God in the Forest

[fahrenheit 451]

No one is governed by logic, you fucking twat.

especially if they are lunatic, however my patients already know that.

Logic is a function of the mind

wow go to the top of the class, and without logical mind we would all be close to lunacy.

you contemptuous little cunt. Not the fucking master of it.

hence why I said govened (To keep under control; restrain from doing irrational things, making wrong choices) without the influence of logic, the subjective mind take over and people start to see hear and do all kinds of strange things, they no longer can tell reality from fantasy

its like mathematics, we use it as a language to describe what the fuck is going on in the bastard universe.

yes it can be used for that it can be used for everything in your life, apart from your imagination.

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.

actually it's about half to two thirds of the world population, that believe in a god or gods of some kind, and I happen to agree with you, it is'nt logical.
but that does'nt make it normal.
a lot of people have a mild form of dementia, we cant put them all in asylums.

BTW. Fuck you and fuck everything you stand for.
PS. Its cooool to swear

and it is, let's off steam, and especially if you have Tourette's Syndrome.

Normal people are not logical.
Logic heads are abnormal wierdos. Crainiacs devoid of human feeling.

yes I agree theres extremes both ways.

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

no they dont act from logic, logic just keeps everything tidy, as I've already said if it was'nt there, then people would go to the extreme all the time.

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:

no their not all completely logical but it has influence in everything they do.

 

[wesmorris]

"a lot of people have a mild form of dementia, we cant put them all in asylums"

How we know we're not one of them eh?

Hehe. It IS an interesting question.

Have you ever dealt with a schizophrenic?

It's intense, and they are NOT crazy. Just ask them.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

exactly who will admit to being crazy.

 

[wesmorris]

exactly who will admit to being crazy.

the who are few in my experience.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

exactly who will admit to being crazy.

I'm crazy (right here). The immense amount of social and political risk I take on a daily basis is bewhildering.

 

[Light Travelling]

Fahrenheit,

You seem to define lunacy as not using logic to make decisions in life. If thats how you want to define madness thats fine, your perfectly entitled to.

I do not define it as such, many others do not define it as such including many phsycologists.

I see non logical desicions as part of the human make up and not cause for labelling a person mad.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

I do not define it as such, many others do not define it as such including many phsycologists.

could you post up some names if possible, of these aledged psychologists, be cause i dont thing so.

I see non logical desicions as part of the human make up and not cause for labelling a person mad.

I never said people were'nt allowed to make illogical decisions, and I have said "a lot of people have a mild form of dementia, we cant put them all in asylums." if we did the nearly four fifths of the planet would be locked up.
also if we did not have mild lunacy in society, we would not have the art, literature, and music, we have, hell even love is a beautiful madness.

 

[mis-t-highs]

Fahrenheit and Light Travelling, you two seem to disagree on the point of how logic and discrimination effect, us as humans.
well logic effects your entire Psyche, even discrimination, without logic, live would be chaotic it does not control you, but without it you would be doing the most stupid of thing, infact it would be crazyness. but then again without any logic, helping you decern fantasy from reality, you would not know you were doing crazys things anyway.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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).

Of course it didn't make sense . I mis-read "denial is faith" as "denial of
faith" and then commented accordingly. It's the ol' brain filter at work. I
understand what you are saying though, any attempt at escape in the taoist
trap turns into a form of faith or rejection.

As far as I can tell, no.

I've made the same observation. So now we have a single adult scenario
where acceptance is not possible and a common baby scenario where
acceptance is not possible. There are many other scenarios like this as well.
Can a gay man accept (not pretend) he's attracted to women? Can a
person burning to death accept the experience as pleasurable?

Humans are simply built with a base foundation of emotion and sensory
tolerances. It's not possible to accept that you don't feel happiness or
hungry for example. It is a piece of conceptual geometry that is static in
conetent and can expand as different emotional states and sensory
tolerances are experienced. For example, it's not possible to accept that
people don't die.

