CertainVerdict : hi Air

Air123201 : hi

CertainVerdict : how are you?

Air123201 : im ok i guess u?

CertainVerdict : I'm fine, thanks.

CertainVerdict : sorry the room's so quiet, but I'm hoping others eventually come

Air123201 : im not here to criticize cristians lol but i do believe in invisible magic beings?

Air123201 : lol

Air123201 : n/p

CertainVerdict : you do believe in invisible magic beings?

Air123201 : yup

Air123201 : lol

CertainVerdict : Well, you're not alone, Air.

Air123201 : yay!

Air123201 : lol

CertainVerdict : Many people claim to have this belief.

Air123201 : im a witch so im used ta that sorta stuff

CertainVerdict : I see.

CertainVerdict : Do you know why you believe these things?

Air123201 : because the devil got me?

CertainVerdict : hello haze

_thehaze : Hello Cert.

CertainVerdict : air, is that a question or your explanation?

CertainVerdict : haze, how are you?

_thehaze : I am quite well today, thank you. You have an interesting title for your room.

Air123201 : a bit of a question i just have a felling that is what ur gonna say next

CertainVerdict : haze, well, I hope it becomes more interesting

_thehaze :

_thehaze does too.

CertainVerdict : air, no, i don't believe that is why you would believe what you believe

Air123201 : lol

CertainVerdict : air, do you commune with these invisible magic beings?

Air123201 : thats right cuz i dont even belive in the devil or hell because i am a wiccan

Air123201 : lol nope

CertainVerdict : air, i see.

_thehaze : brb

CertainVerdict : but you believe they're there anyhow, right?

Air123201 : yeah i prefure to call them spirits or demons but yeah

CertainVerdict : so, you believe that they're there for no reason?

Air123201 : they are there for a reason

CertainVerdict : that's not my question

CertainVerdict : air, I mean, on what basis do you believe these things?

CertainVerdict : are these beliefs the conclusion of prior reasoning, or simply you just want to believe in them?

Air123201 : gimmy a second on that one small brain can think well

CertainVerdict : air, take your time.

Air123201 : they are the conclusion of prior reasoning

CertainVerdict : ah, okay.

CertainVerdict : do you know where that prior reasoning begins?

CertainVerdict : wb haze

Air123201 : in my mind

_thehaze : Thank you.

CertainVerdict : i see.

CertainVerdict : so, with your wishes?

Air123201 : no it just makes sense that everything has a spirit some spirits are good and others bad

CertainVerdict : hmmmm.... it doesn't make sense to me.

CertainVerdict : why does it make sense to you?

Air123201 : are you for or against spirits?

CertainVerdict : well, that question is premature I'd say. first we'd have to determine what we mean by 'spirits' and then determine whether or not such things exist

CertainVerdict : then and only then could we begin to discuss value judgments about such things.

_thehaze : Oh, I AM so going to enjoy this room.

CertainVerdict : haze, great. jump in!

Air123201 : are you a pychologist a demon or a priest?

CertainVerdict : Air, I'm just a human being

Air123201 : lol a very well edjucated one to whats with all the big words?

Air123201 : lol

Air123201 : ok

_thehaze is rather fond of big words himself.

CertainVerdict : Air, I take ideas seriously

Air123201 : lol ok

CertainVerdict : I didn't realize I was using big words...

Air123201 : so am i defening my beliefs? or am i trying to prove that i am agreeing with you

CertainVerdict : air, it's up to you. I don't expect you to do anything you don't want to do

Air123201 : lol ok

CertainVerdict : air, i'm just curious.

Air123201 : wut eva

CertainVerdict : i don't mean to be confrontational if that's what you mean

CertainVerdict : Rather, I just like to look at ideas critically

Air123201 : yes i do belive in invisable majic beings

Air123201 : do you haze?

CertainVerdict : Right, you mentioned that earlier

Air123201 : lol

_thehaze : Well, I suppose I surely do.

CertainVerdict : haze, as I mentioned to Air, many people do, so you're not alone

_thehaze : Not sure I'd qualify them as magical though.

Air123201 : lol ok

_thehaze : Well, actually, I'm pretty much alone in my beliefs. It just happens to be that others believe things that are parrallel to mine.

CertainVerdict : haze, by "magic" I mean any kind of power ascribed to consciousness which we do not find in nature

_thehaze : Well then, I would DEFINITELY say not magical.

CertainVerdict : haze, okay

_thehaze : (If it exists, it's natural.)

Air123201 : yeah not majical for mine eather

Air123201 : its all good and its all natural

CertainVerdict : haze, then you don't believe in supernatural beings, right?

_thehaze : Oh, I surely do. Spirit is ultimately natural. Not like this bland physical experience.

CertainVerdict : what do you mean by "bland physical experience"?

_thehaze : Well, not bland to all. What I mean is, it does not have the emotional impact of the spiritual side of life.

_thehaze : In fact, the physical simply effects the spiritual.

Air123201 : well said haze

CertainVerdict : haze, what do you mean by 'spiritual'?

_thehaze : Most are unaware that 99% of life is purely spiritual.

CertainVerdict : haze, really? how do you know that?

_thehaze : Spirit is composed of (at the very least) the conscious intent.

CertainVerdict : haze, I see.

_thehaze : I know that, because I have a definition for the word 'Spiirt'. The bottom line commonality.

CertainVerdict : so, 'spiritual' refers essentially to consciousness, right?

_thehaze : Consciousness is a portion of it, but only a part. Of course, it's a centrally important part.

CertainVerdict : What is your definition for the word 'Spirit'?

Air123201 : well sort of

_thehaze : Spirit is conscious intent.

CertainVerdict : haze, what is "conscious intent"?

_thehaze : For example, the Holy Spirit would be the Set Apart Will of God.

CertainVerdict : Ah, so you do believe in magic after all.

_thehaze : Conscious intent is an awareness of ones ability to make choices, and the outcome they are striving for.

_thehaze : Well, I see why you, as a non-believer, would consider it magical.

CertainVerdict : haze, by what means is this awareness possible?

_thehaze : Wow. Excellent question!

_thehaze : This awareness is possible because it has been given to us. A gift.

Air123201 : sort of like the gift of magik?

CertainVerdict : haze, by what means is one aware of one's ability to make choices and the outcome they are striving for?

_thehaze : Someone else chose for us to be aware. Much in the same way you would write a novel and generate characters in your mind.

CertainVerdict : haze, how did that someone else acquire this awareness?

_thehaze : Well, awareness is sort of the bottom line. I have never found a way to go any further into the root.

CertainVerdict : haze, awareness of what?

_thehaze : They didn't acquire awareness. This source consciousness (God) is simply The Way It Is.

_thehaze : Awareness of self.

_thehaze : Awareness of others.

CertainVerdict : haze, I see. So, in your view, consciousness holds metaphysical primacy, right?

_thehaze : Awareness of inanimate objects. Awareness.

Air123201 : whoa guys ya lost me way back there lol

CertainVerdict : Is there a such thing as awareness of nothing?

Air123201 : i am aware i am confused

_thehaze : Well, for all intents and purposes yes. To be more correct, spirit holds the metaphysical prmimacy, and awareness is at the heart of spirit.

_thehaze : lol

_thehaze : metaphysical simply means above and beyond this physical existance.

_thehaze : Primacy means the most important part.

