What is meant to be?

What was before you were born?

^^^

Didn't you exist? You don't remember, do you? Does that mean that you didn't exist? When you were a month old? Do you remember?

Who is capable of answering?

^^^

Who are you? Why are you at this time and at this place?

Why do something exist instead of something else?

^^^

What do reality rest upon? Does it need a foundation?

Why don't we know? Don't we know, just because we don't remember?

What is wrong, and why? Would we be able to know?

Because it seems so close...the answer is near us, and I think I've allready known it.

If so, I guess it's all going to work out. Somehow we knew.

This is so broad, general, I do not know where to start and what to posit as true for the sake of argument.

I think we need to start by asking "what composes all that creates all that truely exists?"

Then we can talk about what it means to be one's self.

You are the universe.

What is meant to be?

Nothing and its infinity.

What was before you were born?

I wasn't born, only bodies are born.

You don't remember, do you?

I don't remember my birth and I won't see my death. Does this mean I'm eternal?

When you were a month old?
Do you remember?

A person didn't exist when we were very little, but the self (existence) existed.

However, some people, especially small children, are able to remember their past lives.

Who is capable of answering?

Only c7.

Who are you?

Nothing.

Why are you at this time and at this place?

Because I don't accept my infinity.

Why do something exist instead of something else?

Because everything changes.

What do reality rest upon?

Magnetism.

Why don't we know?

People generally prefer what is not obvious, in order to complicate their way towards their goal. When we find our true self we stop existing.

Don't we know, just because we don't remember?

Sometimes when small children are learning things it looks like they're only remembering.

What is wrong, and why? Would we be able to know?

Everyone knows what right and wrong is.

Because it seems so close...the answer is near us, and I think I've allready known it.

Only when we stop seeking answers we will understand. The oracle said that Socrates was the wisest man because he knew that he knew nothing. There is nothing to know, the answers exist in space and time, but the truth is in the present moment where nothing but the eternal cause exists.

If so, I guess it's all going to work out.

Infinity can't be reached.

Somehow we knew.

There is nothing to know, it's all illusion.

Then we can talk about what it means to be one's self.

It means to be true, like a lion.

c7ityi_, WHAT do you MEAN by infinity?

"Because I do not accept my infinity."

WHat is the LAW OF INFINITY?

Please answer me...

c7ityi_, WHAT do you MEAN by infinity?

Infinity is that which can never be, and it can never be reached within space and time. But this goal has been attained in the present moment, and always has been.

"Because I do not accept my infinity."

WHat is the LAW OF INFINITY?

We are only one existence, one self, in infinite bodies. This way, we are infinite. But we must separate from our infinite reality so that we can be what we are in reality (nothing). We concentrate ourselves into points of consciousness and personalities, so we become finite.

The law of infinity means that there are no laws, we create all laws with our infinite being.

What is meant to be?

The question implies that reality has intention and I haven't seen any evidence of that.


What was before you were born?


Um, the past?


Didn't you exist? You don't remember, do you? Does that mean that you didn't exist?

I existed in various states throughout my mothers gestation period. Before that, nope I didn't exist.


When you were a month old? Do you remember?

I don't remember that far back.


Who are you?


Me.


Why are you at this time and at this place?

Because this is time and place where I exist.


Why do something exist instead of something else?

Existence is govered by reality and reality functions in a very explicit manner.


What do reality rest upon? Does it need a foundation?

I don't know, nor do I know if the question even makes sense.


Why don't we know? Don't we know, just because we don't remember?


Because we haven't figured it out. The second question made no sense whatsoever.


What is wrong, and why? Would we be able to know?


Wrong is a person's tolerances for the presence and absence of various exploitive / altruistic behaviors. With tolerances, group behavior can promote better survival of the species. Society and family would influence our tolerances.


Because it seems so close...the answer is near us, and I think I've allready known it. If so, I guess it's all going to work out. Somehow we knew.


Huh?

This is so broad, general, I do not know where to start and what to posit as true for the sake of argument.It's neither broad or general. It's 'basic'.

I think we need to start by asking "what composes all that creates all that truely exists?"

Then we can talk about what it means to be one's self.Sometimes if we can't answer one question we don't bother with the next. Don't let a hard question stop you from answering the simpler ones.

You are the universe.I am my own kind of universe, but the universe we are talking about here and the "universe" within is two different things. Though they are in the same overall existance.



Nothing and its infinity.Nothing cannot exist hence infinity.



I wasn't born, only bodies are born.If your body was born then you were born with it, if your body is damaged, then you feel the damage with it. Nobody has ever hated their own body.



I don't remember my birth and I won't see my death. Does this mean I'm eternal?I'm not talking about a physical perspective, I'm talking about a mental perspective, you had to be aware of the "birth" of awareness, awareness is existance to you, thus you have been aware of the beginning of existance, and have experianced it, even though you don't remember it. This experiance, I think, holds many answers to the questions I have asked, thus you may 'know' though you don't remember why, if it left a impression that is, which I think it did.



A person didn't exist when we were very little, but the self (existence) existed.What do you mean by 'a person' that didn't exist, but an existance existed? You mean that you weren't aware of your existance then? May be.

I have myself wondered that maybe we were taught into reality somehow by following the patterns of our (at that time) unconscious body, like slowly identifying with it. This however means that you were aware (you existed) nontheless, though not aware of your body at that time.




However, some people, especially small children, are able to remember their past lives.If so, I'd rather think they live in parallell seperate lives at different times, then they get to this time (cause that is where they should be)...

If so, of course.



Only c7.ccccccc, it didn't work.



Nothing.Nothing, yet you speak.



Because I don't accept my infinity.Why don't you accept your infinity, and how could you not accept an infinity that you speak of? To accept it, it must be brought to you.



Because everything changes.Something that exist, changes, why do something exist instead of something else (that don't exist)? Why do you exist instead of Rupert von Esni? (if you exist instead of him that is).

Why at this particular time, instad of any other?

Magnetism.Magnetism is a part of reality and nothing suggest that it 'holds it' thus this answer is not what I was looking for.



People generally prefer what is not obvious, in order to complicate their way towards their goal. When we find our true self we stop existing.No, that was a error of thought and a misconception because of fear (and a general negative sight on the world and it's functionings, and also the lack of meaning that they thought they would find here (read correctly)).




Sometimes when small children are learning things it looks like they're only remembering.Don't give up. You were one too you know.



Everyone knows what right and wrong is.If I name a thread after it, then it should be understood that somehow all these questions apply to the question "what is wrong?".

Only when we stop seeking answers we will understand. The oracle said that Socrates was the wisest man because he knew that he knew nothing. There is nothing to know, the answers exist in space and time, but the truth is in the present moment where nothing but the eternal cause exists.That is faulty, to some part correct perhaps, but indeed faulty.

The answers exists within us I think, but we will never reach such a fulfillment of answers that we actually "KNOW". However we can reach such a fulfillment that we feel it is appropriate to say that "we know".

It is what is appropriate that we consider as humans, "to know" doesn't mean that we KNOW, since that is impossible for us, and the rest of us understand this also, but "to know" is when it is appropriate to say so, even though we know many things within that is not necessarily appropriate in others view and we don't usually say those things to others (because it really *can* be indeed dangerous to do so).

However, sometimes in rare occasions, we get this feeling of 'truth' that somehow applies to all people, and when spoken correctly gives people understanding, hope, love, and those things. When we feel a truth we should look for ways to say it. In my oppinion this is very important as it gives us value and gives value to others. I think that most of these truths can be traced to a very fundamental level.



Infinity can't be reached.If I asked "can infinity be reached?" then that would be a appropriate answer (allthough not the 'KNOW' that you seem to think it is), but the answer you gave is not what I searched for.



There is nothing to know, it's all illusion.Another example of the view that everything is meaningless. This answer is meaningless to me, as it is a easy escape when you don't even know what an illusion is. Somehow you seem to think that we are fooled. By who, and why? Why this negative view on the world?



It means to be true, like a lion.What gives you the impression that a lion is a example of something being true?

The question implies that reality has intention and I haven't seen any evidence of that.I guess that we exist implies that there is meaning of it. You could find meaning if you look for it.



Um, the past?To you!



I existed in various states throughout my mothers gestation period. Before that, nope I didn't exist.Well, studies have shown that the brain has alot of activity even when we are in our mothers stummick... so I guess we may start to exist somewhere along that period...



I don't remember that far back.We never remember that far back, we remember in the present. It's not funny how people seem to think they can timetravel every time they are trying to remember something.

the memories are with you at this moment.



Me.I asked 'who are you', not 'me'.



Because this is time and place where I exist.How come you exist in this time and place?

Are you unique?



Existence is govered by reality and reality functions in a very explicit manner.In fact so explicit that in a infinity of possibilities there isn't the slightest paradox.



I don't know, nor do I know if the question even makes sense.But you are in reality. You exist, what are your foundation?

It's you, shouldn't you know?



Because we haven't figured it out. The second question made no sense whatsoever.Depends on how you look at it, there is value to the world, and we didn't start off grey.


Wrong is a person's tolerances for the presence and absence of various exploitive / altruistic behaviors. With tolerances, group behavior can promote better survival of the species. Society and family would influence our tolerances.And I ask again, what is wrong? Not with society, not with our family, not with the survival of the species, not with the tolerances or group behaviour, or exploitive / altruistic behaviours.

