GENIUS FORUMS

[Note from admin: I accidentally messed this post up, but have fixed it up as well as I can. - KS]

Kevin Solway wrote:You simply need to demonstrate that there are things that can have no effect on us.

I think I have.

That we cannot personally communicate or interact with things thousands of light years away is not an argument that they have no effect on us.

Of course it is.

Stars that are thousands of light years away obviously do have an effect on our world because their light reaches us.

Those stars were not in our elsewhere thousands of years ago.

Note that if "God" beings exists in your "elsewhere", they could not possibly have any effect on us, ever, and they could never even know of our existence.

I am not saying anything about God beings in the slightest.

But since you bring it up, maybe a God being, having created space and time, is not bound by either - that is, transcends both.

Because humans are extremely stupid.

I am trying to demonstrate that what humans have evolved into - the way we are - exceeds any need for simple survival.

Why would life ever have moved onto land?

Why would non-sea life have evolved beyond insects?

Their numbers are staggering and their adaptive abilities unparalleled.

Kevin, you yourself have said

There could be a conscious alien creator being (God), out there somewhere, and he could be either good or evil. It's just that there's no reason to think that there is any such being.

This is very telling. You will admit the possibility, which I guess is all one can ask of a skeptic. Yet you tack on this "good or evil" caveat. If he's evil, then evil compared to what?

Does any human being have a soul?

Do you think that a spirit world may exist, that mind may exist where there is no material body?

Have you ever had an out-of-body experience?

You simply need to demonstrate that there are things that can have no effect on us.

I think I have.

Definitely not. See below.

That we cannot personally communicate or interact with things thousands of light years away is not an argument that they have no effect on us.

Of course it is.

No, because even though we cannot communicate with things thousands light years away (because of our short lifespan), yet those things can still have an effect on our world.

Stars that are thousands of light years away obviously do have an effect on our world because their light reaches us.

Those stars were not in our elsewhere thousands of years ago.

Likewise, if their light reaches us in a thousand years, then they are not in our elsewhere now. Otherwise your computer would also be in the elsewhere, since it takes time for information to travel to you.

Note that if "God" beings exists in your "elsewhere", they could not possibly have any effect on us, ever, and they could never even know of our existence.

I am not saying anything about God beings in the slightest.

That is the topic of this discussion. I can only assume you were suggesting that God beings might have something to do with this "elsewhere".

But since you bring it up, maybe a God being, having created space and time, is not bound by either - that is, transcends both.

If a God being existed where there was no time, they would not be able to do anything and they would be unable to think. When there is thinking then time is already in existence.

So you agree that God-beings can't possibly exist in your "elsewhere" if they are to know anything about our world?

Because humans are extremely stupid.

I am trying to demonstrate that what humans have evolved into - the way we are - exceeds any need for simple survival.

We don't yet know if we have enough intelligence to survive. At the moment we are on a collision course with extinction.

You don't know what is necessary to survive, since you don't know what the future holds. It is very arrogant of you that you think you know all these things, when you do not.

why would life ever have moved onto land?

Searching for food and safety.

Why would non-sea life have evolved beyond insects?

Because some things out-compete insects for resources, in the same way that we do. For example, it is estimated that several insect species are going extinct every day because of our clearing of forests.

Their numbers are staggering and their adaptive abilities unparalleled.

Human beings are the most adaptive animal that we know of.

Smaller lifeforms, such as bacteria, are more adaptive from an evolutionary point of view because of their short lifespans and therefore relatively higher mutation rate.

Kevin, you yourself have said

There could be a conscious alien creator being (God), out there somewhere, and he could be either good or evil. It's just that there's no reason to think that there is any such being.

This is very telling. You will admit the possibility, which I guess is all one can ask of a skeptic. Yet you tack on this "good or evil" caveat. If he's evil, then evil compared to what?

Compared to what is good.

There could be both good and evil Gods for all we know.

Does any human being have a soul?

You need to define what you mean by "soul".

According to what I personally understand by "soul", only a very few human beings have a soul, and the vast majority do not.

Do you think that a spirit world may exist, that mind may exist where there is no material body?

Nothing can escape cause and effect, and therefore all things are part of the same world. Once you understand this you will realize that any alien creator "Gods" are really only a part of the same world as ourselves.

Have you ever had an out-of-body experience?

Yes, I have had such imaginings.

brokenhead wrote:

Nothing can escape cause and effect, and therefore all things are part of the same world. Once you understand this you will realize that any alien creator "Gods" are really only a part of the same world as ourselves.

