The Big Bang, not a single point in time.

Israel

BANNED
OK.
We've already come up hard against omniscience in some manner and some degree...or me at least.

But, have I given you a fair explanation in regards to it? The: "If any one thing can be known..."? Even if you don't accept it to yourself, do you concede the process?
Because we may have to go back a step (or two or 100)...at this point I am not sure. I don't know what we'll find in our exploration of this other thing, now likewise provoked.
For even if we do not agree to omniscience existing in reality but only as word describing concept (and who is to say concepts are not as real as anything else?...for by "concept" the twin towers were built...and by concept they came down...)

So this I also find in our discussion of "what's on the table". Is consciousness a real thing? And all the things that accrue to it, thought, right perception (although that matter of right in perception is surely up for grabs)...but just perception? Even concept. On what basis do we assume these things, if we do, to be real?


Here's a side note. I'm afraid, though that is hardly the right word...yet there is a something in me arguing for explanation against being misunderstood. I do not regard what "man knows" (even as discovered by a thing called science, or scientific method) in an obscene light. Though the limits of it may be perceived differently between us, or among us...all...personally, I find a pointing toward a something. As I was thinking of "us"...our relating, our discussions...and now our "years" in some way together the other day...my mind wandered to some of the "things" discovered...for want of a better word...by science. I thought of light as I "looked" at a leaf. I thought of touching.

Science tells me that on one level (might I say...state of being?) that what I might have concluded intuitively about touching...on a certain level is quite different than all my inferences. Were I to press myself "with all my might" the space between what I think is my matter and the matter of my wife...are vast. I get (what I think) is a sensation of touch, tells me we have "touched"...but on that certain level my perceptions (that previously led to conceptions) of what touch is, are shattered. We haven't...in any way, as thought previously...touched.
Now, that does not negate the sensation...it simply informs it. "what we experience as touch is really...blah blah blah...and that is why we get the feeling of touching."


Likewise with light. On one level I previously inferred a certain relationship of green to leaf. That somehow true substance of leaf and greenness were all of one. But "science" tells me that the green I see, and previously inferred as to somehow true substance of leaf...is actually the "part" of light not absorbed...by said leaf. The substance of leaf is not in greenness at all (in that sense) but of substance that "likes" (oh, how silly!)...all light...except green.

Now, again...science says...or perhaps does not say..."No, you are not wrong to perceive that leaf as green, because blah blah blah...is how light...works" Even to and in...your eyes!
But how much previous inference of substance and "true" nature is cracked, there...busted there.

This is to not even mention that all depends upon "the light" in which a thing is viewed...what is true light? When the sun is setting on certain days, a piece of white paper...(is it really...white?) suddenly takes on a golden hue. "well, in that light it would because...blah blah blah..."


We have been proceeding from a premise presented by one of us..."God is"...it matters not which of us...at all. In that I believe I have been as honest as one said to "do the best with what we've got". This does not mean I am being honest, at all...merely subscribing to a concept, that at least, to this point, I don't "feel"...sense, (and you may remember I didn't disagree with believing in "a" god...because of feelings that may have in one "sense" added impetus to our labors) an incursion against.

You can tell me, are surely free to tell me ( I also am not ready to abrogate "no restriction") that absolutely all, and I repeat, all, of my inferences through perceptions...are wrong. After all, it seems it is only you and I are left here...and without a hand to tip a balance for either of us...who could show themselves..."more right"? But why might that be of any import at all?

But then I would have to add.."science"...if anything (to me, by my perceptions...and yes...even leading to inferences) seems always to be telling me "nothing really is...as it seems".
And so, regardless...it points me. Also.


"God is..." was the premise. Perhaps in all of seems there is nothing more argued against. And this by what structures itself according to certain laws of "knowing" what is true, verifiable, repeatable. All the while (perhaps) oblivious that the in the assumption of laws it proceeds by, that of saying "the known can be further known"...the assumption of knowing anything at all also operates according to a law...a principle...."it will only know what it is allowed...to know".

"What is true light?"