What is wrong with us, and why don't we seem to know?



Huh?I mean that we knew from the beginning with the process which made us exist. Thus we all got a glimpse of the cornerstone of existance. Even if we had no memory at that moment, but we should have been aware of us beginning to be aware. We should have been aware of the final stages of existance and I think that there is Much insight to be gained from that experiance, not from memory, but from a truth that we all have inside.

I am my own kind of universe, but the universe we are talking about here and the "universe" within is two different things.

What's the difference?

If your body was born then you were born with it, if your body is damaged, then you feel the damage with it. Nobody has ever hated their own body.

I wasn't born with this specific body, only the person (reflection of the body) was born with this specific body.

What do you mean by 'a person' that didn't exist, but an existance existed? You mean that you weren't aware of your existance then? May be.

A person is not me, it's a mask which I have created. I have infinite personalities, so I have no personality.

ccccccc, it didn't work.

See 7
c 7

Nothing, yet you speak.

Yes because nothing includes infinity, and that infinity must be expressed so that the infinity appears to be outside so that nothing can be/include nothing.

Why don't you accept your infinity,

If I, nothing, accepted my infinity, I would be everything. I can't accept that I could be nothing and everything at the same time.

and how could you not accept an infinity that you speak of? To accept it, it must be brought to you.

We speak of what we're trying to accept, what we're trying to reach... the goal. We don't speak of what we are, what we have reached, we speak of what we are trying to become.

Why at this particular time, instad of any other?

I have always existed only in the present moment. I am Rupert von Esni as much as I am c7ityi_. I am you and you are me, but because we love our persons we don't see it. If I was conscious of everything I would be conscious of nothing.

Magnetism is a part of reality and nothing suggest that it 'holds it' thus this answer is not what I was looking for.

Magnetism is attraction and repulsion, fear and love. It's the only energy in the universe. It's an energy of life, of consciousness. Life force.

Just see the planets. They try to fall into the sun, but they never reach it because fear (the will to remain oneself/limited/conscious) is as powerful as love (the will to become whole). Planets also rotate around their own axis, the self of the earth loves the earth and all beings on it, so it constantly tries to draw them towards it, to a singularity, but the resistance of matter makes it impossible.

Magnetism is born because there is a kind of separation between nothingness and its infinity.

Don't give up. You were one too you know.

Give up what?

However we can reach such a fulfillment that we feel it is appropriate to say that "we know".

We all know one thing for sure: I am.

It is what is appropriate that we consider as humans, "to know" doesn't mean that we KNOW,

Usually we only think we know.

Another example of the view that everything is meaningless.

Some people think: "If the universe is illusory, it is of no interest; I'd rather die". This is a mistake: "illusive" only means "part of my mind". And for this reason, an illusive universe is much more interesting than a real one: if real, it would be a foreigner to me, there would be no possibility of communication or love with it. I could not even be conscious of it.

Fortunately the universe is inside me; it is me. My mind. So, I can communicate with it, I can love it, and I can change it by changing my thoughts.

How could you be conscious of something outside your consciousness? You can't because you and the universe are the same thing, the same mind.

This answer is meaningless to me, as it is a easy escape when you don't even know what an illusion is.

Illusion means something that is [in reality] something else than what it appears to be. The universe is an illusion because it seems to be physical, separated, "something", but it's actually just nothing and it's infinity.

Somehow you seem to think that we are fooled. By who, and why?

By ourselves. We must keep radiating our infinity and keeping the universe alive so that nothing can be nothing. We must limit ourselves and become conscious separated beings.

Why this negative view on the world?

It's only negative from your point of view.

What gives you the impression that a lion is a example of something being true?

They don't lie, and they don't like liars. They only see the truth, because they are truth, like the sun. The sun loves all of us.

What's the difference?The difference is that the universe is of physical nature, where the universe within me (also including of course the mental representation of the known universe) is of mental nature (which holds as you say the entire notion of the universe as we see it as it becomes a part of us).



I wasn't born with this specific body, only the person (reflection of the body) was born with this specific body.Nah, that is too complicated you that like less complicated things (and also I don't see how each follow, you might have to explain it to me in a better way to further my understanding of your concept).



A person is not me, it's a mask which I have created. I have infinite personalities, so I have no personality.Oh, but you have personality, trust me, you don't want to loose it. It is your pain reductor, and anxiety limiter. And it also helps you from being completly honest all of the time (where 'honest' doesn't necessarily mean truth and where honesty can actually be damaging, sometimes personality is needed so that you have time to think before expressing yourself visually to other people, as another thought might change that expression into a nicer one (and lions don't do that, they eat you).



See 7
c 7What in 7 holds all the answers? If I see 7 then I see a number, a number which have some status indeed, but still I see only a number in respect to the questions asked which is not answer directly through that number, and if they are answered indirectly then a lead is needed.



Yes because nothing includes infinity, and that infinity must be expressed so that the infinity appears to be outside so that nothing can be/include nothing.Nothing do not include anything, not even infinitly small, or infinity in any respect. The total lack of nothing is infinity, as there is no end, and I don't see how there can be anything but a lack of nothing.



If I, nothing, accepted my infinity, I would be everything. I can't accept that I could be nothing and everything at the same time.There is something called balance which makes things work even while being in infinity.



We speak of what we're trying to accept, what we're trying to reach... the goal. We don't speak of what we are, what we have reached, we speak of what we are trying to become.Is the goal infinity? No, the goal is eternity. That which is timeless and present throughout all times (which where as you have said we have allready reached our goal in one way, but as I say I don't think that reaching our goal of eternity means that we walk to it).



I have always existed only in the present moment. I am Rupert von Esni as much as I am c7ityi_. I am you and you are me, but because we love our persons we don't see it. If I was conscious of everything I would be conscious of nothing.[quote]We share lifeforce, but there are limits between you and me, and there are seperations in this world. May be that if you were to be aware of everything you would be aware of nothing though.



[quote]Magnetism is attraction and repulsion, fear and love. It's the only energy in the universe. It's an energy of life, of consciousness. Life force.

Just see the planets. They try to fall into the sun, but they never reach it because fear (the will to remain oneself/limited/conscious) is as powerful as love (the will to become whole). Planets also rotate around their own axis, the self of the earth loves the earth and all beings on it, so it constantly tries to draw them towards it, to a singularity, but the resistance of matter makes it impossible.

Magnetism is born because there is a kind of separation between nothingness and its infinity.I see what you mean, but I don't agree totally with the similiarity to magnetism, and I do not agree at all that it actually IS magnetism as this is a physical phenomenon, but there could be some attraction and repulsion without it being magnetism for that sake.

I don't think it was what I was looking for in the earlier question I asked.

Give up what?Your search.



We all know one thing for sure: I am.Then you exist.



Usually we only think we know.Yes, but we usually don't have that much determination of the saying "I know" that would be appropriate if we really meant "I KNOW".



Some people think: "If the universe is illusory, it is of no interest; I'd rather die". This is a mistake: "illusive" only means "part of my mind". And for this reason, an illusive universe is much more interesting than a real one: if real, it would be a foreigner to me, there would be no possibility of communication or love with it. I could not even be conscious of it.

Fortunately the universe is inside me; it is me. My mind. So, I can communicate with it, I can love it, and I can change it by changing my thoughts.

How could you be conscious of something outside your consciousness? You can't because you and the universe are the same thing, the same mind.Ok, but this is taking away the mind and replacing it with the universe, and that isn't correct in my view of things.


Illusion means something that is [in reality] something else than what it appears to be. The universe is an illusion because it seems to be physical, separated, "something", but it's actually just nothing and it's infinity.It isn't 'nothing', sure I've thought the thought too, but I don't think it is nothing, as for now it has a existance, and that is remarkable too. It's not that bad, and I don't think it is simply a illusion. There is much more to be known about it than we understand, and science is only scratching the surface.



By ourselves. We must keep radiating our infinity and keeping the universe alive so that nothing can be nothing. We must limit ourselves and become conscious separated beings.There is no must there. I understand that you think so, but there isn't this struggle to keep the universe together. It is within you that you are struggling, for what I don't know, maybe it's good for you, maybe it is bad. I simply don't know. But I don't think the whole universe depend on it.



It's only negative from your point of view.Well, it has a air of disappointment and well, it just don't seem positive to me. I might be wrong and you should believe what you feel is good for you, but I doubt that it would be good for me.



They don't lie, and they don't like liars. They only see the truth, because they are truth, like the sun. The sun loves all of us.They don't lie, and they don't care about liars as they don't understand them, or even the concept of a lie. They don't either understand the truth as they can't compare it or analyse it. They might comprehend it but it is no argument for worshipping lions. The sun shines light at us but isn't God and don't love in the way you describe it, as if it had a personal relationship to us, it has a task and that is to shed light onto us, but that isn't a reason for worshipping the sun.

These things have always existed, waiting for the right moment to come into being.

The difference is that the universe is of physical nature, where the universe within me (also including of course the mental representation of the known universe) is of mental nature (which holds as you say the entire notion of the universe as we see it as it becomes a part of us).

Physical only means separate from mind, from consciousness. But if the universe was outside from our consciousness we couldn't be conscious of it. The universe must be mental, like Hermes Trismestigos said.

