God in the Forest

[wesmorris]

God is the anthropomorphization of nature.

 

[mouse]

God is the anthropomorphization of nature.

I might print that out on a t-shirt someday. With your avatar next to it, as an acknowledgement to the quote's author.

 

[wesmorris]

I might print that out on a t-shirt someday. With your avatar next to it, as an acknowledgement to the quote's author.

I'd be honored, thank you.

 

[§outh§tar]

Gee wes,

I saw that earlier this morning but I was too hurried to make a comment. That is really insightful of you and I really wish I had come up with such a description myself, but alas, there can be only one. wesmorris, nerd overlord.

I was initially struck by the profundity, but I am now in awe as I come to terms with the implications of the statement. Well done!

Do permit me to quote you on my blog.

 

[wesmorris]

Thank you much southstar, and of course you may quote me to wits end.

It came to me so simply while reading this post from Dino's recent thread:

Those who support ID usually adhere to the notion that the Intelligent Designer is God. Given that the classical statements about God are true, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnijust, Eternal, Divine, Infinite, Pure Act, ect..., then there need be no explanation for the origin of such a one. This is because such a one would, in fact, have no origin, and so no explanation is possible. Actually, only two components need be necessary to show this: God's eternality, and God's infinity.

It was the description of god provided above that made me realize what I'd been scratching at since my arrival here at sci. All those omnis. What is omnipresent but nature? What is human about nature??? - Humans are. So we relate to nature in the way we have throughout our history - by assigning it properties of ourselves.

Why isn't god then, omnihung? Hehe. Sorry. Kind of takes away from the profundity and all. Pardon.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Gah. I hate it when points are just washed away with a proclamation of gut feelings. Where is my argument weak? Analyze damn you! I give you my brain, now you share yours!

Sorry man... I'm not trying to frustrate you and I'll describe why I am
switching gears here with analogy. If I recall correctly, you are a computer
science fellow and if I am incorrect then what I am about to say is going
to make no sense whatsoever . I think when the conversation started
we ended up in the context of COM and no matter how you hard you try,
COM is COM is COM and we are bound to it's limitations. I want to try looking
at a different implementation (maybe .NET?) .

*shrug*

Sure. Let's say sciforums for kicks. I gravitate here for a number of reasons.

Cool, now can you accept that you're not in the least bit attracted to sciforums?

 

[wesmorris]

Sorry man... I'm not trying to frustrate you and I'll describe why I am
switching gears here with analogy. If I recall correctly, you are a computer
science fellow and if I am incorrect then what I am about to say is going
to make no sense whatsoever . I think when the conversation started
we ended up in the context of COM and no matter how you hard you try,
COM is COM is COM and we are bound to it's limitations. I want to try looking
at a different implementation (maybe .NET?) .

I'm not a computer science guy, but I follow you. (Industrial Engineer by education, fix computers and do networking stuff as side biz)

I follow you but I'm greedy about feedback regarding my logic.

Cool, now can you accept that you're not in the least bit attracted to sciforums?

Of course not. I think I know where you're going and refer you back to where my attraction for sciforums is maintained... right smack dab in the middle of the taoist trap (like anything I might be attracted to). There is only one way out of the trap (two technically I suppose). You'll freak me straight out if you can devise another.

The two ways are as follows:

Faith

Rejection (which could be construed as faith, but I'll give it its own category for the sake of argument).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

And you firmly believe that my way of thinking has no or little alignment towards getting to the truth ...

My statement had zero reference to your thinking. Only mine.

Has been done.

Redo it with some variation.

Only that if I live your way, I am bound to be miserable, as I have to treat myself as a dead thing.

Why is growing old and death equating to misery?

Funny you should say this -- when you also rail so much against emotions.
You've just stated that emotions are inescapable, while before, you claimed you try to get past emotions and not let them influence your understanding of reality.

Emotion is inescable... it's how we're wired. That doesn't contradict my
claim that I work hard to understand it and avoid letting it influence
my thinking.

 

[Light Travelling]

Our discrimination defines reality but discrimination is not logic or reason or analysis. Discrimination is deeper, it is inherent. Discrimination is the chooser of logic (or not). .

Yes it is, discrimination is part of logic as is reason and analysis. it's inherent only in so much has we use it, but it is no more deeper then anything else.

No, it's the helper.

No, and heres why.

If logic came before discrimination, we would have no choice but to be logical. As sometimes people are not logical, or some people are never logical, we obviously do have a choice as to whether to be logical or not.

If we have a choice we must have used discrimination to make that choice, therefore discrimination comes before logic, therefore it is deeper and more inherent.

 

[mustafhakofi]

theres a path to your right and a path on fire to you left, and no other routes to take, you logically would not choose the path with the fire would you.
so you assumption is that people would walk into the fire even though theres a perfectly clear path to there right.
you use logic to discriminate, betwen the two.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm not a computer science guy, but I follow you. (Industrial Engineer by education, fix computers and do networking stuff as side biz)

I follow you but I'm greedy about feedback regarding my logic.

