**************
Polygamists, bestiality-ists, man-boy lovers, pimps, addicts, groomers, sharia law advocates, catch-a-comet cultists, sado-masochists, oppressed gingers, anarchists, nihilists, border jumpers, shoplifters, and illegal voters could all argue the same thing. And that is sorry.
************
It is not homophobic bigotry for a society to sense benefits in social modesty and in the importance of faith-family-fidelity in sustaining a representative republic. To seek to undermine the glue of the republic so you can publicly parade with deviants bent on grooming children is bigotry writ large.
You are conflating Christianity with social weaknesses that opportunize the promotion of swine. The same kinds of weaknesses that have been disproportionately exploited by all manner of minorities. There are numerous interpretations and sects of Christianity, but most appreciate the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. They stand for something larger than immediate gratification.
Speaking of targeting: Various segments of the Rainbow Coalition are targeting the representative republic. To replace it with utter nonsense. Jews and Gays today control many institutions in numbers far exceeding their proportion of the population. That hardly sounds like mistreatment!
The article is big lie propaganda on behalf of malcontented misfits bent on never growing up. Their target is decent, responsible, free thinking Americans and their families and republic.
************
Among Beings aware of one another, empathetic appreciation at some level seems to be innate. Regardless of whether such Beings think about whether the entirety of the system that defines their bodies is empathetic towards them, they tend, if sentient, to be aware that some system that is more than their bodies regulates and defines them. People may choose to rationalize that an empathetically conscious aspect of such system functions much as their own, only more holistically. Even if they choose not to conceptualize that such holism is empathetically involved with then, they cannot escape that the holistic system does impose algorithmic parameters available for their choices among ranges of possibilities.
At that point, they may wonder: What actuates any specific choice to be made measurably manifest out of all possibilities? For that, they will have no answer. They cannot perform a double blind experiment on how the cosmos may otherwise have unfolded. But they will recognize that specific choices and determinations are in fact made. What puts fire in the Algorithm that defines the possibilities that are thus availed?
Some people and tribes will notice that coming together in respect of the Holism opportunes them in various ways. Such as to assimilate voluntary mores to help sustain their culture. Or to inspire devotion to fortify them in defending their culture. Or to avail communications among themselves about science-based observations for how to enhance aspects of their nourishment and entertainment. Whether or not they literally believe in an accretion of sacred stories, they may experience value in appreciating them metaphorically. They may notice that such appreciation enhances their pursuit of happiness and, for that reason, wish to pass such appreciation on to their progeny.
Must cultivations of poetry and metaphors be scientific and literal for them to be inspiring and valuable? It is sometimes said that we become what we eat. In some ways, we may become that which is inspired by our sacred metaphors. Our problem is less about how to end religion than it is about how to make religion more metaphorically sensible. But that possibility seems to drive some atheists around the bend.
***********
Determinism can be an ambiguous idea. A person may choose to determine an outcome. Or events may determine how a person chooses. How a.precise determination is made under the cosmos is not something for which we have (or can have) a complete.explanation.
Some religious points of view are literalistic and dogmatic and some are metaphorical and unfolding. While I like Jesus" Great Commandment (good faith) and Golden Rule (good will), I think such empathy tends to abide as an innate aspect of the cosmos of consciousmess-substance-information. So I think when people are engaging empathetically they are acting out of innate spirituality. How they act is more important to me than any dramatic stance about their religion or lack of it.
I am not hostile to science except when I sense people are.claiming specially scientific expertise about morality.
Yes, I think it helps to conceptualize that the science of manipulating ranges of measurable possibilities with Substance marries up with the spiritual empathies of Consciousness, along a temporal continuity of Information. I conceptualize Consciousness as a needed aspect of a Trinitarian flux of CSI. I do not believe in perfect objectivity or subjectivity in non-trivial concerns. I think what is objective will necessarily have a subjective aspect, and vice versa.
Which is part of why I do not believe in perfectly objective science for non-trivial concerns of participating in choices to be made among ranges of possibilities. Where the Why overlaps with the How, the problem becomes; How much deference should be made to voting citizens versus contending scientists? There is no perfect answer to that. Because we participate, individually, socially, and politically in the assimilation of common values, I do not think existentiality makes "ought moot."
***************
I don't care to explain the necessity for leaps of faith (axiomatic worldviews), because that is obvious to any mature, competent thinker. You can read up on that easily enough for yourself.
Juxtaposition does not seem the appropriate word. The point had to do with a commonality among overly greedy scientists (not all scientists) that have an immature appreciation of the methods of science and with those atheists (not all atheists) that seem to think everything worth doing can be explicated in objective measurables. I think time and experience may be needed for you to cure that. But do ponder it. On your own time.
**********
I see it more as accentuating what I believe merits being accentuated, such as about religion in connection with social assimilation. I have been somewhat specific about kinds of.religious pursuits that I do not believe are helpful to a decent assimilation of mores for a representative republic. And I see criticism of some of those as deserved.
I have no problem with science or with scientists that understand the philosophy entailed in the scientific method. My problem is with overly greedy scientists that are clueless about limitations on science with regard to social assimilations of oughts.
I think I nave implicated much the same thing several times, but it does not seem to be getting through.
In reasoning about oughts, a person may pursue what seems reasonably consistent, coherent, and complete, without expecting perfection. One may consider whether a particular system of mores could inspire or work for a particular.society. I do not believe there is a perfect system for a perfect society, and I think any scientist expecting to divine such a system would be on a fool's errand. Not every citizenry is suited to a representative republic that is not ruled by oligarchs. And one that is will soon lose it if it allows oligarchs to import enough dupes to swamp it.
*****************
The main issue now in world wide contention seems to be whether any nation's citizens should be allowed to continue to be political free thinkers versus whether all citizens of all nations should be mind-enslaved to abide by whatever "scientific consensus" our global elites want to prescribe for us. American idealists versus Global Rule by Elitists and their Funders (whoever buys a seat at the divvy-table). They call this global rule socialistic fairness and social justice, but it always seems to end up like a Clinton charity. American Idealists are disadvantaged by their tolerance, while Globalist despots are advantaged by their race-baiting willingness to appeal to tribal interests to do whatever is needed to shout down republicans and to promote control over every institution.
To get an indoctrinated mule to think anew, you have to get its attention. Trump has been effective because he fights back. I prefer the high ground. But we are up against un-thinking, indoctrinated feelers. So I am for what works. Sometimes getting in the mud in response to a mudslinger may work. For example, I believe Glenn Beck is finally coming around to notice that Trump tends to be effective where it counts. Problem is, self-promoting prog mods may be unwilling to stand the heat when it is in reply.
*************
To an indoctrinated bot, maybe so. First you jumped wrong and thought I was advocating for scientific derivation of ought from is. Then you decried resorting to means beyond science. Now you suggest the whole issue is irrelevant. As if the issue of how citizens assimilate values and purposes (oughts) were politically irrelevant to a functioning representative republic. Well, maybe so, if you want to replace the republic with bowing to global elitists and their funders. Do you just like to rattle around butting your head against walls? So far, I see little evidence of consistency or insight coming from you.
*************
Regarding Muslims indoctrinated in such a culture, why would anyone think they could become good citizens in the West? It is obvious that moderate Muslims around the Middle East tend to become captives of radically zealous sociopaths. That is why they tend to be reviled among some people in the West.
The reason there is no one else is because moronic Dems followed Obama's "burning spear" over a cliff. They, and Obama, are anti-American globalists, and a lot of Americans finally figured that out.
There are actually a lot of people that do not like representative republics or freedom and dignity for ordinary citizens. They want them to be subjugated and ruled by their so-thought know-better, morally-objective, "social justice scientists" and the oligarchs and tribalists that fund them.. In essence, the worldwide battle is between free thinkers versus elitist people-farmers. IOW, human beings (conservers of liberty) versus sub-humanizers (corrupti and ignoranti).
*************
Americans tend to be conservers of liberty. Dems tend to be anti-American globalists under the pay or influence of people-farming oligarchs pretending to be benefactors.
**********
It is obvious that moderate Muslims tend to become captives of radically zealous sociopaths. That is why they tend to be reviled among some people in the West.
*****************
Every conscious choice of value or personal purpose ("ought") will necessarily be determined by factors including some beyond the explication of science.
Science deals with discovering and manipulating correlates. It does not determine first causes or choices among possibilities. For that, there abides a back and forth balancing and flux between the cosmos and it's manifest expressions and perspectives. We are not able to measure or determine the holism of that flux, but we have no choice but to participate with it.
How we choose to participate has to do with more than discoverable science. It has to do also with character and value assimilation out of experience, history, tradition, inspiration of metaphorical (representative) language, and cultures shared within cultures.
Evidently, you have chosen a special purpose of butting your head to explain how you derive ought from is, without resort to factors beyond science. Perhaps because you with your ilk want to rule humanity's purposes with your superior "moral science"? The problem for you is that free thinkers within a cultured representative republic may well not want the global kind of "scientific morality" that you want to sell. Indeed, we may think your purpose of elitist subjugation of free thinking cultures to be sub-humanizing and evil. We may prefer MAGA. Put that in your pipe.
*****************
The point is that they cannot. We don't derive oughts that way. Yet we have no choice but to make choices (choose oughts). However we do that will unavoidably entail spiritual or religious like leaps of faith. When scientists or atheists try to stamp out all leaps of faith they are being silly and greedy.
************
I would not give religion a seat at the table for sussing out measurables among deep correlations.
I would not conceptualize the Godhead as any particular form or beast, but more like an unformed-former or changeless-changer.
I would not conceptualize a faith in eternal salvation of any particular form.
My concern relates to an apparent war between free thinkers versus globalists. I think scientists tend to be too greedy when they assume science-of-socialism should determine the best form of political organization or rule.
I value freedom and dignity for individuals. Subject to a common legal framework, there needs to be respect accorded to individuals as they determine for themselves what values and purposes to assimilate. Where feasible, I prefer volunteer and charitable organizations over gov force under phony social justice scientists.