In a certain light we may both be considered (I may be presumptuous) relatively...smart men. By a certain metric, we might even be able to show it. But, put us both in a room with a particular savant and ask all of us "what day was October 12 1604"...and two of us may find a fellowship of ignorance.
 

ambush80

Senior Member
OK.
We've already come up hard against omniscience in some manner and some degree...or me at least.

But, have I given you a fair explanation in regards to it? The: "If any one thing can be known..."? Even if you don't accept it to yourself, do you concede the process?
Because we may have to go back a step (or two or 100)...at this point I am not sure. I don't know what we'll find in our exploration of this other thing, now likewise provoked.
For even if we do not agree to omniscience existing in reality but only as word describing concept (and who is to say concepts are not as real as anything else?...for by "concept" the twin towers were built...and by concept they came down...)

So this I also find in our discussion of "what's on the table". Is consciousness a real thing? And all the things that accrue to it, thought, right perception (although that matter of right in perception is surely up for grabs)...but just perception? Even concept. On what basis do we assume these things, if we do, to be real?


Here's a side note. I'm afraid, though that is hardly the right word...yet there is a something in me arguing for explanation against being misunderstood. I do not regard what "man knows" (even as discovered by a thing called science, or scientific method) in an obscene light. Though the limits of it may be perceived differently between us, or among us...all...personally, I find a pointing toward a something. As I was thinking of "us"...our relating, our discussions...and now our "years" in some way together the other day...my mind wandered to some of the "things" discovered...for want of a better word...by science. I thought of light as I "looked" at a leaf. I thought of touching.

Science tells me that on one level (might I say...state of being?) that what I might have concluded intuitively about touching...on a certain level is quite different than all my inferences. Were I to press myself "with all my might" the space between what I think is my matter and the matter of my wife...are vast. I get (what I think) is a sensation of touch, tells me we have "touched"...but on that certain level my perceptions (that previously led to conceptions) of what touch is, are shattered. We haven't...in any way, as thought previously...touched.
Now, that does not negate the sensation...it simply informs it. "what we experience as touch is really...blah blah blah...and that is why we get the feeling of touching."


Likewise with light. On one level I previously inferred a certain relationship of green to leaf. That somehow true substance of leaf and greenness were all of one. But "science" tells me that the green I see, and previously inferred as to somehow true substance of leaf...is actually the "part" of light not absorbed...by said leaf. The substance of leaf is not in greenness at all (in that sense) but of substance that "likes" (oh, how silly!)...all light...except green.

Now, again...science says...or perhaps does not say..."No, you are not wrong to perceive that leaf as green, because blah blah blah...is how light...works" Even to and in...your eyes!
But how much previous inference of substance and "true" nature is cracked, there...busted there.

This is to not even mention that all depends upon "the light" in which a thing is viewed...what is true light? When the sun is setting on certain days, a piece of white paper...(is it really...white?) suddenly takes on a golden hue. "well, in that light it would because...blah blah blah..."


We have been proceeding from a premise presented by one of us..."God is"...it matters not which of us...at all. In that I believe I have been as honest as one said to "do the best with what we've got". This does not mean I am being honest, at all...merely subscribing to a concept, that at least, to this point, I don't "feel"...sense, (and you may remember I didn't disagree with believing in "a" god...because of feelings that may have in one "sense" added impetus to our labors) an incursion against.

You can tell me, are surely free to tell me ( I also am not ready to abrogate "no restriction") that absolutely all, and I repeat, all, of my inferences through perceptions...are wrong. After all, it seems it is only you and I are left here...and without a hand to tip a balance for either of us...who could show themselves..."more right"? But why might that be of any import at all?

But then I would have to add.."science"...if anything (to me, by my perceptions...and yes...even leading to inferences) seems always to be telling me "nothing really is...as it seems".
And so, regardless...it points me. Also.


"God is..." was the premise. Perhaps in all of seems there is nothing more argued against. And this by what structures itself according to certain laws of "knowing" what is true, verifiable, repeatable. All the while (perhaps) oblivious that the in the assumption of laws it proceeds by, that of saying "the known can be further known"...the assumption of knowing anything at all also operates according to a law...a principle...."it will only know what it is allowed...to know".