The rest of the conceptual geometry is adaptable (keys may not fit in
keyholes today but may do so tomorrow) and this is where I think we're
getting hung up (the ol' Taoist -COM- trap).

This is where the fun part comes in (.NET). My experience is that the non-
adaptable conceptual geometry will reach various stages of relationships that
enable it to grow. Eventually that growth crossed a threshold where it's
simply not possible to accept that I am not a part of reality; hence, my
original assertion of being a part of reality is not a statement of faith.

 

[Hostile]

then this is a wasted thread, because there is no way you are going to disprove the concept of god, as it is subjectively real to all who believe in it, what you have to do is prove, it is in their imagination, that they have imagined it, but unfortunately those that believe, like anybody who believe he's seen or heard something thats not there,(ghosts, fairies, etc...) are so stubborn in that belief.
the only way to convince anybody like that, is to debate them with logic until they convince themselves, but still some refuse to see the truth.

and in answer to you forest question, if the forest is in your subjective mind then no it does'nt exist, but if the tree is in a real forest then we can always, go and visit it,
where as we cant visit a god, outside of our subjective minds.

Why do you find it so nesessary to discount god when you cannot disprove his existace. You cannot prove it is in their imaginations when you cant prove that God doesnt exist. Also, why would you want to spend your time trying to prove somthing that cant be proved or disproved?

 

[wesmorris]

Of course it didn't make sense . I mis-read "denial is faith" as "denial of
faith" and then commented accordingly. It's the ol' brain filter at work. I
understand what you are saying though, any attempt at escape in the taoist
trap turns into a form of faith or rejection.

Exactly. We seem to think similarly, so there is a reasonable chance we'll actually find some agreement here.

I've made the same observation. So now we have a single adult scenario where acceptance is not possible and a common baby scenario where acceptance is not possible. There are many other scenarios like this as well. Can a gay man accept (not pretend) he's attracted to women?

Probably not no. There are plenty of scenarios that result in mutually exclusive conditions. If I'm black, I can't accept that I'm white? Blah blah, I agree. This is irrelevant to the argument IMO, as you've subverted the trap via faith prior to the discussion.

What's interesting to note (as I reflected on it after your previous post), is that a baby is not separate from the tao until it begins to form concepts. It begins to do so early in its life. We might say that until there is a "sense of self" there is no separation from the tao (hence the taoist/buddist denial of self). I've explored that in my mind and it seems like I've come to understand it but I'd need to explore it more to get the relationships expounded and clarified. If you're interested, let's spelunk.

Afterthought: "what one can believe" in terms of their foundation, is a matter of motivation and will. Whether or not the structure of their mind can rebound from changing or removing parts of the foundation, or any related stuff... is another matter, but IMO, there is little you can firmly state "No one could believe this" because that's simply not true. It seems to me that you're "crunchycatomorphizing" people to your own perception (which of course we all do, because crunchycats are good no?)

Can a person burning to death accept the experience as pleasurable?

If they survive, it's possible yes. Dayz sum sick bitches out thair man.

Humans are simply built with a base foundation of emotion and sensory
tolerances. It's not possible to accept that you don't feel happiness or
hungry for example.

I agree to some extent with the first sentence, but would argue technicalities on the second, as I'm sure that's simply not true. I'd point to monks and such who've I believe, proven you're incorrect. Most people can't, but SOME can I think... but you're doing this after having made a miniscule little leap of faith... right? Do you see? Once we make the leap we can build a model. Until then, not so much. This is basically philosophy of mathematics/logic - in the sense that we are lost without some axioms. Logic is useless without inputs, boundary conditions. No matter how valid they seem, observational distance and our lacking the "encompassing all of time" thing, limits us to assumption regarding the validity of those boundary conditions...

We can only assert the authority of our perception... know what I mean?

It is a piece of conceptual geometry that is static in
conetent and can expand as different emotional states and sensory
tolerances are experienced. For example, it's not possible to accept that
people don't die.

