A) I think everything that is, is exactly as it should be no matter how awesome, beautiful, unappealing or distastefull it seems.

B) You can try to change things to how you want them to be, but you shouldn't be dissappointed if it doesn't work because of A.

In other words you believe in predestination.

All I can do then is agree, Wes.

In other words you believe in predestination.

not at all.

I believe in "instant destiny" if you want it put in those terms.

B) You can try to change things to how you want them to be, but you shouldn't be dissappointed if it doesn't work because of A.

I suppose though if you're dissapointed that points back to A. You need to be disspointed until you aren't anymore, or you wouldn't be in the first place.

not at all.

I believe in "instant destiny" if you want it put in those terms.


They both sound like the same thing to me. Pre-destination - Where you destiny is composed once you are born, or even before you're born.
Instant destiny - from the words instant and destiny, sounds like destiny which is composed instantly from when you come into existance.

So...what is the difference here.

I don't care too much for this assertion. True, it's your belief and you have a right to think it, but have you looked at where that puts you?

A) I think everything that is, is exactly as it should be no matter how awesome, beautiful, unappealing or distastefull it seems.

The should implies alot. Should according to who or what? With that one little word, you sujest that there is a 'proper' way for things to be and, hence, and improper way that they could exist.

Yet, at the same time, you built a paradox. If in existing, everything is as it should be, then it can never fall into the area where it exists as it shouldn't. You have forced existance into a position of being 'perfect' according to something, yet denied the position of anything ever being less that that.

Intrestingly enough, you have also removed the possibility for free will with the above statement.

B) You can try to change things to how you want them to be, but you shouldn't be dissappointed if it doesn't work because of A.

So, if I can't change something, it is because that thing is as it should be, but if I can change it, it is because it should be changed be me. Wes, this is all implying a 'plan'.

You have put us in a basket of pointlessness. Everything, including us, is existing as it should (according to something). It is impossible for anything to exist in a way that contradicts this 'should'. So everything; Every action, every thought, all of it is as it 'should' be. If this is the case, then I had no choice in writing this reply. I had to do it because it is part of the 'should' of my existance.

No free will is possible by your statements. We, and everything else, are doing exactly what we 'should' be doing. You have reduced us to cogs in the machine.

I am still wondering who it is that planned it all out Wes. If everything is going as it should, who decided how things should be going?

The other question that I am forced to ask now is to what end? According to you we are doing what we, along with everything else, is doing what we should. We have no choice in the matter. Our existance or nonexistance only matters to the extent of fullfilling our part in this grand design. What is this design intended to do?

See, you have led us to a creationist universe. It was preplanned that everything in it should behave a certain way. Everything is doing what it should so to achieve some end, and none of us have any say in the matter because we have been put here to do what we do as part of that plan. (If that wasn't the case, then everything we did that didn't agree with this plan would have ripple effects and nothing would be existing as it should by now i would think.)
The question boils down to this: Who or what would go to the trouble of making this universe and everything in it to achieve some end, and why couldn't this 'creator' just create the end result? Why not skip the middle man?

Have you been reading too much adams, wes?

They both sound like the same thing to me. Pre-destination - Where you destiny is composed once you are born, or even before you're born.
Instant destiny - from the words instant and destiny, sounds like destiny which is composed instantly from when you come into existance.

So...what is the difference here.

IMO, your destiny can't be set when you're born because your life hasn't happened yet.

Your destiny is to read this.

Your destiny is to be who you are RIGHT NOW. Your destiny is happening to you right now. It's comprised of you, and the stuff around you. You control the you and can set your destiny within the parameters of the stuff around you. Choose to go to england right now. When you get there, it's your destiny to have been there. *shrug*

IMO, your destiny can't be set when you're born because your life hasn't happened yet.

Your destiny is to read this.

Your destiny is to be who you are RIGHT NOW. Your destiny is happening to you right now. It's comprised of you, and the stuff around you. You control the you and can set your destiny within the parameters of the stuff around you. Choose to go to england right now. When you get there, it's your destiny to have been there. *shrug*


You only supporting the idea of predestination. You live out your life as a plan. What ever thoughts you make up, whatever actions you do is part of your life's plan, or destiny. As you said it was my destiny to read this. There was no way i could have stopped myself from reading it, because it was ment to be. You not living out your life doesn't affect predestination, ultimately you're going to fill in every aspect of the plan made for you at birth. Whichever way you think you are changing destiny was ment to happen.

Lets say you go back into to time to stop yourself from making a dire mistake. You are destined to do that, but you're going to find out that you won't be able to change what has already happened, since destiny will forbid you to do this.

I'm really only saying that once something is it's as good as meant to be, as it already is. However, what will be is wholly dependent on what is. Further, you can choose action based on what is to change what will be... thusly changing what the following "is" might be. So no I dont' believe at all in predestination, I simply think it important to accept and understand the full impact of one's apparent destination (right now) sans "pre".

/I don't care too much for this assertion. True, it's your belief and you have a right to think it, but have you looked at where that puts you?

Certainly.

/The should implies alot.

You're right.

/Should according to who or what?

According to the function of the universe, circumstance, whatever. However you want to label it. It doesn't really matter who or what. Whatever is... IS, so it must be as it should be, or it wouldn't be that way right? If your finger was cut off, it's no longer there. It shouldn't be there because it isn't because it was cut off.

/With that one little word, you sujest that there is a 'proper' way for things to be and, hence, and improper way that they could exist.

Well certainly there is a "proper" way things should be... which is exactly as they are. Like I said, how could it be otherwise? Things are as they must be, so obviously they should be that way.. as that way is proper.

/Yet, at the same time, you built a paradox.

Hey I didn't build it. I just stumbled onto it.

/If in existing, everything is as it should be, then it can never fall into the area where it exists as it shouldn't.

Of course it couldn't, could it? I mean, how is that possible. Obviously if something is, it is, and therefore should be at the time that it is.

/You have forced existance into a position of being 'perfect' according to something, yet denied the position of anything ever being less that that.

Very perceptive. I've discussed this in detail in a couple of threads:

Function and Perfection (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=29838)

Perfection (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=15024)

It seems maybe I'm just recycling the same ideas. Ah, well I find it interesting.

/Intrestingly enough, you have also removed the possibility for free will with the above statement.

No I have simply confined it to the moment.

/So, if I can't change something, it is because that thing is as it should be, but if I can change it, it is because it should be changed by me.

Either way is as it should be.

/Wes, this is all implying a 'plan'.

Hmm.. I don't think so. I think you're projecting the argument into stuff that doesn't really exist. The past and future are abstracts. They don't really exist.

/You have put us in a basket of pointlessness.

Oh no, not at all. But points fleeting. They are like the beauty of a sunset. I wrote a Haiku about it:

we, a sea of mind
thinking, feeling, living - flow
meaning comes and goes

Which basically summarizes my favorite thread that I ever started: Refutation of Nihilism (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=22336)

/Everything, including us, is existing as it should (according to something). It is impossible for anything to exist in a way that contradicts this 'should'. So everything; Every action, every thought, all of it is as it 'should' be.