CertainVerdict : haze, that is not what I mean by 'metaphysical'

_thehaze : There is awareness of nothing, but I doubt I have it.

_thehaze : Oh. Perhaps you should define metaphyical for us.

CertainVerdict : haze, how can something be "aware of nothing?

Air123201 : are you guys like total geniuses or a re you fakeing it?

_thehaze : One would have to be infinite, I believe, to conceive the infinite. Nothing is sort of reverse infinity.

CertainVerdict : haze, metaphysics, as I use the term, is the branch of philosophy which identifies the fundamental nature of reality.

Air123201 : lmao

_thehaze : I am not a total genius. My dad was an English teacher, and I've been researching for some time now.

Air123201 : ok and how old are the two of you?

CertainVerdict : haze, that's fine.

_thehaze : Between 8 and 80.

CertainVerdict : Air, old enough to wish I were younger...

Air123201 :

Air123201 : lol

Air123201 : i am a pathetic lil gr 8 here and am clueless to what ya'll are talkin bout

CertainVerdict : haze, back to an earlier question: by what means is something conscious?

CertainVerdict : Air, it's okay. ask questions if you want

Air123201 : but its quite interesting thoe

_thehaze : Inside of time, by the choice of the infinite consciousness. Outside of time - well, it's outside of time. Sort of nulls the question.

CertainVerdict : haze, by no means?

CertainVerdict : haze, what do you mean "inside of time" - "outside of time"?

_thehaze : Our concsiousness came into being. The ultimate consciousness just IS. (Thereby, I AM.) The Way It Is - that's God's name.

_thehaze : Inside of time experiences past present and future, but is never in the past or the future. And of course, the present is infinitely slender.

CertainVerdict : haze, choice presupposes consciousness of alternatives, so answering the question "by what means is something conscious?" by invoking choice fails to address the question, don't you think?

_thehaze : Outside of time encompasses all of it. It has experienced all, experiences all, and will experience all.

CertainVerdict : haze, this "ultimate consciousness" which you speak of, of what was it conscious before we existed?

CertainVerdict : haze, do you know what time is?

_thehaze : Well, again, the individual who made the choice is also the individual that chose for time to exist. From the human view, one day we weren't, the next day we were, and sooner or later, we will not be again. (Except for the fortunate few that choose...

_thehaze : ...wisely)

CertainVerdict : (not what time it is, but how 'time' is defined?)

CertainVerdict : got moofed...

CreatedVessel : wb

CertainVerdict : thanks!

CertainVerdict : Did Tak ever answer my question as to why he created his clone sn?

CreatedVessel : I don't know I was on the phone, let me scroll back and look.

CertainVerdict : okay. thanks!

CreatedVessel : TаkаbleGiant_ : because takable, thehaze, createdvessel, tulip, raucouscross, and a host of other people are constantly harassing me TаkаbleGiant_ : and takablegiant is the ringleader TаkаbleGiant_ : so i decided to return the favor

CertainVerdict : Hmmmm... sounds very Christian of him...

CertainVerdict : thanks Ves

CreatedVessel : No problem, he's a little strange.

CertainVerdict : Yes, quite.

CreatedVessel : By the way, I have done nothing to harass the guy, I don't even know him other than him coming in rooms I currently go in.

CreatedVessel : Oh, well, the problem will take care of itself.

_thehaze : Good to see your back.

CertainVerdict : wb haz

CertainVerdict : thanks

CertainVerdict : i got bumped

CertainVerdict : it's annoying.

CertainVerdict : Ves, he seems disturbed

CreatedVessel : Something.

_thehaze : Oh, you don't know the half of it. However, I far prefer the discussion we were having to Jeff.

CertainVerdict : Have you reported him to MSN?

CertainVerdict : haze, yes, so do I!

_thehaze : Most certainly I have. And more, but none of that involves you in the least.

CertainVerdict : No, it doesn't involve me, I really don't care.

CertainVerdict : Where were we?

CertainVerdict : (I lost a lot of the prior chat, so I have to rely on you for specifics)

_thehaze : Actually, it appears as though I may an emergency situation suddenly in my lap.

_thehaze : brb

CertainVerdict : okay

_thehaze : (Goodness, but when it rains it pours.)

_thehaze : Ok. The situation is temporarily out of my hands.

_thehaze : _thehaze : In order for existance to exist, (I'm going to have to go into an inside of time view for this,) there had to be something existing first.

_thehaze : _thehaze : Right?

_thehaze : CertainVerdict : haze, not if existence exists.

_thehaze : CertainVerdict : haze, see, you want to start with a form of consciousness.

_thehaze : CertainVerdict : haze, but as I explained, this contradicts itself.

_thehaze : Taht's where Jeff came in.

_thehaze : Are you of the opinion that existance exists outside of time?

CertainVerdict : sorry, had to take care of something...

_thehaze : Certainly.

CertainVerdict : haze, good question.

OCarroll_from_Cavan : Have all of you been saved?

CertainVerdict : Since time presupposes existence (since it is a measurement of motion), time does not apply to the totality of existence.

OCarroll_from_Cavan : It is a simple yet life effecting question-- Have all or any of you been saved?

CertainVerdict : haze, consequently, the universe (which is the sum total of existence) does not exist "in time" - it is literally eternal

_thehaze : (In that what we are being saved from is the second death, I have yet to be saved. I one day will be.)

_thehaze : Eternal being infinite?

OCarroll_from_Cavan : May God be with you through thick and through thin

CertainVerdict : haze, sorry for delay... still a little busy here

CertainVerdict : haze, I do not equate 'eternal' and 'infinite'

_thehaze : Quite all right.

_thehaze : Would define both terms for me?

CertainVerdict : haze, eternal means not restricted to time, or atemporal - literally, that time does not apply.

_thehaze : Excellent. Then I will quite using infinite and use eternal for this conversation.

CertainVerdict : haze, this is not what 'infinite' means; infinite refers to the potential to continue a series indefinitely.

Guest_vtchatman : what does finite mean?

_thehaze : Ok. I will accept your definition for the sake of our debate.

CertainVerdict : haze, 'infinite' cannot refer to actualities - it can only refer to potentialities

_thehaze : I'll simply discard infinite, and use eternal. Either is perfectly acceptable.

CertainVerdict : Hi vchat

_thehaze : Would you be so kind as to define 'existance'?

CertainVerdict : 'finite' refers to that which actually exists - that which has definite identity

Guest_vtchatman : mortal vs immortal

CertainVerdict : haze, the concept 'existence' cannot be defined in terms of prior concepts. It is an axiomatic concept.

_thehaze : So, you use an undefinable word?

Guest_vtchatman : GOD exists and always has

CertainVerdict : haze, it is definable, but not in terms of prior concepts; it is definable ostensibly - i.e., by looking at reality.

_thehaze : So, words cannot define it, simply ideas?

CertainVerdict : haze, ideas are made of concepts; as I said, 'existence' cannot be *defined* in terms of prior concepts.

_thehaze : So then, how do you understand the word, since ideas must be used to understand?

CertainVerdict : haze, it goes back to the issue of metaphysical primacy: since existence holds primacy over consciousness, consciousness must begin with what exists.

_thehaze : That is only accurate inside of time. That statement assumes time.

CertainVerdict : haze, the concept 'existence' is an idea which refers to objects which exists. This is not problematic.