LOL. You had me until that last sentence. Did you forget about the 2/3 of the planet who exactly accepts that people don't really die? Regardless.... all you say is steeped in your perspective (which I generally concur with). If we assert our authority of perception as "objective", do we not bear false authority at that point? We say "this is how it is... OBJECTIVELY"... isn't that ultimately "might is right" in craniality form? Isn't that being an "intellectual bully"? Does that allow for error?

Bah, I'm just saying.. if we do not allow for the fact that our basis is faith... even if that is a miniscule aspect of our argument... then we have no consistency in our model, and no argument stronger than that of a schizophrenic on a paranoia bender.

The rest of the conceptual geometry is adaptable (keys may not fit in
keyholes today but may do so tomorrow) and this is where I think we're
getting hung up (the ol' Taoist -COM- trap).

Having chunked this up I may have missed your intended meaning. I see now you're exploring my suggested spelunking hole before. Hmm. I'll have to revisit upon letting it gel for a bit.

This is where the fun part comes in (.NET). My experience is that the non-
adaptable conceptual geometry will reach various stages of relationships that
enable it to grow. Eventually that growth crossed a threshold where it's
simply not possible to accept that I am not a part of reality; hence, my
original assertion of being a part of reality is not a statement of faith.

I understand your intention, but your assertion doesn't seem like a statement of faith, but it is. Would you agree? IMO, it's an important realization to level the playing feild and stay the impending solidification of presumption as you describe above. IMO, the threshold you describe as being crossed is a flaw... basically bad housekeeping. You missed some junk that was laying around and it layed there so long it became part of the house. I think in a mind like yours, or of sufficient maleability however, removing parts of the house is a matter of will and motivation. You can see things as you choose when it's been clearly demonstrated that you should.

I think I've clearly demonstrated it.

Of course then, I'm a cocky bastard and have no real basis external to that cockiness to assure me that I'm correct.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Hostile: Why do you find it so nesessary to discount god when you cannot disprove his existace. You cannot prove it is in their imaginations when you cant prove that God doesnt exist. Also, why would you want to spend your time trying to prove somthing that cant be proved or disproved?
*************
M*W: If God existed, we would be able to readily prove it. It wouldn't be such an enigma. It's not really a matter of proving or disproving God's existence, it's a matter of wasting one's time believing in fairy tales, and then trying to push them down everyone else's throats (as done on this forum). Belief in such fantasies should be kept private and to oneself, but this is something believers just cannot do. They scorch the Earth with their lies and vanities proclaiming the omniscience of their God, yet all we see is their stupidity.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Probably not no. There are plenty of scenarios that result in mutually exclusive conditions. If I'm black, I can't accept that I'm white? Blah blah, I agree. This is irrelevant to the argument IMO, as you've subverted the trap via faith prior to the discussion.

I think this portion is very relevant. In a situation where acceptance is simply
not possible, we're left with a whole new ball of wax.

What's interesting to note (as I reflected on it after your previous post), is that a baby is not separate from the tao until it begins to form concepts. It begins to do so early in its life. We might say that until there is a "sense of self" there is no separation from the tao (hence the taoist/buddist denial of self). I've explored that in my mind and it seems like I've come to understand it but I'd need to explore it more to get the relationships expounded and clarified. If you're interested, let's spelunk.

I see it a little differently. I see that baby with the static geometry and little
or no adaptable geometry. If I were to compare the static geometry to the
Teo, I would see it as someplace else rather than the Tao itself.

Afterthought: "what one can believe" in terms of their foundation, is a matter of motivation and will. Whether or not the structure of their mind can rebound from changing or removing parts of the foundation, or any related stuff... is another matter, but IMO, there is little you can firmly state "No one could believe this" because that's simply not true. It seems to me that you're "crunchycatomorphizing" people to your own perception (which of course we all do, because crunchycats are good no?)