Indeed.

/If this is the case, then I had no choice in writing this reply.

I disagree. I think you had total choice and you chose to make this part of your destiny. You could have read it and moved on with zilch response. You could have not read it at all. You chose to read it. You chose to respond.

/I had to do it because it is part of the 'should' of my existance.

You made it that way via your choices in the moment.

/No free will is possible by your statements. We, and everything else, are doing exactly what we 'should' be doing.

When people are involved, choices are constantly being made. Everything else doesn't have this capability. Some stuff maybe, like animals and such have limited choices compared to that of most people.

/You have reduced us to cogs in the machine.

Well you are a cog in machine but that's not really a bad thing I don't think. It's a fabulous and amazing machine and the cogs are self-aware and charged with constant decision making and such.

/I am still wondering who it is that planned it all out Wes.

Uhm... I just don't see it that way. You plan for you, me for me, some for US, some for you, some for me.. it's a big conglomorated integration of action/reaction/competition etc. etc.

/If everything is going as it should, who decided how things should be going?

You do.

/The other question that I am forced to ask now is to what end?

The end that you choose. The ends that others choose. The end that the "is" allows as possible. The end that comes to be.

/According to you we are doing what we, along with everything else, is doing what we should.

Certainly.

/We have no choice in the matter.

Well, you have no choice in that you will do what you should do... but you have total choice over what the should is.

/Our existance or nonexistance only matters to the extent of fullfilling our part in this grand design.

No, your existance or non-existance only matters to you, and other people it matters to (like sciforums folks). Meaning only exists in minds as far as one can tell.

/What is this design intended to do?

I don't see design in the "big picture". I see "is". I suppose I'm going to have to start calling myself a taoist, though I don't know if I really qualify and labels like that annoy me.

/See, you have led us to a creationist universe.

Did not.

/It was preplanned that everything in it should behave a certain way. Everything is doing what it should so to achieve some end, and none of us have any say in the matter because we have been put here to do what we do as part of that plan. (If that wasn't the case, then everything we did that didn't agree with this plan would have ripple effects and nothing would be existing as it should by now i would think.)

I think I've clarified why I don't think this is right.

/The question boils down to this: Who or what would go to the trouble of making this universe and everything in it to achieve some end, and why couldn't this 'creator' just create the end result?

LOL. Well, I'll answer the question anyway: I haven't a clue and would not assert or imply such a "creator". I simply see "is".

/Have you been reading too much adams, wes?

You mean like Douglass Adams? Oh man it's been SO long.

After loosing the long reply, i am going to attempt to keep this one a bit shorter and faster.

/According to the function of the universe, circumstance, whatever. However you want to label it. It doesn't really matter who or what. Whatever is... IS, so it must be as it should be, or it wouldn't be that way right?

Function doesn't imply purpose. Should implies purpose. Purpose needs a conscious mind to decide that purpose.
Your should sujests a consciousness making the choices for us all, wes.
While that might not matter to you, i rather like the idea of having free will.


/If your finger was cut off, it's no longer there. It shouldn't be there because it isn't because it was cut off.

Without a conscious mind that is able to make past/present comparisons, I could not know that, or make a judgement.

/Well certainly there is a "proper" way things should be... which is exactly as they are. Like I said, how could it be otherwise? Things are as they must be, so obviously they should be that way.. as that way is proper.

Would we have dry without wet to compare it too?
If things are proper, then there must be an improper to compare it to.
Things cannot be proper without the possibility of improperness. That requires choice. Choice cannot happen in your framework because everythign is proper. There is no room for anything other than that which is proper.

you are left with three outcomes.
1)Either we have choice and not everything is proper.
2)We have no choice and everythign is proper
3) there is no proper.

/Of course it couldn't, could it? I mean, how is that possible. Obviously if something is, it is, and therefore should be at the time that it is.

There is nothing obvious about what you are saying wes.
In fact, you loose consistancy the further we push into this.

/Very perceptive. I've discussed this in detail in a couple of threads:
Function and Perfection (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=29838)
Perfection (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=15024)
It seems maybe I'm just recycling the same ideas. Ah, well I find it interesting.

interesting perhaps, but you always throw in the same flaw. I am begining to think religous dogma has burrowed deep into your skull.

/No I have simply confined it to the moment.

What moment? you have some major issues with time. that comes later though.

/Either way is as it should be.

My point. I have no choice. It always goes to what should be.

/Hmm.. I don't think so. I think you're projecting the argument into stuff that doesn't really exist. The past and future are abstracts. They don't really exist.

Future becomes present becomes past. without the other two there is no present. Define the present, As soon as you start to, that moment is gone and moved into the past. In effect, we are always in the past.
/I disagree. I think you had total choice and you chose to make this part of your destiny. You could have read it and moved on with zilch response. You could have not read it at all. You chose to read it. You chose to respond.

Firstly, When did i make the choice?
Think of life as a reel of movie film. Now if the frames are the individual moments, and at everymoment I am acting as I should, then the only time I have for a choice is between frames, and I don't exist there.

Or, I never made the choice, because the past doesn't exist?

If this reply happens, according to you it is because it should happen. I had no choice.

/You made it that way via your choices in the moment.

No time or room for choices in the moment. I'm too busy doing what I should be doing. Some one else had to make the choice. I just did what they desided I should.

/When people are involved, choices are constantly being made. Everything else doesn't have this capability. Some stuff maybe, like animals and such have limited choices compared to that of most people.

What makes us special, wes? You are giving me religous dogma.
We are made up of the same stuff as everything else, so why do we get a choice and none of the rest of it does? If everything acts as it should, that includes the atoms, molecules, and electrical impulses governing us. We could act in no way other than how we should. Ie, no choice.
Or is it a special thing that we have and other stuff doesn't? Do we have a soul or something wes? is that what you are telling me?

/Well you are a cog in machine but that's not really a bad thing I don't think. It's a fabulous and amazing machine and the cogs are self-aware and charged with constant decision making and such.

The illusion of decision making. Really I am just doing what I shoud be doing.

/Uhm... I just don't see it that way. You plan for you, me for me, some for US, some for you, some for me.. it's a big conglomorated integration of action/reaction/competition etc. etc.

How can I plan with out a future or a past? How can I plan with out the ability to choose? What if our plans disagree on what should be? who decides then? Besides,wes, we are just cogs. We only think we are planning. really we are just doing what we should be doing, right?


//If everything is going as it should, who decided how things should be going?
/You do.

I decide how everything should be? (in that case I decide that you should see the error of your ways)

Besides, wes, there is no past, so how could I have ever made the decision?

/The end that you choose. The ends that others choose. The end that the "is" allows as possible. The end that comes to be.

What if the end that I choose and the end that others choose isn't the same? WHat if no body is around? WHo chooses then?
Seriously wes, Drop the hippy new-ager shit and gie me some honest answers here.

/Well, you have no choice in that you will do what you should do... but you have total choice over what the should is.

Wes, get your head out of your ass and read what you just wrote.
It contradicts itself.
I can't choose what i do, cause i will always do what I should, but I can choose the should.
So I can choose what I should do (and hence what I will do) but i can't choose what i will do??
WTF???

/No, your existance or non-existance only matters to you, and other people it matters to (like sciforums folks). Meaning only exists in minds as far as one can tell.

But wes, we only exist if we should. Hence our existance only happens if it is part of some larger plan. If I don't exist, it wouldn't matter to me. (i wouldn't exist.) No one else would care, because I wouldn't exist. If it happened suddenly, then no one would realise i ever existed, because there is no future or past.
no, it only matters as far as my place in teh plan that you keep asserting must be in effect.

/I don't see design in the "big picture". I see "is". I suppose I'm going to have to start calling myself a taoist, though I don't know if I really qualify and labels like that annoy me.

You can't call yourself a taoist as long as you keep holding onto this idea of 'should'. Despite your attempts, you have just built a huge argument for god and destiny. Nothing else.

///It was preplanned that everything in it should behave a certain way. Everything is doing what it should so to achieve some end, and none of us have any say in the matter because we have been put here to do what we do as part of that plan. (If that wasn't the case, then everything we did that didn't agree with this plan would have ripple effects and nothing would be existing as it should by now i would think.)
/I think I've clarified why I don't think this is right.

Your "clarification" was anything but clear. Each part relied on not being connected to the others. No consistancy. Despite yous 'faith in reason', you aren't reasoning. You are choosing to ignore some of the consiquences of your statements. They aren't reasonably consistant.

/LOL. Well, I'll answer the question anyway: I haven't a clue and would not assert or imply such a "creator". I simply see "is".

Problem is that you have asserted and implieda creater many times. You just don't want to see it. You have to pull yourself out of your argument and look at it with fresh eyes, wes.

There is a reason we are all basically saying the same thing to you. There is a reason you were asked like 5 times if you believed in destiny after posting that.
The reason is that that is the logical and reasonable conclusion.

/You mean like Douglass Adams? Oh man it's been SO long.

Yes, exactly like douglas adams. This whole thing sounds alot like the mice building teh computer.

Hi Wes,

It's an interesting topic, thanks for bringing it up. What you've said puts me in mind of a passage in Lao Tzu's commentary:

A truly good man does nothing,
Yet nothing is left undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done

Given the lovely sound of this prose I'm almost ashamed to be at-odds with its message. I've never thought of myself as Camus' mythical Sisyphus, condemned forever to roll his stone up a mountain. There is literally nothing that has to be done. The universe hasn't put a single item on our to-do list. Instead, it's we humans that decide what ought to be done. We decide whether or not we ought to intervene to prevent a famine in Africa or a civil war in Bosnia. And if our decisions result in a mountain of human corpses then the earth will continue to spin 'round and the birds will continue to sing just the same.

At the same time, I care very much about the well-being of life on this planet. Humans speak morality into the world, the world does not speak morality into humans. We, and we alone decide what is beautiful and what is horrible. We decide when to leave things alone and when to intervene. And this is how I think it ought to be. We didn't make the universe, but we make the values that make the universe matter.

Father Paneloux: "Perhaps we should love what we cannot understand."
Rieux: "No father. I have a very different idea of love. And until my dying day I shall refuse to love a scheme of things in which children are put to torture."
Camus, The Plague

Michael

There is a reason we are all basically saying the same thing to you. There is a reason you were asked like 5 times if you believed in destiny after posting that. The reason is that that is the logical and reasonable conclusion.

Funny I only see you and one other person seeming confused... well, besides me. :) Hehe. It's hard to get across exactly what I'm getting at but I'll post you sumthin better afterwhile.

You did note that a few people understood my meaning and agreed right?

I basically agree with what orthogonal said.

I think you're just hung up on the should, insisting it to be in a context that I'm not putting it in. Let's just say that the "should" comes from ME, and can come from any consciousness that recognizes and fully accepts a reality external to themselves.

/Funny I only see you and one other person seeming confused... well, besides me. :)
true enough. My memory plays tricks at time.

/Hehe. It's hard to get across exactly what I'm getting at but I'll post you sumthin better afterwhile.

you'd better

/You did note that a few people understood my meaning and agreed right?

Your memory is playing tricks too. One did.

/I basically agree with what orthogonal said.

That man gives meaning to the universe? I would agree.
Especially since it goes against your stance. The basics of this is that there is no should, no reason for anything, unless man gives it one.
Well get to finishing this thought right after the next part.

/I think you're just hung up on the should, insisting it to be in a context that I'm not putting it in. Let's just say that the "should" comes from ME, and can come from any consciousness that recognizes and fully accepts a reality external to themselves.

Finally, we are making progress.
Yes. should requires consciousness. with out a consciousness there is no should.
If the should comes from you, then there isn't a should to everything.
I recognise a reality outside of myself. I also recognise that I cannot know one way or the other if there is an order to things. With out an order, there can be no should to the actions/existance of anything. In essence, you saying that shit exists as it does because it should is nothing more than an arbitrary statement.

To rehash the arguments made in other threads:
I can accept that:
things exist as only they can.
This, however, in no way equates to a purpose or a meaning. It is simply a statement about the individuality and seperate nature of all objects. That no two objects can exist in exactly the same way with the same properties.

It's simple: with out an observer, there is no should, no right and wrong, no morality, no purpose. It takes an observer to give meaning to those ideas.

ps.
this is what part of the alphabet would look like if there were no 'q' and 'r'.

Wow, can't beleive some of you have that much to say. :eek:

A) I think everything that is, is exactly as it should be no matter how awesome, beautiful, unappealing or distastefull it seems.
So according to you there is no difference between how something is and how it should be? What abt something temporal, like... a leaf on a tree in summer, and on the ground in autumn. Where is its place, on the tree or ground? You're gonna say wherever it is at the time aren't you? :o :(

A) I think everything that is, is exactly as it should be no matter how awesome, beautiful, unappealing or distastefull it seems.

B) You can try to change things to how you want them to be, but you shouldn't be dissappointed if it doesn't work because of A.

That is exactly why I believe animals never cry. Animals can not know the difference between what is and what could be. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the difference between the way things are and the way things could be is a singular human illusion. That is not to say I believe in predestination. It is more accurate to say that I believe in plain destination.

/Hehe. It's hard to get across exactly what I'm getting at but I'll post you sumthin better afterwhile.


you'd better

You'd think I'd know better than to make promises like that. I mean, how could I get better? LOL. Yeah okay nevermind.

/You did note that a few people understood my meaning and agreed right?

Your memory is playing tricks too. One did.

One agreed, more than one seemed to understand.

/I basically agree with what orthogonal said.

That man gives meaning to the universe? I would agree.

Yah, rather, conscious beings give meaning to the universe, literally. Otherwise it would be exactly meaningless.

Especially since it goes against your stance.

How is that? I don't see how you get that from what I've said.

The basics of this is that there is no should, no reason for anything, unless man gives it one.

Hmm... sure, but consider that you do exist, and that you are giving things meaning. You can choose what meaning you give to things, and you know about the whole causality thing. If you fully accept action->reaction, then inherently, everything is as it should be because actions resulted in their reactions. That is not to say that you shoudln't seek to change this relationship, just that in the now, it is as it should be or the reaction would have been different. "should" is the result of "is".

A ball is coming toward your head.
A ball is about to hit your head.
if you move your head, you won't be hit.
if you don't, you will be hit.
as soon as the ball strikes your noggin, this is how it should be.
action/reaction lead to it.
someone threw a ball aimed at your head.
you didn't move your head.
you should be hit in the head by the ball.
you were hit in the head by the ball.
this is how it should be.

Well get to finishing this thought right after the next part.

/I think you're just hung up on the should, insisting it to be in a context that I'm not putting it in. Let's just say that the "should" comes from ME, and can come from any consciousness that recognizes and fully accepts a reality external to themselves.

Finally, we are making progress.
Yes. should requires consciousness. with out a consciousness there is no should.

Certainly, but reason requires one's consciousness to acknowledge the properties of the medium in which it exists. Consider the ball coming at your head. Failure to recognize that the ball is coming may result in lack of consciousness.

If the should comes from you, then there isn't a should to everything.

I disagree. Experience leads to should. If you don't see that things are as they should be, you are in denial. That is not to say that certain things cannot changed to meet your specific expectation.

Further and I think more pertinent: I am ultimatley the should of everything. I exist, therefore I should exist. You apparently exist because you should as well. Regardless in my existence I can recognize that the "is" of being is inhernetly a "should", as if it "is" it could not be any other way, so "should" and "is" are synonymous. If it is, it should be.

I suppose I'm driving at the duality of reality from the individual perspective and how part of it is external to you, yet internal. What I'm saying is a roundabout way of seeing the independent component of the medium external to self, and accepting that medium as independent. Internally, you can cast all sorts of retarded/unreasonable expectations upon your environment. IMO, it's important to recognize that there are elements of this common medium that are beyond the scope of control that one can exert. For me, recognition of this external cause/effect is an important philosophical point. Ultimately I point this inward and use it to question my own expectations/motivations. Sometimes it helps me accept full responsibility for my state of mind.

I recognise a reality outside of myself. I also recognise that I cannot know one way or the other if there is an order to things. With out an order, there can be no should to the actions/existance of anything. In essence, you saying that shit exists as it does because it should is nothing more than an arbitrary statement.

It is a statement of recognition/respect of/for that order.

To rehash the arguments made in other threads:
I can accept that:
things exist as only they can.
Groovy.

This, however, in no way equates to a purpose or a meaning.

It only does if you think it does. I think it does as I explained above.

It's simple: with out an observer, there is no should, no right and wrong, no morality, no purpose. It takes an observer to give meaning to those ideas.

Hmm. (note that I'm ignoring the "right and wrong" / "morality" issue because it's irrelavent as I mentioned in the first post in this thread "no matter how uncomfortable, blah blah", purpose is the same) I would say that even without and observer everything is as is should be, but there simply no one to appreciate/observe it. That's kind of the point really. Appreciation of cause and effect. They still happen without an observer, but they are meaningless. That doesn't mean that it isn't how it should be. The "should" is recognition of the independence of cause and effect, though you are right it can't actually be put there without an observer. For instance though, I can imagine a hypothetical closed system I'm not in. Inside that system I can confidently say "everything is as it should be" because there is no other way for things to be. As they are is as they should be.

Acceptance.

ps.
this is what part of the alphabet would look like if there were no 'q' and 'r'

I still don't understand that comment.

/Yah, rather, conscious beings give meaning to the universe, literally. Otherwise it would be exactly meaningless.

Bad time to actually say that, wes.
It takes us down the god road again, as I will show you shortly.

/How is that? I don't see how you get that from what I've said.

Remove your 'I'm right' bias and reread the post. I have faith that you can understand if you actually want to. All you have to do is try.

/Hmm... sure, but consider that you do exist, and that you are giving things meaning. You can choose what meaning you give to things, and you know about the whole causality thing. If you fully accept action->reaction, then inherently, everything is as it should be because actions resulted in their reactions.

And here is where we start goign down the road to god.
Remember saying this:
"conscious beings give meaning to the universe"
?
Lets step back before the rise of conscious thought on this planet. In fact, lets go back...i dunno...10 billion years.
Now, depending on what you believe, we are left with only a few possible situations as to what is going to be around. Most would agree that there was no conscious life in the universe..unless you presume a god.
SO, applying that to the above we are left with two out comes.
1)there is a god and he/she/it gave meaning to the initial actions. that would allow you to be correct.
2)there isn't a god, so the initial actions were RANDOM. That means no order, no meaning. So what you are saying, in following with the time line, is that order and meaning sprang fully formed from chaos. While it is true that order might develop from chaos, meaning doesn't. Even if things 'make sense', with reguards to meaning and purpose, it is mearly coincidental.

/consider that you do exist, and that you are giving things meaning. You can choose what meaning you give to things, and you know about the whole causality thing.

Another thing: We, as a race, people, conscious entities, whatever, do not have knowledge of everything, so we cannot give meaning to everything.

/That is not to say that you shoudln't seek to change this relationship, just that in the now, it is as it should be or the reaction would have been different. "should" is the result of "is".

Wes.
Wes, wes, wes...
That is only an arbitrary statement, with no underlying evidence or support.
There is no reason in your assumption. Just because you see a patern, doesn't mean there is one.

/A ball is coming toward your head.
A ball is about to hit your head.
if you move your head, you won't be hit.
if you don't, you will be hit.
as soon as the ball strikes your noggin, this is how it should be.
action/reaction lead to it.
someone threw a ball aimed at your head.
you didn't move your head.
you should be hit in the head by the ball.
you were hit in the head by the ball.
this is how it should be.

Wow...
You attempt to prove a general statement with a specific example....
and still fail

Just because someone throws a ball at your head, doesn't mean it will hit your head. Some random object could hit the ball mid course. The thrower's aim could be off. Wind could change the course. Etc, etc, etc...
There is alot in that very specific example that you are failing to take into consideration.

/I think you're just hung up on the should, insisting it to be in a context that I'm not putting it in. Let's just say that the "should" comes from ME, and can come from any consciousness that recognizes and fully accepts a reality external to themselves.

If it comes from consciousness, it didn't exist before consciousness. Prior to consciousness, there was no should and thus all was random.
See the god road wes.
You are building the road and hating it for where it goes.

/Certainly, but reason requires one's consciousness to acknowledge the properties of the medium in which it exists. Consider the ball coming at your head. Failure to recognize that the ball is coming may result in lack of consciousness.

Properties which you are failing to consider.
Humor does not a valid argument make.

/I disagree. Experience leads to should. If you don't see that things are as they should be, you are in denial. That is not to say that certain things cannot changed to meet your specific expectation.

Denial?
Sounds like a page from FHed's book.
Experience tells us many things wes, most of which don't hold water.
Experience is a personal thing. It is a subjective, not objective. What your experience tells you is not always what mine would tell me.
Experience is not something to base a logical, rational, or reasonable argument on.

/Further and I think more pertinent: I am ultimatley the should of everything. I exist, therefore I should exist. You apparently exist because you should as well. Regardless in my existence I can recognize that the "is" of being is inhernetly a "should", as if it "is" it could not be any other way, so "should" and "is" are synonymous. If it is, it should be.

This sounds alot like some self impowering new age religous talk. I should exist? Is that the destiny that has been written in the stars, wes? I thought you didn't agree with predestination.

/I suppose I'm driving at the duality of reality from the individual perspective and how part of it is external to you, yet internal.

From the individual perspective? You mean yours? So what you are driving at is something that only holds true for you then, as no two perspectives are the same.

/What I'm saying is a roundabout way of seeing the independent component of the medium external to self, and accepting that medium as independent.

So the medium is independant, yet requires a consciousness to have meaning?
Translation:
'A' is independant of 'B', yet 'A' requires 'B'.
Doesn't sound to independant to me.

/Internally, you can cast all sorts of retarded/unreasonable expectations upon your environment.

I could, but you seem to have that covered. (ok, so that was just mean...)

/IMO, it's important to recognize that there are elements of this common medium that are beyond the scope of control that one can exert.

But that just contradicts what you said earlier wes!
"but consider that you do exist, and that you are giving things meaning."
"the "should" comes from ME, and can come from any consciousness that recognizes and fully accepts a reality external to themselves."
"You can choose what meaning you give to things"

If there are things beyond my scope of control, and concievably any other entitiy's, then there is, by necessity, things beyond anyone's control and, thus, anyone's ability to give meaning to.

"accept action->reaction, then inherently, everything is as it should be because actions resulted in their reactions."

But as you have just said, not all actions are controllable. If so, not all have a should associated to them. Some are just random. Accept it.

/For me, recognition of this external cause/effect is an important
philosophical point.

Look at what you just said wes.
External.
Yet you put all the emphasis not on the external, but rather what you make of it, the internal. It isn't the recognition of this external cause and effect that you are going on about, its the internal interpretation of it and its consequesnce that has you. Reaslize that, wes. There is no order to it besides that which man gives it. There is no should to the universe, with out a god.

/Ultimately I point this inward and use it to question my own expectations/motivations.

Right...

/Sometimes it helps me accept full responsibility for my state of mind.

Whatever it takes, I guess.
Me?
I don't require a clockwork universe to accept responsibility for my state of mind. I look only to myself.

/It is a statement of recognition/respect of/for that order.

Yes, wes..
All praise god.

/Groovy.

Fucking hippy..



/It only does if you think it does. I think it does as I explained above.

ARGHH!!!!
Yes, wes.
I will leave you to your god.

/Hmm. (note that I'm ignoring the "right and wrong" / "morality" issue because it's irrelavent as I mentioned in the first post in this thread "no matter how uncomfortable, blah blah", purpose is the same)

Right/wrong, morality, etc aren't a matter of being comfortable. It's more a matter of what shoudl be and what shouldn't.
As such, this goes hand in hand with your should.
Reguardless. You don't want to see the obvious conclusions of your statements, you are free to stay blind.

/I would say that even without and observer everything is as is should be,

"conscious beings give meaning to the universe, literally. Otherwise it would be exactly meaningless."
"Let's just say that the "should" comes from ME, and can come from any consciousness that recognizes and fully accepts a reality external to themselves."

Which is it, wes?

/but there simply no one to appreciate/observe it. That's kind of the point really. Appreciation of cause and effect.

Appreciation is one thing. Arbitrarily applying a cause and a should to it is another.

/They still happen without an observer, but they are meaningless. That doesn't mean that it isn't how it should be.

They still happen w/o the observer, yet they still have the should

/The "should" is recognition of the independence of cause and effect, though you are right it can't actually be put there without an observer.

The should can't be there w/o the observer

Wes, you managed to contradict yourself in record time there.

/For instance though, I can imagine a hypothetical closed system I'm not in. Inside that system I can confidently say "everything is as it should be" because there is no other way for things to be. As they are is as they should be.

According to who?

/Acceptance.

Illusions.

/The should can't be there w/o the observer

Wes, you managed to contradict yourself in record time there.

I'd ask that you reconsider and realize that in the sense you're meaning, I've made ME god, but at the same time I realize there are other gods too, like for instance the dark lord of the overworld. Do you see what I mean? I'll respond in full later.

And you refer to destiny, when I bastardized that concept ealier into "instanct destiny" as in, once it is it cannot be otherwise. At that point you can only concern yourself with what will be the is and possiblity attempt to manipulate (if you deem it necessary, like for intance any action or thought you ever do is a manipulation of the is into something else) the 'is' (the present) into being something you prefer.

/Yah, rather, conscious beings give meaning to the universe, literally. Otherwise it would be exactly meaningless.

Bad time to actually say that, wes.
It takes us down the god road again, as I will show you shortly.

First consider that meaning only exists in the present and get back to me.

Did you try reading it with my added tidbit from above? I'm looking at this from the perspective that the now is all that exists. The past and future DID and WILL (probably) exist, but the now is all that is now. Think of it as the derivative of the function of space where your brain intersects it. The now pushes up against space in your brain and you ride the wave, always in the derivative if you follow my meaning. Technically, space-time is always reconfiguring from the perspective of awareness, which lies tangent to spacetime. Mind (the abstract portion of the brain/awareness/consciousness thing) exists in the dimension(s) that are tangential to spacetime and awareness is the place where spacetime and the tangential dimensions intersect. Combine these "extra dimensions" and space time in a tangential relationship and you get consciousness (since the brain can store experiences (subjective time)). (consider these extra dimensions "p-branes" of a different order than space-time). I gather all of this from the observation that in my mind I "feel" or "am aware of" more than one time at a time. That isn't supposed to fit in real time, as the present is an infinitessimal slice of time. Therefore it seems logical to me that in order that you can fit more time than a time into time at one time (worded it that way for comedy), you have to have the ability to go tangent or somehow perpendicular to space-time (four space). So, this is why to me, as I (assume based on faith in reason and the subsequent evidence) am physical and I am abstract, that means that I exist both in and out of the classical idea of time. When I consider my identity, I consider my mind. By that reasoning I think the pertinent portion of "time" that should be considered lies only in the (relative) present, as that is the portion of time that connects mind and brain.

Perhaps a more detailed discussion about the idea of 'the present' is due for a revisitation. I'm considering that from the point of view of awareness there is a leading and trailing edge to the present. If space-time had a perspective, I think there would be an infinitessimal breach between past and present in which the p-branes of non-classical-space-time intersect with the classical space-time. I think that the "life-force" is a property like gravity that acts in one of the other p-branes, giving rise to awareness (note that all beings share the same "awareness" in that they are a POV, it's just if they have a complicated brain to store a record of it that gives rise to consciousness (per the interaction outlined above).

*sigh* you should question yourself

LOL. Thanks for the advice, but I'm way ahead of you brother.

/How is that? I don't see how you get that from what I've said.