"What is true light?"

In a certain light we may both be considered (I may be presumptuous) relatively...smart men. By a certain metric, we might even be able to show it. But, put us both in a room with a particular savant and ask all of us "what day was October 12 1604"...and two of us may find a fellowship of ignorance.

I'm gathering that you won't be able to talk about "green" in terms of wavelength alone, but want to talk about green in terms of "the traffic light I ran through that August afternoon in my youth while distracted by my lover. The transgression resulting in me striking down a child with my Honda....also, green. In this regard, truly, what is green to me?"

Fine.

But I don't think we can do science that way.
 

Israel

BANNED
LOL...I think I remember rightly you wanting to "talk like we are in a boat fishing". It's not like I've never been fishing, nor that I've never been accompanied, so I think maybe I kinda get that.
The kinda friends I've known in the past, and those I particularly call to mind in that situation are hardly recalled as having any reluctance to the kind of discussion that would ensue from; "hey, have you ever wondered if what I see as green, is seen as (what I call) red by you?"

It's almost like the time I was fishing with my brother and sister on a party boat outta Sheepshead Bay...even a guy I never spoke to helped me see something.
 

ambush80

Senior Member
LOL...I think I remember rightly you wanting to "talk like we are in a boat fishing". It's not like I've never been fishing, nor that I've never been accompanied, so I think maybe I kinda get that.
The kinda friends I've known in the past, and those I particularly call to mind in that situation are hardly recalled as having any reluctance to the kind of discussion that would ensue from; "hey, have you ever wondered if what I see as green, is seen as (what I call) red by you?"

It's almost like the time I was fishing with my brother and sister on a party boat outta Sheepshead Bay...even a guy I never spoke to helped me see something.

So you get it. We need a way to talk about green that we can both agree on like wavelength.
 

Israel

BANNED
Not agreeing on the color green sums up the entirety of human debate does it not?

We can all know green in the same way unless your spectrometer is broken.

We could probably camp out in the clearing made in those statements.

Drippin' had said something previously that also engaged me...about egos. "Religious folk have egos, scientists have egos..." And then he stated that basically, for his money, he wasn't going to invest in what he called "fairy tales".

He didn't specifically deny he himself "had" or was an ego (also)...but the implication was to me..."I can step outside and see those "egos" at work, and now...I judge between them..." For whatever reason (which I surely can't deny him) he assigned one to a something (more preferable) and the other to the promulgation of fairy tales. He, you (Ambush), and I...are not denied our egos.

"Our way" of seeing things. And yes, we do often...and are...given to speaking of them. You also now (Ambush) propose there is a way of knowing the absolute truth about green...unless your spectrometer is broken.

How much could be explored there... the "truth" can be known about a thing...(though even with my less than informed scientific mind there is much more to light than simply knowing it "has" a wavelength)...but this is not even much to talk about in the face of the possibility of a broken spectrometer.

Who decides, can anything decide...whose spectrometer is both correct (if any indeed are) ...and from there, decide whose is broken?
We haven't even begun to explore in any exchange (at least to my knowledge) a definition of terms of this thing we may have assumed in any form of hypothesis that "God is".
 

drippin' rock

Senior Member
We could probably camp out in the clearing made in those statements.

Drippin' had said something previously that also engaged me...about egos. "Religious folk have egos, scientists have egos..." And then he stated that basically, for his money, he wasn't going to invest in what he called "fairy tales".

He didn't specifically deny he himself "had" or was an ego (also)...but the implication was to me..."I can step outside and see those "egos" at work, and now...I judge between them..." For whatever reason (which I surely can't deny him) he assigned one to a something (more preferable) and the other to the promulgation of fairy tales. He, you (Ambush), and I...are not denied our egos.

"Our way" of seeing things. And yes, we do often...and are...given to speaking of them. You also now (Ambush) propose there is a way of knowing the absolute truth about green...unless your spectrometer is broken.

