"Hello, is there anybody in there...?" A call to pagans, pantheists, and assorted...

[Enmos]

Would rather this rather than that happened?
Yearns and/or strives for this experience or outcome rather than that one?

Simon.. how does a grain of sand have preferences ?

Come on Enmos, don't just give us a glimpse. Why not approach the issues directly and from how you feel?

Enmos. You are not simply 'trying to understand'. I don't know why you play the coquette. I prefer the 'Ha' above. That was more honest.

Don't be so pessimistic.. I am approaching the issues directly and from how I feel.
The "Ha !" was in good humor:

I know I'm asking things over and over again, but that's because I feel I'm not getting any real answers.

Yes you are. You just don't like them. They don't fit into what you, as an atheist, hold true. Besides what would qualify as a real answer?

It's not that I don't like them. Like I said, I'm interested.
They are just unbelievably vague to me.

Simon, Point of Clarification: pls define "has preferences" .
Thx.

HA !

I just thought it was a bit ironic, no ill intentions there..
Come on, lighten up dude

 

[Enmos]

You seem incapable of saying you disagree. You respond as if you were answering for the universe or all humankind.

I am perfectly able to say that I disagree. I disagree with your definition of "life". But I don't understand why you hold that definition.

I am not misusing the term life. I could say you are, but that seems a silly line.

I'm sorry but you are. Definitions are there for a reason.

The set of what you consider is alive is smaller than mine.

Humm.. that's kind of obvious since your set includes the entire universe.

Example:
Simon: The set of what I consider to have "appleness" includes the entire universe.
Enmos: No that's not right, the set of what has "appleness" includes only various types of apples.
Simon: The set of what you consider to have "appleness" is smaller than mine.
:shrug:

For you.

No, for everyone.

I guess you did not listen to the toe nail analogy. As one possible respons amongst many.

I did, toenails in themselves are not considered alive by science.

Again. 1) You assume you own the word.

I do not own the word, but it is already in use, defined and all.

2) would you not also say that anything that is aware and has preferences has life? I am not talking about pife.

No I wouldn't, it's not how life is defined.

My definition is actually more strict than yours.

I really don't think so.. :shrug:

Our difference is really over epistemology.

No, bluntly put, you are hijacking a defined concept for your own purposes.

Besides, Enmos...
not once have I heard you say why we should decide that most things are inanimate and were work from this standard and test to see if things might actually be alive rather than the opposite.

Do you agree that living things are made from inanimate matter (according to science) ?

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Look at it this way: Fuck Science! :bugeye:
There is a whole world of experience outside the shrine of "Our Lady of the Scientific Method",
Please stop trying to make our beliefs match yours. Frankly I don't care if you understand why I believe what I believe. The concepts have been explained to you in different ways by different people.
My paradigm helps me make sense of the world and pantheism fills some gaps I feel science refuses to even address. And no, I will not enumerate. I'm done with trying to explain it to you.

Do some pondering; Let the ideas percolate for a while; read a book... but "stick a fork in me, I'm done".

 

[Enmos]

Look at it this way: Fuck Science!
There is a whole world of experience outside the shrine of "Our Lady of the Scientific Method",
Please stop trying to make our beliefs match yours. Frankly I don't care if you understand why I believe what I believe. The concepts have been explained to you in different ways by different people.
My paradigm helps me make sense of the world and pantheism fills some gaps I feel science refuses to even address. And no, I will not enumerate. I'm done with trying to explain it to you.

Do some pondering; Let the ideas percolate for a while; read a book... but "stick a fork in me, I'm done".

But.. :bugeye:

It's not even that much about science..
It seems to me you guys are hijacking a defined concept and then redefine it to mean something I still haven't got anything but a vague description of.

You and Simon have done a good job explaining your beliefs to me, thank you for that
But what I was getting at the last couple of pages was what exactly it is that you call life, obviously it is not the scientific concept of life that you hold.
Of course it seems to you that I'm being obtuse because I have to ask clarification about just about anything you say. But you have to understand that if you imply that sand has life I will be unsure if that's actually what you meant or not.. you will have to spell it out.

I can see that you both are pretty irritated right now so I apologize for any possible, but unintended, offensive behavior on my part..

 

[Simon Anders]

I am perfectly able to say that I disagree. I disagree with your definition of "life". But I don't understand why you hold that definition.

Ah, so you don't agree that anything that has awareness and preferences is alive. How strange.

I'm sorry but you are. Definitions are there for a reason.

Different people have different definitions. The people who think that much of the universe is dead tended to kill and continue to kill those who think otherwise. There are reasons to be ashamed of the reason your version of the definition is the 'official' one.

Humm.. that's kind of obvious since your set includes the entire universe.

Example:
Simon: The set of what I consider to have "appleness" includes the entire universe.
Enmos: No that's not right, the set of what has "appleness" includes only various types of apples.
Simon: The set of what you consider to have "appleness" is smaller than mine.
:shrug:

If it is obvious then it seems you understand.

No, for everyone.