What in 7 holds all the answers? If I see 7 then I see a number, a number which have some status indeed, but still I see only a number in respect to the questions asked which is not answer directly through that number, and if they are answered indirectly then a lead is needed.

God=3 in 1. 3+1=4 (4 elements). 3+4=7 (7 "days"). 3x4=12 (the Zodiac, 12 disciples).

Nothing do not include anything, not even infinitly small, or infinity in any respect.

If nothing is not infinite, there must be something outside it which limits it from being infinite, and in that case nothing would not be nothing.

Is the goal infinity? No, the goal is eternity. That which is timeless and present throughout all times (which where as you have said we have allready reached our goal in one way, but as I say I don't think that reaching our goal of eternity means that we walk to it).

Consciousness is the feeling of separation that nothingness needs to create in order to reach the infinity it rejects. Everything is already attained in the present moment, but in time and space (illusion), everything is forever separated and will forever seek unity.

We share lifeforce, but there are limits between you and me, and there are seperations in this world.

Yes, but only mental (illusive) separation.

Your search.

Why not? Infinity can never be found, otherwise it would be finite. The only thing I can do is to stop believing in evolution, forget my person and live in the present moment where nothing exists.

It isn't 'nothing', sure I've thought the thought too, but I don't think it is nothing, as for now it has a existance, and that is remarkable too. It's not that bad, and I don't think it is simply a illusion. There is much more to be known about it than we understand, and science is only scratching the surface.

Nothing can really be known because everything is nothing, that's why the oracle said that Socrates was the wisest man, because he knew that he knew nothing.

There is no must there. I understand that you think so, but there isn't this struggle to keep the universe together. It is within you that you are struggling, for what I don't know, maybe it's good for you, maybe it is bad. I simply don't know. But I don't think the whole universe depend on it.

Sure it depends on it since "I" is the whole universe. I'm not talking about my person, you know! I'm talking about the omnipresent existence which we recognize as the self, life, consciousness.

I might be wrong and you should believe what you feel is good for you, but I doubt that it would be good for me.

You don't have to believe the same things as I do.

They don't lie, and they don't care about liars as they don't understand them, or even the concept of a lie.

They see and smell lies better than a human, that's why they kill humans, but they usually don't kill very small children.

The sun shines light at us but isn't God and don't love in the way you describe it, as if it had a personal relationship to us, it has a task and that is to shed light onto us, but that isn't a reason for worshipping the sun.

The sun loves us all because it shines on all of us equally. The sun loves impersonally, not personally (egoistically). I see no reason to worship the sun, it's only a tool of God, but it follows the laws of God perfectly (on material level), like lions (on animal level).

These things have always existed, waiting for the right moment to come into being.What things?



Physical only means separate from mind, from consciousness. But if the universe was outside from our consciousness we couldn't be conscious of it. The universe must be mental, like Hermes Trismestigos said.There is a mental representation of the physical, everything that you have ever seen is a mental representation of what is physical.

This does not mean that the mental representation doesn't exist, or that it is worth less than the physical world. It just means that there are two different characters of the world, one mental which can hold a mental view on the world, and one world, which cannot see the mental.


God=3 in 1. 3+1=4 (4 elements). 3+4=7 (7 "days"). 3x4=12 (the Zodiac, 12 disciples).Why would 3+1 matter? I don't get this kind of reasoning, only mystics. It doesn't follow as you make it appear to, don't give strength to your arguments by writing things that actually don't follow, as if I couldn't see it!

God= 3 in 1, have no relation to 3+1=4.

The seven days are not a result from 3 you had and the number of seasons.



If nothing is not infinite, there must be something outside it which limits it from being infinite, and in that case nothing would not be nothing.Nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is not nothing, nothing is not even!

I thought for a while that nothing was everything too, since everything cancels out, but then you have to think about what really is, that there really is something here!

The cards are shuffled so that they don't come pair to pair and cancel themselves. As long as there is a variation somewhere, this will continue forever. But that which exist, must allways be everything. As soon as something cancels that emptiness must be instantly filled.

Cause nothing cannot exist.




Consciousness is the feeling of separation that nothingness needs to create in order to reach the infinity it rejects. Everything is already attained in the present moment, but in time and space (illusion), everything is forever separated and will forever seek unity.I don't think consciousness is the feeling of seperation... rather the other way around, that consciousness is when you are whole.

Nothingness cannot create anything, since it doesn't exist, or it wouldn't be nothing any longer.


Why not? Infinity can never be found, otherwise it would be finite. The only thing I can do is to stop believing in evolution, forget my person and live in the present moment where nothing exists.But that can't be the right way, can it?

Why must you forget about your person?

You got to live life. Anything else is no good. Live life and find the task that you should be doing. Faith without deeds is empty.



Nothing can really be known because everything is nothing, that's why the oracle said that Socrates was the wisest man, because he knew that he knew nothing.Not because everything is nothing. Nothing cannot be known because nothing cannot exist.

Oracle was speaking of the wise thing to not jump into conclusions about what you really don't know. No one knows much for sure, and not much can be taken for granted. But there are things that can be known and there are things that can be taken for granted.



Sure it depends on it since "I" is the whole universe. I'm not talking about my person, you know! I'm talking about the omnipresent existence which we recognize as the self, life, consciousness.You aren't the whole universe. The universe that you know are only a part of you through that knowledge. The universe that you feel are only a part of you through that feeling. The universe that you hear are only a part of you through that hearing. The universe that you see is only a part of you through that sight. The universe that you remember are only a part of you through that memory.

We need a way to see, even if that way is through faith, we allways need a way. Therefor you are not the whole universe, but you make parts of it available to you through the senses and through what you remember and have faith in.

Don't reject a good advice.



You don't have to believe the same things as I do.That's why we need to take different paths, even though we may reach the same place in the end.


They see and smell lies better than a human, that's why they kill humans, but they usually don't kill very small children.When you understand the truth about these things, you will find a much greater appreciation for animals like lions. They aren't that different. But they are animal, and they do kill little children if they got the chance. However, I'm sure there may be peace between our species in time.



The sun loves us all because it shines on all of us equally. The sun loves impersonally, not personally (egoistically). I see no reason to worship the sun, it's only a tool of God, but it follows the laws of God perfectly (on material level), like lions (on animal level).To love you must do it for a sake. I don't think the sun knows why it shines, and that is not important for it. A servant should do what the master tells him even though he don't know why.

But who am I to tell you anything about that...the sun might love us, it might love to shine. I just wonder of it's capabilities to love us, and to appreciate that full extent of what it is doing.

What things?

things like cars, telephones, and all these words. they existed before we made them visible.

God= 3 in 1, have no relation to 3+1=4.

in the material world two things can't be on the same place at the same time, so 3 in 1 becomes 3+1 and so god, the omnipresent existence, the self, always expresses itself in the number 4 in the material world.

god can be represented with an equilateral triangle. 3 sides, one wholeness. but in the real 3-dimensional world it becomes a tetrahedron: http://www.duke.edu/web/pfs/lessons/grade5math/Goal%203/tetrahedron%20pattern.jpg

a tetrahedron has 4 triangular sides. 3+4. 7.
a pyramid also has 4 triangular sides (plus one square). 3x4=12. a pyramid represents a divine human being. he expresses his divine self 4 times. an ordinary person is a cube (matter). if you open a cube it becomes a cross (space, time). we have crucified our higher self in the material world, in the body, in the person.

Nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is not nothing, nothing is not even!

there is something in nothing: infinity.

I don't think consciousness is the feeling of seperation... rather the other way around, that consciousness is when you are whole.

consciousness is a separation because what you are (feel yourself to be) and what you see (the world around, your subconscious mind) are two different things.

Nothingness cannot create anything, since it doesn't exist, or it wouldn't be nothing any longer.

nothingness is the only thing that can create anything because it is not anything. something needs a cause, nothing doesn't.

But that can't be the right way, can it?

there is no wrong way really. the paths are infinite but they all lead to the same mountain.

Why must you forget about your person?

i don't really have to, but i feel like i should because it only creates suffering.

The universe that you see is only a part of you through that sight.

don't you see... we are the same self... only the body is different...

The universe that you remember are only a part of you through that memory.

the universe is a memory.

To love you must do it for a sake.

love is a will to unite. that's why planets and things have attraction, gravity.

What is meant to be?

What was before you were born?

^^^

Didn't you exist? You don't remember, do you? Does that mean that you didn't exist? When you were a month old? Do you remember?

Who is capable of answering?

^^^

Who are you? Why are you at this time and at this place?

Why do something exist instead of something else?

^^^

What do reality rest upon? Does it need a foundation?

Why don't we know? Don't we know, just because we don't remember?

What is wrong, and why? Would we be able to know?

Because it seems so close...the answer is near us, and I think I've allready known it.

If so, I guess it's all going to work out. Somehow we knew.

Everything is meant to be.

Everything was before I was born... in a different form.

That which makes up the present "me" existed, but in different form.

Nothing is wrong.

Everything changes.

Everything is right.

I guess that we exist implies that there is meaning of it. You could find meaning if you look for it.

It's not an implication. It's a reality. Everything that exists in our universe has meaning. Meaning is there whether we look for it or not. It is there whether a person is there to realize it or not.