How much could be explored there... the "truth" can be known about a thing...(though even with my less than informed scientific mind there is much more to light than simply knowing it "has" a wavelength)...but this is not even much to talk about in the face of the possibility of a broken spectrometer.

Who decides, can anything decide...whose spectrometer is both correct (if any indeed are) ...and from there, decide whose is broken?
We haven't even begun to explore in any exchange (at least to my knowledge) a definition of terms of this thing we may have assumed in any form of hypothesis that "God is".

Life is messy. I could use all my fingers and toes to count the number of times my ego rears its head on a daily basis. I try to be aware of that, hoping that eventually I will learn to be more.

Once we decide to believe in a thing, ego steps in to make us grasp that idea a little harder. Is that bad? I don't know. We are all driven to be a part of a group. We want to know that what we have chosen to believe is validated by others. I am guilty as well. Because my ideas run roughly parallel to folks like Ambush, Bullet, and Walt, I find myself paying closer attention to what they post.

Yes, I believe most of the worlds religions are fairy tales. I have not seen or experienced anything YET in my life to suggest otherwise.

The color green is the color green. If someone needs to discuss and debate that, I check out.

Maybe I misunderstand, but "what God is" has been covered here countless times, from both sides of the isle.
 

660griz

Senior Member
Who decides, can anything decide...whose spectrometer is both correct (if any indeed are) ...and from there, decide whose is broken?

There is a reference standard.
Look at the calibration date.
 

ambush80

Senior Member
Life is messy. I could use all my fingers and toes to count the number of times my ego rears its head on a daily basis. I try to be aware of that, hoping that eventually I will learn to be more.

Once we decide to believe in a thing, ego steps in to make us grasp that idea a little harder. Is that bad? I don't know. We are all driven to be a part of a group. We want to know that what we have chosen to believe is validated by others. I am guilty as well. Because my ideas run roughly parallel to folks like Ambush, Bullet, and Walt, I find myself paying closer attention to what they post.

Yes, I believe most of the worlds religions are fairy tales. I have not seen or experienced anything YET in my life to suggest otherwise.

The color green is the color green. If someone needs to discuss and debate that, I check out.

Maybe I misunderstand, but "what God is" has been covered here countless times, from both sides of the isle.

Would you call the desire to confirm or disprove one's beliefs a function of ego? I'm trying to find out if some things are true. It seems to me that in order to do that, I have to try to disengage my ego (the self- esteem and self-importance part). Isreal claims that he knows something about what's true and that it can be confirmed by experiment. This particular thing is a great curiosity to me mostly because other so many other people think it true, many of whom seem to be quite thoughtful.

I agree with you that if we can't agree on what green is then we probably can't continue.
 

drippin' rock

Senior Member
Would you call the desire to confirm or disprove one's beliefs a function of ego? I'm trying to find out if some things are true. It seems to me that in order to do that, I have to try to disengage my ego (the self- esteem and self-importance part). Isreal claims that he knows something about what's true and that it can be confirmed by experiment. This particular thing is a great curiosity to me mostly because other so many other people think it true, many of whom seem to be quite thoughtful.

I agree with you that if we can't agree on what green is then we probably can't continue.

I think the desire to fit into a group can be distilled down to a function of survival. As can everything we do. Of course survival is much easier today than say 200 years ago. Where does ego fit into all that? I'm not sure. I agree you have to "let yourself go" sometimes to see things in a different way. It has been suggested that the Sphinx predates the pyramids by as much as 10,000 years because the wear suggests years of rain damage. It has been 10,000 years since that area rained enough for that kind of damage. Sounds plausible to me, but I'm not an Egyptologist that built a career around one theory. You find that kind of ego across many of the scientific disciplines. Someone comes along with a new theory that threatens your life's body of work, you tend to fight against it.

What truth are you looking for? I know the color green has been a metaphor up until now in this conversation, but I would call it a truth. Green is green. A universal truth. Christians say the Word is the truth. That might make them feel good, but that is not a universal truth. It's a truth to their group.

