Who is going to hell? An argument for the Bible, Religion and God.

[Johnny Richter]

Get rich or die tryin

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

No, but I would like to expand on this

at the appropriate time. Mainly about our relationship with our environment -- also, we will obviously have to get to the qualities of "mind", at some point.
Continue, dear sir!

Do you find any sense in this blondie? indirect/inferential realism

“NUBBLIES.NET USER DENT, I think Galen Strawson is simply mistaken here. One no more has direct access to mind-independent objects when one is awake than when one is dreaming. The difference is that when one is awake one can infer that the objects in one's world-simulation causally co-vary with gross fitness relevant patterns in the mind-independent world.”

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

I'm not sure if that answer helps or not, but the idea is basically that if something by definition exists I don't have to experience it to know it's true.

Can you define square circles into existence?

[Johnny Richter]

If you can dream it, you can do it!

[Repugnant Abomination]

Whether or not you agree with him, I think C.S. Lewis is one of the great thinkers of the 20th century, and certainly of Christian apologetics. It's been very intellectually stimulating for me recently to read his work with a fresh perspective and a more open mind; the contrast, but also the alignment with some of the eastern spice that's been floating around here provides a good springboard to dive into his ideas.

I recently came across these cool animated excerpts taken from his famous works that I thought I'd share with you guys. If anyone wants to engage with me on them, I have a few requests:

1. Let's try to stay on topics only within and relevant to the video I post. The conversation will hopefully remain disciplined and not branch out so quickly that it is impossible to keep track of all the concepts that would inevitably spill out.

2. Let's not bring pre-conceived notions of what God is, what Christianity is, or any other faith or spirituality into the conversation. I want to only focus on the exact concepts C.S. Lewis is talking about. I believe the only way to tackle such a topic is to do it piece by piece, one idea at a time, otherwise it becomes unmanageable.

3. Only serious, thoughtful posts, please. One liners or ignoring the parameters I've set will be ignored.

4. I am not a practicing Christian, nor do I have any immediate plans to convert to one. I simply enjoy exploring philosophical and theological ideas that are largely abstract. I've also been reading a lot about Taoism and Shintoism recently, as well as Sikhism. I mention this only because I know that since we all are Westerners there is a stronger emotional reaction to Christianity than other religions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXlBCZ_5OYw


My takeaway from this video and the key concepts:

1. God existing outside of space and time. This is such an important idea for me, and one I came to on my own that has really influenced the way I think about not only God, but knowledge in general. I've said it before already but it bears repeating because it's so foundational: If God exists he must have existed outside of his creation (space and time), therefore, if science is the study of the universe (space and time) it is ill-equiped to discover God.

2. You can "find" God in the universe much like you can "find" Shakespeare in his plays. Not in a literal sense -- but you can get an idea of him through the quality of his work.

3. Finding God, or being found by God, is dependent on the individual. This will likely lead to the charge of subjectivity, but I find the emphasis on perspective and attunement to be legitimate. Have we all not at one point in our lives been closed off to something that later, under different circumstances, we retroactively realized to be correct?

That's all for now.

[Dent]

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Certainly numbers do not have a tangible existence in the world. They exist in our collective consciousness. And yet they are not arbitrary products of our imaginations in the way that fictional characters are."

Didn't come to respond to this but yeah they are bro


came across the word cittas whilst spicing around Blonde? someones tying it in with Strawsons view on individualism and the lack of enduring metaphysical ego
THE SELF by Galen Strawson

"I noticed something reading the ancient Abhidhamma – texts of Buddhism, the Abhidhamma – texts being a extremely detailed and systematic philosophical exposition of the mind and the world (The mind and world according to Buddhist cosmology, of course). There is an analysis of the stream of consciousness being constituted by a series of “Citta”’s, which is the Pali – word for “mind” or “mind-moments”…but the interesting thing I noticed is the extremely short life-span which the authors of Abhidhamma is giving to these “mind-moments”: “ The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkhana). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, according to the commentators, in the time that it takes for lightning to flash or the eyes to blink, billions of mind-moments can elapse.” Is not this ancient idea about such an extremely short duration of mind-moments interesting to think about in the context of the possibility of sub-femtosecond quantum coherence in the CNS as a solution to the combination problem?...... ….But it is strange that these ancient texts are operating with such small durations of mind-moments or selves…those durations are not of course something obvious through ordinary introspective investigation… The Pearl-string Self of Galen Strawson is quite in line with the Abhidhamma view of the Self, but he is of course operating with much larger durations…"

OK Go ? The One Moment ? Official Video - YouTube

OK Go ? The One Moment ? Official Video - YouTube

[Mr. Blonde]

Hilarious to see scientists baffle themselves to understand consciousness while the answer is a mere 300 micrograms away.

[Dent]

BBC News - The science of addiction: Do you always like the things you want?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-55221825

Wanting/liking distinction is a Biggie!

Originally Posted by Dent

This is the (a?) ontological argument right? a priori attempt at proving God's existence?

---


Empirical evidence for the distinction of desire and pleasure


Dissociation (neuropsychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)







I don’t think these are true, meditative and motivated bliss are equally enjoyable as far as I know but meditative bliss which I see (AND COULD STILL BE GETTING THE WRONG END OF THE STICK) as all pleasure ‘liking’ without desire ‘wanting’ isn’t going to work in the world of fitness and selection pressure. Without thought for the future what would be the motivation to prevent future suffering?



I still don’t understand how Buddhists wouldn’t want to be a desireless wireheader if desire is suffering (it’s not)

“May all that hath life be delivered from suffering"

[Dent]

Wokies will get nowhere without understanding selfish genes, sexual selection and so forth... Well meaning donkies are just donkies (repug)

"wanting a thing, & liking it, corresponded to distinct systems in the brain … wanting is more fundamental than liking … it doesn't matter for the preservation of our genes [if] we like sex, or like food. Far more important is [if] we … seek [them] out"