I am actually crunchycatmorphizing my static geometry into something
communicatable which gets received by the adaptive geometry. The
existence of the non-acceptable is present. Nobody can accept they don't
poo.

If they survive, it's possible yes. Dayz sum sick bitches out thair man.

Like that german bastard whom agreed to be eaten?

I agree to some extent with the first sentence, but would argue technicalities on the second, as I'm sure that's simply not true. I'd point to monks and such who've I believe, proven you're incorrect.

There is a difference between acceptance and control (the latter of which is
what I those funky monkey's are doing).

Most people can't, but SOME can I think... but you're doing this after having made a miniscule little leap of faith... right? Do you see? Once we make the leap we can build a model. Until then, not so much. This is basically philosophy of mathematics/logic - in the sense that we are lost without some axioms. Logic is useless without inputs, boundary conditions. No matter how valid they seem, observational distance and our lacking the "encompassing all of time" thing, limits us to assumption regarding the validity of those boundary conditions...

We can only assert the authority of our perception... know what I mean?

I think it may be interpreted as faith simply because of my act of
communicating it. In the absence of the communication I'm left with the
static gemoetry. I don't think our perception is authority... it would actually
be the stuff which perception it is made out of (referring to reality there).

LOL. You had me until that last sentence. Did you forget about the 2/3 of the planet who exactly accepts that people don't really die? Regardless.... all you say is steeped in your perspective (which I generally concur with). If we assert our authority of perception as "objective", do we not bear false authority at that point? We say "this is how it is... OBJECTIVELY"... isn't that ultimately "might is right" in craniality form? Isn't that being an "intellectual bully"? Does that allow for error?

Bah, I'm just saying.. if we do not allow for the fact that our basis is faith... even if that is a miniscule aspect of our argument... then we have no consistency in our model, and no argument stronger than that of a schizophrenic on a paranoia bender.

Heh, I think we're confusing end of life (lack of energy to sustain biological
processes, burial, decomposition...) with afterlife . I am not trying to
promote iBullying. I am simply saying that there is a static geometry for which
acceptance is not a factor. I don't think this removes consistency... I do
think it actually drives it.

Having chunked this up I may have missed your intended meaning. I see now you're exploring my suggested spelunking hole before. Hmm. I'll have to revisit upon letting it gel for a bit.

mmmmm... geeeeeelllll

I understand your intention, but your assertion doesn't seem like a statement of faith, but it is. Would you agree? IMO, it's an important realization to level the playing feild and stay the impending solidification of presumption as you describe above. IMO, the threshold you describe as being crossed is a flaw... basically bad housekeeping. You missed some junk that was laying around and it layed there so long it became part of the house. I think in a mind like yours, or of sufficient maleability however, removing parts of the house is a matter of will and motivation. You can see things as you choose when it's been clearly demonstrated that you should.

I think I've clearly demonstrated it.

Of course then, I'm a cocky bastard and have no real basis external to that cockiness to assure me that I'm correct.

Didn't Einstein say cockiness is relative? I do see the assertion of static
geometry resulting in a path for which acceptance doesn't tread. Being a
prismatic cocky spastard myself, my original statement doesn't seem to
qualify in the faith realm (the acceptance definition and not the trust one...
even though I know you don't distinguish between 'em).

 

[Light Travelling]

could you post up some names if possible, of these aledged psychologists, be cause i dont thing so.

Please find below some extracts from Chaotic Logic Language, Thought and Reality From the Perspective of Complex Systems Science
by
Ben Goertzel PHD

4.1. PSYCHOLOGISM AND LOGISM
Today, as John MacNamara has put it, "logicians and psychologists generally behave like the men and women in an orthodox synagogue. Each group knows about the other, but it is proper form that each should ignore the other" (1986, p.1). But such was not always the case. Until somewhere toward the end of nineteenth century, the two fields of logic and psychology were closely tied together. What changed things was, on the one hand, the emergence of experimental psychology; and, on the other hand, the rediscovery and development of elementary symbolic logic by Boole, deMorgan and others.
The early experimental psychologists purposely avoided explaining intelligence in terms of logic. Mental phenomena were analyzed in terms of images, associations, sensations, and so forth. And on the other hand -- notwithstanding the psychological pretensions of Leibniz's early logical investigations and Boole's Laws of Thought -- the early logicians moved further and further each decade toward considering logical operationsas distinct from psychological operations. It was increasingly realized on both sides that the formulas of propositional logic have little connection with emotional, intuitive, ordinary everyday thought.