To you!

And reality.


Well, studies have shown that the brain has alot of activity even when we are in our mothers stummick... so I guess we may start to exist somewhere along that period...

Sounds like we're in rough agreement.


We never remember that far back, we remember in the present. It's not funny how people seem to think they can timetravel every time they are trying to remember something.

the memories are with you at this moment.

I think common expression is being confused for literal definition. I know of nobody whom thinks they timetravel when remembering things and the common phrases of expressing memory might indicate time travel to someone whom wasn't raised in the presence of those expressions. It's really never been an issue and if we do take literal word definitions then it would probably be correct to say "The memories I posess now don't include details of what had occured at that earlier point in my life".



I asked 'who are you', not 'me'.

'Me' was the answer to the question... maybe an answer that might be better understood is I am the sum of my experience, conceptual geometry, genetics, memory, and location in space/time.


How come you exist in this time and place?

Are you unique?

I am a biological entity whom was born 'n' years ago with a life span of 't' years and the present moment 'p' is a point between 'n' and 't'.

I am most certainly unique as at the end of any particular moment there is only one me at my exact location of space/time.


In fact so explicit that in a infinity of possibilities there isn't the slightest paradox.

I have yet to see reality yield a real paradox.


But you are in reality. You exist, what are your foundation?

As far as the most fundamental layer of granularity is concerned I dont know. For practicality I might restrict granularity to something significant in which case I would choose DNA.


It's you, shouldn't you know?

That made no sense.


Depends on how you look at it, there is value to the world, and we didn't start off grey.

Value is something that only exists in a life form's mind. I don't know what the 'grey' statement meant.


And I ask again, what is wrong? Not with society, not with our family, not with the survival of the species, not with the tolerances or group behaviour, or exploitive / altruistic behaviours.

What is wrong with us, and why don't we seem to know?

I see, you weren't looking for a definition... you were looking for an answer to what is wrong with humans. In this context the word has a different definition... meaning broken / flawed / defective. The answer might be genetic makeup that doesn't allow a person to easily adapt to / control the present range of environments and attain + promote continual success / survival. A detailed list would probably be rediculously extensive (I suspect millions of pages of text at the very least).

People don't know all the details of what is 'wrong' with us because they are they have limited senses, knowledge, resources, education, presence, and time for starters.



I mean that we knew from the beginning with the process which made us exist. Thus we all got a glimpse of the cornerstone of existance. Even if we had no memory at that moment, but we should have been aware of us beginning to be aware. We should have been aware of the final stages of existance and I think that there is Much insight to be gained from that experiance, not from memory, but from a truth that we all have inside.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

There is nothing wrong.

It's not an implication. It's a reality. Everything that exists in our universe has meaning. Meaning is there whether we look for it or not. It is there whether a person is there to realize it or not.Sure, but would it really be meaningful if no one was there to experiance it?

I think it must be meaninful "to somebody" to really be meaningful. That is one of the essences of being meaninful, that it is meaningful "to somebody".




I think common expression is being confused for literal definition. I know of nobody whom thinks they timetravel when remembering things and the common phrases of expressing memory might indicate time travel to someone whom wasn't raised in the presence of those expressions. It's really never been an issue and if we do take literal word definitions then it would probably be correct to say "The memories I posess now don't include details of what had occured at that earlier point in my life".We don't get our memory as good as we should have, as such we have much limits in gathering memories, since we think they are so way back, while in fact, it doesn't matter how long ago the memory was created, it is there here and now.






'Me' was the answer to the question... maybe an answer that might be better understood is I am the sum of my experience, conceptual geometry, genetics, memory, and location in space/time.And yet none of these was the factor that made you be you in the beginning. Cause if you take all of these things together, or one at a time, you still must argue that somehow the makeup of your body determine 'you' to be in it, or else it could have as easily been 'me'.





I am a biological entity whom was born 'n' years ago with a life span of 't' years and the present moment 'p' is a point between 'n' and 't'.

I am most certainly unique as at the end of any particular moment there is only one me at my exact location of space/time.Does it matter to your uniqueness your point of time and space?

If we go back to the point of starting to exist, then it doesn't matter does it? Would it matter if you were in a different space and time, while having the same physical makeup? Wouldn't you still exist then?

This tells us that the selection process is beyond space and time. Since you *could* have been in any space and time.

(possibly also in any shape and form).

So what is unique about you? That made you be in your body and not somebody else. Or if I state it differently; what is so unique about your body that only you could exist in it?

Or could possibly someone else have existed in your body instead of you?




The argument that you and me are the same doesn't hold, cause I am not you and somehow I am in my body instead of yours.



I have yet to see reality yield a real paradox.Exactly, how masterminded! It just has to be this way. Of all the countless possibilities and all the countless interacting laws and principles, not one conflict that hasn't got a solution.

Even in the very fundamental starting point of any universe (where you guys say it's fairly random), there cannot be conceived to be any paradox or conflict. That just cannot be in reality, thus random must be limited in one way, it mustn't produce a paradox, which means that all the rules *must* fit together with all the others, even at the point of the very first existance of such rules or laws or principles (or whatever reality would call it). There just can't be any mistakes at that level! Does that sound like random? Where the possibility of mistakes is the very reason of evolving (anything, even a universe).

What starts to exist, must as such allready be prepared for this world and follow any law that may be. If not the very existance of it cannot be.

Or do you really think that there can be a contradiction in the laws?

Also, there are some things in the universe which laws has never come in contact with other laws, and when they do, they still function as well as the other laws.

This 'hidden laws' which is produced possibly by science by doing things that may not have happened in the universe since it is triggered in such a way that it just don't naturally happen.

I haven't got any examples of such laws yet, but I'm sure there are some out there.

(it's easy to imagine anyway).

Would be nice if someone found such a example, I remember that I have thought of it earlier in response to scientific experiments that yield results that seems very unlikely to have happened naturally.



As far as the most fundamental layer of granularity is concerned I dont know. For practicality I might restrict granularity to something significant in which case I would choose DNA.But that is not the fundamental essence of your existance. It might be the fundamental essence that produce your body, and whatever makes you exist in your own right, but not the fundamental essence of your existance itself.






Value is something that only exists in a life form's mind. I don't know what the 'grey' statement meant.The 'grey' statement meant that we do not start off without any conception at all, we have not gathered all our knowledge from the outside, but there are fundamental ideas within us at the very start.



I see, you weren't looking for a definition... you were looking for an answer to what is wrong with humans. In this context the word has a different definition... meaning broken / flawed / defective. The answer might be genetic makeup that doesn't allow a person to easily adapt to / control the present range of environments and attain + promote continual success / survival. A detailed list would probably be rediculously extensive (I suspect millions of pages of text at the very least).

People don't know all the details of what is 'wrong' with us because they are they have limited senses, knowledge, resources, education, presence, and time for starters.I don't mean all these things, I mean in a more fundamental way. I don't think you can understand at this moment, and I can't explain it to you in this moment. But it has to do with this, I exist with a feeling that there must be a higher meaning to that existance. I believe it because I exist. I believe it because everything exists.

We see a world full of colors, and we can sense that there is meaning to things, and there are clever solutions to things, so clever that it takes human race ages to figure them out, and yet in the end they are so simple, so simple that it couldn't have been any other way.

Then we find another answer to the same thing, which is even simpler, and yet doesn't contradict the first but it was still a principle applicible in the world.

These things get me to start wondering; "what is wrong?".

There are many things wrong, of course, but some things are wrong in a more fundamental way, as to, why don't we know our meaning?

But there is answers within us, somehow we all knew, maybe from the very beginning, at the point of existance, cause it was within existance itself. Of all the principles, the principle of existance should hold most answers shouldn't it?

It's just an idea, but think about it, we all have been at the point of starting to exist, even if we don't remember it. Memory might not even have been fully developed back then, but yet we must have somehow experianced starting to exist, and we must have seen a slight glimpse of that principle.

Maybe we don't remember it, but I think it must have left an impression to us.




I have no idea what you are talking about.Read the above, it's the same thing. Then read my earlier post again and see if you understand it better then. Sometimes we need to see things from different perspectives to understand something.

(cause I think it can be understood, I really do. If you would please try).

This thread officially has the longest first page. Can someone summarize what the argument is? Its way too long to read.

Sure, but would it really be meaningful if no one was there to experiance it?

I think it must be meaninful "to somebody" to really be meaningful. That is one of the essences of being meaninful, that it is meaningful "to somebody".


Of course it would be meaningful if nobody was there to experience it. Meaning is the relationship of two or more variables. It's a simple notion and most people go throughout their lives using it in some ambigous emotional manner without realizing what meaning really is.



We don't get our memory as good as we should have, as such we have much limits in gathering memories, since we think they are so way back, while in fact, it doesn't matter how long ago the memory was created, it is there here and now.

I suspect memory functions differently that early in our lives to serve a different function of survival. The content isn't necessarily something useful to an adult.


And yet none of these was the factor that made you be you in the beginning. Cause if you take all of these things together, or one at a time, you still must argue that somehow the makeup of your body determine 'you' to be in it, or else it could have as easily been 'me'.

My genetics were a huge part of what made me 'in the beginning'.



Does it matter to your uniqueness your point of time and space?

