Existence...

[C C]

[...] The source of creation (creation for short) creates eternally. [...]

[...] I claim an eternal consciousness forms what is created. [...]

Does this mark a partial lifting of the veil, or just another romp at your playing a cryptic symbol?

So... you actually are making some part of "existence in general" subject to origins and beginnings, and afterwards mutable and subservient to time or a process of change?

Or is this a growing block universe scenario where past states persist, and the modification process merely adds more, new states without expunging the antecedent ones?

And your "eternal consciousness" that's outputting the product stuff is what? Some kind of (Platonic) generative principle that is absolute -- remains aloof and unmodified by what it engenders?

Or are you instead throwing the whole works (all that exists -- both the regulators and the regulated) under the bus in terms of vulnerability to change and the potentiality of massive revision? (The adjective of "eternal" might seem to nix that, but your selection of "consciousness" for the noun could turn out to be figurative for unreliable capriciousness.)

 

[WendyDarling]

I'm not willing to write Parmenides a blank check. But he was one of history's most influential philosophers. Many other ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and the atomists constructed their philosophies in part in reply to Parmenides. So I have great respect for him, even if I don't always agree with him. Part of the problem with him is that today we only possess a fraction of what he wrote. He divided reality into the world of appearance (the tables and the chairs... and us) and reality as he thought it really was (an unchanging One). The problem is that his account of how the world of appearance is related to and emanates from the One is lost. Plotinus and the later neoplatonists supplied their own accounts of that. Today the block-theories of time seem to me to revisit some of the same ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)



I don't know what the limits of existence are. Personally, I'm reasonably certain that human perception (and powers of conceptualization) come nowhere near exhausting the inventory of reality. So I can't agree with any "existence=" formulation at this point. (I'm too much of an agnostic for that.) I'm not convinced that human beings will ever be in any position to do that.

Kindly, I'll agree to disagree, until I can tackle that issue later. I'll return with more insight.

What I believe the ancient philosophers understood is covet what you see, what you experience, then they based their assertions on that simple concept. Discuss what you understand from your observations. I say all our answers are present already, but we let our imaginations go wild to avoid the disappointment of simplicity.

I'm still trying to chisel away at the cognitive dissonance happening in this thread. People are four square against the counter-intuitive.

 

[Baldeee]

To think and feel. That is why we exist so it would only make sense that is why the conscious Absolute Singularity known as Existence exists.

First: where is the evidence or support for those being the reason we exist?
It is certainly not a given, and comes across more just a matter of faith on your part.
Thinking and feeling is certainly part of what we do as part of our existence, but why should what we do during our existence be taken as the reason for that existence?

Second: you have asserted consciousness in this "Absolute Singularity", but on what basis?

Third: not all life thinks, and not all life feels, so why, other than your belief in the matter, are you asserting that the "Absolute Singularity" has the same why as us, rather than as non-thinking and/or non-feeling life?
Are you asserting, perhaps, that only conscious things think and feel, and that nothing that doesn't think and feel is thereby not to be considered conscious?
If so, where do you draw the line between life and conscious life?
And then why not consider all the other things that conscious entities do?
Conscious life replicates.
Using your "logic" it would "only make sense" that the "Absolute Singularity"'s reason is to replicate, right?
So the eternal "Absolute Singularity" creates other eternal "Absolute Singularities"?


You seem to be putting forward a lot of ideas, but alas none of them yet seem sufficiently coherent to consider further.
Sorry.

 

[WendyDarling]

"You seem to be putting forward a lot of ideas, but alas none of them yet seem sufficiently coherent to consider further.
Sorry."

Adios.

 

[WendyDarling]

Yazada,

"Parmenides probably would have agreed, but I'm not willing to go that far. Reality certainly seems to display order, what physics tries to uncover and what the ancient Greeks called "logos". But order isn't the same thing as consciousness nor does it necessarily imply it."

Why does order not imply consciousness? Is consciousness not understanding? Is understanding perfect? Is order or the appearance of order perfect?

The order chaos/complexity theories need resolving, so both can be removed from discussion once and for all.

 

[WendyDarling]

CC,

Speaking of veils is this...

"Does this mark a partial lifting of the veil, or just another romp at your playing a cryptic symbol?"

...a sincere question or a thinly veiled insult?

 

[C C]

CC,

Speaking of veils is this...

"Does this mark a partial lifting of the veil, or just another romp at your playing a cryptic symbol?"

...a sincere question or a thinly veiled insult?

An observation, and related to the same metaphor earlier that suggested "to get a move on" clarification-wise before patience waned: "You're not a cryptic hieroglyph on the ruins of a lost civilization that archeologists will invest decades trying to decipher."