Remove your 'I'm right' bias and reread the post.

That's not nice. If I were to ask you to remove your "I'm wrong" bias, would you? Regardless, I don't think I'm right. I think I'm on the right path. I think I'm "mosty right" or "somewhat keyed in". I'm not sure you've really wrapped your mind around what I'm saying yet (I only mostly have). In responding to you I tell you if I think your objection jives with my understanding and listen to see if you've shown a problem withit.

I know you're fully capable of understanding me so I'll give it my best effort. I will give your words great consideration if you will return the favor, and forgive my style of speaking. I'm talking about stuff that I need a new language to really discuss, as the ideas aren't common to anything else I'm aware of. That makes it difficult for me to find the words. I can see that you do give me the credit for trying, so thanks.

I have faith that you can understand if you actually want to. All you have to do is try.

I share your faith. You must know that I'm trying.

/Hmm... sure, but consider that you do exist, and that you are giving things meaning. You can choose what meaning you give to things, and you know about the whole causality thing. If you fully accept action->reaction, then inherently, everything is as it should be because actions resulted in their reactions.

And here is where we start goign down the road to god.

I think I see what you mean but I don't think you're getting what I mean. I'll do my damndest to explain why.

Remember saying this:
"conscious beings give meaning to the universe"
?

Yes. I'll try to translate another way before moving on: Meaning only exists in abstract space, and abstract space exists in p-branes that connected to, but not, the typical picture of space-time. Meaning exists in a dimension that is accessed subjectively by brains, only in the relative present. As such, before there were conscious beings in space-time, it is likely that meaning did not exist. As soon as beings that were aware did exist, and their brains were able to feed their subjective experience back to them in real time, meaning of the utmost simplicity ensued. It (meaning) gets more complicated the better the brain you have (the better able to record, compartmentalize, analyze and feed back (onto the relative present (into mind)). Was that just techno-babble to you? To me, I've explained the phenomenon of consciousness to the best of my understanding in this post.

Lets step back before the rise of conscious thought on this planet. In fact, lets go back...i dunno...10 billion years.

I'm with you.

Now, depending on what you believe, we are left with only a few possible situations as to what is going to be around. Most would agree that there was no conscious life in the universe..unless you presume a god.

That is a tough question because the other p-branes are not observable from our perspective, so it's hard to know if some analogy or actual type of meaning/consciousness existed within the universe, just in branes that could not be observed. Further, I think "meaning" takes on a whole new meaning in this light, as from any dimension the relatinoship of the space-time/awareness/other pbranes thing would hold, so meaning could exist analagous in a sense to what I think of as meaning, but fundamentally different at teh same time as it is actually in some other brane relative the one in which my meaning exists.

SO, applying that to the above we are left with two out comes.
1)there is a god and he/she/it gave meaning to the initial actions. that would allow you to be correct.

Perhaps you can see now. I'm guessing you're starting to get me or your starting to step slowly away from the computer. hehe. Perhaps you can see that there is no need for a god in my view. See my rants on the topic in the religion section if you'd like. God is unknowable and irrelevant. Meaning (as I know it) exists in minds.

2)there isn't a god, so the initial actions were RANDOM. That means no order, no meaning. So what you are saying, in following with the time line, is that order and meaning sprang fully formed from chaos. While it is true that order might develop from chaos, meaning doesn't. Even if things 'make sense', with reguards to meaning and purpose, it is mearly coincidental.

How can meaning be anything other than subjective? That doesn't require a 'god' to put it there. It requires a subjective experience. Well, you know, the relationship I've been harping on about.

/consider that you do exist, and that you are giving things meaning. You can choose what meaning you give to things, and you know about the whole causality thing.

Another thing: We, as a race, people, conscious entities, whatever, do not have knowledge of everything, so we cannot give meaning to everything.

I don't know what you're talking about. We give meaning to that which we give meaning to. What we don't, has no meaning. It's very very simple. It's akin to "that which has water on it, has water on it, that which doesn't, uhm, doesn't".

/That is not to say that you shoudln't seek to change this relationship, just that in the now, it is as it should be or the reaction would have been different. "should" is the result of "is".

Wes.
Wes, wes, wes...
That is only an arbitrary statement, with no underlying evidence or support.

It is not arbitary to me, it is common sense. Once something is, you can may be able to make it 'not" later, but for the present time, it is. Period. How is that arbitrary? It may be so blatantly obvious as to not warrent comment, but it is not arbitrary I don't think. Have I missed your point?

There is no reason in your assumption. Just because you see a patern, doesn't mean there is one.

LOL. Yes it does. That is the only way a pattern can be seen, if I put observe it there. Now, the pattern I see may not be relevant to the reality of what is really there, but the pattern is there. To understand something, the pattern must somewhat resonate with reality.

/A ball is coming toward your head.
A ball is about to hit your head.
if you move your head, you won't be hit.
if you don't, you will be hit.
as soon as the ball strikes your noggin, this is how it should be.
action/reaction lead to it.
someone threw a ball aimed at your head.
you didn't move your head.
you should be hit in the head by the ball.
you were hit in the head by the ball.
this is how it should be.

Wow...
You attempt to prove a general statement with a specific example....
and still fail

That is so unfair. I tried to use the most blatantly simple example to illustrate a chain of logic. That was not meant by any means as a proof. It is meant to try to illustrate what I'm trying to say such that you might understand me.

Just because someone throws a ball at your head, doesn't mean it will hit your head. Some random object could hit the ball mid course. The thrower's aim could be off. Wind could change the course. Etc, etc, etc...
There is alot in that very specific example that you are failing to take into consideration.
Excellent. All of which are valid reasons for the "is" to be different from you actually being hit in the head by the ball. If the wind blows the ball off the course to your head, then according to my understanding of things, it should not hit you in the head. When it doesn't, the is is that you weren't hit in the head. That is "how it should be", which is exactly why everything is always as it should be. Cause and effect.

/I think you're just hung up on the should, insisting it to be in a context that I'm not putting it in. Let's just say that the "should" comes from ME, and can come from any consciousness that recognizes and fully accepts a reality external to themselves.

If it comes from consciousness, it didn't exist before consciousness. Prior to consciousness, there was no should and thus all was random.

You trying to steal my thunder you bastard? LOL. If you think this, when why did you disagree with the goddamn opening line? "Yah, rather, conscious beings give meaning to the universe, literally. Otherwise it would be exactly meaningless." Prior to consciousness, it seems likely given that I observe it with consciousness, that action->reaction was still valid. That would seemingly have to be since something must have lead to my existence.

See the god road wes.

See how you're the one putting it there?

You are building the road and hating it for where it goes.

Am not.

/Certainly, but reason requires one's consciousness to acknowledge the properties of the medium in which it exists. Consider the ball coming at your head. Failure to recognize that the ball is coming may result in lack of consciousness.

Properties which you are failing to consider.
Humor does not a valid argument make.

Humor is added to make a nice conversation. Did you forget to complete your thought there? You say "properties which you're failing to consider (when in fact, you hadn't considered that I was possibly considering more factors than you'd presumed)" but don't list those properties.