CertainVerdict : haze, 'existence' has direct perceptual reference. It is the fundamental concept.

Guest_vtchatman : jesus is wisdom

CertainVerdict : haze, not if time is the measurement of action.

_thehaze : Perception, I'm assuming, in the tense you're using it in, is inside of time.

_thehaze : One must witness a thing, and register it in mind to perceive it.

_thehaze : That assumes time.

CertainVerdict : perception is an action, yes. But in terms of the totality of existence, time does not apply.

CertainVerdict : haze, thinking is an action, so in that sense, thinking implies time.

_thehaze : Ok. So then, existance itself is outside of time and eternal, right? And you don't like the thought that consciousness IS existance?

CertainVerdict : haze, existence and consciousness are not the same thing; existence refers to that which exists - thus its reference is much broader than the concept 'consciousness'

CertainVerdict : e.g., a rock, a valley, a mountain, an ocean - these things exist; the concept 'existence' applies to them, but the concept 'consciousness' does not apply to them.

_thehaze : So then, consciousness is just a portion of this existence?

_thehaze : Let me ask you this then. Where does consciousness come from?

CertainVerdict : haze, consciousness "comes from" beings which possess a nervous system.

_thehaze : So then, a particular arrangement of particles generates existence?

CertainVerdict : "generates existence"? If those particles exist, then existence exists already. Existence is not "generated"

_thehaze : ER! My error.

_thehaze : A particlular arrangement of particles generates awareness, consciousness?

_thehaze : (Man, what happened to my typing?)

CertainVerdict : haze, that is a good scientific question; from the neurologists I've discussed these matters with, essentially, consciousness is made possible by matter, but it is not reducible to it.

_thehaze :

_thehaze : So then, with that in mind, there are only a handful of possibilities.

CertainVerdict : I wouldn't say "particles" per se, but molecular activity, which is more than simply particles.

CertainVerdict : Of course, it is extremely complex.

_thehaze : Either all particles are conscious and it only becomes apparent in a particular configuration, or inanimate particles with no consciousness one day got together and started making decisions. (Outside of the idea of God, currently.)

CertainVerdict : haze, why is that?

_thehaze : Well, I suppose I'm open to other possibilities. Those are only the ones I'm aware of.

_thehaze : What other possibility is there for the source of consciousness?

_thehaze : Assuming there is no God, that is.

CertainVerdict : "inanimate particles with no consciousness one day got together and started making decisions"? lol

_thehaze :

CertainVerdict : Quite oversimplifying.

_thehaze : I certainly strive to get to source concepts.

CertainVerdict : haze, if that's the case, you must deal with the issue of metaphysical primacy.

_thehaze : Certainly. I will assume your position for a moment, in order to show you its errancy.

CertainVerdict : There is no alternative to dealing with it, though most are unaware of it in explicit terms.

CertainVerdict : haze, go for it.

_thehaze : Where does consciousness come from?

_thehaze : Where does it begin?

CertainVerdict : haze, consciousness is an attribute of organisms with an advanced nervous system.

_thehaze : And where did it originate?

_thehaze : We know it's an attribute, but where does that attribute come from?

CertainVerdict : haze, it originates in organisms which possess the proper nervous system.

_thehaze : So, a nervous system in the correct configuration generates awareness?

CertainVerdict : haze, right.

_thehaze : Is that to say that nervous systems are the source?

CertainVerdict : haze, not sure what you mean by "source"

_thehaze : Well, the place awareness comes from.

CertainVerdict : consciousness is an effect, if you will, of the causality of the nervous system.

_thehaze : Ok. What is a nervous system's source? Where does it come from?

CertainVerdict : haze, a nervous system is an attribute of an organism.

_thehaze : The nervous system is an attribute?

CertainVerdict : Of the organism which possesses it, yes.

_thehaze : Perhaps you should define attribute.

CertainVerdict : hold on... cell call...

_thehaze : Sure. Take your time.

CertainVerdict : sorry... friend called... we're playing tennis later

CertainVerdict : anyway.

_thehaze :

_thehaze : So, you consider the nervous system to be an outcome of organic life?

CertainVerdict : Attribute is a characteristic of an entity - a quality, a property, etc. Such as an appendage, physical characteristics, etc.

CertainVerdict : haze, of course - nervous systems are organic in nature.

_thehaze : Right. (I know some of these are silly looking, but I'm sure you know how frustrating people who keep returning to the minutae can be. I simply strive to avoid that by covering every bit of the minutae before hand.)

_thehaze : That's not to imply that you are that kind of a person, only that I'm well prepared.

CertainVerdict : Understood, but before you deal with the minutae, you have to deal with fundamentals.

CertainVerdict : No matter what we learn about consciousness, it cannot overturn the fact that consciousness is consciousness of objects, of things, of existence.

_thehaze : Well, that's actually where I'm headed, but the only way I know of to get to the fundamentals is reverse analysis. Starting with what is observed, and going back to it source.

CertainVerdict : I.e., it cannot contradict the fact that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

_thehaze : Unless, from the eternal view, existence and consciousness are one and the same.

CertainVerdict : You're assuming that what is observed has a source beyond it.

CertainVerdict : haze, no, existence and consciousness are not one and the same.

_thehaze : Most certainly. Logic dictates that all things have a source.

CertainVerdict : haze, "all things have a source"? does that apply to the source itself?

_thehaze : From an inside of time view, that is correct. They are not one and the same. From an outside of time view, they certainly appear to be.

_thehaze : The source is it's own source. It just IS.

_thehaze : Existance, as you call it.

CertainVerdict : So, the source is its own source?

_thehaze : You simply remove the intent behind the Way It Is.

_thehaze : Yes, it just IS. (This is only possible outside of time.)

CertainVerdict : haze, the concept 'existence' does not presuppose consciousness.

CertainVerdict : or rather, that to which 'existence' refers does not presuppose consciousness

CertainVerdict : (that's what I meant to say)

_thehaze : Well, I understand what you're saying. I simply look outside of time, since time itself had to come from somewhere (in abstract terms, anyway).

CertainVerdict : haze, if you're willing to begin with "what is" that is existence as such.

_thehaze : Exactly.

CertainVerdict : I don't know what you mean by "look outside of time"

CertainVerdict : that's quite ambiguous

_thehaze : The difference in our views, is that you believe consciousness (a non-physical thing) comes only from the physical.

_thehaze : Well, when I say outside of time, I mean, no past, no present, no future - just IS.

_thehaze : Or, another way to state it is, all past, all present, all future.

CertainVerdict : It seems you're introducing a dichotomy ("looking outside of time" as opposed to "looking inside of time") at the fundamental level. What justifies this?

CertainVerdict : Science shows that consciousness depends on the physical. This is basic.

_thehaze : Because, as you say, time assumes existence, and we are striving to get to the origin.

CertainVerdict : haze, origin of what?

_thehaze : Consciousness certainly does appear to be linked only to the physical - and yet the paradox is that it is not a physical thing itself.

CertainVerdict : haze, that is not a paradox in my view.

_thehaze : Well, I should say metaphysical primact rather than origin.

CertainVerdict : haze, obviously, existence must hold primacy over consciousness

CertainVerdict : Consciousness is consciousness *of something* - i.e., of existence.

_thehaze : Just as The Way It Is being consciousness itself (actually, LOVE to be more specific) is not a paradox in my view.