Of course. Location in space-time is an attribute of uniqueness as much as eye color, voice pitch range, etc.


If we go back to the point of starting to exist, then it doesn't matter does it? Would it matter if you were in a different space and time, while having the same physical makeup? Wouldn't you still exist then?

I think my location in space-time very much matters to my uniqeness regardless of the point in my existence. If I was in a different space-time I would still be in 'a' space-time and hence would have that unique attribute (and yes of course I would exist then).


This tells us that the selection process is beyond space and time. Since you *could* have been in any space and time.

(possibly also in any shape and form).


I have no idea what you're talking about.


So what is unique about you? That made you be in your body and not somebody else. Or if I state it differently; what is so unique about your body that only you could exist in it?

Or could possibly someone else have existed in your body instead of you?


I don't know why the assumption is being made that I am "in" my body. As far as reality has shown, I am my body. My uniqueness is roughly my memory, mental geometry, experience, genetics, and location in space-time.



The argument that you and me are the same doesn't hold, cause I am not you and somehow I am in my body instead of yours.

Ok. That's not my argument so I won't presume to have any ownership or agreement of it.


Exactly, how masterminded! It just has to be this way. Of all the countless possibilities and all the countless interacting laws and principles, not one conflict that hasn't got a solution.

*sigh*... no evidence of contradiction isn't evidence of intelligent design.


Even in the very fundamental starting point of any universe (where you guys say it's fairly random), there cannot be conceived to be any paradox or conflict. That just cannot be in reality, thus random must be limited in one way, it mustn't produce a paradox, which means that all the rules *must* fit together with all the others, even at the point of the very first existance of such rules or laws or principles (or whatever reality would call it). There just can't be any mistakes at that level! Does that sound like random? Where the possibility of mistakes is the very reason of evolving (anything, even a universe).

I am not quite sure what you are saying; however, I haven't seen evidence that 'random' really exists. I have seen evidence of complexity that can't be predicted in a reasonable time frame which gives an illusion of being random.


What starts to exist, must as such allready be prepared for this world and follow any law that may be. If not the very existance of it cannot be.

Or do you really think that there can be a contradiction in the laws?

I really don't know what you're talking about.


Also, there are some things in the universe which laws has never come in contact with other laws, and when they do, they still function as well as the other laws.

This 'hidden laws' which is produced possibly by science by doing things that may not have happened in the universe since it is triggered in such a way that it just don't naturally happen.

I haven't got any examples of such laws yet, but I'm sure there are some out there.

(it's easy to imagine anyway).

Would be nice if someone found such a example, I remember that I have thought of it earlier in response to scientific experiments that yield results that seems very unlikely to have happened naturally.


If you say so. It made absolutely no sense to me otherwise.


But that is not the fundamental essence of your existance. It might be the fundamental essence that produce your body, and whatever makes you exist in your own right, but not the fundamental essence of your existance itself.

Huh?


The 'grey' statement meant that we do not start off without any conception at all, we have not gathered all our knowledge from the outside, but there are fundamental ideas within us at the very start.

Gotcha. I agree. Babies know how to feel happy, sad, pensive, angry, etc. Babies instinctively know how to swim and grip. There is a buttload of genetic memory that comes with any life form.


I don't mean all these things, I mean in a more fundamental way. I don't think you can understand at this moment, and I can't explain it to you in this moment. But it has to do with this, I exist with a feeling that there must be a higher meaning to that existance. I believe it because I exist. I believe it because everything exists.

I would challenge you to define very concretely a "higher meaning to existence" as a raw concept. I suspect what you might find in this process is that emotions of awe, respect, wonder, etc. are being substituted into non-concrete definitions to create incoherent and irrational definitions which are felt instead of understood.


We see a world full of colors, and we can sense that there is meaning to things, and there are clever solutions to things, so clever that it takes human race ages to figure them out, and yet in the end they are so simple, so simple that it couldn't have been any other way.

I'm with you until the point where you declare that it couldn't have been any other way. To make such a claim would mean your knowledge approaches that of a perverbial 'God'.


Then we find another answer to the same thing, which is even simpler, and yet doesn't contradict the first but it was still a principle applicible in the world.

These things get me to start wondering; "what is wrong?".

There are many things wrong, of course, but some things are wrong in a more fundamental way, as to, why don't we know our meaning?

The question isn't a reasonable or manageable one and thats the answer why you don't know all the content of your meaning. You can however clearly define your meaning. It is the relationship of you to everything you have had and will have a relationship to in reality. As you can see, that's alot of information and its not manageable or reasonable to expect a person to know the content.


But there is answers within us, somehow we all knew, maybe from the very beginning, at the point of existance, cause it was within existance itself. Of all the principles, the principle of existance should hold most answers shouldn't it?

I just don't know what you're talking about. If you want to explore something here then discussing things in vague emotional and subjective terms isn't going to yield anything more than emotional fantasy.


It's just an idea, but think about it, we all have been at the point of starting to exist, even if we don't remember it. Memory might not even have been fully developed back then, but yet we must have somehow experianced starting to exist, and we must have seen a slight glimpse of that principle.

Maybe we don't remember it, but I think it must have left an impression to us.


As a whole, the idea makes no sense to me.


Read the above, it's the same thing. Then read my earlier post again and see if you understand it better then. Sometimes we need to see things from different perspectives to understand something.

(cause I think it can be understood, I really do. If you would please try).

I have a suggestion to make. Re-think the message you want to communicate, remove the emotion from it, explicitly define anything that's not concrete, and re-present your idea.

Of course it would be meaningful if nobody was there to experience it. Meaning is the relationship of two or more variables. It's a simple notion and most people go throughout their lives using it in some ambigous emotional manner without realizing what meaning really is.Being meaningful isn't just the relationship between two or more variables :)

Two or more variables that have a relationship are only meaningful to an outside observer. Being meaningful means it has to be interpreted in some way, otherwise we are talking about two different "meanings" here, but we aren't really.

Meaningful, means that it has purpouse. No one but an outside observer can understand purpouse. The variables has to be meaningful to somebody in order to be meaningful, cause they can't see the meaning in it's own right.

What the variables do furthermore has to have value, in that it does something useful in order to be meaningful. That usefulness would be nothing without a observer.

You could say that, it has meaning, but that wouldn't be meaningful if there wasn't someone to observe it.

I suspect memory functions differently that early in our lives to serve a different function of survival. The content isn't necessarily something useful to an adult.I think it can be.



My genetics were a huge part of what made me 'in the beginning'. But 'you' wouldn't be if you weren't self aware. Then there would just be another body.

Therefor, the body, and you, are different things, and 'you' are really your self awareness. Your existance. You wouldn't exist weren't it for your self-awareness, cause there wouldn't be any 'you' in there, it would just be a empty body and you, in your own right, wouldn't exist.

So the principle which gave existance to "self-awareness" (or as is; the principle which gave existance to you) must be pretty fundamental, and could probably answer many of the fundamental questions that we have asked through the millenias.




Of course. Location in space-time is an attribute of uniqueness as much as eye color, voice pitch range, etc.Anyone could have been in the same space-time, instead of you. So why is that unique of you?

The argument that you were there instead of anyone else, doesn't really hold, it's unique now, since you made the decision to sit there (or stand there or whatever you are currently doing), but it isn't really a unique property of you as anyone could have been there instead.

That you are there now is unique in reality, since you are the only one there and now. But it isn't unique in possibility, since anyone could have been where you are now, and at this point of time, if the conditions to do so were granted.



I think my location in space-time very much matters to my uniqeness regardless of the point in my existence. If I was in a different space-time I would still be in 'a' space-time and hence would have that unique attribute (and yes of course I would exist then).Sure, whatever space-time you are in, is unique for you. But it isn't a unique property of you (as you could have been in any space-time, if the conditions for that were granted).



I have no idea what you're talking about.If you could have been in any time and any space, without that taking away your uniqueness, then what makes you be in your body isn't of space and time, but outside of space and time.

I say "you be in your body" because there is nothing that say that I couldn't have been in your body instead of you. Judging from what we know in this stage of speculation.






I don't know why the assumption is being made that I am "in" my body. As far as reality has shown, I am my body. My uniqueness is roughly my memory, mental geometry, experience, genetics, and location in space-time.You say you are your body, so if your body looked different, then you wouldn't be your body anymore, but someone else would.

And because of that I say you being in your body. If there is any possibility that anyone else could have been your body instead, then we have to use "you in your body" cause of the possibility that someone else could have been in "your" body.


*sigh*... no evidence of contradiction isn't evidence of intelligent design.How come there aren't any contradiction when there is only allowed one chance of not being so? That would show that anything coming to existance allready has the makeup done so that it won't interfer with any laws that are there.

Any new laws that are brought into existance are therefor compatible with any other law out there, and since it was the beginning of it's existance then they only got one chance, since any contradiction with the laws would be unthinkable.

I am not quite sure what you are saying; however, I haven't seen evidence that 'random' really exists. I have seen evidence of complexity that can't be predicted in a reasonable time frame which gives an illusion of being random.I also don't think that random exists.

I really don't know what you're talking about.That was simple...can't explain it simpler. Whatever came into existance must allready be prepared to be compatible with anything else in existance. Since it doesn't contradict it.