Automatic theorem proving -- the science of programming computers to prove mathematical theorems -- was once thought of as a stronghold of pure deductive logic. It seemed so simple: just apply the rules of mathematical logic to the axioms, and you generate theorems. But now many researchers in automated theorem proving have realized that this is only a very small part of what mathematicians do when they prove theorems. Even in this ethereal realm of reasoning, tailor-made for logical deduction, nondeductive, alogical processes are of equal importance.

For example, after many years of productive research on automated theorem proving, Alan Bundy (1991) has come to the conclusion that

Logic is not enough to understand reasoning. It provides only a low-level, step by step understanding, whereas a high-level, strategic understanding is also required. (p. 178)

************************************************

And this from

The raven paradox: logic and psychology. by David Rose , Cambridge
Department of History and Philosophy of Science

III. Conclusion.

My contention has been that the raven paradox arises because psychological factors intervene when we try to exemplify abstract logic in real-world terms. It is impossible to ignore the particular scenario when we apply the logic to everyday situations. The raven paradox arises because logic and psychology give us different answers as to the relevance of white shoes. Logic is correct in asserting that white shoes are relevant; probabilistic calculations show that the information gained from white shoes is minuscule. But whether we know this is a matter of psychology. Logical arguments have to be filtered through the constraints of our ability to think.16 Our intuitive faculties first construct a mental model in which it is clear that white shoes are irrelevant to the question of black ravens; only slow effortful analytic reasoning enables us to see the logical explanation for the relevance of white shoes.

you can read more of this at ,
http://www.psy.surrey.ac.uk/staff/d.rose/drpage245.html


I dont think I really need to add much to that do I..

 

[Hostile]

Hostile: Why do you find it so nesessary to discount god when you cannot disprove his existace. You cannot prove it is in their imaginations when you cant prove that God doesnt exist. Also, why would you want to spend your time trying to prove somthing that cant be proved or disproved?
*************
M*W: If God existed, we would be able to readily prove it. It wouldn't be such an enigma. It's not really a matter of proving or disproving God's existence, it's a matter of wasting one's time believing in fairy tales, and then trying to push them down everyone else's throats (as done on this forum). Belief in such fantasies should be kept private and to oneself, but this is something believers just cannot do. They scorch the Earth with their lies and vanities proclaiming the omniscience of their God, yet all we see is their stupidity.

How one spends his time is up to them. And about keeping it private. This is still a free country and yes, the same country that allows you to call peoples beliefs stupid. You decide what goes down your throat.

 

[wesmorris]

Man I've been covering similar topics in numerous threads and got lost. Thought this conversation was in another thread until I just stumbled back across it.

I think this portion is very relevant. In a situation where acceptance is simply
not possible, we're left with a whole new ball of wax.

Perhaps you can explain how exactly.

I see it a little differently. I see that baby with the static geometry and little
or no adaptable geometry. If I were to compare the static geometry to the
Teo, I would see it as someplace else rather than the Tao itself.

Well it's geometry begins adapting quickly, but I generally agree. The reason I say it isn't separate from the tao however, is that as far as it is concerned, it is not. There is no "self" to that "static geometry". With no ego, there is no separation. It's basically the world of most animals. As the geometry adapts to stimulous and self is realized, ego is formed and thus - faith in self in the sense of "I am" and "what I know IS".