/I disagree. Experience leads to should. If you don't see that things are as they should be, you are in denial. That is not to say that certain things cannot changed to meet your specific expectation.

Denial?
Sounds like a page from FHed's book.

That's just harsh dude. If you'd paid attention, you'd know that FHed vehemently disagrees with my take on denial (as he does with most anything I say, as we all do I guess to some degree).

Experience tells us many things wes, most of which don't hold water.

Speak for yourself.

Experience is a personal thing.

Hey you talk about blatantly obvious shit too. At least I'm not alone.

It is a subjective, not objective.

But silly man, you can observe an objective event and have a comprehension that resonates somehow with the 'reality' of that event. Happens all the time. You gotta crap, crap comes out of your ass. You just made a subjective observation that was in perfect harmony with objective reality as far as it is possible that you can tell.

What your experience tells you is not always what mine would tell me.

Certainly.

Experience is not something to base a logical, rational, or reasonable argument on.

LOL. I'm most curious then: What do you think that 'logical, rational, or reasonable' arguments are based on? I'll give you a hint. If you boil it down it will come down to experiences you've undertaken to understand what logic and reason are in teh first place, and that they are valid, blah blah. Why does 1+1=2? Ultimately it's because I assume that it does. Ultimately, it's a matter of faith in your experience as representative of activity in spacetime. If you think about it further, it has to be (since light is modulated onto your brain, sound is modulated onto your brain, blah blah, something is causing the effect of your sensory input, and it is the exact negative of that input in a sense), via action/reaction (that is if you believe you exist, etc, once you've made it past that hurdle of "is this real?"). Your take on it might be fucked up, but if so that is due to your disorganized mind (for whatever reason).

/Further and I think more pertinent: I am ultimatley the should of everything. I exist, therefore I should exist. You apparently exist because you should as well. Regardless in my existence I can recognize that the "is" of being is inhernetly a "should", as if it "is" it could not be any other way, so "should" and "is" are synonymous. If it is, it should be.

This sounds alot like some self impowering new age religous talk.

LOL. Maybe so, but give me a break goddamnit and realize that just because it seems that way, it could be something else.

I should exist?

If you do, it follows from action->reaction that you should.

Is that the destiny that has been written in the stars, wes?

I don't you I bastardized the concept of destiny into "instant destiny". Your thinking is too constricted. Where is your brane man?

I thought you didn't agree with predestination.

You thought right.

/I suppose I'm driving at the duality of reality from the individual perspective and how part of it is external to you, yet internal.

From the individual perspective? You mean yours? So what you are driving at is something that only holds true for you then, as no two perspectives are the same.

I submit that all perspective share the same "awareness". All brains render that awareness subjective to the experience of that individual, but there is a medium common to all of them (space-time) and they all share the property of accessing the other p-brains through the tangential relationship described above. So I'm talkign about the objectively subjective or something. The properties inherent to being a perspective. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there and obviously just because I DO see them doesn't mean they are. Of course it doesn't mean that I'm wrong either. That's what we're debating. *shrug*

/What I'm saying is a roundabout way of seeing the independent component of the medium external to self, and accepting that medium as independent.

So the medium is independant, yet requires a consciousness to have meaning?
Translation:
'A' is independant of 'B', yet 'A' requires 'B'.
Doesn't sound to independant to me.
NO no, I assume the medium exists (in which I currently exist), and existed before me (pretty valid evidence to me is that my children didn't exist, yet they now do, blah blah). Nothing can be said of it unless it is observed. It exists regardless of my existence, but if I do (or you, or whoever) exist, my existance gives it meaning. Do you see the independence?

/Internally, you can cast all sorts of retarded/unreasonable expectations upon your environment.

I could, but you seem to have that covered. (ok, so that was just mean...)

Hehe. You bastard.

/IMO, it's important to recognize that there are elements of this common medium that are beyond the scope of control that one can exert.

But that just contradicts what you said earlier wes!

"but consider that you do exist, and that you are giving things meaning."
"the "should" comes from ME, and can come from any consciousness that recognizes and fully accepts a reality external to themselves."
"You can choose what meaning you give to things"

If there are things beyond my scope of control, and concievably any other entitiy's, then there is, by necessity, things beyond anyone's control and, thus, anyone's ability to give meaning to.

Of course, so those things don't have any meaning. See how simple that is? Why do you avoid the obvious conclusion?

"accept action->reaction, then inherently, everything is as it should be because actions resulted in their reactions."

But as you have just said, not all actions are controllable. If so, not all have a should associated to them. Some are just random. Accept it.

LOL. "should" arises from action->reaction. My expectations have little to do with it. If I want my expectations to align with action->reaction, so I can understand how things "should" be, I need to observe the results of action->reaction and use that as a template for my guesstimate of forthcoming events.

/For me, recognition of this external cause/effect is an important
philosophical point.

Look at what you just said wes.
External.

Of course.

Yet you put all the emphasis not on the external, but rather what you make of it, the internal.

Silly man, the emphasis is on aligning to two. That is the definition of understanding is it not? Isn't that what I've told you I'm trying to do?

It isn't the recognition of this external cause and effect that you are going on about, its the internal interpretation of it and its consequesnce that has you.

Well, that is because my internal data is all I have by which to judge what is happening around me. I can really only ever say "I'm pretty sure" that the two jive ya know? (for that matter, I can only infer that there is a "reality" to begin with)

Reaslize that, wes.

Way, WAY ahead of you man.

There is no order to it besides that which man gives it.

I'm SO with you. FO real.

There is no should to the universe, with out a god.

I disagree. Should is implied by the properties of the universe. I don't care what made them that way, I merely care to understand how they are.

/Ultimately I point this inward and use it to question my own expectations/motivations.

Right...

No, THAT was mean.

/Sometimes it helps me accept full responsibility for my state of mind.

Whatever it takes, I guess.

Me?

I don't require a clockwork universe to accept responsibility for my state of mind. I look only to myself.

You have no recourse, neither do I. I don't required a "clockwork" universe either. I merely require to strive to understand the universe whether it be random, clockwork, purple, or whatever.

/It is a statement of recognition/respect of/for that order.

Yes, wes..
All praise god.

God is unknowable and irrelevant. I respect the quest to understand and have embarked upon it. You have done the same. I'm happy to take the journey with you.

/Groovy.

Fucking hippy..

LOL. No dude, I'm no hippy. I like some of the lingo though.

/It only does if you think it does. I think it does as I explained above.

ARGHH!!!!
Yes, wes.
I will leave you to your god.

As I said above, in your vocabulary and my context I am but one of at least 6 billion or so gods. I don't really think of it that way though as I don't see a point.

/Hmm. (note that I'm ignoring the "right and wrong" / "morality" issue because it's irrelavent as I mentioned in the first post in this thread "no matter how uncomfortable, blah blah", purpose is the same)

Right/wrong, morality, etc aren't a matter of being comfortable. It's more a matter of what shoudl be and what shouldn't.