If you say so. It made absolutely no sense to me otherwise.It's conceivable that there are laws that don't happen naturally in the universe but is happening due to scientists experiments.

The laws that come out of that are laws that as such hasn't been "tested" or even brought to daylight but still works equally well as the other laws. This suggest that the universe is compatible with any situation imaginable (as long as it could happen in the real world).

Huh?Want to elaborate on that?



Gotcha. I agree. Babies know how to feel happy, sad, pensive, angry, etc. Babies instinctively know how to swim and grip. There is a buttload of genetic memory that comes with any life form.Yes...that's what I meant that we aren't grey to begin with. Now that you understand what I meant with 'grey' you might wanna read the post where it was stated again in order to understand the context.


I would challenge you to define very concretely a "higher meaning to existence" as a raw concept.As things exist, and as I exist, and as there is only one 'existance', one reality, there have to be importance to it.

Everything isn't black or white. What isn't put down in papers can still be of importance. I'm not God, that knows the truth about everything.


I suspect what you might find in this process is that emotions of awe, respect, wonder, etc. are being substituted into non-concrete definitions to create incoherent and irrational definitions which are felt instead of understood.It is when it is partly understood, or when we get a hint of that meaning, that we feel awe, respect, wonder, etc.

You shouldn't be so blind as to understand everything only by definition! How can you ever get a new idea that way? Everything not defined doesn't exist you say? That is irrational to me.



I'm with you until the point where you declare that it couldn't have been any other way. To make such a claim would mean your knowledge approaches that of a perverbial 'God'.Well, it's hard for me to see that it could have been any other way. But I see that you are picking on words.

Try to catch the message instead, I see many faulty wordings with people but try to catch what they meant instead of correcting a single wording.

It's like the 'grey' thing that you didn't understand, try to catch the message, then it would become obvious (how could it not?) that I meant with grey as I mean with "not having any values" (neither black or white, but grey).

This only gives me the impression that you are grasping for straws.

Anyway, what I meant was that with the simpleness of the principles, we get the impression that it couldn't have been any other way.


The question isn't a reasonable or manageable one and thats the answer why you don't know all the content of your meaning. You can however clearly define your meaning. It is the relationship of you to everything you have had and will have a relationship to in reality. As you can see, that's alot of information and its not manageable or reasonable to expect a person to know the content.Your meaning in one sense, is what gives you meaning.

You are correct in that what I have relationship with in some ways are meaningful to me. I don't think the meaning of us is beyond us though, I think the sense that there is meaning to us show that there is something there that argues for it.

But the question of meaning is just one of those fundamental questions.



I just don't know what you're talking about. If you want to explore something here then discussing things in vague emotional and subjective terms isn't going to yield anything more than emotional fantasy. Well, is it real that you exist, that you are aware?

If that is real, then it is also real that you must at some point have become aware, or become existant.

The becomming of existance or awareness, must then have been in some way or another experianced by you (no matter the age that you started to exist or 'became aware').


Thus the principle of awareness (or existance), must then have been felt by you, and even if you don't remember it I'm sure it left an impression.


As a whole, the idea makes no sense to me.Read the answer to your previous quote.



I have a suggestion to make. Re-think the message you want to communicate, remove the emotion from it, explicitly define anything that's not concrete, and re-present your idea.I can't, I guess I'm just very emotional, to me, you basically tell me to take away the inspiration.

Being meaningful isn't just the relationship between two or more variables :)

There is a semi-subjective definition which moves between purpose, value, and intent and there is an objective definition which is explicitly the relationship between two or more variables.


Two or more variables that have a relationship are only meaningful to an outside observer. Being meaningful means it has to be interpreted in some way, otherwise we are talking about two different "meanings" here, but we aren't really.

We are and yes if dealing with the semi-subjective definition then you are most correct.


Meaningful, means that it has purpouse. No one but an outside observer can understand purpouse. The variables has to be meaningful to somebody in order to be meaningful, cause they can't see the meaning in it's own right.

What the variables do furthermore has to have value, in that it does something useful in order to be meaningful. That usefulness would be nothing without a observer.


The semi-subjective definition can include purpose or value and don't have to. In the objective world, the meaning exists just fine whether there is an observer or not.


You could say that, it has meaning, but that wouldn't be meaningful if there wasn't someone to observe it.

That restriction only exists for the semi-subjective definition.


I think it can be.

Then you have quite a bit of work ahead of you :).


But 'you' wouldn't be if you weren't self aware. Then there would just be another body.

I would still exist and I wouldn't be sentient.


Therefor, the body, and you, are different things, and 'you' are really your self awareness. Your existance. You wouldn't exist weren't it for your self-awareness, cause there wouldn't be any 'you' in there, it would just be a empty body and you, in your own right, wouldn't exist.

You're playing a context game of trying to change the focus of 'You' on the ego rather than the whole package.


So the principle which gave existance to "self-awareness" (or as is; the principle which gave existance to you) must be pretty fundamental, and could probably answer many of the fundamental questions that we have asked through the millenias.

I am in partial agreement. Life on earth (i.e. points of consciousness within the universe) are evidence that the universe may be predisposed towards producing awareness.


Anyone could have been in the same space-time, instead of you. So why is that unique of you?

I think the point I was trying to communicate was mis-interpreted. Wherever I am at any moment, there is only one me at that location of space-time. That makes my location at any moment an attribute that can be used to uniquely identify me.


The argument that you were there instead of anyone else, doesn't really hold, it's unique now, since you made the decision to sit there (or stand there or whatever you are currently doing), but it isn't really a unique property of you as anyone could have been there instead.

That you are there now is unique in reality, since you are the only one there and now. But it isn't unique in possibility, since anyone could have been where you are now, and at this point of time, if the conditions to do so were granted.

Sure, whatever space-time you are in, is unique for you. But it isn't a unique property of you (as you could have been in any space-time, if the conditions for that were granted).


It's unique that at any moment two human's aren't going to occupy the same space-time.


If you could have been in any time and any space, without that taking away your uniqueness, then what makes you be in your body isn't of space and time, but outside of space and time.


I don't know how you could posess so much objective knowledge about what could be best described as a thought experiment that bears no resemblence to relaity.


I say "you be in your body" because there is nothing that say that I couldn't have been in your body instead of you. Judging from what we know in this stage of speculation.

That didn't make any sense.


You say you are your body, so if your body looked different, then you wouldn't be your body anymore, but someone else would.

Reality (and I) disagree. Aging falsifies that assertion.


And because of that I say you being in your body. If there is any possibility that anyone else could have been your body instead, then we have to use "you in your body" cause of the possibility that someone else could have been in "your" body.

This seems to be based on that false assertion above and it is no wonder that it doesn't make any sense.


How come there aren't any contradiction when there is only allowed one chance of not being so? That would show that anything coming to existance allready has the makeup done so that it won't interfer with any laws that are there.

I don't understand the question.


Any new laws that are brought into existance are therefor compatible with any other law out there, and since it was the beginning of it's existance then they only got one chance, since any contradiction with the laws would be unthinkable.

What new laws? I really don't know what you're talking about.


That was simple...can't explain it simpler. Whatever came into existance must allready be prepared to be compatible with anything else in existance. Since it doesn't contradict it.

Whatever reality is, one thing that it has made very clear is anything in it is a part of it (not seperate). A person being born is an existing collection of matter/energy being translated into a different collection of matter/energy. Nothing is created or destroyed; hence, all the components already exist (they are not magically created).


It's conceivable that there are laws that don't happen naturally in the universe but is happening due to scientists experiments.

It's also conceivable that alien tinfoil monkeys are crawling out of my butt. While both concepts are conceivable, they aren't supported by reality.


The laws that come out of that are laws that as such hasn't been "tested" or even brought to daylight but still works equally well as the other laws. This suggest that the universe is compatible with any situation imaginable (as long as it could happen in the real world).

Reality has never shown any evidence that people can create physical laws. Don't take this personally, my observation has been that the less educated a person is about reality, the more that person is to entertain and accept as truth ideas that reality doesn't support or outright contradicts.


Want to elaborate on that?

What was stated didn't make any sense.


Yes...that's what I meant that we aren't grey to begin with. Now that you understand what I meant with 'grey' you might wanna read the post where it was stated again in order to understand the context.

I went back and with the context applied it to the original question and it still made no sense in any permutation of words which I could come up with. IMO, a better question to ask might be "are the memories within the first two years of human life 'rememberable' by adult standards and would it be useful to remember them by adult standards?"


As things exist, and as I exist, and as there is only one 'existance', one reality, there have to be importance to it.

You don't know that there is only one reality and there is no evidence to indicate that importance exists outside of a life form's interpretation/perogative.


Everything isn't black or white. What isn't put down in papers can still be of importance. I'm not God, that knows the truth about everything.

You can consider anything important or unimportant. It's a survival mechanism. Filter out the unimportant information. Teenagers do an exceptionally good job of that consequently.


It is when it is partly understood, or when we get a hint of that meaning, that we feel awe, respect, wonder, etc.

It happens when fully understood, not understood, and anywhere in between.


You shouldn't be so blind as to understand everything only by definition! How can you ever get a new idea that way?

I don't understand everything by pure definition and when I want to communicate objective concepts I had better be sure that I am using concrete definitions. New ideas are easy for me (a result of a genetically creative mind). Also, my conceptual geometry acts very nicely as a mechanism to compare an idea against my knowledge of reality if I want to present that idea outside the realm of fantasy.