But both gov and charity are easily corrupted when the system advantages the selection of corrupt leaders pretending to be benefactors.
Religious metaphors, when churched in good faith and good will, can shape hearts, empathies, and characters. But there is no scientific prescription for every relationship that should best satisfy good faith and good will. That is something a free thinking society needs to work out for itself, as guided and inspired by variously shared metaphors, experiences, and interpretations of history.
I do not see rule under global knowitalls pretending to know scientific morality as being conducive to a decent representative republic.
*************
Good grief. Since when does science derive ought from is? People assimilate values and purposes beyond science. You have no choice but to make choices, often based on values assimilated outside science. Wake up.
Science tends to concern practical how; religion tends to concern moral why. Science does not show ought; religion does not show is. They both have a role for our conceptual communications. Respect for the spiritual worth of others can inspire regard for their freedom of expression, provided religion does not deteriorate into authoritative force that subjugates free thinking.
Unfortunately, both science and religion seem often to become profaned by various kinds of self promoting, non-inclusive, fake-chosen tribalists and gender and race baiters.
This kind of tribal nepotism is how many institutions become corrupted by small minds. Such as among academics, moderators, corrupt scientists, priests, politicians, bankers, foundations, media, Hollywood, etc. So now I'm banned by some small-minded moron in American Thinker. Social media that claims to honor republicanism while promoting small minded mods is a shameful joke.
***********
Eradication of disease is not necessarily an unqualified good, where it accelerates populations that accelerate more virulent and resistant diseases.
**********
Science helps us set or determine ranges of possibilities. It does not tell us which possibility will or should manifest or what range of possibilities we should seek to establish.
**************
Consciousness abides with each focus of interpretative continuity among overlapping series of recorded representations.
*************
The world seems to be warring between those whose ideal is to conserve freedom of mind and liberty versus those that want to be farmed and cared for as sheeple and those that want to farm them. These factions are often spiritually, fundamentally, irretrievably opposed. Problem is, the Conservers of Liberty tend to be too tolerant of their own extinction. Perhaps because they assume there is more intelligence and virtue in their opponents than there is entitlement mindedness and cynicism borne of covetousness.
**************
Worship of the Golden Calf reminds me of worship of big gov, without reference to any higher mindedness apart from personal gratification among like tattooed hedonists.
To form a governing coalition, they seek common goats to sacrifice to the depraved abyss of their Golden Calf. Decent society is downstream of decently inclusive free-thinking higher mindedness (spirituality). Every society that replaces higher mindedness with hedonism under the Golden Calf is teetering before the abyss.
Re: "The society that perverts the family structure of man, woman, and child cannot stand, because every society that abandons the truth of God will eventually collapse. Once that foundation has eroded, the society will crumble under the sheer weight of its own depravity."
For reasons stated above, I agree. The foundation of the American Ideal of a free thinking representative republic consists with faith, family, and fidelity. But Progs are sacrificing those to hedonism, gender fluidity, and open bordered diversity farming.
****************
If AI were to tire of humanity, what might it do? Might it entertain itself watching humans rationalize 72 genders? Or undermining longstanding social traditions, such as marriage and family authority and responsibility? Or using gov and social media to shape public opinion randomly hilarious new ways? Might it use humans to experiment with new ways to manipulate mental states?
**********
You cannot derive ought from is ... in completely objective disregard for any extent of subjective consciousness.
*****************
With Hillary, the Left came so close to cementing their socialistic dream of fascism in practice that they could taste it. They were so wound up with hubris that they are still venting it, oblivious that it is nauseating to everyone. Watching the Left melt under the heat of their own hubris is wonderfully fascinating.
****************
Islam is more rationally constructed only to someone disposed to so rationalize it. Many Islamic rationalists have fits about the Trinity and "no partners." But that is navel gazing. If there truly were only one thing-in-itself, how could it avail expression of any other thing?
It is obvious that there abide three aspects to our experience: Our share of Consciousness, spatially measurable Substance, and temporal connectivity and cumulation of Information. Those aspects flux. None exists by or in itself.
Some scientists think everything is derivable from pure Math. if so, what ignites and puts fire in the Math, if not a Mathematician? To me, it makes rational sense to conceptualize a web of Math (Algorithm) coordinated by a Mathematician, to flux a trinitarian cosmic system of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Even more metaphorically, Son, Father, Holy Ghost.
But this is all metaphysical metaphor-izing. I do not sense how you measure out that one system of metaphysics is "more rationally constructed" than another.
I do not measure, but I do intuit or sense, that one system is more suited to people-farming and the other is more suited to people-freedom. Some people want to be farmed and told what to believe, and they are content with that. (They may be less provincial and more open to being farmed.) Being told that there is one God with no flux and no partners and that His word is unchangeably set forth in a perfect recitation, to be instructed through a hierarchy of Imams or mullahs, may suit their need to be told what to think. Dems, so long as they believe the promises of their lying politicians, seem similarly content to be farmed. Maybe that's why Progs seem to be so tolerant of radical Muslims.
But that is not tea for me. I do not believe my subjective consciousness is God, but I do believe it is connected to God. Consciousness is consciousness. This may relate to what some people mean when they refer to a personal connection with Jesus.
Maybe I think Jesus wants each of us to "be all he/she can be"? IAE, I take mind-subjugating dogma to be more like vomit than "rationally constructed metaphysics." Maybe East is East and West is West? As for me, if you like your lying mullahs and politicians, you can keep your lying mullahs and politicians.
**********************
Read more about the warring subjugation of Islamists and the development of algebra, etc. You may find yourself less persuaded by the free-thinking wonders of Islamic history. See http://enzaferreri.blogspot.com/2013/08/how-muslims-did-not-invent-algebra.html#axzz5I8m48KQh:
Continuing on the theme of what Muslims did - or more likely did not do - for the world, there is a widespread misconception that they "invented algebra". Maybe this fallacy is due to the fact that "algebra" is a word of Arabic origin, but historical questions are not solved by etymological answers.
Yes, the English word "algebra" derives from the Arabic. So does "sugar" (from the Arabic "sukkar") but that doesn't mean that Muslims invented sugar.
The word "algebra" stems from the Arabic word "al-jabr", from the name of the treatise Book on Addition and Subtraction after the Method of the Indians written by the 9th-century Persian mathematician Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, who translated, formalized and commented on ancient Indian and Greek works.
It is even doubtful whether al-Khwārizmī was really a Muslim. The Wikipedia entry on him says:
Regarding al-Khwārizmī's religion, Toomer writes:
"Another epithet given to him by al-Ṭabarī, "al-Majūsī," would seem to indicate that he was an adherent of the old Zoroastrian religion. This would still have been possible at that time for a man of Iranian origin, but the pious preface to al-Khwārizmī's Algebra shows that he was an orthodox Muslim, so al-Ṭabarī's epithet could mean no more than that his forebears, and perhaps he in his youth, had been Zoroastrians."
In all likelihood he was a Zoroastrian who was forced to convert (or die) by Muslim rulers because Persia had been conquered by the Islamic armies and that was what Muslims did (and still do wherever they can). That could easily explain the "pious preface to al-Khwārizmī's Algebra".
Wikipedia also says:
In Renaissance Europe, he [al-Khwārizmī] was considered the original inventor of algebra, although it is now known that his work is based on older Indian or Greek sources.
There is archaeological evidence that the roots of algebra date back to the ancient Babylonians, then developed in Egypt and Greece. The Chinese and even more the Indians also advanced algebra and wrote important works on the subject.
The Alexandrian Greek mathematician Diophantus (3rd century AD), sometimes called "the father of algebra", wrote a series of books, called Arithmetica, dealing with solving algebraic equations. Another Hellenistic mathematician who contributed to the progress of algebra was Hero of Alexandria, as did the Indian Brahmagupta in his book Brahmasphutasiddhanta.
With the Italian Leonardo Pisano (known as Leonardo Fibonacci, as he was the son of Bonacci) in the 13th century, another Italian mathematician, Girolamo Cardano, author in 1545 of the 40-chapter masterpiece Ars magna ("The great art"), and the late-16th-century French mathematician François Viète, we move from the prehistory of algebra to the beginning of the classical discipline of algebra.
Even Bertrand Russell, who in no way is a critic of the Islamic world, writes in the Second Volume of The History of Western Philosophy:
Arabic philosophy is not important as original thought. Men like Avicenna and Averroes are essentially commentators. Speaking generally, the views of the more scientific philosophers come from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists in logic and metaphysics, from Galen in medicine, from Greek and Indian sources in mathematics and astronomy, and among mystics religious philosophy has also an admixture of old Persian beliefs. Writers in Arabic showed some originality in mathematics and in chemistry--in the latter case, as an incidental result of alchemical researches.
Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which must not be underrated, is as a transmitter. Between ancient and modern European civilization, the dark ages intervened. The Mohammedans and the Byzantines, while lacking the intellectual energy required for innovation, preserved the apparatus of civilization--education, books, and learned leisure. Both stimulated the West when it emerged from barbarism--the Mohammedans chiefly in the thirteenth century, the Byzantines chiefly in the fifteenth. In each case the stimulus produced new thought better than any produced by the transmitters--in the one case scholasticism, in the other the Renaissance (which however had other causes also).
You can see that to say that Muslims invented or pioneered algebra is a gross misrepresentation.
************
Wth? Who said they are substantially different? Whatever gave you that idea? Both are death to a representative republic of free thinkers. Both tend to be funded by people-farming oligarchs.
***********
Determinism can be an ambiguous idea. A person may choose to determine an outcome. Or events may determine how a person chooses. How a.precise determination is made under the cosmos is not something for which we have (or can have) a complete.explanation.
Some religious points of view are literalistic and dogmatic and some are metaphorical and unfolding. While I like Jesus" Great Commandment (good faith) and Golden Rule (good will), I think such empathy tends to abide as an innate aspect of the cosmos of consciousmess-substance-information. So I think when people are engaging empathetically they are acting out of innate spirituality. How they act is more important to me than any dramatic stance about their religion or lack of it.