Cool... you greedy spastard! lol.

Of course not. I think I know where you're going and refer you back to where my attraction for sciforums is maintained... right smack dab in the middle of the taoist trap (like anything I might be attracted to). There is only one way out of the trap (two technically I suppose). You'll freak me straight out if you can devise another.

The two ways are as follows:

Faith

Rejection (which could be construed as faith, but I'll give it its own category for the sake of argument).

Leaning back into COM land there again. Just as a side-thought, another
escape for the Taost Trap might be denial... but that's neither here nor
there.

Back to the goodies, the answer to the question I asked was a simple 'no'.
There is an inability to accept something and now I am going to ask how
does this differ from something else that you would be able to accept?

Thanya.

 

[Light Travelling]

theres a path to your right and a path on fire to you left, and no other routes to take, you logically would not choose the path with the fire would you.
so you assumption is that people would walk into the fire even though theres a perfectly clear path to there right.
you use logic to discriminate, betwen the two.

-Unles your an adrenaline junkie who wants to jump through the fire.
-A yogi who want to walk across hot coals to prove his control over mind.
-A suicidal person who wants to end themselves
-A pyrophile who like to play with fire.


None of these people are logical, but they all choose to be not logical. What is the power by which they choose to be not logical - IT IS NOT LOGIC.

They use the ability of discimination to choose to be logical and follow the right path or illogical and follow the left.

 

[Light Travelling]

God is the anthropomorphization of nature.

Humans are the anthropomorphization of god.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

-Unles your an adrenaline junkie who wants to jump through the fire.
-A yogi who want to walk across hot coals to prove his control over mind.
-A suicidal person who wants to end themselves
-A pyrophile who like to play with fire.


None of these people are logical, but they all choose to be not logical. What is the power by which they choose to be not logical - IT IS NOT LOGIC.

They use the ability of discimination to choose to be logical and follow the right path or illogical and follow the left.

you are not serious are you, what a f**king idiot.
lunatics are not govened by logic, but normal people are.
and dont make yourself look more idiotic by asking me to define normality, it obvious.
but then again perhaps not to some, present company included, if you can make posts such as this.

 

[wesmorris]

Cool... you greedy spastard! lol.

Leaning back into COM land there again. Just as a side-thought, another
escape for the Taost Trap might be denial... but that's neither here nor
there.

Denial is faith.

Back to the goodies, the answer to the question I asked was a simple 'no'.
There is an inability to accept something and now I am going to ask how
does this differ from something else that you would be able to accept?

Thanya.

My perception of my mind as directly experience by me differentiates between something I might accept and something I might reject. The difference is basically whether or not it fits into my conceptual geometry. The concepts in my mind are inter-related in such a way that some things fit and other things don't, somewhat like lock and key.

 

[wesmorris]

Humans are the anthropomorphization of god.

As I explained in the other thread, this is not correct. God is hypothetical and not known (or hypothesized) to be human.

 

[Light Travelling]

you are not serious are you, what a f**king idiot.
lunatics are not govened by logic .

No one is governed by logic, you fucking twat.

Logic is a function of the mind you contemptuous little cunt. Not the fucking master of it. its like mathematics, we use it as a language to describe what the fuck is going on in the bastard universe.

If you cant even grasp that fuck off back to fucking school.


Apparently 80% of the worlds fucking population believe in god. its not fucking logical to believe that. Fucking right it isnt. So you see cunt face - ITS NORMAL TO BE ILLOGICAL. So roll that up and shove it up you fucking ass.

BTW. Fuck you and fuck everything you stand for.

PS. Its cooool to swear

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Denial is faith.

Or Denial of the model.

My perception of my mind as directly experience by me differentiates between something I might accept and something I might reject. The difference is basically whether or not it fits into my conceptual geometry. The concepts in my mind are inter-related in such a way that some things fit and other things don't, somewhat like lock and key.

What about situations where there is very little conceptual geometry? Can babies accept that when they feel very sad, they're happy?

 

[wesmorris]

Or Denial of the model.

(which is rejection as classified above, which is faith in an alternative premise)

What about situations where there is very little conceptual geometry?

That makes no sense to me. All concepts are part of the inter-relationship that is mind. They aren't all active at one time. Within each is some emotional content (it's partially the emotions that support the existing geometry).

Can babies accept that when they feel very sad, they're happy?

As far as I can tell, no.

 

[Light Travelling]

lunatics are not govened by logic, but normal people are.

Normal people are not logical.

Logic heads are abnormal wierdos. Crainiacs devoid of human feeling.

Normal people act from love, fear, hate, anger, jealosy, sympathy, pity etc etc but very very rarely from logic.

If you believe normal people are logical you have your head stuffed to far up your intellectualised scientific logical ass to realise, experience or appreciate what the real 'normal' world is like. :m: