokenhead,

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say to me bounces off me and sticks to you.

Your peers would be delighted, I’m sure.

I can see that if we are going to get anywhere, I’m going to have to take it really slowly with you---one teeny point at a time.

I tell you that, logically, I assume I will exist in the future on the basis of past conditions/causes of my existence.

Your highlighting seems to indicate you are saying because it is your experience that you have existed, you will continue to do so.

The fact is, this is an unwarranted assumption.

No, it is not a false assumption. Unlike your god, it has conditions of existence built into it---and that is the point.

The fact is, at some time, the assumption will, without question, fail you.

Incorrect. Again, my assumption comes complete with provisos, unlike your god, even if I cannot predict all possible future conditions.

And yet no one questions the validity of the assumption…

What a waste of time that would be. Clearly, I cannot say the same for the belief in a creator god unless he, too, is mortal and dependent upon various conditions and provisions. That is, unless (I repeat) your god comes with such conditions and provisos.

It is vital to making plans and constructing a life, as we do not know the time when the assumption will fail, only that it must at some point.

I repeat, since my assumption includes provisos and conditions of existence, it will never fail. That is, it’s a statement of absolute fact, whether expressed deductively or inductively.

Do you follow me so far?

Uh, yeah. Thanks for asking…

[brokenhead]

Your peers would be delighted, I’m sure.

No doubt. If I had any.

[brokenhead]

No, it is not a false assumption. Unlike your god, it has conditions of existence built into it---and that is the point

God belongs to no one, not even me, Leyla. Though I'm quite flattered.

You never seem to have a point except that you are somehow more---I don't know, what? Sophisticated? Intelligent? Urbane? Evolved? Correct? Why would someone so superior as yourself waste time with someone as infantile as me?

What a waste of time that would be. Clearly, I cannot say the same for the belief in a creator god unless he, too, is mortal and dependent upon various conditions and provisions. That is, unless (I repeat) your god comes with such conditions and provisos.

Oh wait! God wastes your time because he is not mortal and dependent like you! Because he doesn't come with conditions and provisos. Maybe he could even run them by you first, what do you say?

So God is too perfect, and I am too imperfect. Ah, now I see. The best one to be is you, Leyla, because you are just right.

Why didn't you just say so?

[Alex Jacob]

[Golf whisper type comments here. Shhhhhhh. Hush.]

[Leyla has no interest AT ALL in any sort of productive conversation. You will notice, as I have noticed, that she often comes down with both feet on someone who has been 'chewed up' by the Truth Team of GF, and in that is sort of like a 7" attack dog whose bark is irritating yet completely harmless. Left alone, she recedes back into the woodwork but pops out again like clockwork.

[It seems like we are in a sort of impass here at GF, haven't you noticed it? Isn't it peculiar that things always tend in this direction? It is peculiar that the conversations 'atomize' the participants and strangley there is nothing more to say...]...[?]

[But anyway, a little humor can't hurt, or I don't think so anyway. In this video, I identified 17 distinct ironical features that pertain to conversations we have had here. Here, just take a look: *click*. Maybe you'll find one's I didn't...]

[brokenhead]

broken,

I agree there is nothing mysterious about consciousness.

What would be mysterious to you?

Since you asked, anything that is not known to me.

[Leyla Shen]

"brokenhead,"

You got this:

You never seem to have a point except that you are somehow more---I don't know, what? Sophisticated? Intelligent? Urbane? Evolved? Correct?

Out of this:

No, it is not a false assumption. Unlike your god, it has conditions of existence built into it---and that is the point.

Certainly, your attempt to master the art of self-deception is just as impressive as your ignorance.

b: Why would someone so superior as yourself waste time with someone as infantile as me?

It's a logical necessity. Since I am superior, I do not consider truth a waste of time.

L: What a waste of time that would be. Clearly, I cannot say the same for the belief in a creator god unless he, too, is mortal and dependent upon various conditions and provisions. That is, unless (I repeat) your god comes with such conditions and provisos.

b: Oh wait! God wastes your time because he is not mortal and dependent like you! Because he doesn't come with conditions and provisos. Maybe he could even run them by you first, what do you say?

Take a few deep breaths and read what I wrote again.

So God is too perfect, and I am too imperfect. Ah, now I see. The best one to be is you, Leyla, because you are just right.

Why didn't you just say so?

I think the evidence speaks for itself. Of course, those who have an ear for the voice of reason will fare better than those who do not.

~

You are mistaken, Alex, in thinking I am anything like you. Projection is the survival mechanism of the desperately shallow and paranoid mind. In case you’ve forgotten, Jew boy, I chewed you up before anyone.

It’s very simple, really. Say something I think is irrational, and I’ll comment.

Since it seems quite the fashion with you and your ilk, should I be flattered that the productivity of a conversation seemingly depends solely on me? Or insulted that the idiot so engaging had not the wherewithal to see the alleged futility?

Stupid humanoid.

Nevertheless, stop your unconscious pleading. I’ll get back to our little non-productive discussion as circumstances allow. No need to interrupt, unless you intend to be productive and address the matter brokenhead is avoiding at all costs. Come on, show a bit of logical consciousness.

In the meantime, for your listening pleasure.

[Alex Jacob]

"In case you’ve forgotten, Jew boy, I chewed you up before anyone."

My ankles still have the bite marks...

Anyway, I came across this and it just seemed so weird, and yet it has an odd power in it.

[DHodges]

DHodges.

The second law of thermodynamics is obviously irrelevant here, as it applies to a closed or isolated system. The Earth is not such a system, receiving a constant supply of energy from the sun.

A pathetic and much used answer.

Go read (just google it) A Second Look At the Second Law and then come back.

Is this some sort of joke?


If you leave a hot cup of coffee in a room, eventually it will come to thermal equilibrium, cooling to the same temperature as the room.

That does NOT mean that it is impossible to have a hot cup of coffee.

[Steven Coyle]

If only the same could be said for Leyla. (rim shot!)

[Alex Jacob]

The latest thing is the expropriation of erstwhile derogatory terms, and I came across this funny vid while looking up 'JewBoy'. There's even an appearance by the Apocalyptic Talking Fish of Brooklyn!

As a public service I offer this list of useful Yiddish words.

[brokenhead]

Leyla Shen: "In case you’ve forgotten, Jew boy, I chewed you up before anyone."

Alex Jacob: My ankles still have the bite marks...

A little ground glass in the Alpo should do the trick.

[Steven Coyle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0LJRcnDCAA

Be cool, AJ. |-)

Three Jewish Boys from Brooklyn, playin' 70's funk.

17 + Br (Bromine)

[Alex Jacob]

Thanks for that, haven't heard the Beastie Boys for ages..."Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair! So I can climb up and get into your underwear!"
________________________________________________________

Matisyahu
Matisyahu
________________________________________________________

French Beat-Boxer