I am not hostile to science except when I sense people are.claiming specially scientific expertise about morality.
Yes, I think it helps to conceptualize that the science of manipulating ranges of measurable possibilities with Substance marries up with the spiritual empathies of Consciousness, along a temporal continuity of Information. I conceptualize Consciousness as a needed aspect of a Trinitarian flux of CSI. I do not believe in perfect objectivity or subjectivity in non-trivial concerns. I think what is objective will necessarily have a subjective aspect, and vice versa.
Which is part of why I do not believe in perfectly objective science for non-trivial concerns of participating in choices to be made among ranges of possibilities. Where the Why overlaps with the How, the problem becomes; How much deference should be made to voting citizens versus contending scientists? There is no perfect answer to that. Because we participate, individually, socially, and politically in the assimilation of common values, I do not think existentiality makes "ought moot."
***************
I don't care to explain the necessity for leaps of faith (axiomatic worldviews), because that is obvious to any mature, competent thinker. You can read up on that easily enough for yourself.
Juxtaposition does not seem the appropriate word. The point had to do with a commonality among overly greedy scientists (not all scientists) that have an immature appreciation of the methods of science and with those atheists (not all atheists) that seem to think everything worth doing can be explicated in objective measurables. I think time and experience may be needed for you to cure that. But do ponder it. On your own time.
**********
I see it more as accentuating what I believe merits being accentuated, such as about religion in connection with social assimilation. I have been somewhat specific about kinds of.religious pursuits that I do not believe are helpful to a decent assimilation of mores for a representative republic. And I see criticism of some of those as deserved.
I have no problem with science or with scientists that understand the philosophy entailed in the scientific method. My problem is with overly greedy scientists that are clueless about limitations on science with regard to social assimilations of oughts.
I think I nave implicated much the same thing several times, but it does not seem to be getting through.
In reasoning about oughts, a person may pursue what seems reasonably consistent, coherent, and complete, without expecting perfection. One may consider whether a particular system of mores could inspire or work for a particular.society. I do not believe there is a perfect system for a perfect society, and I think any scientist expecting to divine such a system would be on a fool's errand. Not every citizenry is suited to a representative republic that is not ruled by oligarchs. And one that is will soon lose it if it allows oligarchs to import enough dupes to swamp it.
*****************
The main issue now in world wide contention seems to be whether any nation's citizens should be allowed to continue to be political free thinkers versus whether all citizens of all nations should be mind-enslaved to abide by whatever "scientific consensus" our global elites want to prescribe for us. American idealists versus Global Rule by Elitists and their Funders (whoever buys a seat at the divvy-table). They call this global rule socialistic fairness and social justice, but it always seems to end up like a Clinton charity. American Idealists are disadvantaged by their tolerance, while Globalist despots are advantaged by their race-baiting willingness to appeal to tribal interests to do whatever is needed to shout down republicans and to promote control over every institution.
To get an indoctrinated mule to think anew, you have to get its attention. Trump has been effective because he fights back. I prefer the high ground. But we are up against un-thinking, indoctrinated feelers. So I am for what works. Sometimes getting in the mud in response to a mudslinger may work. For example, I believe Glenn Beck is finally coming around to notice that Trump tends to be effective where it counts. Problem is, self-promoting prog mods may be unwilling to stand the heat when it is in reply.
*************
To an indoctrinated bot, maybe so. First you jumped wrong and thought I was advocating for scientific derivation of ought from is. Then you decried resorting to means beyond science. Now you suggest the whole issue is irrelevant. As if the issue of how citizens assimilate values and purposes (oughts) were politically irrelevant to a functioning representative republic. Well, maybe so, if you want to replace the republic with bowing to global elitists and their funders. Do you just like to rattle around butting your head against walls? So far, I see little evidence of consistency or insight coming from you.
*************
Regarding Muslims indoctrinated in such a culture, why would anyone think they could become good citizens in the West? It is obvious that moderate Muslims around the Middle East tend to become captives of radically zealous sociopaths. That is why they tend to be reviled among some people in the West.
The reason there is no one else is because moronic Dems followed Obama's "burning spear" over a cliff. They, and Obama, are anti-American globalists, and a lot of Americans finally figured that out.
There are actually a lot of people that do not like representative republics or freedom and dignity for ordinary citizens. They want them to be subjugated and ruled by their so-thought know-better, morally-objective, "social justice scientists" and the oligarchs and tribalists that fund them.. In essence, the worldwide battle is between free thinkers versus elitist people-farmers. IOW, human beings (conservers of liberty) versus sub-humanizers (corrupti and ignoranti).
*************
Americans tend to be conservers of liberty. Dems tend to be anti-American globalists under the pay or influence of people-farming oligarchs pretending to be benefactors.
**********
It is obvious that moderate Muslims tend to become captives of radically zealous sociopaths. That is why they tend to be reviled among some people in the West.
*****************
Every conscious choice of value or personal purpose ("ought") will necessarily be determined by factors including some beyond the explication of science.
Science deals with discovering and manipulating correlates. It does not determine first causes or choices among possibilities. For that, there abides a back and forth balancing and flux between the cosmos and it's manifest expressions and perspectives. We are not able to measure or determine the holism of that flux, but we have no choice but to participate with it.
How we choose to participate has to do with more than discoverable science. It has to do also with character and value assimilation out of experience, history, tradition, inspiration of metaphorical (representative) language, and cultures shared within cultures.
Evidently, you have chosen a special purpose of butting your head to explain how you derive ought from is, without resort to factors beyond science. Perhaps because you with your ilk want to rule humanity's purposes with your superior "moral science"? The problem for you is that free thinkers within a cultured representative republic may well not want the global kind of "scientific morality" that you want to sell. Indeed, we may think your purpose of elitist subjugation of free thinking cultures to be sub-humanizing and evil. We may prefer MAGA. Put that in your pipe.
*****************
The point is that they cannot. We don't derive oughts that way. Yet we have no choice but to make choices (choose oughts). However we do that will unavoidably entail spiritual or religious like leaps of faith. When scientists or atheists try to stamp out all leaps of faith they are being silly and greedy.
************
I would not give religion a seat at the table for sussing out measurables among deep correlations.
I would not conceptualize the Godhead as any particular form or beast, but more like an unformed-former or changeless-changer.
I would not conceptualize a faith in eternal salvation of any particular form.
My concern relates to an apparent war between free thinkers versus globalists. I think scientists tend to be too greedy when they assume science-of-socialism should determine the best form of political organization or rule.
I value freedom and dignity for individuals. Subject to a common legal framework, there needs to be respect accorded to individuals as they determine for themselves what values and purposes to assimilate. Where feasible, I prefer volunteer and charitable organizations over gov force under phony social justice scientists.
But both gov and charity are easily corrupted when the system advantages the selection of corrupt leaders pretending to be benefactors.
Religious metaphors, when churched in good faith and good will, can shape hearts, empathies, and characters. But there is no scientific prescription for every relationship that should best satisfy good faith and good will. That is something a free thinking society needs to work out for itself, as guided and inspired by variously shared metaphors, experiences, and interpretations of history.
I do not see rule under global knowitalls pretending to know scientific morality as being conducive to a decent representative republic.
*************
Good grief. Since when does science derive ought from is? People assimilate values and purposes beyond science. You have no choice but to make choices, often based on values assimilated outside science. Wake up.
Science tends to concern practical how; religion tends to concern moral why. Science does not show ought; religion does not show is. They both have a role for our conceptual communications. Respect for the spiritual worth of others can inspire regard for their freedom of expression, provided religion does not deteriorate into authoritative force that subjugates free thinking.
Unfortunately, both science and religion seem often to become profaned by various kinds of self promoting, non-inclusive, fake-chosen tribalists and gender and race baiters.
This kind of tribal nepotism is how many institutions become corrupted by small minds. Such as among academics, moderators, corrupt scientists, priests, politicians, bankers, foundations, media, Hollywood, etc. So now I'm banned by some small-minded moron in American Thinker. Social media that claims to honor republicanism while promoting small minded mods is a shameful joke.
***********
Eradication of disease is not necessarily an unqualified good, where it accelerates populations that accelerate more virulent and resistant diseases.
**********
Science helps us set or determine ranges of possibilities. It does not tell us which possibility will or should manifest or what range of possibilities we should seek to establish.
**************
Consciousness abides with each focus of interpretative continuity among overlapping series of recorded representations.
*************
The world seems to be warring between those whose ideal is to conserve freedom of mind and liberty versus those that want to be farmed and cared for as sheeple and those that want to farm them. These factions are often spiritually, fundamentally, irretrievably opposed. Problem is, the Conservers of Liberty tend to be too tolerant of their own extinction. Perhaps because they assume there is more intelligence and virtue in their opponents than there is entitlement mindedness and cynicism borne of covetousness.
**************
Worship of the Golden Calf reminds me of worship of big gov, without reference to any higher mindedness apart from personal gratification among like tattooed hedonists.
To form a governing coalition, they seek common goats to sacrifice to the depraved abyss of their Golden Calf. Decent society is downstream of decently inclusive free-thinking higher mindedness (spirituality). Every society that replaces higher mindedness with hedonism under the Golden Calf is teetering before the abyss.
Re: "The society that perverts the family structure of man, woman, and child cannot stand, because every society that abandons the truth of God will eventually collapse. Once that foundation has eroded, the society will crumble under the sheer weight of its own depravity."
For reasons stated above, I agree. The foundation of the American Ideal of a free thinking representative republic consists with faith, family, and fidelity. But Progs are sacrificing those to hedonism, gender fluidity, and open bordered diversity farming.
****************
If AI were to tire of humanity, what might it do? Might it entertain itself watching humans rationalize 72 genders? Or undermining longstanding social traditions, such as marriage and family authority and responsibility? Or using gov and social media to shape public opinion randomly hilarious new ways? Might it use humans to experiment with new ways to manipulate mental states?