CertainVerdict : If there were no existence, there could be no consciousness.

_thehaze : And, I see that you believe that without consciousness, existence would remain anyway.

CertainVerdict : You're package-dealing again.

_thehaze : Yes, I know.

_thehaze :

CertainVerdict : existence exists. Existence is not dependent on consciousness.

_thehaze : Not simply package dealing, I'm stating that existence IS consciousness. Are you familiar with super-string theorum?

CertainVerdict : Package-dealing is not justified; it is a fallacy which invalidates conclusions.

_thehaze : I will show you purely scientifically what I mean.

CertainVerdict : haze, that is package-dealing.

_thehaze : I will show you, if you'd care to see.

CertainVerdict : haze, before you can even deal with the science of physics, you have to deal with the issue of metaphysical primacy.

_thehaze : Well, the only way for me to show you what I mean is to show the core of nature.

CertainVerdict : If you embark on something which I suspect I've seen many times before, you'll just be begging the question in addition to committing the fallacy of the stolen concept.

_thehaze : The physical, elemental core of all existence.

CertainVerdict : haze, these fallacies will invalidate your conclusions.

_thehaze : You cannot know whether what I have to say is falacious, without seeing what I have to say.

CertainVerdict : haze, agreed; but if I know beforehand that what you want to do is to attempt to validate a package-deal, then I know already it is futile.

CertainVerdict : haze, package-deals are invalid.

_thehaze : There is a way to show this to you. I see that you clearly differentiate between the idea of existence, and the idea of consciousness, but that is also only idea.

CertainVerdict : haze, package-dealing is the failure to make crucial distinctions, which is what happens when you say "existence and consciousness are essentially one and the same"

_thehaze : You strive to predict whether or not there is a God through idea only, and I'm wanting to get into the facts of existance.

CertainVerdict : haze, I agree that consciousness exists; but that is much different from saying that "existence and consciousness are one and the same"

CertainVerdict : haze, the notion 'god' has no reference in reality, so no prediction on my part.

_thehaze : I understand what you're saying. I really do. If you are not aware of the process that existence takes at the ultimatley microscopic level though, I cannot show you what I mean. I think what's occuring is that you misunderstand my meaning.

_thehaze : I understand that. I'm about to show you, if you care for me to, the science of God, if you will.

_thehaze : If nothing else, I would LOVE for someone else to have a rational explanation for what occurs.

_thehaze : Science currently does not.

CertainVerdict : haze, I think you are failing to make crucial distinctions (perhaps because of a false view of concepts), and that you've not dealt with the issue of metaphysical primacy properly.

_thehaze : If you'd prefer to return to that, I will do so.

CertainVerdict : haze, which science have you been studying?

_thehaze : Quantum Physics, Non-Euclidian Geometry, Macro-Physics centrally. (Quantum physics is my favorite though.)

CertainVerdict : haze, look up Harry Binswanger, David Harriman, Richard Held, Alex Silverman for starters...

_thehaze : I also study geology and biology on occasion.

Guest_vtchatman : hawkins

CertainVerdict : They have some very important points of correction in the fields of physics and the metaphysical nature of consciousness.

CertainVerdict : vtchat, I cannot endorse Hawkins.

_thehaze : I will note the names and investigate, if time allows.

Guest_vtchatman : thats u

CertainVerdict : vtchat, yes, that is I.

_thehaze : lol We're all just working with what we consider or desire to be the best odds in our favor. It is safe to assume that each of us with an individual view are using our individual view. (Not to be redundant.)

Guest_vtchatman : right

_thehaze : The core to finding the One Way It Is, is to look past what we want things to be, and seek for the way things ARE, in my opinion.

CertainVerdict : Well, it should be obvious when I say I" cannot endorse Hawkins" that I am speaking for myself.

_thehaze : Otherwise, we simply delude ourselves into believing the false for a sense of security.

Guest_vtchatman : jesus is truth and wisdom

CertainVerdict : haze, indeed; I agree, because I recognize that existence holds primacy over consciousness.

_thehaze : Although that is true, Chatman, it's often approached under the most ridiculous guise.

Guest_vtchatman : right

CertainVerdict : truth is not a person

CertainVerdict : truth is a recogition of reality.

_thehaze : Ah, well, that would depend on how one defines 'person'.

CertainVerdict : The very concept 'truth' must assume the metaphysical primacy of existence, otherwise you're looking at subjectivism.

_thehaze : And, you see, if consciousness IS existence, then Truth most certainly is a person.

CertainVerdict : Subjectivism in metaphysics is the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness.

CertainVerdict : E.g., "Geusha created the universe"

CertainVerdict : haze, as I explained, to accept that "consciousness is existence" - in the sense that both are one and the same - you embrace a package-deal, which invalidates your conclusions.

_thehaze : If consciousness isn't existence, then there is 'stuff' outside of conscious intent, and therefore, 'stuff' becomes God (if you will) and no longer is God love, but rather God is 'stuff'.

_thehaze : Somehow, I knew you'd say that.

CertainVerdict : As I stated, the notion 'god' has no reference to reality.

_thehaze : However, you have not yet allowed me to take the different approach. (I have two others that are different than the one you've taken, both with arrive inarguably at God).

CertainVerdict : To assert the existence of a universe-creating, reality-ruling god, you must assume the primacy of consciousness, which invalidates itself.

_thehaze : Yes, you've said that. However, while that statement holds true inside of time (that is, it is a subjective statement rather than objective) it does not hold together outside of time.

CertainVerdict : It's very clear to me, I don't know why people don't grasp this.

CertainVerdict : haze, again, you're assuming an unnecessary dichotomy at the fundamental level - there's no justification for this.

_thehaze : I know it does. And, just as with any person who believes they have the One Truth, they will almost always hold onto it regardless of what other information comes their way. (People do not like to be wrong.)

CertainVerdict : haze, i think we've been over these points already so that we're repeating each other.

_thehaze : You haven't allowed me to justify it as yet.

_thehaze : I know.

CertainVerdict : haze, the fundamental truth is: existence exists.

_thehaze : You insisit that your idea must come first, and that reverse engineering is pointless if one has already discovered and absolute.

CertainVerdict : haze, anything you will say will have to assume this fact, even if you wanted to deny it.

CertainVerdict : haze, not the idea, but that to which the idea refers. Big difference there.

_thehaze : Certainly that's true. I am inside of time, and can hardly help but to talk with reference to it.

_thehaze : It's sort of disappointing.

CertainVerdict : haze, to think or talk or do any activity of consciousness, is to imply time. But again, time is epistemological, as we saw earlier; you are treating it as a metaphysical phenomenon.

_thehaze : However, if what you intend to say is, no matter what someone tells you, you are right, then what more is there to debate?

CertainVerdict : haze, that's one of the chief errors of modern physics - its failure to understand the concept 'time'.

_thehaze : Yes.

_thehaze : They still sepearate space and time from one another.

_thehaze : There is no separation.

CertainVerdict : haze, time is not metaphysical, yet you'll find very few physicists who will admit this up front.

CertainVerdict : haze, to what does the term 'space' refer?

CertainVerdict : haze, is 'space' an entity?

CertainVerdict : is 'space' a thing?

_thehaze : No. It is that which entities exist in.

_thehaze : In that it can be bent and changed, space is a thing.

CertainVerdict : What is it then?

_thehaze : There is a 'fabric' to it.