I am actually crunchycatmorphizing my static geometry into something
communicatable which gets received by the adaptive geometry. The
existence of the non-acceptable is present. Nobody can accept they don't
poo.

Hehe. Some people use colostamy bags. Some people would deny that they poo.

Like that german bastard whom agreed to be eaten?

LOL, yeah like that guy.

There is a difference between acceptance and control (the latter of which is
what I those funky monkey's are doing).

So you can't control what you accept?

I think it may be interpreted as faith simply because of my act of
communicating it.

It is faith because it requires your ego to give it authority.

In the absence of the communication I'm left with the
static gemoetry.

Why static? If you don't communicate you can still percieve and adapt.

I don't think our perception is authority... it would actually
be the stuff which perception it is made out of (referring to reality there).

Well the tao is the ultimate authority surely, but the authority of our impressoin of it is limited to our perception.

Heh, I think we're confusing end of life (lack of energy to sustain biological
processes, burial, decomposition...) with afterlife . I am not trying to
promote iBullying. I am simply saying that there is a static geometry for which
acceptance is not a factor. I don't think this removes consistency... I do
think it actually drives it.

We might even call it "assumption". Your static conceptual geometry is still part of your mind, however static it remains. Thus it's subject to the taoist trap.

Didn't Einstein say cockiness is relative? I do see the assertion of static
geometry resulting in a path for which acceptance doesn't tread. Being a
prismatic cocky spastard myself, my original statement doesn't seem to
qualify in the faith realm (the acceptance definition and not the trust one...
even though I know you don't distinguish between 'em).

The stronger the faith, the less it seems as so, it's just TRUTH.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Man I've been covering similar topics in numerous threads and got lost. Thought this conversation was in another thread until I just stumbled back across it.

Me too.

Perhaps you can explain how exactly.

There is no longer a choice. For acceptance to be possible, rejection must
also be possible. If acceptance is not possible then neither is rejection;
hence, choice is no longer part of the picture.

Well it's geometry begins adapting quickly, but I generally agree. The reason I say it isn't separate from the tao however, is that as far as it is concerned, it is not. There is no "self" to that "static geometry". With no ego, there is no separation. It's basically the world of most animals. As the geometry adapts to stimulous and self is realized, ego is formed and thus - faith in self in the sense of "I am" and "what I know IS".

The identity of 'self' can be removed artifically by using electromagnetism to
retard electrical activity in the portion of the brain that 'self' derives from. It
usually ends up in a euphoric experience for an end-user. In this scenario,
emotions and senses still remain in tact. Therefore removing the self is
possible while simultaneously maintining a static geometry (or even adaptable
geometry).

Hehe. Some people use colostamy bags. Some people would deny that they poo.

Colostomy, it's not my bag (Slotty has that catch phrase). Of course the
colostomy folks are easily resolved by a slight modification to the original
statment. I think you got the message though. Anyone pooper who publicly
denies it still cannot accept that they don't poo (they can pretend though).

So you can't control what you accept?

That's adaptive geometry. I think we're talking about bio training here.

It is faith because it requires your ego to give it authority.

Reality is a persistent enforcer and I cannot choose not to grant it authority.
I can choose to avoid situations where it would enforce upon me and then
accept those situations work differently.

Well the tao is the ultimate authority surely, but the authority of our impressoin of it is limited to our perception.

I've seen the Tao used in multiple contexts in our discussion. Maybe for
clarification's sake, how are we defining it?

We might even call it "assumption". Your static conceptual geometry is still part of your mind, however static it remains. Thus it's subject to the taoist trap.

If you've ever felt happy, sad, frustrated, hot, cold, it's static and not subject
to the trap.

The stronger the faith, the less it seems as so, it's just TRUTH.

Acceptance still isn't a factor in my original statement and as it's being used
synonymously with 'faith'; hence, it ain't there.

On the lighter side of things, that new Harry Potter book is pretty good so far
(I'm about 1/2 way through). No idea why I wanted to share that.