**********
You cannot derive ought from is ... in completely objective disregard for any extent of subjective consciousness.
*****************
With Hillary, the Left came so close to cementing their socialistic dream of fascism in practice that they could taste it. They were so wound up with hubris that they are still venting it, oblivious that it is nauseating to everyone. Watching the Left melt under the heat of their own hubris is wonderfully fascinating.
****************
Islam is more rationally constructed only to someone disposed to so rationalize it. Many Islamic rationalists have fits about the Trinity and "no partners." But that is navel gazing. If there truly were only one thing-in-itself, how could it avail expression of any other thing?
It is obvious that there abide three aspects to our experience: Our share of Consciousness, spatially measurable Substance, and temporal connectivity and cumulation of Information. Those aspects flux. None exists by or in itself.
Some scientists think everything is derivable from pure Math. if so, what ignites and puts fire in the Math, if not a Mathematician? To me, it makes rational sense to conceptualize a web of Math (Algorithm) coordinated by a Mathematician, to flux a trinitarian cosmic system of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Even more metaphorically, Son, Father, Holy Ghost.
But this is all metaphysical metaphor-izing. I do not sense how you measure out that one system of metaphysics is "more rationally constructed" than another.
I do not measure, but I do intuit or sense, that one system is more suited to people-farming and the other is more suited to people-freedom. Some people want to be farmed and told what to believe, and they are content with that. (They may be less provincial and more open to being farmed.) Being told that there is one God with no flux and no partners and that His word is unchangeably set forth in a perfect recitation, to be instructed through a hierarchy of Imams or mullahs, may suit their need to be told what to think. Dems, so long as they believe the promises of their lying politicians, seem similarly content to be farmed. Maybe that's why Progs seem to be so tolerant of radical Muslims.
But that is not tea for me. I do not believe my subjective consciousness is God, but I do believe it is connected to God. Consciousness is consciousness. This may relate to what some people mean when they refer to a personal connection with Jesus.
Maybe I think Jesus wants each of us to "be all he/she can be"? IAE, I take mind-subjugating dogma to be more like vomit than "rationally constructed metaphysics." Maybe East is East and West is West? As for me, if you like your lying mullahs and politicians, you can keep your lying mullahs and politicians.
**********************
Read more about the warring subjugation of Islamists and the development of algebra, etc. You may find yourself less persuaded by the free-thinking wonders of Islamic history. See http://enzaferreri.blogspot.com/2013/08/how-muslims-did-not-invent-algebra.html#axzz5I8m48KQh:
Continuing on the theme of what Muslims did - or more likely did not do - for the world, there is a widespread misconception that they "invented algebra". Maybe this fallacy is due to the fact that "algebra" is a word of Arabic origin, but historical questions are not solved by etymological answers.
Yes, the English word "algebra" derives from the Arabic. So does "sugar" (from the Arabic "sukkar") but that doesn't mean that Muslims invented sugar.
The word "algebra" stems from the Arabic word "al-jabr", from the name of the treatise Book on Addition and Subtraction after the Method of the Indians written by the 9th-century Persian mathematician Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, who translated, formalized and commented on ancient Indian and Greek works.
It is even doubtful whether al-Khwārizmī was really a Muslim. The Wikipedia entry on him says:
Regarding al-Khwārizmī's religion, Toomer writes:
"Another epithet given to him by al-Ṭabarī, "al-Majūsī," would seem to indicate that he was an adherent of the old Zoroastrian religion. This would still have been possible at that time for a man of Iranian origin, but the pious preface to al-Khwārizmī's Algebra shows that he was an orthodox Muslim, so al-Ṭabarī's epithet could mean no more than that his forebears, and perhaps he in his youth, had been Zoroastrians."
In all likelihood he was a Zoroastrian who was forced to convert (or die) by Muslim rulers because Persia had been conquered by the Islamic armies and that was what Muslims did (and still do wherever they can). That could easily explain the "pious preface to al-Khwārizmī's Algebra".
Wikipedia also says:
In Renaissance Europe, he [al-Khwārizmī] was considered the original inventor of algebra, although it is now known that his work is based on older Indian or Greek sources.
There is archaeological evidence that the roots of algebra date back to the ancient Babylonians, then developed in Egypt and Greece. The Chinese and even more the Indians also advanced algebra and wrote important works on the subject.
The Alexandrian Greek mathematician Diophantus (3rd century AD), sometimes called "the father of algebra", wrote a series of books, called Arithmetica, dealing with solving algebraic equations. Another Hellenistic mathematician who contributed to the progress of algebra was Hero of Alexandria, as did the Indian Brahmagupta in his book Brahmasphutasiddhanta.
With the Italian Leonardo Pisano (known as Leonardo Fibonacci, as he was the son of Bonacci) in the 13th century, another Italian mathematician, Girolamo Cardano, author in 1545 of the 40-chapter masterpiece Ars magna ("The great art"), and the late-16th-century French mathematician François Viète, we move from the prehistory of algebra to the beginning of the classical discipline of algebra.
Even Bertrand Russell, who in no way is a critic of the Islamic world, writes in the Second Volume of The History of Western Philosophy:
Arabic philosophy is not important as original thought. Men like Avicenna and Averroes are essentially commentators. Speaking generally, the views of the more scientific philosophers come from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists in logic and metaphysics, from Galen in medicine, from Greek and Indian sources in mathematics and astronomy, and among mystics religious philosophy has also an admixture of old Persian beliefs. Writers in Arabic showed some originality in mathematics and in chemistry--in the latter case, as an incidental result of alchemical researches.
Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which must not be underrated, is as a transmitter. Between ancient and modern European civilization, the dark ages intervened. The Mohammedans and the Byzantines, while lacking the intellectual energy required for innovation, preserved the apparatus of civilization--education, books, and learned leisure. Both stimulated the West when it emerged from barbarism--the Mohammedans chiefly in the thirteenth century, the Byzantines chiefly in the fifteenth. In each case the stimulus produced new thought better than any produced by the transmitters--in the one case scholasticism, in the other the Renaissance (which however had other causes also).
You can see that to say that Muslims invented or pioneered algebra is a gross misrepresentation.
************
Wth? Who said they are substantially different? Whatever gave you that idea? Both are death to a representative republic of free thinkers. Both tend to be funded by people-farming oligarchs.
In the USA (and apparently much of the EU), the idea of open borders is the rage. How on earth can anyone, whose brain is not irretrievably deluded into believing that "ought can be wholly derived from is," believe that a representative republic of competent, free-thinking citizens should open its borders to unlimited numbers of third world liberty-illiterates? Dinos and Rinos are both Ainos (liberty-illiterate Americans in name only). Both are funded and agitated by open-border degenerates. Both, by their policies, seek to undermine the middle class.
The distinction (that hardly makes a difference to ongoing efforts to destroy republics) is that Rinos often control the funding by controlling the politicians, so they expect to be in the people-farming hierarchy. Dinos, otoh, tend to be so stupid or indoctrinated that they actually believe free-sex and free-stuff promises and propaganda, so they want to be farmed.
But both Rinos and Dinos seek to undermine every institution outside gov control that could promote good faith social assimilation and cohesion. Both groom children to believe in gender fluid bs. Both promote polices that undermine and de-define families, leading to the replacement of spouses and parents with big government.
My gawd, but this is obvious to everyone that is not oblivious!
*************
There are a lot of intelligent people that are illiterate with regard to human freedom or dignity. Unsurprisingly, many think they knowbest. But the policies, laws, and politicians they choose tend to be ridiculous to people that are not liberty-illiterate. Carry on.
It is more obvious than strange that a lot of people are suited more to being farmed than to being independent. If you like your plantation, you can keep your plantation. Well, until you wuss it away, that is.
It hardly requires much study to read and learn of women in various Islamic societies being kept behind blankets, mutilated, disallowed to drive, or disallowed to leave home without an escort. Or to become aware of how history is filled with fanatic tribes warring and parasiting on others. A more interesting poll would be to ask how many so-called moderate muslims condemn the so-called fanatics where and when it counts.
So-called moderates tend to be ruled by disciplined fanatics. Private preferences do not much matter. When swords are put to necks, hearts and minds soon follow.
Islam is a sub-humanizing meme. As such, it is useful for people farmers and wannabe farmees. For human decency, it is a monstrosity. This is why Islam appeals to Dems, Progs, Dinos, Rinos, Socialists, Communists, Moral Scientisimists, Human Secularists, Race Baiters, Tribal Bankers, and other liberty-illiterates. Islam is death to freedom of mind among the masses.
To participate politically and meaningfully, it is important not to be blind to the habits and ideological predilections of candidates. I have enough experience and information to judge that I incline to no more support for the political leadership or conniving of Hillary, Obama, or their political fellow travelers. To suggest I should trust them further not to seek to undermine the republic would be asinine. Being Christian in values ought not be confused with being a blind virtue-signaler.
To believe in anything that is other than trivial is to have a religion. To believe, one needs an independent, competent mind. To be robotically indoctrinated is not to believe, but to regurgitate a program. To substitute regurgitation for thought is to become a vomit machine. A vomit machine does not have the free will or intellect to have a religion. It has a program. When it becomes apostate to its program, it is terminated. Its program does not allow it to think for itself. The Islamic idea of "god" is a program for the destruction of human reason. It is a vomit sucking void.
No more champions for professional victims and whiners. We need can-do leaders that represent the American Ideal: Allow every American the opportunity, freedom, and dignity to pursue his own happiness. Tell able-bodied whiners to go suck their thumbs and cry to their mommies.
Trump wants to deregulate Americans. Race and gender don't matter. That is the opposite of Hitler. Trump wants to defend American borders, not expand them. Trump wants to defend against foreign totalitarians. To compare Trump with Hitler in terms of policies is the act of an idiot or a servant of elitist fascism. Such people have no cred. They can go blow.