CertainVerdict : a fabric?

CertainVerdict : what are its properties?

_thehaze : Well, that's a darn good question.

CertainVerdict : by what means can it be perceived?

CertainVerdict : how do you know it's there?

CertainVerdict : how do you distinguish space from non-space?

CertainVerdict : I have lots more questions, but here's where I'd recommend you look up Dr. David Harriman..

_thehaze : We witness the difference. Light traveling through 'space' bends around gravity.

_thehaze : I got the names. I will look into them.

CertainVerdict : But nothing you find in physics - if it's done right, that is - can overturn the fact that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

_thehaze : I would recommend to you, 'The Universe in a Nutshell', and 'The Elegant Universe'.

CertainVerdict : haze, you assume the primacy of existence every time you want to claim that something is true.

_thehaze : Yes. Just as I would say that nothing overturns God's existence.

CertainVerdict : haze, nothing overturns that which does not exist.

_thehaze : That's true.

_thehaze : Unless, of course, the source opted otherwise.

_thehaze :

CertainVerdict : And to accept the claim that a god exists, you have to accept a fundamental contradiction - the primacy of consciousness view of reality. It is invalid.

_thehaze : Which brings us full circle, yes?

CertainVerdict : Go back and look at the history of philosophy, and you'll see that by and large most of it is a process of trying to validate the primacy of consciousness.

CertainVerdict : Example, R. Descartes' "I think, therefore I exist" - classic stolen concept.

CertainVerdict : Few recognize it.

  _thehaze : It is the same from my view. REgardless of how it is presented, few will recognize it.

CertainVerdict : haze, I surely do recognize it.

CertainVerdict : haze, but I see the error, and I've pointed it out in this convo several times.

CertainVerdict : Assuming stolen concepts will only invalidate a view.

_thehaze : It's funny, but pretty much all of mankind says exactly the same thing. They know they're right, and no argument will alter it. Doesn't really matter if your and Atheist, a Christian, or a Muslim. All men just seem to be that way.

_thehaze : I have attempted to point out your error, but in that you will only look from one angle, I'm afraid I'm stuck.

CertainVerdict : I can only look at it from one angle - the primacy of existence. The other angle is a false view.

_thehaze : Handy, if you're here for CreatedVessel, she's away for a moment.

_thehaze : Oh! That's the advertiser guy.

CertainVerdict : Handy was handing out ads...

CertainVerdict : I lost my hammer, so I can't do anything to get rid of spammers...

_thehaze : Well, I strive to look at as many angles as possible.

CertainVerdict : haze, at the level of metaphysical primacy, there are only two options, and only one of them is valid, the other is invalid.

CertainVerdict : haze, that's why I emphasized earlier that it is so important to deal with this issue.

_thehaze : It is something you have stated several times. I am aware of your view. Actually, you're rare in that you stated it clearly, and with a fair amount of accuracy.

_thehaze : I understand why it is the only issue you will address, until you have convinced the other that you are right, but that is not a terribly effective method with me. I must be proven wrong before I can accept the other individual as right, and in that I...

_thehaze : ...look at so many angles, the other person must be quite thourough.

CertainVerdict : Okay.

_thehaze : I admit that it puts me at risk of being errant. On the other hand, it also puts me in the place of most area covered. It has its ups and downs.

CertainVerdict : I don't know if it's possible to convince someone who's accepted the primacy of consciousness that they're wrong.

_thehaze : Well, it is possible, but it's not an easy thing. A single angled view doesn't cut the mustard. Taking only one approach is very digital in nature, and I strive to be analagous. At least, as analagous is possible for a finite being.

CertainVerdict : haze, the notion of a "finite being" is a conceptual redundancy.

CertainVerdict : To exist is to have identity, i.e., to be something specific - thus, to exist is to be finite.

CertainVerdict : To say that something exists but is "infinite" is to contradict oneself.

CertainVerdict : We covered that earlier I thought.

_thehaze : Well, I suppose then, I should say, as analagous as possible for being a human being that does not have unlimited knowledge, power and presence.

CertainVerdict : There is no such thing as "unlimited knowledge" - that would be the same as saying "infinite knowledge" and that's a contradiction in terms for the same reason I pointed out above.

PCrash0 : if to exist means to be finite then there must have been a time when nothing existed

CertainVerdict : PCrash, wrong.

PCrash0 : not wrong

CertainVerdict : PCrash, "finite" does not mean "non-eternal"

CertainVerdict : PCrash, it is wrong.

PCrash0 : what does it mean then

_thehaze : If what you mean to say is that I am ultimately right because the statement is redundant and cannot be wrong, I will not argue that.

CertainVerdict : The universe is both finite, but it is also eternal.

CertainVerdict : 'infinite' refers to the potential to extend a series indefinitely; it refers to a potential, not to an actual.

CertainVerdict : haze, essentially, yes, in terms the notion of "finite being"

CertainVerdict : haze, I hope I've made at least some new points clear for you.

_thehaze : I have learned from you some terminologies. That was educational, and thank you.

CertainVerdict : haze, I appreciate your patience

_thehaze : Have I been patient? I thought I was sort of being an ass as we kept returning over and over to the same ground.

CertainVerdict : haze, maybe a little...

CertainVerdict : just kidding

CertainVerdict : not at all.

CertainVerdict : I'm typically accustomed to people parroting contentless bromides like "Jesus is truth" and showing no willingness to comprehend anything.

CertainVerdict : That kind of behavior gets the conversation nowhere.

_thehaze : Look to Proverbs 2, and you'll see why I seek Truth, not blind belief.

_thehaze : Look to Isaiah 1, and you'll see why I enact reason first.

CertainVerdict : I seek truth, because I need it to live. Not because some ancient text says I should.

_thehaze : Look to Hebrews 11:1, and you'll see what my 'faith' is (not this bologna about believing in a God one has never seen, heard or touched.)

CertainVerdict : haze, how does the Bible define 'reason'?

CertainVerdict : Hebrews 11:1 (KJV): "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

_thehaze : The word used is in reference to presenting an argument before a court. Substance and evidence. Scientifically speaking, good, tangible, real world proof.

CertainVerdict : What does this "substance" look like?

_thehaze : Substance simply means sense-able. (As in, able to use your physical senses to be aware of a thing.)

_thehaze : Evidence - an inarguable logic.

CertainVerdict : Evidence is "an inarguable logic"?

_thehaze : That is correct.

CertainVerdict : If it cannot be argued, how is it logical?

_thehaze : Perhaps I should say, undefeatable logic based on the Way It Is.

CertainVerdict : What is the starting point to this logic? (That's where you have to deal with the issue of metaphysical primacy; if you affirm the primacy of consciousness, then all rationality is out)

CertainVerdict : The way that it is, is: Existence exists.

_thehaze : That is a portion of the way it is, yes.

CertainVerdict : This is incontestable (unless you take the primacy of consciousness to its most extreme, which is divine solipsism, and accept all kinds of package-deals, false dichotomies, etc.)

_thehaze : The starting point that I discovered (there are endless ways of approaching it I'm sure) was simply this. In order for a living entity to remain living, it must avoid dying.

CertainVerdict : The concept 'existence' is the widest of all concepts; it refers to everything which exists. It refers to entities which possess consciousness, and to those which do not possess consciousness.

_thehaze : Certainly, I won't waste my breath arguing that existence doesn't exist. It would be futile.