Clearly not for everyone. Or do you think I am lying? You obviously believe your definition is right. But you can walk around until your shoes have no souls (ha, ha), but still there are people for whom that is not the definition. I am amazed you cannot understand this relatively simple and verfiable via scientific methodology point.

I do not own the word, but it is already in use, defined and all.

It is used in a variety of wyas.

No I wouldn't, it's not how life is defined.

Did you really not understand the question? The set of things that have awareness and preferences, are they not alive? My God, you are so stubborn you don't even think for a moment. No, his definition is not the one in my textbook therefore that set of things is not alive. Think again. In your belief system I guarantee you consider everything that has awareness and preferences alive. In fact it is a subset, in your belief system, of what you consider alive. If you cannot do that level of basic logic and exploring of categories, I cannot see a reason to talk to you.

I really don't think so.. :shrug:

Of course it is. You do not think, for example, that plants are aware and have preferences, YET you consider them alive. However everything that you think has awareness you think is alive. Or can you name a counterexample? Is there something that you think has awareness but is not alive? I didn't think so.

No, bluntly put, you are hijacking a defined concept for your own purposes.

Again, see the history of the relationship between the paradigm of death people and the people who are pantheist and or see much more life in the universe and you will see who is hijacking (which would be a euphemism) the concept of life.

Further I am not 'doing it for my own purposes'. I am describing what I experience and what I believe is reality.

Do you agree that living things are made from inanimate matter (according to science) ?

See, this is where I do not trust you. This has been answered time and again. And again and again.

I have a damn degree in Biology. I know very well how most scientists view this issue.

 

[Simon Anders]

Don't be so pessimistic.. I am approaching the issues directly and from how I feel.
The "Ha !" was in good humor:

You are not 'just trying to understand' Enmos. You are trying to win. I realized you did not mean it maliciously.

 

[Simon Anders]

It's not even that much about science..
It seems to me you guys are hijacking a defined concept and then redefine it to mean something I still haven't got anything but a vague description of.

I thought my definition was rather clear. I further clarified the issue of preferences.
My concept of life was around before the current scientific one and I am not doing any hijacking. You have two systems of belief. And I cannot believe you have not come to the actual issue yet. It is not around the definition, it is around epistemology. I have no interest in walking through that doorway, with you, in any case. But I find it odd you have not asked one question about those issues, if you really want to understand.

I can see that you both are pretty irritated right now so I apologize for any possible, but unintended, offensive behavior on my part..

Follow that 'Ha' of yours for a while. I think if you align your thinking with your emotions, the reactions you get from us and perhaps people in general will seem more attuned to what you are doing.

I don't think you are repeating the same questions in new forms because you don't understand, but rather because you want a certain kind of acknowledgement of authority from us. The moment you got that I think you would lose interest. We would have bowed down, in your mind, appropriately.

Not going to happen.

It seems to me this was a thread meant to be a discussion between pagans, etc. rather than as yet another version of the atheist/theist argument, more or less.

So, no offense Enmos. From here on out I will ignore you in this thread. If I participate it will be to communicate with the others who have come for that original purpose.

 

[Hapsburg]

Look at it this way: Fuck Science! :bugeye:
There is a whole world of experience outside the shrine of "Our Lady of the Scientific Method"

Aaaand here is where I lose all respect for you.

Besides, you can't just change you mind in mid-discussion without saying so.

Why not? I did. I didn't state flat-out for-the-record that I had changed my mind on theology. Why must anyone else? It's not like you can't infer things from reading their posts. If not, then that's just being lazy.

 

[Enmos]

I have a damn degree in Biology. I know very well how most scientists view this issue.

How disappointing Simon.. you are the one trying to win here it seems. What are you trying to do, draw me out or something ?

Yea, you have a damn degree in Biology.. congratulations. Now kindly show me a respected biologist that says that sand has life please.

I am trying to understand what it is that you call life.. you have not explained it yet.
But fine.. you are ignoring me now :shrug:
Chances are Tht1Gy! will too..
Rather disappointing.

 

[Enmos]

You are not 'just trying to understand' Enmos. You are trying to win. I realized you did not mean it maliciously.

Please take you preconceptions elsewhere..

 

[Enmos]

I thought my definition was rather clear. I further clarified the issue of preferences.
My concept of life was around before the current scientific one and I am not doing any hijacking. You have two systems of belief. And I cannot believe you have not come to the actual issue yet. It is not around the definition, it is around epistemology. I have no interest in walking through that doorway, with you, in any case. But I find it odd you have not asked one question about those issues, if you really want to understand.


Follow that 'Ha' of yours for a while. I think if you align your thinking with your emotions, the reactions you get from us and perhaps people in general will seem more attuned to what you are doing.

I don't think you are repeating the same questions in new forms because you don't understand, but rather because you want a certain kind of acknowledgement of authority from us. The moment you got that I think you would lose interest. We would have bowed down, in your mind, appropriately.

Not going to happen.

It seems to me this was a thread meant to be a discussion between pagans, etc. rather than as yet another version of the atheist/theist argument, more or less.

So, no offense Enmos. From here on out I will ignore you in this thread. If I participate it will be to communicate with the others who have come for that original purpose.