This is why people cannot keep a republic very long. The accretion of ignorantii and corrupti will invariably drown it. Even if history is taught regarding how hard it is to acquire a representative republic, it will soon enough attract enough pervs, blood suckers, and wussy whiners to lay it cold in its grave.
***********
One can observe, listen, and try to learn without necessarily knowing. Excepting trivialities, what really do we know? Belief in a source of higher mindedness can help inspire people voluntarily to come together in good faith and good will, not necessarily to know, but to pursue fulfillment.
If you don't believe in God (a source of higher mindedness), then the only thing you really believe in for inspiring conscious beings to come together to pursue "social justice" is tribal force operating under a cloak of big government --- oligarchy, greased by promises of puppet-politicians, based on targeting and blaming goats (now it's "Whitey"), leading to a vast military-industrial complex for re-designing and enserfing all subordinate forms of conscious beings.
Problem is, then you're talking subjugation instead of volunteerism. And so it is that the power of brute force tends to grow in brutes. Then, real charities get "selected out" --- by gov-sponsored "Clinton charities," phony priest charities, and kick-back fake-do-gooder gov agencies. Pushed into law by low-brow gangsterism, entitlement-minded farming, grifter-ism, confidence gaming, fake virtue signaling, scholastic grooming of mind-fluid gender-benders, controlling the cycling of fiat money, and corrupt tribal filtering to all positions of power. And so it is that power devolves to the most corrupt of tribes. Comes a reckoning, as what goes around comes around.
And so it is that the middle class is hollowed out, as everyone is "re-plantationed" and the republic is replaced with a two-class worldwide society of corrupt people farmers and ignorant wannabe farmees. The Neo-Garden, with snakes (Dems, Progs, Dinos, Rinos, Socialists, Communists, Secular Humanists, Race-Baiters, Tribal-Bankers) driving everyone else into mind-enslavement. Once higher-mindedness and the middle class are wiped out, other goats will be made and routinely sacrificed to the Neo-Utopia.
Loss of empathetic higher-mindedness leads to failure to pay the price of eternal vigilance, which leads to loss of liberty and humanity. And so it is that government of, by, and for the people comes to perish from the earth. A representative republic that respects freedom and dignity simply cannot be sustained in the absence of a citizenry steeped in higher-minded respect for good faith and good will.
**************
No noble lie needed. Only inspiring metaphors and more appreciation of the interpenetrating flux and role of the Godhead. People, enhanced by AI, will less likely accept knowable overstatements (lies?), whether or not thought noble.
Once upon a time, in frustration, I earnestly sought a way to eliminate metaphysics from physics. As I appreciated the futility of that endeavor, I then sought at least to determine a clear line with which to separate metaphysics apart from the domain of physics. Reluctantly, I came to believe that no such a clear line is ascertainable. That physics is interpenetrated throughout with metaphysics. That perhaps even the laws of nature thought to be most fundamental may be subject to flux, re-determination, or re-definition. Even the speed of light may be subject to gradual phase shifting.
The knowledge we acquire seems to be trivial, even though its application often leads to astonishing consequences. What I mean by trivial is that such knowledge is true by definition -- either by the flux of our conceptual definitions or by the flux of nature's definitions of its laws. Conceptually, 2+2=4. Naturally, to the extent any Algorithm may define limits of objective expression (laws of nature), may such limits, if or when known, reasonably be said to be trivial, because they would be true in how they are or were defined (even if they needed to be discovered)? May the speed of light be constant in every re-normalization in space time, only because constancy in the experience of such speed is part of how the Algorithm defines space-time? Under such usage, only our allowances within defining parameters, and our qualitative experiences of them, would seem not to be trivial, i.e., not pre-determined or true-by-definition.
It does not appear that there abides any thing whose measurable values are not subject to a flux of immeasurables. This seems consistent with various apprehensions. Such as: The cumulation of Information, as the orderliness of Substance dissipates. The existence of possibilities within fluxing parameters. Our moral freedom within fluxing laws. The effects of Consciousness on manifestations. The fluxing of conscious memories and recordings as they are re-normalized throughout space-time. The innate empathies among the various perspectives of what seems to be a same Consciousness. (Consciousness is consciousness; there but for fortune go "Ï"). Apprehensions of dynamic-conservational-reconciliation and feedback-guidance-motivation between the cosmos and its manifestations.
I suspect the Cosmos will continue with its motivational and unfolding feedback under its trinitarian flux of Consciousness-Substance-Information ---- notwithstanding pretensions among humanity about "noble lies." Simply put, the Cosmos abides as more than dead matter, and IT does not especially need humanity in order to "save" it. Even if IT may be entertained by pretensions among humanity.
************
Malcontents. that think society owes them, want their own brands of "elites" to regulate all speech in order to make their peculiar predilections "normal" -- even if it means utterly undermining the representative republic along with the individual freedom and dignity of millions of competent free-thinkers. So now they want their special "moral scientists" to regulate all venues of Disqus, to indoctrinate and force sheeple to believe in and celebrate their special predilections and perversions. They lie and lie and lie and want to brand every American who declines to be a manikin for skin and gender games by race and perv baiters as a "White Supremacist." Eff them.
*******
By trivial, I mean that which is made true by definition. 2+2=4. To the extent an algorithm defines the limits of objective expression (laws of nature), perhaps such limits, if or when known, may be said to be trivial, because they would be true in how they are or were defined (even if they needed to be discovered).
*************
There are a lot of intelligent people that are illiterate with regard to human freedom or dignity. Unsurprisingly, many think they knowbest. But the policies, laws, and politicians they choose tend to be ridiculous to people that are not liberty-illiterate. Carry on.
It is more obvious than strange that a lot of people are suited more to being farmed than to being independent. If you like your plantation, you can keep your plantation. Well, until you wuss it away, that is.
It hardly requires much study to read and learn of women in various Islamic societies being kept behind blankets, mutilated, disallowed to drive, or disallowed to leave home without an escort. Or to become aware of how history is filled with fanatic tribes warring and parasiting on others. A more interesting poll would be to ask how many so-called moderate muslims condemn the so-called fanatics where and when it counts.
So-called moderates tend to be ruled by disciplined fanatics. Private preferences do not much matter. When swords are put to necks, hearts and minds soon follow.
Islam is a sub-humanizing meme. As such, it is useful for people farmers and wannabe farmees. For human decency, it is a monstrosity. This is why Islam appeals to Dems, Progs, Dinos, Rinos, Socialists, Communists, Moral Scientisimists, Human Secularists, Race Baiters, Tribal Bankers, and other liberty-illiterates. Islam is death to freedom of mind among the masses.
To participate politically and meaningfully, it is important not to be blind to the habits and ideological predilections of candidates. I have enough experience and information to judge that I incline to no more support for the political leadership or conniving of Hillary, Obama, or their political fellow travelers. To suggest I should trust them further not to seek to undermine the republic would be asinine. Being Christian in values ought not be confused with being a blind virtue-signaler.
To believe in anything that is other than trivial is to have a religion. To believe, one needs an independent, competent mind. To be robotically indoctrinated is not to believe, but to regurgitate a program. To substitute regurgitation for thought is to become a vomit machine. A vomit machine does not have the free will or intellect to have a religion. It has a program. When it becomes apostate to its program, it is terminated. Its program does not allow it to think for itself. The Islamic idea of "god" is a program for the destruction of human reason. It is a vomit sucking void.
No more champions for professional victims and whiners. We need can-do leaders that represent the American Ideal: Allow every American the opportunity, freedom, and dignity to pursue his own happiness. Tell able-bodied whiners to go suck their thumbs and cry to their mommies.
Trump wants to deregulate Americans. Race and gender don't matter. That is the opposite of Hitler. Trump wants to defend American borders, not expand them. Trump wants to defend against foreign totalitarians. To compare Trump with Hitler in terms of policies is the act of an idiot or a servant of elitist fascism. Such people have no cred. They can go blow.
This is why people cannot keep a republic very long. The accretion of ignorantii and corrupti will invariably drown it. Even if history is taught regarding how hard it is to acquire a representative republic, it will soon enough attract enough pervs, blood suckers, and wussy whiners to lay it cold in its grave.
***********
One can observe, listen, and try to learn without necessarily knowing. Excepting trivialities, what really do we know? Belief in a source of higher mindedness can help inspire people voluntarily to come together in good faith and good will, not necessarily to know, but to pursue fulfillment.
If you don't believe in God (a source of higher mindedness), then the only thing you really believe in for inspiring conscious beings to come together to pursue "social justice" is tribal force operating under a cloak of big government --- oligarchy, greased by promises of puppet-politicians, based on targeting and blaming goats (now it's "Whitey"), leading to a vast military-industrial complex for re-designing and enserfing all subordinate forms of conscious beings.
Problem is, then you're talking subjugation instead of volunteerism. And so it is that the power of brute force tends to grow in brutes. Then, real charities get "selected out" --- by gov-sponsored "Clinton charities," phony priest charities, and kick-back fake-do-gooder gov agencies. Pushed into law by low-brow gangsterism, entitlement-minded farming, grifter-ism, confidence gaming, fake virtue signaling, scholastic grooming of mind-fluid gender-benders, controlling the cycling of fiat money, and corrupt tribal filtering to all positions of power. And so it is that power devolves to the most corrupt of tribes. Comes a reckoning, as what goes around comes around.
And so it is that the middle class is hollowed out, as everyone is "re-plantationed" and the republic is replaced with a two-class worldwide society of corrupt people farmers and ignorant wannabe farmees. The Neo-Garden, with snakes (Dems, Progs, Dinos, Rinos, Socialists, Communists, Secular Humanists, Race-Baiters, Tribal-Bankers) driving everyone else into mind-enslavement. Once higher-mindedness and the middle class are wiped out, other goats will be made and routinely sacrificed to the Neo-Utopia.
Loss of empathetic higher-mindedness leads to failure to pay the price of eternal vigilance, which leads to loss of liberty and humanity. And so it is that government of, by, and for the people comes to perish from the earth. A representative republic that respects freedom and dignity simply cannot be sustained in the absence of a citizenry steeped in higher-minded respect for good faith and good will.