CertainVerdict : haze, but if you want to "consider all angles," wouldn't that be one you'd have to cover?

_thehaze : Yes. It absolutely would. To ignore it would be to miss an opportunity at greater Truth.

_thehaze : Not only that, it is a fine and well polished argument. You present it well.

CertainVerdict : haze, see, you want to reason indiscriminately, even if that means knowingly considering contradictions. Why?

_thehaze : I also strove to get to the VERY FIRST THING. The abosolute beginning angle. A singularity. I found a different route there, but I do find it interesting that both of us wound up at the same source, even if I perceive there to be more.

CertainVerdict : Do you think I'm arguing for the conclusion that existence does not exist?

_thehaze : Goodness no.

CertainVerdict : I don't think we've "wound up at the same source" by any means.

CertainVerdict : Okay, wasn't sure what you meant by "you present it well"

_thehaze : It is only contradictory inside of time.

_thehaze : I meant that you were intelligent and rational, reasonable and not impatient, dedicated and came across clearly. Presented it well.

CertainVerdict : If existence exists, existence exists. Period.

CertainVerdict : I see.

CertainVerdict : Well, thanks for your compliment.

_thehaze : That is one statement of Truth, if redundant like no tomorrow. If existence exists, existence most certainly does exist. (Crimeny!)

urbanegentleman18 : hello

CertainVerdict : Right. And, if existence exists, existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

CertainVerdict : hi urbane

_thehaze : Ah, that point I cannot agree with. It is only a true statement if one assumes time.

CertainVerdict : Existence exists independent of consciousness.

_thehaze : And if time is assumed as well, it is not metaphysically primary.

urbanegentleman18 : Ever read any Ayn Rand.

urbanegentleman18 : ?

CertainVerdict : Look at this example: I am playing catch with a friend of mine.

CertainVerdict : I throw the ball too high for my friend to catch, and it goes beyond a fence.

CertainVerdict : Neither of us can see the ball, since it's gone beyond the fence.

CertainVerdict : But you know what, it still exists, even though it has gone outside of our immediate consciousness.

urbanegentleman18 : Certain, are you a follower of Jesus?

CertainVerdict : Its existence is not dependent upon our consciousness of it.

CertainVerdict : urbane, no.

urbanegentleman18 : good for you

CertainVerdict : urbane, i strive to make the best choices in my life.

_thehaze : We didn't create the particles in the ball.

CertainVerdict : urbane, that was an easy one.

urbanegentleman18 : true

_thehaze : The ball exists separate from OUR consciousness. That is true.

urbanegentleman18 : i had to make sure you werent trying to convert people

CertainVerdict : haze, we manufactured the ball, no one "created" the particles which make it up; they already existed in some for.

CertainVerdict : form.

_thehaze : Even were we playing catch and shot dead, the ball would still exist.

CertainVerdict : urbane, I don't try to convert people, I try to reason with them.

CertainVerdict : urbane, big difference in my book.

Dj88_thetruck : hi all

urbanegentleman18 : yeah. a better option.

CertainVerdict : haze, yes, after I die, the ball can still exist.

_thehaze : And, whilst I certainly do believe in Christ, I leave it up to Him to do the converting. Not my job.

Dj88_thetruck : i came in here on accident

urbanegentleman18 : reason is always welcome, whereas faith is a destroyer of the mind.

Dj88_thetruck : whats this room all about

CertainVerdict : urbane, indeed!

_thehaze : Depends on how you define faith. Everyone acts on faith.

Dj88_thetruck : whats this room all about

Dj88_thetruck : ?

urbanegentleman18 : objectivism

CertainVerdict : Something is not true because we *hope* it's true.

CertainVerdict : Faith is acting *as if* something is true, even though one cannot rationally believe it's true.

Dj88_thetruck : bye all

urbanegentleman18 : by Dj

urbanegentleman18 : bye

CertainVerdict : Faith, as examplified in the gospels, endows the believer's consciousness with magic powers.

_thehaze : By that definition of faith, it is pure foolishness.

PCrash0 : we don't believe God into existance nor is He believed out of it

CertainVerdict : E.g, look in Matt. 14 when Jesus is walking on the water.

CertainVerdict : Jesus asks Peter to step onto the water too.

_thehaze : Oh, I do like this example. Wait 'til I show you.

CertainVerdict : But Peter, assuming the primacy of existence, is hesitant, since he knows from experience that he'll sink if he steps onto the water

_thehaze : Well, actually, Peter asks Jesus if he can come out.

CertainVerdict : When Peter starts to sink, Jesus scolds him: "Oh ye of little faith! Why don't you believe?"

_thehaze : It's a good question to ask. He had obvious substance right in front of him.

CertainVerdict : The point is obvious: reality did not conform to Peter's will because he was assuming the primacy of existence (though, he most likely was not aware of it in these terms)

CertainVerdict : The apparent lesson is: reality will conform to your wishes if you "believe" hard enough.

CertainVerdict : That's pure primacy of consciousness.

CertainVerdict : Great trick if you can do it.

PCrash0 : that was not the lesson

PCrash0 : we don't believe things into being

CertainVerdict : PCrash, of course, you can't. The primacy of existence won't let you.

_thehaze : brb

_thehaze : Ok. In regard to that story, allow me to show you where you've missed the track. (If I may be so bold.)

_thehaze : Firstly, reality does not conform to man's wishes.

_thehaze : There is no place in the Bible that even begins to present that idea.

CertainVerdict : haze, sure. Creation: God creates the universe by "speaking" it into existence; thus, existence finds its source in a *will* - a form of consciousness.

CertainVerdict : haze, it's pure primacy of consciousness; that's what is meant by primacy of consciousness.

_thehaze : The idea is, if you rely on the Creator, the Source of everything, you can't go wrong.

_thehaze : What went wrong was that Peter didn't believe what was obvious - Christ was walking on the water right in front of his face.

CertainVerdict : haze, you make my point for me.

_thehaze : I know. That's part of the beauty of it.

_thehaze : I sure do wish you could see the rest.

CertainVerdict : What happens in reality, according to the story, depends on what one *believes* - i.e., existence is dependent on consciousness.

_thehaze : However, as we've been stating, what I wish does not generate reality.

CertainVerdict : haze, of course not, because of the primacy of existence.

_thehaze : Well, again, right there, in comes relativity.

CertainVerdict : You're making me grin, haze...

_thehaze :

_thehaze : When you say primary, you're stating singularity.

_thehaze : Singularity is a very difficult thing to get to.

CertainVerdict : haze, how so?

_thehaze : I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you need me to define singularity?

CertainVerdict : When I use 'primary' or 'primacy' I am referring to a hierarchical ranking.

_thehaze : Right - the single top of the pile. Irreducible, as you put it earlier.

_thehaze : Single top = singularity.

CertainVerdict : Right, irreducible. Existence is irreducible.

_thehaze : Irreducible - only one. Can't go further. No more to it.

CertainVerdict : Right, 'existence' is the base axiomatic concept.

_thehaze : However, in your statement, you constantly put it in an inside of time perspective, although I don't think you're seeing that yet.

CertainVerdict : To assert conscious intentions, one must *assume* existence, since consciousness is consciousness of something (i.e., of existence)

_thehaze : lol We've done this one before, I think.

CertainVerdict : How am I putting it an "inside of time perspective"?