Done with the down talking ?

You say sand has life, so sand according to your definition of life has awareness and preferences. How ? Please explain.

 

[Enmos]

Why not? I did. I didn't state flat-out for-the-record that I had changed my mind on theology. Why must anyone else? It's not like you can't infer things from reading their posts. If not, then that's just being lazy.

But she didn't even change her mind, I just misunderstood.

 

[Enmos]

Hapsburg, I wanted to start my own thread in which I would ask what pantheists are referring to when they say "sand has life", but it occurred to me that Simon, Tht1Gy! and you are probably the only pantheists here..

So maybe I can just ask you that question since Simon and Tht1Gy! are not interested anymore.

 

[Carcano]

I wanted to start my own thread in which I would ask what pantheists are referring to when they say "sand has life", but it occurred to me that Simon, Tht1Gy! and you are probably the only pantheists here.

Havent the pantheists here already admitted theyre just making this stuff up as they go along?

What then...is there to ask about?

 

[Enmos]

Havent the pantheists here already admitted theyre just making this stuff up as they go along?

What then...is there to ask about?

No they haven't.. but if I missed that somehow could you please point me to the post ?

 

[Carcano]

No they haven't.. but if I missed that somehow could you please point me to the post ?

It started early in the thread (post 51) but the latest example is in post 383.

Where THt1 describes again...how he approaches any article of belief.

Not by asking...'is this true or false'?
But rather...'do I like it'?

 

[Enmos]

It started early in the thread (post 51) but the latest example is in post 383.

Where THt1 describes again...how he approaches any article of belief.

Not by asking...'is this true or false'?
But rather...'do I like it'?

Hmm yes, it would appear so..
I forgot about post 51, and frankly I thought post 383 was just him being annoyed or something. I mean, "fuck science" ?

But when I asked they tried to explain it to me as if it was reality. They could have just said, "look we just made it up".. but they didn't.

This whole thing confuses me, especially Simons accusations of me wanting to win when all I'm trying to do is understand their religion.
I guess they perceived the questions as an attack ? :shrug:

 

[Carcano]

This whole thing confuses me, especially Simons accusations of me wanting to win when all I'm trying to do is understand their religion.
I guess they perceived the questions as an attack ? :shrug:

The whole concept of winning or losing is dependent on truth vs. falsehood.

So even to ask about truth IS an attack...on their indifference to truth.

 

[Hapsburg]

Hapsburg, I wanted to start my own thread in which I would ask what pantheists are referring to when they say "sand has life", but it occurred to me that Simon, Tht1Gy! and you are probably the only pantheists here..

So maybe I can just ask you that question since Simon and Tht1Gy! are not interested anymore.

Well, I'm not a pantheist, so...eh. I'm just as confused as you are.

The only reasonable explanation for their "sand has life" claim is maybe the implication that the spirit of a living being exists in an already-known medium, like electromagnetic energy, and that since sand contains such an energy, enough sand would result in enough spiritual energy to create a consciousness...even though consciousness and sentience requires more than just energetic pulses of electricity; it requires coding of information into those electric pulses to be recognised by receptors and exchange of information. Consciousness requires a brain, for lack of a better term...something that they apparently don't comprehend.

But she didn't even change her mind, I just misunderstood.

Oh, I know. I'm just challenging the base assertion that "you can't change your mind without telling me."

 

[Tht1Gy!]

When I said "fuck science" I was expressing frustration with Enmos. I am NOT 'anti-science'. However, I do also feel that science has limits. It will rightly say about such things it is unable to ascertain; "We can't tell such and such from our measurements, so it is not appropriate for us to give an opinion on 'X'."

Where I take exception tho is when it goes on to say: "This is what our measurements tell us, it is TRUTH. Do not question!".
Currently accepted science isn't the whole story, folks.
At one time the "purveyors of truth" would have balked and ridiculed (and worse) you for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe.

Hapsburg the spirit of a living being exists in an already-known medium, like electromagnetic energy, and that since sand contains such an energy, enough sand would result in enough spiritual energy to create a consciousness..

:shrug:

In an infinite universe all things are possible... Currently accepted science isn't the whole story, folks.

Besides, I didn't (and don't) use Simon's definition: "awareness and preferences" for 'life'. Now, I might use it for 'alive' because I do think that even plants fit that.
"Plants, awareness? Preferences? Get real pal!" OK, watch how a plant reacts to the lighting of a room, hummnnm?

Also read "Secret Life of Plants"

And, as far as "Making it up as we go along..." is concerned, 1: that is being used out of context here. That was in reference how we choose to manifest our beliefs, and pattern our rituals.
2: Why should a belief hold more weight just because some person/s decreed it long ago? I have more trust and faith in my own sense of my "tao" and connection to the universal consciousness than any tradition. Sure, I read books from others using their ideas, but I take what I need and leave the rest.

And I haven't been ignoring anyone, I just sometimes take a break as I need to collect my thoughts and due to my disabilties typing is slow for me.
Example; this post has taken one and a half hours, at least.