Hey where did morality come in? Did I inadvertently infer it? Where did you make it relevant? Seems like a separate issue to me, but it can be addressed if you'd like.

As such, this goes hand in hand with your should.

I hope I've already covered this.

Reguardless. You don't want to see the obvious conclusions of your statements, you are free to stay blind.

Still feel the same way?

/I would say that even without and observer everything is as is should be,

"conscious beings give meaning to the universe, literally. Otherwise it would be exactly meaningless."
"Let's just say that the "should" comes from ME, and can come from any consciousness that recognizes and fully accepts a reality external to themselves."

Which is it, wes?

Both. Can you see it yet?

/but there simply no one to appreciate/observe it. That's kind of the point really. Appreciation of cause and effect.

Appreciation is one thing. Arbitrarily applying a cause and a should to it is another.

How is that? If there is a cause, there should be an effect eh?

/They still happen without an observer, but they are meaningless. That doesn't mean that it isn't how it should be.

They still happen w/o the observer, yet they still have the should

/The "should" is recognition of the independence of cause and effect, though you are right it can't actually be put there without an observer.

The should can't be there w/o the observer

Wes, you managed to contradict yourself in record time there.

LOL. Consider implied context. If I said that there is a "should" without an observer, that means I'm inferring from my experience that cause and effect preceded the meaning I grant it. A cause should lead to an effect. As I now exist, I can observe this relationship and infer that it preceded me through the meaning I've given to the cause of my sensory input and the effect of my attempt to comprehend. This is as it shoudl be for me - not necessarily for you, but it could be if you think it.

/For instance though, I can imagine a hypothetical closed system I'm not in. Inside that system I can confidently say "everything is as it should be" because there is no other way for things to be. As they are is as they should be.

According to who?

As of now, me and my inference of cause and effect. I fully accept that cause and effect might be an illusion, or not valid inside that hypothetical system, but it is reasonable for me, to the extent of my ability to reason, for me to infer that inside that system is some form of cause and effect even if I couldn't possibly comprehend it.

/Acceptance.

Illusions.

Possibly, yes.

A = brain = cause = arrangement of spacetime = physical => is confined to four-space
B = mind = effect = arrangement of ideas = abstract => is confined to p-branes other than four space.

At the intersection of the two lies awareness. (edit: rephrased "awareness is a result the intersection of A and B")

I think A intersected with B is consciousness.

At least I think it's something like this. At least this is the illusion is produces to me.

EDIT: Okay awareness lies at the intersection A and B, and "consciousness" is the union of A and B.

is to reason the act of discerning cause given effect?

yeah I think so. pardon. passing thoughts you know.

A) I think everything that is, is exactly as it should be no matter how awesome, beautiful, unappealing or distastefull it seems.

B) You can try to change things to how you want them to be, but you shouldn't be dissappointed if it doesn't work because of A.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3426273.stm

It sure is a fucking bummer that we can't...I shure as hell will give it a try though...a trial to change.

yup. people are capable of amazing acts.

if you remember that we're generally not particularly far removed from apes, it makes more sense.

A) I think everything that is, is exactly as it should be no matter how awesome, beautiful, unappealing or distastefull it seems.

B) You can try to change things to how you want them to be, but you shouldn't be dissappointed if it doesn't work because of A.

C) If you are disappointed because of B, then you should be because of A.


Note that C directly follows from A, but contradicts B (you shouldn't be disappointed, but you should be disappointed). Therefore A and B are inconsistent.

A) I think everything that is, is exactly as it should be no matter how awesome, beautiful, unappealing or distastefull it seems.

B) You can try to change things to how you want them to be, but you shouldn't be dissappointed if it doesn't work because of A.

C) If you are disappointed because of B, then you should be because of A.

Hmm. So you're saying that you read it that A means you should be dissapointed if B is going well?

B says you shouldn't be disappointed. It reminds you to refer to A as to why you shouldn't be disappointed.

So C should be:

If you are disspointed because of B, then refer to A. It's supposed to be implicit that you'll stop being disappointed because: Why should you be disappointed if everything is as it should be? Doesn't mean you can't attempt to change things to how you want them to be (if that isn't now they are already). Regardless, you shouldn't be disappointed if you don't get it because of A.

:D

If one doesn't get it, then that is of course as it should be.

If one is disappointed at this, then that is also as it should be.

If everyone thinks you're a lunatic and throws feces at you until you go away, then you may rest assurred that both that situation and your subsequent emotional and physical reaction (whatever that may be) is also just as it should be.

Not particularly useful, is it? But that is naturally also just as it should be. :p

If one doesn't get it, then that is of course as it should be.

Too true.

If one is disappointed at this, then that is also as it should be.

Well yeah i suppose, but if one were to remember about that part where it is as it should be I don't see what there is to be disspointed about.

If everyone thinks you're a lunatic and throws feces at you until you go away, then you may rest assurred that both that situation and your subsequent emotional and physical reaction (whatever that may be) is also just as it should be.

Thanks for the flashback. LOL. Teasing of course. I'd say you're on it. You may end up disappointed but if you stop and remember that there is good reason for you to be disappointed, you can formulate a resultant resolve and use it to disperse your disappointment. If you're involved in a plan to resolve your disappointment you've no reason to be further disappointed, until you've possible failed in that resolve or the plan and then of course, rinse and recycle. (I'm minimizing disappointment here, so if you're not down with that, this will be disappointing... hehe)

Not particularly useful, is it?

I'd say that depends on who you are.

But that is naturally also just as it should be. :p

You got it.

:D

this is a double quote :bugeye:
/Well, you have no choice in that you will do what you should do... but you have total choice over what the should is.

Wes, get your head out of your ass and read what you just wrote.
It contradicts itself.
I can't choose what i do, cause i will always do what I should, but I can choose the should.
So I can choose what I should do (and hence what I will do) but i can't choose what i will do??
WTF???

it makes perfect sense. you can decide whats right for you, u can decide what your destiny is, but it doesnt mean you will follow thru with it. thats up to you and what happens now. oh yea, and you'll also get some help from the heavens, if you're cool :)

...but in the end (and beginning) it still was your choice.

You Panglossian, Wes.

What the hell is a "Panglossian"?

Pan·gloss·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pn-gls-n, -glôs-, png-)
adj.
Blindly or naively optimistic.

Ah.. I see.

Hardly. This is so plain and mechanistic. The premise is anything but optimistic. "as it should be" is merely an acceptance of cause and effect. Things are as they are because the events that preceded them led to them being in the now.... period. Take a sledge to an egg, the egg breaks... as it should, since a sledge is more force than an egg can take.

I do use the this idea though as I said, to minimize disappointment. Maybe that's what you mean.

That is exactly why I believe animals never cry. Animals can not know the difference between what is and what could be. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the difference between the way things are and the way things could be is a singular human illusion. That is not to say I believe in predestination. It is more accurate to say that I believe in plain destination.

My cat cried once... only once that I've ever seen. He lost his super-favourite ball under the door where someone else lived, and I swear he cried a big tear. That was the saddest I've ever seen an animal up close in my life.