_thehaze : About six times.

CertainVerdict : How does "existence exists" fit in an "inside of time perspective"?

_thehaze : Ah! Ok. When you say that it is irreducible, that it is the core starting point, you have already put it in a time angle...although I see how you perceive it otherwise. This is going to be an exercise in expression if I've ever had one.

_thehaze : I will try to explain it. It's a very subtle difference.

CertainVerdict : How does "existence exists" fit in an "inside of time perspective"?

_thehaze : When I say inside of time, that is because you must start at a point, and move on from there.

_thehaze : When you say it is the metaphysical primacy, you are stating it is the starting point.

_thehaze : In other words, you're saying 'In the beginning, there WAS'.

CertainVerdict : When I say "irreducible" I mean conceptually irreducible; i.e., the concept 'existence' cannot be defined in terms of prior concepts, as I stated before.

CertainVerdict : haze, I must start at a "point"? Point of what?

_thehaze : Which is a starting point, right? A ground to begin from, that of existence, and then personality, matter, the space/time continuum, all move out from there. Right? (At least, that's what I'm understanding you to say.)

  CertainVerdict : haze, I do not say "in the beginning, there was..." That is not my terminology.

_thehaze : No. That's an expression of my understanding.

_thehaze : I'm translating to my language so I can get my teeth around it better.

CertainVerdict : Well, I don't think it applies to my view at all.

_thehaze : Well, when you say existence exists, what does that take into account?

_thehaze : What is existence.

_thehaze : ?

CertainVerdict : I'm not saying that the expression "existence exists" is a temporary phenomenon, if that's what you mean.

CertainVerdict : Time is not even a consideration at this point.

CertainVerdict : The concept 'existence' refers to everything which exists, which has ever existed, which ever will exist.

_thehaze : No. You said it was timeless. But I think if you examine your personal view, you'll find that, at any point time DOES come into the picture, existence only progresses, never regresses.

CertainVerdict : I don't think existence as such either "progresses" or "regresses"; it simply exists.

_thehaze : If time is taken into account in your view (not the assumed time it already presents, but a purposeful inclusion of time) then it can only travel one way.

_thehaze : Ok. How would you define existence. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

CertainVerdict : haze, time, since it assumes the law of causality (identity applied to action) can only happen "one way"

_thehaze : Because, if you're saying it precludes consciousness, you are speaking in terms of time.

_thehaze : Detergant, you have hit the point I'm trying to make on the head.

CertainVerdict : haze, as I stated, I do not define 'existence' in terms of prior concepts; it is defined *ostensibly* - i.e., by looking at reality.

_thehaze : It is very much what I mean when I say you're perceiving it only through a time perspective.

_thehaze : Well, if you mean that it is undefinable, I don't really know how to move on from there. It may be that you and I perceive the word 'existence' completely differently.

_thehaze : That would explain our difficulty in trnaslating one to the other

CertainVerdict : I would say it is a causal perspective in that I must engage my consciousness in order to *recognize* (as opposed to "create") these facts; in that sense, time is *implied* - but it is not necessarily an "inside of time perspective"

CertainVerdict : I covered that point earlier

CertainVerdict : It is undefinable *in terms of prior concepts* since there are no prior concepts.

_thehaze : Well, I know you did. I think at this point, I may throw in the proverbial towel. We appear to be dead-locked.

CertainVerdict : haze, I think my position is unassailable.

_thehaze : Yes, I know you do.

CertainVerdict : I've identified my starting point (the fact that existence exists), and I've shown how existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

CertainVerdict : I've shown how one must get this issue reversed in order to claim that a consciousness created existence.

CertainVerdict : If I had time, I could also show how anyone who contested these points would have to assume them in order to refute them, thus committing himself to stolen concepts.

_thehaze : I know that is enough for you. It was well presented.

CertainVerdict : I broached that subject, but only a bit.

CertainVerdict : If existence exists, that puts all gods out of a job.

_thehaze : Yes. I know you believe that as well.

CertainVerdict : There goes all the cosmological, teleological, transcendental arguments, etc.

_thehaze : However, you may consider the fact that, holding on to a single view excludes all others, and that can be very dangerous. If you turn out being wrong, it could be costly not to have investigated. If you're right, it won't matter.

CertainVerdict : Stolen concepts can only invalidate one's views if he accepts them as premises in his assumptions.

CertainVerdict : haze, I'm certainly willing to take my chances with the single view, since it models reality accurately.

_thehaze : Well, just as you believe you have shown your view to be the perfect view - untouchable - I also believe I have shown quite clearly it's weak point (that being relativity).

_thehaze : Well, of course you are. So are all men. We all think we're right.

CertainVerdict : haze, when I've discovered that I'm wrong on certain issues, I'm willing to correct my errors.

CertainVerdict : haze, there was a time when I affirmed the primacy of consciousness, as you do.

CertainVerdict : haze, I tried all the same kinds of arguments to validate it. I saw that I could not escape the stolen concepts.

  _thehaze : I am aware that is your perception. I would not agree, but then, that's the nature of debate. Wouldn't be much fun without it.

_thehaze : What's humorous is that there was a time when I assumed the primacy of existence, although I put it differently.

_thehaze :

CertainVerdict : haze, you have to assume it all the time.

_thehaze : I know you claim that.

CertainVerdict : haze, you do whenever you take an action to reach a goal.

CertainVerdict : As Francis Bacon wrote, nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

_thehaze : Well, I believe that from my relative view, I can generate ways to nullify the existence of God. If there WAS a God, then that would complicate things, because I could no longer just do whatever I wanted.

CertainVerdict : It is nature - identity, causality - which we cannot wish away; they are not dependent on our consciousness.

CertainVerdict : No one can just do what he wants.

CertainVerdict : Reality has constraints.

CertainVerdict : I can flap my arms, but I cannot make myself fly.

_thehaze : Well, I find it likely that, having already presented your points, and finding they still are insufficient to convince me, I'm not going to accept them now.

_thehaze : Unless you have new points.

_thehaze : However, to have new points, you would have to progress past this metaphysical prime you believe is the Way It Is, and that would then no longer be focused on this topic.

CertainVerdict : I don't know of any that would be useful; if you don't want to accept the primacy of existence consistently, nothing could convince you to do so by means of argument anyway.

_thehaze : You know what's funny about that sentence? Christ said the very same thing.

_thehaze : Only, from the other side of the fence.

CertainVerdict : Right, from the primacy of consciousness perspective; only, that view is false. Reality does not conform to consciousness

CertainVerdict : (no matter how much people would like it to)

_thehaze : Well, I would bring up the perspective of time again, but we've been over that.

CertainVerdict : haze, time has nothing to do with it.

_thehaze : Certainly, no matter what a human wishes, they cannot create something with wish alone.

_thehaze : I know you say that.

CertainVerdict : haze, it's all about the relationship between existence and the means by which we're aware of it.

_thehaze : However, I believe we've identified the dead-lock with immense accuracy, and are not likely to get much further.

CertainVerdict : Existence exists.

_thehaze : Keep in mind that, if awareness is not at the very core, then it must come from something. It is not a physical item, although it must have the physical in this 'plane' to function.

CertainVerdict : Consciousness of course does presuppose existence.

_thehaze : Think on that. Either particles are all inherently aware (which seems pretty silly to me - but if true assumes it is still a portion of reality) or particles eventually just started making decisions.