Everything not defined doesn't exist you say? That is irrational to me.

It is an irrational statement and it's also not my statement.


Well, it's hard for me to see that it could have been any other way. But I see that you are picking on words.

Try to catch the message instead, I see many faulty wordings with people but try to catch what they meant instead of correcting a single wording.

It's like the 'grey' thing that you didn't understand, try to catch the message, then it would become obvious (how could it not?) that I meant with grey as I mean with "not having any values" (neither black or white, but grey).

This only gives me the impression that you are grasping for straws.

Anyway, what I meant was that with the simpleness of the principles, we get the impression that it couldn't have been any other way.

I don't share the impression and I can conceptualize realities with utterly different structures/laws that work just as flawlessly as ours does. But such ideas are utter speculation and I wouldn't even begin to assert them as truth and I would point out that very high-level (and presently untestable) theories exist that predict the existence of other realities.


Your meaning in one sense, is what gives you meaning.

You are correct in that what I have relationship with in some ways are meaningful to me. I don't think the meaning of us is beyond us though, I think the sense that there is meaning to us show that there is something there that argues for it.

But the question of meaning is just one of those fundamental questions.


Oddly enough I think I've given you the answer to the question but it's not something that you can emotionally relate to and therefore doesn't fulfill your need. If the objective definition of 'meaning' is used then the answer is clear:

* The meaning of life is the relationship of life to everything it can and will have a relationship to.

If the semi-subjective definition of meaning is used then it's constituent answers are as follows:

* The purpose of life is roughtly to survive reproduce.
* The value of life is subjective.
* There is no evidence that life is subject to intent.


Well, is it real that you exist, that you are aware?

If that is real, then it is also real that you must at some point have become aware, or become existant.

The becomming of existance or awareness, must then have been in some way or another experianced by you (no matter the age that you started to exist or 'became aware').

Much better, now I can understand what's being stated. To paraphrase, do human babies experience a point or series of points where their awareness/self-awareness is "turned on" like the perverbial light switch, and if so is that experience recorded in memory?

The other question is does the human brain perceive and record any experiential information from gestation to the point where awareness is achieved?

They're good questions, and IMO something that neuroscience may wish to tackle.



Thus the principle of awareness (or existance), must then have been felt by you, and even if you don't remember it I'm sure it left an impression.

Thus nothing. To make that assertion already claims you know the answer (which you don't or you wouldn't be asking the question).


I can't, I guess I'm just very emotional, to me, you basically tell me to take away the inspiration.

You can and you did as was evidenced by the 3rd post above which I understood. Formatting the content of an idea in concrete and non-emotional terms isn't intended to take away the inspiration that promted the idea's existence. If you need that emotion to be part of the presentation then present the concrete ideas with excitement and include stories about your inspiration. Just don't substitute concrete content for emotional content.

There is a semi-subjective definition which moves between purpose, value, and intent and there is an objective definition which is explicitly the relationship between two or more variables.Well, the semi-subjective meaning, is what I'm talking about. With "semi" I guess you mean, in between objective and subjective.

Which is one of the basics of "meaning", it's the subjective view on the objective, at a low level the texture could constitute a subjective meaning of the objective, the color and the basic purpouse of it are also examples of meanings with a object.

The subjective meaning of reality itself must be a property higher than the reality which we are used to, because it all comes to an end here on earth, which makes essentially everything meaningless if that was our only destiny.

(since everything we have done will eventually be forgotten, and in the extreme all life will end eventually)

Even if we take the argument that we have meaning here on earth since we help spread life and develop things, it hasn't got any subjective meaning to us if there wasn't a higher purpouse to it that goes beyond life and death.

I'll try to elaborate on that more;

I give meaning to =====> people =====> people give more meaning ===>...

So what I do is multiplied alot through the history of the earth, and I change alot of peoples lives by simply existing.

This could be considered meaningful, but only if the story never ends. Cause when it all ends all meaning is taken away, there are no people left, and the work you have done has long been gone. We are left with nothing.

That isn't meaningful, since whatever meaning we can find, without a higher meaning, it is meaningless, since it won't last forever, but is vanished in a blink of time (since without observers, where is time to be found? Reality could as well not be then, it would be a dead place, avoid of any meaning (for us) and well, I just can't accept that, and it does matter what we accept, there is a limit to the disappointment a man can have)

I mean, I do understand that reality keeps on going after I die. Your life keeps on going too I'm sure. But in my perspective everything has allready happened, the universe disappear and has been long gone. There is no longer any subjective evidence that it has ever been, and the objective in relation to the subjective moves it's time infinitly, cause if you stopped existing, and then reappear after even a billion years, it would have been like a blink of time, so in your perspective the universe when you stopped existing has been long gone (if you aren't in any time or space "picked up again").

If I say it like that, do you then see why I ask "what is the foundation of existance?", what is it that makes it existant, when we are gone? How can something exist anyway? Cause in it's own perspective (as a unconscious entity) it would never had existed. It was never aware of it, so what is the foundation then? Would it just become one of the infinite possibilities but never earn it's own right for existance in reality?

Maybe you can't understand this, if you can't then I'll let go, maybe it isn't obvious for everyone.




The semi-subjective definition can include purpose or value and don't have to. In the objective world, the meaning exists just fine whether there is an observer or not.Ok, so what is the meaning of those variables that you speak of, please let me hear of one such meaning.



That restriction only exists for the semi-subjective definition.I'm having a hard time seeing any other definition.



Then you have quite a bit of work ahead of you :).Well, I've experianced situations where information in the past when I were a child or even a baby have been helpful, specially memories of comfort and well, comfort...ahh...oh sorry, hrrmmm.... also the trust I had at that age and the magical sense that anything could happen is of importance to me.



I would still exist and I wouldn't be sentient.As you wouldn't be self-aware, you wouldn't exist. If you weren't self aware, then what would it matter to you which body were yours? It wouldn't matter, and no body would be yours as you wouldn't feel any body, and you wouldn't identify with any body as yours.



You're playing a context game of trying to change the focus of 'You' on the ego rather than the whole package.I'd rather say, that 'you' is a mental version of your body, which is buildt by the notions you have of it, and felt with the senses. "you" should be seen as a "mental costume" which enables you to experiance touch and cold and warmth.

Maybe "mental costume" was the wrong word to use. I don't know how to explain it, imagine that you couldn't feel any touch on your body. That would be like the mental costume been taken off, that would be your body. The more of the mental costume that is taken away, the more obvious the difference between 'you' and your body is.

Without 'you' there would still be a body, but it would be empty, it would be a meatball.



I am in partial agreement. Life on earth (i.e. points of consciousness within the universe) are evidence that the universe may be predisposed towards producing awareness.oh. Good, so, hmmm...

ok.

Do you think...this is just a >?~^, do you think that the unique property that you have here and now, is actually your awareness being this point of space-time that you occupy? (as would be a fundamental property of the universe).



I think the point I was trying to communicate was mis-interpreted. Wherever I am at any moment, there is only one me at that location of space-time. That makes my location at any moment an attribute that can be used to uniquely identify me.True.



It's unique that at any moment two human's aren't going to occupy the same space-time.True.



I don't know how you could posess so much objective knowledge about what could be best described as a thought experiment that bears no resemblence to relaity.Ok, I know this sounds a bit "out of this world" to you, since you don't know the background, it's just that I have a little struggle with my belief that you will understand it if I told you.

But...here it goes!

I'm going to bundle this up into a story, it's of course fiction, but still, if it could be done, we have to face this:

It is the year 4215 AD, scientists have just made a extraordinary machine, that can teleport a human from one location to another.

(as it happens it can also bring the dead back to life, but don't worry about that now...)

As scientists have not found any evidence for a soul yet, they understand that if we read all the information that is within a physical body, destroy the original and then rebuild it in a location far from there, then it would be like the person moved there, only it happened instantanious.

The person is rebuildt down to a molecular level, since reading all the atoms would be too big of a problem even in 4215 AD, but this isn't regarded as a problem since molecules have known arrangements of atoms etc. so they figure that it won't matter for the person.

(are you with me this far? Cause here is where the interesting starts!)


After they successfully searched & destroyed & rebuildt some hundred persons, something went wrong, the function of the machine that should destroy the original malfunctioned! The original never "went" anywhere, but the copy was still rearranged at the far away location. The original of course didn't know anything, he just stood there in the machine restlessly waiting for it to work...

The copy at the other hand, stood inside the planetstation in Venus ordering hamburgers and behaved just like the original would do if it got there. However as scientists would start to get a hint on too, this actually wasn't the original...and they had killed hundreds of people...

Oh, the horror! Oh, the damage! Oh, the pain! What have we done! etc.

---END OF STORY---

Now, if they were real life scientists, they would of course have thought about this (hopefully), so that wouldn't happen. But it is entirely *possible* for a machine with great storage and calculation speed to simple note the position and arrangement of all the molecules in a body. Then rearrange them at a different location. So it's not purely fiction if you ask me.

If we move to reality, they actually have succeded teleporting a photon, using a method known as quantum entanglement. Now at this level (the size of photons) the original is naturally destroyed in the process. It counts, I guess, as the same photon, and not just identical.