Your statement "I find no evidence of nothing becoming something" has arguably been illumed, if concerning a genuine absence of all entities and conceptions. Yet also seems trivial, like "bluegills have fins".

But now these aforementioned items to be addressed:

[...] The source of creation (creation for short) creates eternally...

[...] I claim an eternal consciousness forms what is created. [...]

 

[WendyDarling]

An observation, and related to the same metaphor earlier that suggested "to get a move on" clarification-wise before patience waned: "You're not a cryptic hieroglyph on the ruins of a lost civilization that archeologists will invest decades trying to decipher."

Your statement "I find no evidence of nothing becoming something" has arguably been illumed, if concerning a genuine absence of all entities and conceptions. Yet also seems trivial, like "bluegills have fins".

But now these aforementioned items to be addressed:

"You're not a cryptic hieroglyph on the ruins of a lost civilization that archeologists will invest decades trying to decipher.

But would it be a stretch to predict without looking that some over at ILP regard you as like a Voynich manuscript? The latter equivalent to a highly ornamented version of a stain on the floor that possess no more information content than the latter."

It's surprising that you continue to ingratiate yourself with a stain on the floor. Latter of latter, whatever that means. I like later of later. Much later.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"You're not a cryptic hieroglyph on the ruins of a lost civilization that archeologists will invest decades trying to decipher.

But would it be a stretch to predict without looking that some over at ILP regard you as like a Voynich manuscript? The latter equivalent to a highly ornamented version of a stain on the floor that possess no more information content than the latter."

It's surprising that you continue to ingratiate yourself with a stain on the floor. Latter of latter, whatever that means. I like later of later. Much later.

I honestly thought your logical (?) proof of God thread was going to go somewhere...
Source?
Creation?
Consciousness?

...am I wrong to interpret your cryptic-ism in that manner?

 

[WendyDarling]

I honestly thought your logical (?) proof of God thread was going to go somewhere...
Source?
Creation?
Consciousness?

...am I wrong to interpret your cryptic-ism in that manner?

I'm working on it but the angry vultures are circling.

I'd like to eliminate the claims of the order/chaos theory and the theory of complexity, reason them out of existence, so that both are not distractions from getting to your A, B, and C listed.

Your invited to make the claims of those theories so I can work on eliminating them.

Oh, and I'm not asserting "God" per se. I am not a member of any organized religion. Asserting more of an eternally conscious creating existence.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Oh, and I'm not asserting "God" per se. I am not a member of any organized religion. Asserting more of an eternally conscious creating existence.

Ah, I see... thank you for the clarification.
Unfortunately this forum has a history of disingenuous religious postings and many members while quite happy to argue religious claims in the correct sub fora get a bit upset when they are guile-d into essentially wasting their time.
I do not envy your task ahead.
From my understanding you are suggesting a form of Pantheism that involves a conscious sentient Creator ( God ) that is distinct from the religious versions and it is beholden upon you to provide at least some of the ration-al ( logic ) that leads you to such a conclusion.

For example :
"God can exist as an effect and not a cause, for every effect is in fact a cause".
This then lends itself to the idea that while existence exists, so too does the passive source and makes head way into the chicken and the egg puzzle.

Another:
Removing the notion of a source that holds some sort of action plan (will of God) beyond that which would otherwise occur naturally. (thus making the source simply a passive part of the Pantheist natural existence.)

Perhaps reading a little of the 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza especially Spinozism you will discover certain similarities to what you are proposing. You only have to disregard the religious overtones.

Best of luck...

Notes:
"Pantheism, the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe." - google

 

[C C]

It's surprising that you continue to ingratiate yourself with a stain on the floor.

And, thereby, you're given plenty of chances.

This makes two sidesteps in a row via the "Are you being snarky?" diversion. With three, apparently it will be Voynich manuscript status after all. (And don't gun for six, because that's pure hearsay that you get eggroll.)

Too bad. Mrs. Brillard: "But it was such an imaginatively adorned bundle of vellum. I had high hopes it was more than the otiose curio that the pawnbroker declared it."

 

[WendyDarling]

Ah, I see... thank you for the clarification.
Unfortunately this forum has a history of disingenuous religious postings and many members while quite happy to argue religious claims in the correct sub fora get a bit upset when they are guile-d into essentially wasting their time.
I do not envy your task ahead.
From my understanding you are suggesting a form of Pantheism that involves a conscious sentient Creator ( God ) that is distinct from the religious versions and it is beholden upon you to provide at least some of the ration-al ( logic ) that leads you to such a conclusion.