I haven't read this entire thread, so if this takes things the wrong direction, my apologies. I'm just throwing things out I think of from time to time.
 

ambush80

Senior Member
I think the desire to fit into a group can be distilled down to a function of survival. As can everything we do. Of course survival is much easier today than say 200 years ago. Where does ego fit into all that? I'm not sure. I agree you have to "let yourself go" sometimes to see things in a different way. It has been suggested that the Sphinx predates the pyramids by as much as 10,000 years because the wear suggests years of rain damage. It has been 10,000 years since that area rained enough for that kind of damage. Sounds plausible to me, but I'm not an Egyptologist that built a career around one theory. You find that kind of ego across many of the scientific disciplines. Someone comes along with a new theory that threatens your life's body of work, you tend to fight against it.

What truth are you looking for? I know the color green has been a metaphor up until now in this conversation, but I would call it a truth. Green is green. A universal truth. Christians say the Word is the truth. That might make them feel good, but that is not a universal truth. It's a truth to their group.

I haven't read this entire thread, so if this takes things the wrong direction, my apologies. I'm just throwing things out I think of from time to time.

He said this:

Yes, very much...yes.
I hope you were able to see that in my fumbling. Things influence every which way...from emotions affecting seeing, seeing affecting emotions...etc.
But...in that now realization comes also an unsettling of sorts in the "truth" sensor...how can I know truth, if I am subject to inputs affecting perspective, perspective affecting view? How, if tabula rasa is only seeming possible recourse left for "true" knowing...can this be possible?
So now...my "truth" sensor is recognized as askew...and that (I think some can relate)...becomes most troubling of all.

It, in some ways, goes back to what Drippin' expressed about religion, and science, and egos. And although I don't think if asked he would deny the also assumption "and I too, have an ego (or am an ego)" it was not explicitly stated. It seems we are more inclined to almost lean toward the assumption that everything, or at least, everyone else may present things colored to some extent by self interest...but that in some way, I am "more free" of that in my seeking. But once a man realizes this coming to me is colored with ego, and is received likewise of same, like light hitting prisms, the issue of "purity"...or universality comes glaringly into play as something approaching zero possibility.

And here is where I have found Jesus saying something most salient regarding that: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." It's not as if Jesus were ignorant of this interplay of light among us "who has the truth?" One might even see he well understood the "next thought" of some of those who heard his bold pronouncements "how can I even begin to tell if this guy is telling the truth?"

This is the part I'm trying to work with:

He recommends an experiment, but it will only be an invitation to those who are convicted truth (as in concept of "God") is both knowable and also as knowable, may be aligned to. Here I seek to place no restriction, as I do not see any "in the Lord" against any inclined to take on the experiment. But it does demand of itself, an inward honesty...at least as regards pursuit, it cannot work any other way.

If we enter the arena of seeking to know the truth (and who, we might ask...hasn't at least dipped their toe?) I am convinced even more here of "non restriction". I can offer no help, except perhaps in this single thing of recognition of a deep commonness we either do, or do not share. The recognition of our relationship to "things".

Like words, ideas, car keys (made perhaps exquisitely clear when we cannot find them), guns (perhaps when they misfire at a ten pointer), dust (when it so cakes our computer parts to make it unbootable)...cold viruses...dogs and cats...wives...and each other. Everything is fair game so to speak unless we deny a relationship. If we don't deny these, "truth" easily fits in among them. Even if we may presently have some difficulty, reluctance, loathing to say "god"...(but, by the which difficulty, reluctance, and loathing, also testify to a relationship) but do not deny us entrance to this experiment.

Green is green and I'd like to keep it that way. If we can't then the experiment will flop.
 

Israel

BANNED
I think the desire to fit into a group can be distilled down to a function of survival. As can everything we do. Of course survival is much easier today than say 200 years ago. Where does ego fit into all that? I'm not sure. I agree you have to "let yourself go" sometimes to see things in a different way. It has been suggested that the Sphinx predates the pyramids by as much as 10,000 years because the wear suggests years of rain damage. It has been 10,000 years since that area rained enough for that kind of damage. Sounds plausible to me, but I'm not an Egyptologist that built a career around one theory. You find that kind of ego across many of the scientific disciplines. Someone comes along with a new theory that threatens your life's body of work, you tend to fight against it.