But in the level of molecules, they could be arranged in the same way, and not be counted as the same molecules (as the matter were taken from a different place) and hence they wouldn't be automatically and naturally destroyed.

So in reality it is entirely possible to create two exactly identical persons down to molecular level (maybe even atomic level).


I hope you can see that if it wasn't for the original as moving to a different location when all the physical was in the right place, then what makes you unique isn't in the physical.

If we take those two bodies, destroyed them, and rebuildt them both from scratch at the same time, then which of them would be the original (if either of them)? And what would be the selection process to determine who would be in which body (I'm sorry I just have to use that wording)?



I hope you can see now what the selection process that I speak of is all about.

And I hope you get why this idea of a non-physical property that makes 'me' be in 'my' body, isn't so far off as one might think.


or you won't, but then it was fun to write a story anyway...



That didn't make any sense.Well, I realise I explained it badly, take more effort into understanding what I wrote above, I feel it should be understood by anyone with a bit of imagination.



Reality (and I) disagree. Aging falsifies that assertion.I know, a bit of change to the body shouldn't change that you are in that body. But if the body change, and most things about it, then what makes you be you really is at least a bit different than (possibly the rest of) your body (even if it is a part of it, which could, or could not be). Also this suggest that there isn't a special property about your body as such that makes you be the only one that could have existed there at the start. It could have been me, and you could have existed in my body instead. But maybe you still see this as too far off...

What new laws? I really don't know what you're talking about.Laws that govern things that maybe just don't happen naturally, if done in a experiment for example. I think I've heard of experiments where the conditions of them are so extreme they get results that wouldn't happen naturally. I don't have any examples, but it isn't entirely unplausable.



Whatever reality is, one thing that it has made very clear is anything in it is a part of it (not seperate). A person being born is an existing collection of matter/energy being translated into a different collection of matter/energy. Nothing is created or destroyed; hence, all the components already exist (they are not magically created).But scientists seem to think that the universe don't exist forever, and I thought you were one of them. Some also say that the laws has a evolution to it, and that there come into existance infinite of universes holding all possible values of laws etc.




It's also conceivable that alien tinfoil monkeys are crawling out of my butt. While both concepts are conceivable, they aren't supported by reality.Well, I mean in the beginning of the universe, when things came into existence, but I don't know, you may think that the universe existed forever.



Reality has never shown any evidence that people can create physical laws. Don't take this personally, my observation has been that the less educated a person is about reality, the more that person is to entertain and accept as truth ideas that reality doesn't support or outright contradicts.I don't think people can create physical laws either, but whatever phenomena that we give rise to using experiments, some using extreme controlled conditions which makes them unlikely to have appeared in reality before, there are laws applied to them and those laws may not have been applicable before but still they work.

The law of indetermination (or whatever it is called) for example. What use would that law be if it weren't for us trying to measure photons?

I don't know, I may be wrong too...

What was stated didn't make any sense.Ok, you don't have to give reasons why, I have myself forgotten what I wrote, and I don't think it was that important anyway :)



I went back and with the context applied it to the original question and it still made no sense in any permutation of words which I could come up with. IMO, a better question to ask might be "are the memories within the first two years of human life 'rememberable' by adult standards and would it be useful to remember them by adult standards?"Well, what I meant is that there are values that are within us from the start and perhaps we see things differently then gathering principles of the world that is hard to get now.

If you look at it this way it may be easier to understand me, even if you don't agree with me (cause this is kinda far off too...)

I think that there is a certain "vacuum effect" with the mind, a certain attraction that gathers natural principles of the world, since we became existant. Unlike other "objects" that not change that much we in the other hand constantly change and the "vacuum effect" is sustained since it never settles into a equilibrum (so to speak). This vacuum effect I think is greatest at the early ages, when the disturbance is greatest, so something has to give and where we haven't gathered much information ourselves, we gather from a (far off, I know) unknown source where natural principles are.

I haven't had time to explain that in a more "easy to understand" way and I'm not even fully sure that that is how it works, but the feeling I've got is in that manner (even if there are probably missing parts to it at this point of development).





You don't know that there is only one reality and there is no evidence to indicate that importance exists outside of a life form's interpretation/perogative.Well, I think there is only one reality, but it don't matter *that* much to my other ideas if it turns out there are many.

To me, that something exists indicates importance.


You can consider anything important or unimportant. It's a survival mechanism. Filter out the unimportant information. Teenagers do an exceptionally good job of that consequently.I agree with you.



It happens when fully understood, not understood, and anywhere in between.Well, if it wasn't understood at all then I don't usually get this feeling, the feeling usually comes when I get some kind of insight that I feel is very consistent with the way things are. It could also be that I realise a new part of a theory that I've had and find it consistent with the whole theory and sometimes even explains why it is so. Then I can get this feeling, and I don't think it is bad, since if I find inconsistances I allways go through the theory trying to explain them and if I don't I just let it be on it's own, cause I then I have to trust that I find something to explain the consistancies before I forget about the theory itself. It just isn't interesting to be thinking of a theory full of inconsistances and I know that I will eventually forget about it if I don't find anything.

The awe feeling doesn't make something true, but it is a genuine feeling about what you are thinking of, so it does point that maybe there is something else to it. However the awe feeling, as I said, usually has a explanation which makes it valid.



I don't understand everything by pure definition and when I want to communicate objective concepts I had better be sure that I am using concrete definitions. New ideas are easy for me (a result of a genetically creative mind). Also, my conceptual geometry acts very nicely as a mechanism to compare an idea against my knowledge of reality if I want to present that idea outside the realm of fantasy.Ok, sounds good. It sounded like if you were one of those in constant need for definitions of everything.



It is an irrational statement and it's also not my statement.Sorry for that, I'm just growing a bit tired of everyone denying existance of things just because they can't be easily defined (as you asked for a 'concrete definition' of the 'raw concept')

It's very hard to find such definitions on things at that level. Even though it's not only based on 'feelings' alone that I have my ideas of such things.


I don't share the impression and I can conceptualize realities with utterly different structures/laws that work just as flawlessly as ours does. But such ideas are utter speculation and I wouldn't even begin to assert them as truth and I would point out that very high-level (and presently untestable) theories exist that predict the existence of other realities.Do you really talk about other realities? Aren't you rather talking about other universes? I've never heard of any scientific theories of other realities, a link would be nice. But if you think about other universes then I know of many theories therein, including that guy that thought that there was a universe for every mathematical equation...



Oddly enough I think I've given you the answer to the question but it's not something that you can emotionally relate to and therefore doesn't fulfill your need. If the objective definition of 'meaning' is used then the answer is clear:

* The meaning of life is the relationship of life to everything it can and will have a relationship to.

If the semi-subjective definition of meaning is used then it's constituent answers are as follows:

* The purpose of life is roughtly to survive reproduce.
* The value of life is subjective.
* There is no evidence that life is subject to intent.As I said before in this post, there is no real meaning to those things (except perhaps the second point) if it wasn't forever, cause then life would eventually die and the meaning would be gone. A meaning to the highest degree should continue to be meaningful forever really.



Much better, now I can understand what's being stated. To paraphrase, do human babies experience a point or series of points where their awareness/self-awareness is "turned on" like the perverbial light switch, and if so is that experience recorded in memory?

The other question is does the human brain perceive and record any experiential information from gestation to the point where awareness is achieved?

They're good questions, and IMO something that neuroscience may wish to tackle.Yes. You understand. Ok, you see, I know this now (that you understand this bit) so now maybe I can use this to shed light into what I mean by other things. It helps me a bit to see what people understand and what they don't about the concepts that I present (not that I'm all powerful super ninja).




Thus nothing. To make that assertion already claims you know the answer (which you don't or you wouldn't be asking the question).Well, I think it left an impression, like we needed something granted, even if we didn't remember it I think it was of some comfort. I don't claim to know the answer, I just think that it left an impression and, well, I don't really remember it, but nevertheless I have that feeling that it must have happened.



You can and you did as was evidenced by the 3rd post above which I understood. Formatting the content of an idea in concrete and non-emotional terms isn't intended to take away the inspiration that promted the idea's existence. If you need that emotion to be part of the presentation then present the concrete ideas with excitement and include stories about your inspiration. Just don't substitute concrete content for emotional content.I know what you are saying, I actually do that sometimes, but most of the time I don't have the words (or the "expression") for what I really mean, then I have to go with what I have in my mind, which may not be that "factual" even if it in many parts may be based on experiance or otherwise believable material.


Take care and I'm going to try to be more clear to you.

This thread officially has the longest first page. Can someone summarize what the argument is? Its way too long to read.Well, we have talked about many things.

the start of subjective existance (which may be parallelled with objective):
I think that at the moment that we started to exist subjectivly we got a glimpse of what made us exist.

-----------

the selection process of which one should be in which body:
I think that the body is not that important in determining which one should be aware where (in that I'm saying that it don't matter for the body who you are and I could have as easily been born in your body, and you in mine (that is in the perspective of the body).

Another way of saying that is, that it doesn't seem to be a unique property of the body or in the brain of the body that makes only you "fit" for it. Instead anyone could have been there instead.

This, to me, shows us that it isn't the body that determine who should be in which body.

--------

We have also talked about many other things, but it's hard to write down every single thing.