For example :
"God can exist as an effect and not a cause, for every effect is in fact a cause".
This then lends itself to the idea that while existence exists, so too does the passive source and makes head way into the chicken and the egg puzzle.

Another:
Removing the notion of a source that holds some sort of action plan (will of God) beyond that which would otherwise occur naturally. (thus making the source simply a part of the Pantheist natural existence.)

Perhaps reading a little of the 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza especially Spinozism you will discover certain similarities to what you are proposing. You only have to disregard the religious overtones.

Best of luck...

Notes:
Pantheism, the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe.

Thank you. May follow up with more later.

 

[WendyDarling]

And, thereby, you're given plenty of chances.

This makes two sidesteps in a row via the "Are you being snarky?" diversion. With three, apparently it will be Voynich manuscript status after all. (And don't gun for six, because that's pure hearsay that you get eggroll.)

Too bad. Mrs. Brillard: "But it was such an imaginatively adorned bundle of vellum. I had high hopes it was more than the otiose curio that the pawnbroker declared it."

One question: Go!

 

[WendyDarling]

I think somebody brought up the idea of procreation being the reason for our existence. While it seems reasonable on its face since we have the capability. That reasonableness seems hinged on choice. We have many choices: sit, walk, jump, but we do not have the choice to not think or not feel. Thinking and feeling are tantamount to our existence, procreation is not.

Unfortunately, many people fight like heck to not think, to not feel, to their chagrin and mine as well.

 

[C C]

One question: Go!

If you could only eat two foods for the rest of your life, what would they be?

Freja and Melker want me to ask you when your next concert in Sweden is. But too late, I burned the one.

 

[Baldeee]

I think somebody brought up the idea of procreation being the reason for our existence. While it seems reasonable on its face since we have the capability. That reasonableness seems hinged on choice. We have many choices: sit, walk, jump, but we do not have the choice to not think or not feel.

Nor to breathe, nor to see, nor to hear, nor to defacate, to urinate, to sweat, to create gas, to create saliva, etc.
We can "choose" the precise timing of some, but not whether or not we actually do those things.
There are a multitude of things that we have no "choice" over, but for some reason you have ignored them.
Why?

More generally: why have you decided to address the specific example (I had said "replication" but that was inaccurate of me, so let's stick with "procreation") rather than the principle of the objection (reformulated above)?

Thinking and feeling are tantamount to our existence, procreation is not.

On an individual level, yes, but not on the level of the species.
We exist as a species because we procreate.
We don't have to think and feel to be able to procreate: many species of life do neither and yet are abundant.

So now you have compared the "reason" for the existence of the "Absolute Singularity" to specific choiceless actions of an individual sentient(?) life-form, rather than to life as a whole.
Why?
Is that not being rather selective?
It is honestly almost as if you have an agenda to achieve and those particulars help you achieve it, despite the incoherence of the path you take to get there.

 

[WendyDarling]

If you could only eat two foods for the rest of your life, what would they be?

Freja and Melker want me to ask you when your next concert in Sweden is. But too late, I burned the one.

Please define food.

 

[WendyDarling]

Nor to breathe, nor to see, nor to hear, nor to defacate, to urinate, to sweat, to create gas, to create saliva, etc.
We can "choose" the precise timing of some, but not whether or not we actually do those things.
There are a multitude of things that we have no "choice" over, but for some reason you have ignored them.
Why?

More generally: why have you decided to address the specific example (I had said "replication" but that was inaccurate of me, so let's stick with "procreation") rather than the principle of the objection (reformulated above)?
On an individual level, yes, but not on the level of the species.
We exist as a species because we procreate.
We don't have to think and feel to be able to procreate: many species of life do neither and yet are abundant.

So now you have compared the "reason" for the existence of the "Absolute Singularity" to specific choiceless actions of an individual sentient(?) life-form, rather than to life as a whole.
Why?
Is that not being rather selective?
It is honestly almost as if you have an agenda to achieve and those particulars help you achieve it, despite the incoherence of the path you take to get there.

Why?

One step at a time. If you understand the foundation, ascension will be easier.

A)Existence=perceivable/observable stuff and imaginings/ideas
B)Non-existence is only an idea.

Are you understanding those assertions, A and B?

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm pleased to see the preaching is being replaced by a smattering of rationality in this thread.

A)Existence=perceivable/observable stuff and imaginings/ideas
B)Non-existence is only an idea.

Are you understanding those assertions, A and B?

I am.

B asserts "Non-existence" as an idea.
A asserts "ideas" are part of existence.

Thus, B is a merely a special case of A. Therefore Non-existence exists.

Is that the conclusion you were aiming for?

If you understand the foundation, ascension will be easier.

Wait. What?