What truth are you looking for? I know the color green has been a metaphor up until now in this conversation, but I would call it a truth. Green is green. A universal truth. Christians say the Word is the truth. That might make them feel good, but that is not a universal truth. It's a truth to their group.

I haven't read this entire thread, so if this takes things the wrong direction, my apologies. I'm just throwing things out I think of from time to time.

No you have nothing to apologize for. If anything I am sorry that my reference may have placed a burden upon you for further explanation. I agreed with what you previously said about "egos". And do, also, with most of the above.

I like that you introduced metaphor...it's also been heavy on my mind since a post by Ambush. The one in which it's stated "god" is just a sound uttered, representing to the speaker something (it seems) unutterably resistant to sharing in knowledge. In some ways I also agree with that. That's why I began to consider introducing those matters upon which we might agree..."Is thought...real?" Consciousness? Truth? We may dare not even approach this one..."love".

These things, though hard to subject to a spectrometer upon which we might all agree as universally sound to draw our final conclusions...nevertheless are responsible in lesser and greater measure for every spectrometer ever built. "Our" spectrometer(s), in that sense are totally dependent things, developed things, secondary things (if you will). The spectrometer points us toward a thing...no? Even if you will, confirms a thing we have intuited in the metaphor..."green" that we attach to a now discovered wavelength. "Ahhh, I knew there was a distinction, a difference...but I didn't know where that lie...from which it came....it is now plain "light" has wavelength, also...and I find it is different for each of the "colors" I see".

Ambush, you propose checking the date of calibration for assurance. I needn't tell you how many things like jostling, a clumsy co-worker, or god(?) forbid, a deliberately malignant technician could leave us, through intent, with a less than perfect machine, despite what the calibration sticker may state. The only sure method would be some sort of assurance of a constant calibration, whether back is turned, whether clumsy co-workers are invited in, whether the device could be secured from a malign purpose.

In all our best efforts it seems...even and especially within ourselves a trust will either be formed...or negated. "I trust my machine" becomes moot if all these others are not somehow accounted for.
That is also a little of what I was aiming at in that "pouring" in of things long before I even knew I was going to be in some way responsible for...or responsive to...how my own machine was "built".
 

660griz

Senior Member
Ambush, you propose checking the date of calibration for assurance. I needn't tell you how many things like jostling, a clumsy co-worker, or god(?) forbid, a deliberately malignant technician could leave us, through intent, with a less than perfect machine, despite what the calibration sticker may state. The only sure method would be some sort of assurance of a constant calibration, whether back is turned, whether clumsy co-workers are invited in, whether the device could be secured from a malign purpose.

That was me. There are QA steps built in. I worked in PMEL for awhile. Fascinating stuff.
The point is, if we use the same device, no matter the calibration, we all have the same point of reference and can discuss.
 

Israel

BANNED
That was me. There are QA steps built in. I worked in PMEL for awhile. Fascinating stuff.
The point is, if we use the same device, no matter the calibration, we all have the same point of reference and can discuss.

Sorry if I added confusion.

I want to be circumspect in seeking to understand. For the sake of clarity do you mean, in simplest terms (to me)...our device is "mind"? It is a thing we might (perhaps must) agree to as having severally despite its (seeming, but often appearing as obvious) differing outputs individually?
We may not know how "perfect mind" appears, or if it even exists (another consideration altogether) but we must first all agree...mind is a real thing, individually, and common amongst us...to proceed?

(And since I am not quite sure of all the lingo and steps...in PMEL, are the quality assurance "steps built in"...more or less things that will not let you proceed to "a" next step without a preliminary first being met satisfactorily? So, you couldn't "print" a Calibrated sticker till each and every step was vetted internally for accuracy [to that system]?)
 
Top