I completely agree with you that the gods are a part of the same world as ourselves. But it's a spurious notion. Because you are unfamiliar with the vast majority of the world.

Everywhere works by the law of cause and effect, and in that sense I am familiar with it.

Compared to what is good.

Like what? A back massage?

I define a good person to be a wise person.

If there are any alien God-beings, there is no evidence that they are good.

What's with that last post? Are you trying to confuse me by using my username?

Sorry, I hit a wrong button. I've fixed it up as well as I could.

Kevin Solway wrote:
According to what I personally understand by "soul", only a very few human beings have a soul, and the vast majority do not.

It would be interesting to learn what your definition of 'soul' is.Because logically I can't see how one could be born without a 'soul' but somehow gain one.

Ataraxia wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote: According to what I personally understand by "soul", only a very few human beings have a soul, and the vast majority do not.

It would be interesting to learn what your definition of 'soul' is. Because logically I can't see how one could be born without a 'soul' but somehow gain one.

I define "soul" as one's conscious connection to Reality. Only enlightened people have genuine soul. People of character have a measure of it. Soul is closely associated with genius.

Kevin Solway wrote:

I define a good person to be a wise person.
If there are any alien God-beings, there is no evidence that they are good.

Quite naturally, if there were any God-beings around, you would presumably be able to tell, within a minute or two, which ones were wise and therefore good.

Is it that someone wise cannot be evil? Or that someone evil cannot be wise? I submit this: if there are God-beings, they most likely would be the ones to decide what is "good" and what is "evil." In which case, Kevin, you are like a spoiled, bratty child trying to dictate to his parents what they should be doing.

Kevin Solway wrote: I define "soul" as one's conscious connection to Reality. Only enlightened people have genuine soul. People of character have a measure of it. Soul is closely associated with genius.

So what others might describe as 'perfect buddahood'

'Soul' sounds unecessarily poetic to me if that is the definition, but each to his own I suppose.

Ataraxia wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote: I define "soul" as one's conscious connection to Reality. Only enlightened people have genuine soul. People of character have a measure of it. Soul is closely associated with genius.

So what others might describe as 'perfect buddahood'

The perfect Buddha would have the perfect soul, but I don't know that anyone has ever achieved that.

Kevin Solway wrote:

The perfect Buddha would have the perfect soul, but I don't know that anyone has ever achieved that.

It would be a difficult thing to know, wouldn't it? How could you really know? It would have to be a belief on your part.

So, do you believe Gautama Buddha had the perfect soul? Joshua ben Joseph?

Kevin, I am curious as to what types of things you read. Is there something in the archives that indicates a bibliography that you think helped fashion your philosophy? One book in particular keeps coming to mind as we exchange views on this thread: Order Out of Chaos by Ilya Prigogine (1984). I read it when it came out and found it fascinating. One of his claims, if I remember correctly, is that a system in thermodynamic equilibrium does not spontaneously order itself. And if energy is added to it, the equilibrium is disturbed, but eventually reestablishes itself, and still no order appears. However, if it is pushed extremely far from equilibrium, order does spontaneously appear.

I am arguing your point that the existence of a God is not necessary to a consistent philosophy. I have always agreed with that. That is consistent with the statement that is is not possible to prove the existence of God, which I also hold to be true.

Are you familiar with the concept of a synchronicity? I am still doggedly trying to demonstrate that the preponderance of the evidence - everything we can empirically experience, sense, or know - indicates that God does in fact exist, and to deny that he does causes an inordinate number of unprovable assumptions to be made.

brokenhead wrote:Kevin Solway wrote:

The perfect Buddha would have the perfect soul, but I don't know that anyone has ever achieved that.

So, do you believe Gautama Buddha had the perfect soul? Joshua ben Joseph?

I said above that I don't know that anyone has ever achieved that.

Kevin, I am curious as to what types of things you read.

I have read most of the world's religions and philosophers.

I am arguing your point that the existence of a God is not necessary to a consistent philosophy.

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that the argument that there are conscious alien God-beings doesn't actually answer anything at all, because then we would have to ask where these alien beings came from, and whether they are good or evil, etc.

That is consistent with the statement that is is not possible to prove the existence of God, which I also hold to be true.

If there is a conscious alien God-being then we could prove the existence of such a thing just as we can prove the existence of any other person.

If there is a conscious alien God-being then we could prove the existence of such a thing just as we can prove the existence of any other person.