**************
No noble lie needed. Only inspiring metaphors and more appreciation of the interpenetrating flux and role of the Godhead. People, enhanced by AI, will less likely accept knowable overstatements (lies?), whether or not thought noble.
Once upon a time, in frustration, I earnestly sought a way to eliminate metaphysics from physics. As I appreciated the futility of that endeavor, I then sought at least to determine a clear line with which to separate metaphysics apart from the domain of physics. Reluctantly, I came to believe that no such a clear line is ascertainable. That physics is interpenetrated throughout with metaphysics. That perhaps even the laws of nature thought to be most fundamental may be subject to flux, re-determination, or re-definition. Even the speed of light may be subject to gradual phase shifting.
The knowledge we acquire seems to be trivial, even though its application often leads to astonishing consequences. What I mean by trivial is that such knowledge is true by definition -- either by the flux of our conceptual definitions or by the flux of nature's definitions of its laws. Conceptually, 2+2=4. Naturally, to the extent any Algorithm may define limits of objective expression (laws of nature), may such limits, if or when known, reasonably be said to be trivial, because they would be true in how they are or were defined (even if they needed to be discovered)? May the speed of light be constant in every re-normalization in space time, only because constancy in the experience of such speed is part of how the Algorithm defines space-time? Under such usage, only our allowances within defining parameters, and our qualitative experiences of them, would seem not to be trivial, i.e., not pre-determined or true-by-definition.
It does not appear that there abides any thing whose measurable values are not subject to a flux of immeasurables. This seems consistent with various apprehensions. Such as: The cumulation of Information, as the orderliness of Substance dissipates. The existence of possibilities within fluxing parameters. Our moral freedom within fluxing laws. The effects of Consciousness on manifestations. The fluxing of conscious memories and recordings as they are re-normalized throughout space-time. The innate empathies among the various perspectives of what seems to be a same Consciousness. (Consciousness is consciousness; there but for fortune go "Ï"). Apprehensions of dynamic-conservational-reconciliation and feedback-guidance-motivation between the cosmos and its manifestations.
I suspect the Cosmos will continue with its motivational and unfolding feedback under its trinitarian flux of Consciousness-Substance-Information ---- notwithstanding pretensions among humanity about "noble lies." Simply put, the Cosmos abides as more than dead matter, and IT does not especially need humanity in order to "save" it. Even if IT may be entertained by pretensions among humanity.
************
Malcontents. that think society owes them, want their own brands of "elites" to regulate all speech in order to make their peculiar predilections "normal" -- even if it means utterly undermining the representative republic along with the individual freedom and dignity of millions of competent free-thinkers. So now they want their special "moral scientists" to regulate all venues of Disqus, to indoctrinate and force sheeple to believe in and celebrate their special predilections and perversions. They lie and lie and lie and want to brand every American who declines to be a manikin for skin and gender games by race and perv baiters as a "White Supremacist." Eff them.
*******
By trivial, I mean that which is made true by definition. 2+2=4. To the extent an algorithm defines the limits of objective expression (laws of nature), perhaps such limits, if or when known, may be said to be trivial, because they would be true in how they are or were defined (even if they needed to be discovered).
Is the speed of light constant in every re-normalization in space time, because that is how the Algorithm defines space-time?
Is it only the allowances within defining parameters, and our qualitative experiences of them, that are not trivial, given such usage?
In a representative republic, tribal supremacism is a moral affront.
***********
That is not quite what I asserted. Even so, I hope you are not suggesting that until we knew the worldwide web could exist, there was no reason to make it so.
IAE, I would agree there is not good reason to try to confine the Godhead to a particular form of beast. I prefer the concept of a formless-form maker. Or changeless-changer. Or subjective-objectifier. Or potentializing-manifester.
"In my Father's house are many rooms."
**********
There are countless sects and interpretations of the Bible and what it means to each believer in a source-guide of higher-mindedness. God avails many books, many star systems, and many metaphors.
You avoid the issue: What system of values and mores and family relations and citizen rights is needed to sustain a decent civilization that avails the expression of human like freedom and dignity? Or do you not want to preserve human freedom and dignity, maybe to replace it with butt stallions?
In a representative republic, tribal supremacism is a moral affront.
***********
That is not quite what I asserted. Even so, I hope you are not suggesting that until we knew the worldwide web could exist, there was no reason to make it so.
IAE, I would agree there is not good reason to try to confine the Godhead to a particular form of beast. I prefer the concept of a formless-form maker. Or changeless-changer. Or subjective-objectifier. Or potentializing-manifester.
"In my Father's house are many rooms."
**********
There are countless sects and interpretations of the Bible and what it means to each believer in a source-guide of higher-mindedness. God avails many books, many star systems, and many metaphors.
You avoid the issue: What system of values and mores and family relations and citizen rights is needed to sustain a decent civilization that avails the expression of human like freedom and dignity? Or do you not want to preserve human freedom and dignity, maybe to replace it with butt stallions?
************
You can conceptualize things that may not presently exist in measurable practical reality. But reality includes the things that are measurable as well as the things that are not or no longer measurable, in respect of which they were derived.
For all we know, limits to the eventual potentiality of concepts and science may be as open as limits to the kinds of possible parallel universes.
**********
A concept needs a conceptualizer. And vice versa.
*************
It appears you imagine the Christian God according to some literalistic interpretation and agenda of your own. I would be more interested in your social religion\agenda/system that you would seek to impose and how it may relate to efforts to establish and preserve a decent republic for the dignity of free thinkers.
****************
Does beauty exist as a common standard, however fluxing, or not? In what sense does it exist? In manifest sense, potential sense, temporal sense, subjective sense, communicable sense? What do you mean by beauty "exists"? Can anything or any idea exist purely subjectively, without reference to any physical body that is subjectively experiencing it?
I am suggesting that, except in trivialities, there cannot abide either pure subjectivity or pure objectivity. Every non-trivial expression requires a mix or flux of subjective Consciousness, objectively and spatially measurable Substance, and temporally cumulating Information. To seek a perfect definition for any non-triviality without regard for that flux is a quest after madness.
If a person values human freedom and dignity, then he needs to ask: What framework is needed to establish and sustain a republic that can avail and defend freedom and dignity for its citizens. The answer then would NOT be in deferring all gov power to a new priesthood of fake or corrupt "moral scientisimists." Regardless of whether they claimed to divine their standards from so-called objective nature or from direct conscious revelation from the subjective mind of God.
************
Participation, intuition, and innate empathy.
Not entirely objective. But appreciated in good faith and good will. And in awareness that we are not God.
You can conceptualize things that may not presently exist in measurable practical reality. But reality includes the things that are measurable as well as the things that are not or no longer measurable, in respect of which they were derived.
For all we know, limits to the eventual potentiality of concepts and science may be as open as limits to the kinds of possible parallel universes.
**********
A concept needs a conceptualizer. And vice versa.
*************
It appears you imagine the Christian God according to some literalistic interpretation and agenda of your own. I would be more interested in your social religion\agenda/system that you would seek to impose and how it may relate to efforts to establish and preserve a decent republic for the dignity of free thinkers.
****************
Does beauty exist as a common standard, however fluxing, or not? In what sense does it exist? In manifest sense, potential sense, temporal sense, subjective sense, communicable sense? What do you mean by beauty "exists"? Can anything or any idea exist purely subjectively, without reference to any physical body that is subjectively experiencing it?
I am suggesting that, except in trivialities, there cannot abide either pure subjectivity or pure objectivity. Every non-trivial expression requires a mix or flux of subjective Consciousness, objectively and spatially measurable Substance, and temporally cumulating Information. To seek a perfect definition for any non-triviality without regard for that flux is a quest after madness.
If a person values human freedom and dignity, then he needs to ask: What framework is needed to establish and sustain a republic that can avail and defend freedom and dignity for its citizens. The answer then would NOT be in deferring all gov power to a new priesthood of fake or corrupt "moral scientisimists." Regardless of whether they claimed to divine their standards from so-called objective nature or from direct conscious revelation from the subjective mind of God.
************
Participation, intuition, and innate empathy.
Not entirely objective. But appreciated in good faith and good will. And in awareness that we are not God.
Not entirely subjective. God exists objectively as Substance, subjectively as Consciousness.
**************
What if "existence itself" is the subjective-objective of a changeless-changer? Maybe we need better appreciation of the connective flux between subjective Consciousness and objective Substance?
Beauty, like morality, cannot exist as a communicable concept unless and until there exists a basis for communicating it. Why is that so hard for so-called atheists to understand?
If they're born that way, what is there to be proud of? I am left handed. It is enough to be tolerated. I do not need to leverage gov to force celebration of left handedness. Should we have a White Skin Pride Month? No, I don't think so.
We need to apprehend that the Godhead of Consciousness, Substance, and Information is eternal and infinite. And we, as imperfect perspectives of IT, limited in time and space, are not. We entertain IT and ourselves for a brief time, and then we are reabsorbed into the perpetual flux.
Author is unable to see people except as manikins for skin colors. That is the pathetic mark of an incompetent liberty-illiterate. He hates a free society, but won't move his sorry self to a socialist paradise of his choosing.
This kind of rot and drivel is what may be expected from ninnies raised in a liberty-illiterate sub-culture that believes itself entitled to require society to specially cater to it.
Develop your talents within your means and quit your racist whining. It just makes you look like a ninny. More than anything else, the pathetic ninny culture probably accounts for school shooters.
*************
The paradox of socialism in theory is that it is always fascism in practice.
It is people farming by elites that pretend to want to satisfy and reduce needs, when all along they actually seek to stoke and increase needs. And the number of needy voters.
They seek to consolidate the elite class, eliminate the middle class, and stupidify and harness the working class. While making competent self-strivers out to be evil devils. Or white goats.