CertainVerdict : That's a corollary of the primacy of existence.

_thehaze : I state that, no matter how long one shakes a universe up, or moves it around, no conglomeration of particles is going to start choosing to do things.

CertainVerdict : I don't think particles make decisions; organisms with the attribute of conceptual consciousness (called human beings) do.

_thehaze : Organisms are pure particle configuration.

_thehaze : Superstrings make up quarks, quarks make up atoms, atoms make up molecules, molecules make up cells, cells make us.

CertainVerdict : But the particle is not what is conscious.

_thehaze : That is exactly my point.

_thehaze : Consciousness is attached to the physical, it is not a portion of it.

CertainVerdict : Consciousness is action, not a particle.

_thehaze : Consciousness is not action - it perceives action.

_thehaze : It's one of those very difficult words to define.

CertainVerdict : haze, perception is an action.

CertainVerdict : perceiving is active

CertainVerdict : Simple lab experiments will show this.

CertainVerdict : Thinking is an action.

_thehaze : Yes, I know. It's a tough thing to get around, because what it implies is that consciousness itself is outside of time.

CertainVerdict : Forming concepts, isolating essentials, integrating conceptual elements into larger wholes - all are actions of consciousness.

CertainVerdict : Again, you're treating time as if it were metaphysical.

_thehaze : They are actions OF consciousness, but not consciouseness itself.

CertainVerdict : Conscious actions are consciousness.

_thehaze : (personally, I do not like the idea that consciousness is outside of time.)

_thehaze : You cannot use a word to define itself.

CertainVerdict : It is not a definition.

CertainVerdict : Consciousness is also axiomatic, haze.

_thehaze : Yes. A root of the source.

_thehaze : In fact, one of two roots.

_thehaze : The other being existence. LOL

CertainVerdict : Consciousness in my view is activity.

_thehaze : ARGH!

_thehaze : Volcanoes are active, and not conscious.

CertainVerdict : The relationship is not one of equals, though.

CertainVerdict : You have to integrate that fact, haze. I don't think you are.

_thehaze : Mountain slides are active, and not conscious.

CertainVerdict : Right, that's true.

CertainVerdict : Not all action is conscious action.

CertainVerdict : But all action is action of an entity, an object.

_thehaze : Well, to integrate that idea, is to accept what appears to me to be wholly unrealistic.

_thehaze : Particles, no matter what configuration they take, do not make decisions on their own.

CertainVerdict : Well, then I couldn't possibly imagine what you mean by 'realistic'

CertainVerdict : haze, I am not arguing that particles make decisions.

_thehaze : Well, I suspect you imagine a piece of it already. You simply reject it.

_thehaze : If consciousness is not at the very core of existence itself, then particles have no choice but to make decisions.

_thehaze : It is the only other possibility I see.

CertainVerdict : See, that's another notion which I find problematic: "the very core of existence itself" - it is meaningless.

CertainVerdict : You're attempting to reduce the irreducible; Aquinas tried to do this with his "essence-existence" dichotomy.

_thehaze : Whilst your singular angle eliminates apparent inconsistancies at the bottom of the pyramid, it wreaks havoc with the top, because it suggests the impossible. The inanimate eventually chooses what to do.

CertainVerdict : He made essentially the same error you make with time.

CertainVerdict : Time is not metaphysical, it is epistemological; likewise with essence - it is an epistemological concept, not a metaphysical concept.

_thehaze : If your view was the Way It Is, there would never have been awareness in the first place.

CertainVerdict : It is not inanimate (obviously!)

CertainVerdict : haze, you haven't shown that to be the case (that there would have been no awareness in the first place)

CertainVerdict : No matter what we learn about the nature of conscious activity and its relationships to the nervous system, it will not overturn the primacy of existence; we need the primacy of existence even to consider and investigate such matters.

_thehaze : Ok. Well, again, the only two possibilities I have seen are A) particles are inherently aware.

CertainVerdict : I don't think you grasp this principle at all, haze, if you don't mind me saying.

_thehaze : B) particles come together in a configuration that generates awareness. (I don't mind you saying so. )

CertainVerdict : What do you think is wrong with option B (assuming you do)?

_thehaze : What you are saying is, one must prove the source, and then no matter what the illogic of the outcome is, if the source is perfectly logical, never look at another.

_thehaze : Option B assumes that particles eventually make decisions.

CertainVerdict : Do you present an argument from ignorance at this point? E.g., "I can't see how particles can be aware"?

_thehaze : No. I present it from the view of being personally ridiculous. I suppose it is possible, I simply find it to be silly.

CertainVerdict : What's wrong with the supposition (however contrived!) that "particles eventually make decisions"?

CertainVerdict : haze, perhaps on your assumptions, it may seem silly. I suggest you enlarge your data sets with more relevant material on the subject?

_thehaze : It is to say that inanimate is potentially animate at all times. Simply alter the configuration, and you bring out the animation in it. However, it is remarkably silly to me to think that, if one shakes a universe sized jar of marbles long enough, the..

CertainVerdict : Objects have identity - to exist is to have a nature, an identity.

CertainVerdict : Objects can act - according to their identity.

_thehaze : ...marbles will one day make choices, feel emotions, think, choose, know right and wrong.

CertainVerdict : What is contradicted by the supposition that "particles" in certain extremely complex arrangements can endow an organism with conscious activity?

Joely_is_grooving : hi

CertainVerdict : hi joe

_thehaze : Well, the organism is nothing more than a collection of these particles, and I know that I at least am able to make decisions. I only see the two paths, in the event there is no God.

Joely_is_grooving : can i ask some questions..........i dont want questions back......just yes or no answers

CertainVerdict : The inanimate is potentially animate - sure, such as when nutrients in the soil are consumed by plants, and then the plants are consumed by animals, etc.

_thehaze : Right. That assumes life already.

_thehaze : And life had to start from somewhere, or it has always been there.

CertainVerdict : haze, you're oversimplifying a position in order to make it seem silly. I don't think that's very honest.

Joely_is_grooving : do you believe in luck?

_thehaze : I don't believe I'm oversimplifying, but I'll be happy to see why you would say it's oversimplified.

Joely_is_grooving : yes/no?

CertainVerdict : haze, well, there's some really good research lately on abiogenesis.

_thehaze : Is it because I say that creatures are simply collections of particles in a particular configuration?

CertainVerdict : haze, but it's so far off topic that your position was defeated long ago.

Joely_is_grooving : ahhhhh ya use the left side of your brain too much.......,get in touch with ur intuition more

Joely_is_grooving : goodnight

CertainVerdict : joe, lol!

CertainVerdict : Well, haze, I have to get ready for tennis!!

CertainVerdict : I hope one day you come to understand. I see a lot of errors in your assumptions.

_thehaze : Well, I do hope you enjoy yourself.

CertainVerdict : I tried to expose and explain them.

_thehaze : I wish you the very same. May the Truth seek you out.

CertainVerdict : Well, it's pretty overcast out...

CertainVerdict : I think we missed the sun...

CertainVerdict : oh well! I'll enjoy anyway!!

CertainVerdict : But I must go pronto!

_thehaze : Bye.

_thehaze :

CertainVerdict : Take care! Thanks for the chat. I will review it so as to make sure I understand yourpoints.

CertainVerdict : bye haze!

CertainVerdict : Bye Ves!