That does not follow. Why should God be like "any other person"? And so that we are on the same page, how exactly do you prove the existence of a person?

Are you familiar with the concept of a synchronicity?

brokenhead wrote:

If there is a conscious alien God-being then we could prove the existence of such a thing just as we can prove the existence of any other person.

That does not follow. Why should God be like "any other person"?

A conscious alien God-being would be like any other person in that they are a being who is conscious - just as any other conscious alien being.

And so that we are on the same page, how exactly do you prove the existence of a person?

By the normal empirical methods.

Such empirical methods are not certain, yet we can use them to establish the existence of a conscious alien God-being just as well as we can use them to establish the existence of any other conscious being.

brokenhead wrote:Are you familiar with the concept of a synchronicity?

Yes. I haven't observed any evidence for it.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:Are you familiar with the concept of a synchronicity?

Yes. I haven't observed any evidence for it.

I have, personally, on several occasions. If I relate what happened to you, it would read as purely anecdotal and no doubt make little, if any, impression on you. Are you familiar with Carl Jung's experiences with synchronicity?

brokenhead wrote:Are you familiar with Carl Jung's experiences with synchronicity?

Yes, the idea of synchronicity is fundamentally flawed because it depends on the idea that two things can be causally unrelated.

But all things are causally related, therefore there cannot possibly be any such thing as synchronicity.

Yes, the idea of synchronicity is fundamentally flawed because it depends on the idea that two things can be causally unrelated.
But all things are causally related, therefore there cannot possibly be any such thing as synchronicity.

I think you are too quick to find a flaw here. Synchronicity is a term applied to two things that are apparently causally unrelated, and yet bear a meaning to the person who observes them. "A coincindence with meaning" is a brief definition.

I read an entire book with the title Synchronicity and the theme was the "relatedness" of everything.

Are you saying that no two things are causally unrelated?

brokenhead wrote:Are you saying that no two things are causally unrelated?

That's right. I said above that all things are causally related. Therefore it follows that no two things are apparently causally unrelated.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:Are you saying that no two things are causally unrelated?

That's right. I said above that all things are causally related. Therefore it follows that no two things are apparently causally unrelated.

Let's say A = the event that I eat an apple right now.
And let's say B = the event that my sister-in-law gets a flat tire this afternoon.
You are not saying A causes B and you are not saying B causes A. Are you saying that both A and B have causes, and those causes have causes, and so on, and at some point in the past there is a common cause C?

brokenhead,

Let's say A = the event that I eat an apple right now.
And let's say B = the event that my sister-in-law gets a flat tire this afternoon.
You are not saying A causes B and you are not saying B causes A. Are you saying that both A and B have causes, and those causes have causes, and so on, and at some point in the past there is a common cause C?

Without B, A would not have happened and neither would C or any other letter "including B" itself (the order doesn't matter). It's all like a house of cards. Remove one card and the whole thing as it was, is, and will be, falls apart, because each card is supported by the rest and vice versa (one card supports all and all support that one card). The very fact that you are, is also why Earth revolves around the sun and it's also the reason why I am or anything and everything including the whole universe (think of the universe as the stack of cards).

I'm not sure if that makes sense ...?

I'm not sure if that makes sense ...?

Not really. I get the argument, I've heard it before. But it's too easy to play devil's advocate with it. It's clearly not all like a house of cards. Things come into being and are destroyed all the time, yet I'm still here. If you are speaking of conservation laws, mass/energy, electric charge, and some more esoteric particle-physics quantities, I will accept it but only that far.

I am not interested in hearing what it is like, no offense. I am trying to pin Kevin down with his concept of causality. If you buy into the assertion that no two things can be causally unrelated, that just begs a dozen questions right off the bat. You would be lending credence to casting straws and looking it up in the I Ching. You would be denying the scientific method and recovering Astrology from Astronomy.

This cannot be what Kevin is saying. It's too whacky.

brokenhead wrote:Let's say A = the event that I eat an apple right now.
And let's say B = the event that my sister-in-law gets a flat tire this afternoon.
You are not saying A causes B and you are not saying B causes A. Are you saying that both A and B have causes, and those causes have causes, and so on, and at some point in the past there is a common cause C?

Something closer to what sagerage said. Since all things are part of the same world they are all connected.

All things have at least some effect on all other things. The only way you could predict the future with 100% accuracy would be to look at and understand the whole thing. Examining straws, or using science, is nowhere near enough.