***********
Ainos do not like leaders that ask them to learn to think and do for themselves. They want to feel safe in a crowd that yearns to be ruled and to be instructed what to think by fake scientismic law-givers. This is a fundamental that is shared in common among Dems, Progs, Commies, Fascists, Fundies, and Muslims. They go with the crowd and whomever steps in front of its momentum to claim to be leader. They are as mindless as the roaring tide. Strum and drang among lofos and goblows. Their crowds easily capture minds among them.
************
Justice often smiles most on those that cry most. If someone feels you are the cause of their pain, then you are guilty. This way lies the purely effeminate society. Which cannot defend itself in order to sustain itself. It will be drowned under the cries of, and the cries for, the most incompetent and pitiful of invading "immigrants." It will promote to all positions of power the best of cry-acting sociopaths. And then it will fall.
*************
People need ways to assimilate and propagate shared and sustainable values and cultures outside the intrusiveness of secular law making. Those ways often lead to rationalizations about the Higher Mind.
*************
Modern Liberalism is an experiment to test whether members of a diverse cult of perpetual infants can sustain themselves by making their parents out to be sacrificial goats. People not indoctrinated into being unable to think already know the answer.
***********
I believe less in intentional conspiracies than I do in the snowballing stickiness of ignorance that winds up posing as conventional wisdom. Thus, sticky incompetent feelers promote one another to tenure for instructing nonsense courses. Virtue signalers sell out their republics to border jumping liberty-illiterates. Oligarchic swine learn the benefits of using media to spread and harvest culturally destructive Crap. And so on. Not intentional conspiracy. Just cumulating, sticky ignorance and self-godding greed.
************
It makes more sense that Putin only meant to use Trump to wound Hillary. I doubt Russians expected to elect Trump. Spygate simply to uncover Russian collusion while caring little about actual wrongdoing by Hillary is preposterous --- unless it was for an "insurance policy." I have never trusted Gowdy.
Gowdy supported Marco Rubio, who often seems to support Deep State immigration. Sometimes, the people who pretend to be your friends are positioning themselves for other purposes. DC is a viper's pit.
****************
A person that floats around on feelings can hardly be expected to learn how to think about matters of substance.
I suspect a substantial share of mass school killers are malcontents made disgruntled and self entitled by fellow leftist juveys.
I fail to see much reason in going down obvious rabbit holes. Or in seeking empirical evidence for that which can only be conceptualized or experienced beyond empiricism. What conceptual system of reasoning does not begin with a priori assumption(s) that are beyond complete proof in themselves?
*************
**************
What if "existence itself" is the subjective-objective of a changeless-changer? Maybe we need better appreciation of the connective flux between subjective Consciousness and objective Substance?
Beauty, like morality, cannot exist as a communicable concept unless and until there exists a basis for communicating it. Why is that so hard for so-called atheists to understand?
If they're born that way, what is there to be proud of? I am left handed. It is enough to be tolerated. I do not need to leverage gov to force celebration of left handedness. Should we have a White Skin Pride Month? No, I don't think so.
We need to apprehend that the Godhead of Consciousness, Substance, and Information is eternal and infinite. And we, as imperfect perspectives of IT, limited in time and space, are not. We entertain IT and ourselves for a brief time, and then we are reabsorbed into the perpetual flux.
Author is unable to see people except as manikins for skin colors. That is the pathetic mark of an incompetent liberty-illiterate. He hates a free society, but won't move his sorry self to a socialist paradise of his choosing.
This kind of rot and drivel is what may be expected from ninnies raised in a liberty-illiterate sub-culture that believes itself entitled to require society to specially cater to it.
Develop your talents within your means and quit your racist whining. It just makes you look like a ninny. More than anything else, the pathetic ninny culture probably accounts for school shooters.
*************
The paradox of socialism in theory is that it is always fascism in practice.
It is people farming by elites that pretend to want to satisfy and reduce needs, when all along they actually seek to stoke and increase needs. And the number of needy voters.
They seek to consolidate the elite class, eliminate the middle class, and stupidify and harness the working class. While making competent self-strivers out to be evil devils. Or white goats.
***********
Ainos do not like leaders that ask them to learn to think and do for themselves. They want to feel safe in a crowd that yearns to be ruled and to be instructed what to think by fake scientismic law-givers. This is a fundamental that is shared in common among Dems, Progs, Commies, Fascists, Fundies, and Muslims. They go with the crowd and whomever steps in front of its momentum to claim to be leader. They are as mindless as the roaring tide. Strum and drang among lofos and goblows. Their crowds easily capture minds among them.
************
Justice often smiles most on those that cry most. If someone feels you are the cause of their pain, then you are guilty. This way lies the purely effeminate society. Which cannot defend itself in order to sustain itself. It will be drowned under the cries of, and the cries for, the most incompetent and pitiful of invading "immigrants." It will promote to all positions of power the best of cry-acting sociopaths. And then it will fall.
*************
People need ways to assimilate and propagate shared and sustainable values and cultures outside the intrusiveness of secular law making. Those ways often lead to rationalizations about the Higher Mind.
*************
Modern Liberalism is an experiment to test whether members of a diverse cult of perpetual infants can sustain themselves by making their parents out to be sacrificial goats. People not indoctrinated into being unable to think already know the answer.
***********
I believe less in intentional conspiracies than I do in the snowballing stickiness of ignorance that winds up posing as conventional wisdom. Thus, sticky incompetent feelers promote one another to tenure for instructing nonsense courses. Virtue signalers sell out their republics to border jumping liberty-illiterates. Oligarchic swine learn the benefits of using media to spread and harvest culturally destructive Crap. And so on. Not intentional conspiracy. Just cumulating, sticky ignorance and self-godding greed.
************
It makes more sense that Putin only meant to use Trump to wound Hillary. I doubt Russians expected to elect Trump. Spygate simply to uncover Russian collusion while caring little about actual wrongdoing by Hillary is preposterous --- unless it was for an "insurance policy." I have never trusted Gowdy.
Gowdy supported Marco Rubio, who often seems to support Deep State immigration. Sometimes, the people who pretend to be your friends are positioning themselves for other purposes. DC is a viper's pit.
****************
A person that floats around on feelings can hardly be expected to learn how to think about matters of substance.
I suspect a substantial share of mass school killers are malcontents made disgruntled and self entitled by fellow leftist juveys.
I fail to see much reason in going down obvious rabbit holes. Or in seeking empirical evidence for that which can only be conceptualized or experienced beyond empiricism. What conceptual system of reasoning does not begin with a priori assumption(s) that are beyond complete proof in themselves?
*************
The universe abides, regardless of whether reason can completely prove from whence it came or how or why or what is its essential nature or source.
What is reasonable about assuming that reason or evidence cannot or should not be based on anything that is beyond complete measurable or objective quantification?
**********
Even if IT has desire, it is not desire of a kind we can comprehend.
I think Consciousness is a fundament to the perpetual unfoldment of measurable Substance and cumulating Information. I think those fundaments both abide and flux because I think they are essential to the unfolding definition of one another.
Substance is presently cumulated and stored Information. Information cannot be presently stored without Substance. Substance is not of itself, but as re-presented in appearance, the unfoldment of which implicates some involvement of Consciousness.
So the Godhead expresses itself as a flux of CSI. I don't think the Algorithm for that flux can be subject to mortally derivative proof or falsification, since I take it as a priori.
So I think attempts to prove or disprove God are rabbit holes. I think it may be better to take the Flux as a given and seek to appreciate it and apply that given towards inspiring and sustaining decent civilization based on good faith and good will. Which, after all, were main components for what Jesus taught.
I suspect there abide numerous levels of Consciousness regarding the fundament.
Why does any perspective of consciousness often seem naturally or innately to empathize with any other?
If Consciousness is a fundament and not just an emergent, if nothing unfolds without implication at some level with Consciousness, then IT can hardly avoid caring about each and every part and aspect of the unfoldment.
Because of math conservation, some IT nurtures, some IT sacrifices, all IT reconciles. To whatever extent we are of IT even if not perfectly IT, IT would seem to know us, to know our cares, and to reconcile them.
Whatever the basis for good faith and good will, it would seem less important to our civilization that such basis be objectively provable than that such basis tend to be commonly shared, inspired, and nurtured.
But for situational.perspective, we are of the same Consciousness. The basis for civilizing empathy seems to be: There but for fortune go "I".
Maybe it would want not to be disrespected.
*************
I would agree that civilized freedom necessitates a legal framework. But that framework can turn freedom upside down when too much central law or regulation is applied. Then the distinction between centrally oppressive law and centrally oppressive regulation does little to advance human freedom and dignity.
I still think too many elitists, including too many secular Jews, even if well intentioned, tend to become oppressive, even when they seek instead of to save souls to save the world. Modern leaders and elites are lacking in perspective and respect concerning the founding American Ideal. They did not build it, but they are quick to suck it dry.
***************
The problem with the military-industrial-oligarch-moocher complex of godforsaken corrupti has been with us a long time.
We are caught between a rock and hard place: Evil despots in the world, and arms merchants that profit by keeping them at each other's throats.
We are not safe by appeasing either of them. My only suggestion is that we need defense managers that love the American Ideal more than making money.
IAE, my focus is more.about the Republic and Conserving Liberty under a sustainable system of checks and balances. Less central law-making, regulation, and elitist b.s. on domestic matters.
If you think neo-cons tend to promote both war and central regulation on domestic matters, I think you are right. I am not a fan of neo-cons. I want Conservers of Liberty, I.e., the American Ideal.
*************
Putin expected Hillary to win and wanted her bloodied. He did not want Trump elected. That makes no sense.
This is simple. Why do so many pundits and stooges have so much trouble with this? Why on earth would Putin prefer Trump, given how easy it was to deal with Crooked Hillary?
*****************
There are overzealous Christians and Atheists alike. They get caught up in militant zeal and decide they know what is best for everyone else and then set out to force it.
Which, to my take, violates the Golden Rule by disrespecting the right of others to seek their own models and understanding of how to relate in good faith and good will. Militant Christians may seek to bring about the Second Coming. Militant Atheists may seek to force their interpretation on how to save the Earth.