I am not interested in hearing what it is like, no offense. I am trying to pin Kevin down with his concept of causality. If you buy into the assertion that no two things can be causally unrelated, that just begs a dozen questions right off the bat. You would be lending credence to casting straws and looking it up in the I Ching. You would be denying the scientific method and recovering Astrology from Astronomy.

This cannot be what Kevin is saying. It's too whacky.

That makes me smile, because I understand EXACTLY what you mean. When I first found this place (several months ago), I thought it was all pointless and useless. It seemed so plain and tasteless. But, that's only because "I" didn't understand. I still don't. There's much to learn. However, at least now, I have an inkling of understanding into philosophy and the beauty of it and the way in which it attempts to explain nature. QRS, really helped, so I'd like to recommend that you read the philosophy provided by this site - you can find the links on top of this page.

Yes, I am reading. All the same, you can't ask a text questions. I get the rare opportunity here to ask the author of the text questions.

brokenhead wrote:

I'm not sure if that makes sense ...?

Not really. I get the argument, I've heard it before. But it's too easy to play devil's advocate with it. It's clearly not all like a house of cards. Things come into being and are destroyed all the time, yet I'm still here. If you are speaking of conservation laws, mass/energy, electric charge, and some more esoteric particle-physics quantities, I will accept it but only that far.

If even a speck of dust on a table were in a slightly different position, the world as we know it would be entirely different. This is because each of the millions of causal factors which led to the dust-particle being where it is in that precise location have themselves been the product of millions of causal factors, and so on back forever. And so, as we look back into the past and watch how this intricately-complex causal web had unfolded, we can see how it interconnects with everything else in the Universe, both past and future.

The dust-particle in a different position would have an entirely different causal web in support of it, which means that the effects of this web would be entirely different. It is very possible that the none of us would be here, that the human race would never have evolved, that the stars and planets would have evolved very differently, and so on. It is indeed very much like a stack of cards.

This is why science fiction stories which involve time-travel are usually incoherent. It is very difficult to tinker around with the stack of cards which comprises life without it all falling into a heap.

I am trying to pin Kevin down with his concept of causality. If you buy into the assertion that no two things can be causally unrelated, that just begs a dozen questions right off the bat. You would be lending credence to casting straws and looking it up in the I Ching. You would be denying the scientific method and recovering Astrology from Astronomy.

I dealt with this issue in Wisdom:

-

The Furtherest Galaxy

If boundaries are fundamentally non-existent and all things are causally connected, it may be asked, then isn't it the case that we are connected to all things in the Universe, even to the furtherest galaxy in the universe? Yet how can this be when we clearly have no influence over the galaxy’s behaviour? Surely, for all intents and purposes, we are utterly disconnected from it.

Apart from anything else, the main problem with this point of view is that it lacks imagination. In truth, we are constantly having a say over the behaviour of the furtherest galaxy, even at this very moment. For example, we are not, at this very moment, suddenly transforming ourselves into giant space-goats and dashing off faster than the speed of light in order to gobble the galaxy up. The very fact that we are not doing this allows the galaxy to continue existing. That is a pretty large influence in anyone’s book!

Although this example might seem bizarre on the surface, it does illustrate a serious point - namely, that things are always in a state of causal connection with every other thing in the Universe. A distant galaxy is only able to continue existing to the degree that other objects in the Universe, including myself, are prevented from transforming into a force capable of destroying it. It does not really matter that I will probably never change into such a force. All this means is that the causal circumstances will probably never be ripe for me to undergo such a transformation - which, in turn, only supports my case that the causal conditions underpinning the existence of the galaxy are dependent, to some degree at least, on the causal conditions underpinning my own existence.

The sheer fact that an object may be too powerless to influence the behaviour of another object is not sufficient grounds to conclude that the two objects are causally disconnected. Consider a large tree, for example, which has two small leaves on either side of its massive canopy. Under normal circumstances, each leaf seems to have no influence upon the other, and yet it is obviously the case that the leaves are connected to each other via the rest of the tree. And indeed, it is precisely because of this connection that the leaves do have the potential to influence one another. For example, a bacterial disease contracted by one of the leaves can spread throughout the tree and kill the other leaf.

In the end, we are always physically connected to all things, even if it is just purely through the medium of space. People often make the assumption that the interface between the surface of their skins and the surrounding space signals an abrupt boundary of separation. They think that some sort of unbridgeable chasm exists there. Yet it is just as easy, and just as valid, to conceive of the body being joined to space. It is only habit of thought which pictures it the other way. Thankfully, such habits are easy to break.

-