Secular Jews I know like law. Law is the secularist's replacement for higher minded godliness. Lots of regulations. Maybe this is a mindset for centralized elitist control that does not mix well with regard for individual freedom and small government?
Were there an omniscient being, with all the knowledge then and there in presentment, but not necessarily all the knowledge ever obtainable, would such a Being have desire (such as for companionship, entertainment, surprise. or for fulfillment-seeking)? How can we say?
But, in that case, an argument from desire would be less a fallacy than a perpetual seeking of fulfillment. Which, after all, seems unavoidable, more so than a disproof.
Perhaps you are falling down a rabbit hole, seeking to falsify a non-falsifiable?
**************
My heart is simply not coddling to unprincipled, history-illiterate, perpetually childlike, libertinos.
My understanding of history lays the main part of it at the feet of atheists, communists, and fundie fakes of all types. Including the fundie fakes like Soros, that pretend to be funding for socialistic goodness (which does not exist), while actually salivating to own and control one vast despotic people farm. And then to see you say such ilk have morals as good as anyone else. What slobbering nonsense. If atheists' morals were as good as anyone else, the nation would not be unraveling and children would not be being so thoroughly groomed and trained into nonsense and depravity.
Re: "I have to say, I have never met a group of people with a darker view of humanity than fundamental Christians."
I have. Fundie Atheists. Let's see: Nation destruction, border destruction, human dignity destruction, family destruction, decency destruction. Cultural destruction (by calling for multiculturalism nonsense). Language destruction, by making good bad and fair foul. Adolescent little boys, they are. Run along now and go play with your naughty bits.
What feels good can be trained to support sustainable civilizations. Civilizations also evolve. Not necessarily for the better when people expect society to feed and pleasure them.
Your eye is misdirected. It"s about the forum. Believers have forums where values, empathies, and purposes are inspired and assimilated that can tend to sustain a decent civilization. Atheists have dope houses, porn parlors, child trafficking and grooming centers, and no assimilating sense of social responsibility whatsoever. Except, that is, to make a goat of Whitey, ridicule Christians, undermine families, and vote to put stooges for oligarchic despots in power so they can farm the speople while making phony balogny promises of free stuff and redistribution to fellow gangstas.
What does the right thing mean? In respect of what do you define it? What if I want to do the right thing for decay and bacteria, so the circle of life can defend itself? What if I think the highest pleasure is to desire the least and escape the fascism of desire, by blowing as much up as is possible, immediately? What if I think the right thing is to enslave all white Nancy boys, since they seem to want it, and it would give me pleasure? What if Sam Harris invents a pleasure drug that maximizes well being without being addictive--- would morality presume everyone should want the drug?
Do the right thing, without the need for any forums to inspire and assimilate general good faith and good will --- it sounds so ... Juvey.
************
Did Believers "plagiarize" their metaphors about the Godhead from the Godhead, and then tinker with them until they become useful for inspiring and assimilating "progress" towards decent civilization?
Do scientists invent models and then tinker with them until they become useful for manipulating physics?
Do atheists and moral scientists miss the forest for the trees? Should decent civilization defer to people that are hollow and clueless about how to inspire or assimilate towards decent civilization?
***************
We do know (have information) by direct experience that the present is perpetually filled with manifestations of various fluxes of space, time, matter, energy. We directly sense recordations of information in the substances that are expressed, such as in tree rings, the passage of seasons, the relative movement of the sun and stars. We also know that, to survive and replicate, we need to become skilled in physical mechanics and moral cooperation. For that, we have no choice but to make choices.
****************
Time may be less like a reality in itself than it is like an artifact of mathematical sequencing for the cumulation of Information to each local point of view and frame of reference. Although different frames may proceed at different math paces, all events recorded in chronologies seem to be preserved under renormalizing examination. Mortals do not get to rewind the cosmos.
It may be that the Godhead avails the renormalization of a perpetual-present to every point of view for every frame of reference. I doubt the previous past abides, except as stored Information. I do not believe the future exists except as potentiality. The only aspect of our unfolding chronology that manifests with measurable Substance is the Information and Consciousness of the perpetual present.
The perpetual present seems to abide as a perpetual flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. For every event, Consciousness at some level seems to affect how Information unfolds to become stored and manifest in Substance. What reconciles that flux may be conceptualized as the Godhead, which presents and abides with the perpetual-present. Math and a Math Activator seem to account for the relational aspects we experience as time, space, matter, energy.
Whatever activates the Math may stand with the Math, but the world it manifests seems to be produced contemporaneously with how the Activator continues to reconcile the math to produce the choices among events that avail to our manifestation. IOW, God has not, and perhaps could not have, left the building.
************
You are concerning yourself with nonsense rabbit holes and then trying to argue why your choice of rabbit hole is better than any other. But why go down holes that are obviously rabbit holes? When you go on about what must have created the cosmos that created the cosmos that created the cosmos .... you may as well go on a fool's errand to seek the largest or smallest possible number. Whatever our cosmos and any source for it may have come from, it is manifest that it and we abide, here and now.
Given that situation, we are confronted with various challenges, such as: (1) To try to understand our physical mechanics in a practical way that avails our survival and propagation (if that is what we desire); (2) To try to determine what we SHOULD desire (to the extent our desires are trainable).
As we confront both of the challenges mentioned above, we tend soon to apprehend that the system with which we live entails a fluxing conservation and cooperation of feedback between that system and its various forms, frames, and fields of relational reference. As we enhance our sciences, we soon learn about unintended consequences and unexpected limits on our capacities to control or cause our desires. We tend to learn that what we suppose to be causes or originating causes are often more like correlates, and that whatever it may be by which every determination is brought into measurable manifestation, such Determiner/determiner seems unavoidably to implicate a metaphysics of some kind that is like a rabbit hole beyond our measure. Such as a Meta-Determiner or a Meta-Multiverse.
IOW, the abiding existence of rabbit holes is a given. However immeasurable they may be, they are an abiding aspect of our Reality. The concern remains: Given that situation, how may we relate to here and now practical concerns of mechanics and morality? Given no objectively knowable prescription for making each and every moral choice, how may each subjectively minded person work together with others to inspire and assimilate mutually cooperative and common mores, values, and purposes?
If not in intuitive and innate respect for good faith and good will, how can we hope to inspire and preserve a representative republic that can sustain and defend each of our opportunities for freedom and dignity? Why, based either on objectivity or subjectivity, would people deem it principled, good, or worthwhile to argue against good will or all forums for assimilating it?
***************
I agree that we use physical science to build. I would not agree that we, as individual mortals, can entirely invent physical science.
I would agree that we may some day shape how science unfolds. For example, if we ever acquire skill to engender a matrix like simulation, perhaps we may prescribe the "scientific" parameters under which its inhabitants would have to abide or live.
****************
Well, there it is: Evidence of unthinking ninnie boys congratulating themselves on their fake intellects.
***************
My understanding of history lays the main part of it at the feet of atheists, communists, and fundie fakes of all types. Including the fundie fakes like Soros, that pretend to be funding for socialistic goodness (which does not exist), while actually salivating to own and control one vast despotic people farm. And then to see you say such ilk have morals as good as anyone else. What slobbering nonsense. If atheists' morals were as good as anyone else, the nation would not be unraveling and children would not be being so thoroughly groomed and trained into nonsense and depravity.
Re: "I have to say, I have never met a group of people with a darker view of humanity than fundamental Christians."
I have. Fundie Atheists. Let's see: Nation destruction, border destruction, human dignity destruction, family destruction, decency destruction. Cultural destruction (by calling for multiculturalism nonsense). Language destruction, by making good bad and fair foul. Adolescent little boys, they are. Run along now and go play with your naughty bits.
What feels good can be trained to support sustainable civilizations. Civilizations also evolve. Not necessarily for the better when people expect society to feed and pleasure them.
Your eye is misdirected. It"s about the forum. Believers have forums where values, empathies, and purposes are inspired and assimilated that can tend to sustain a decent civilization. Atheists have dope houses, porn parlors, child trafficking and grooming centers, and no assimilating sense of social responsibility whatsoever. Except, that is, to make a goat of Whitey, ridicule Christians, undermine families, and vote to put stooges for oligarchic despots in power so they can farm the speople while making phony balogny promises of free stuff and redistribution to fellow gangstas.
What does the right thing mean? In respect of what do you define it? What if I want to do the right thing for decay and bacteria, so the circle of life can defend itself? What if I think the highest pleasure is to desire the least and escape the fascism of desire, by blowing as much up as is possible, immediately? What if I think the right thing is to enslave all white Nancy boys, since they seem to want it, and it would give me pleasure? What if Sam Harris invents a pleasure drug that maximizes well being without being addictive--- would morality presume everyone should want the drug?
Do the right thing, without the need for any forums to inspire and assimilate general good faith and good will --- it sounds so ... Juvey.
************
Did Believers "plagiarize" their metaphors about the Godhead from the Godhead, and then tinker with them until they become useful for inspiring and assimilating "progress" towards decent civilization?
Do scientists invent models and then tinker with them until they become useful for manipulating physics?
Do atheists and moral scientists miss the forest for the trees? Should decent civilization defer to people that are hollow and clueless about how to inspire or assimilate towards decent civilization?
***************
We do know (have information) by direct experience that the present is perpetually filled with manifestations of various fluxes of space, time, matter, energy. We directly sense recordations of information in the substances that are expressed, such as in tree rings, the passage of seasons, the relative movement of the sun and stars. We also know that, to survive and replicate, we need to become skilled in physical mechanics and moral cooperation. For that, we have no choice but to make choices.
****************
Time may be less like a reality in itself than it is like an artifact of mathematical sequencing for the cumulation of Information to each local point of view and frame of reference. Although different frames may proceed at different math paces, all events recorded in chronologies seem to be preserved under renormalizing examination. Mortals do not get to rewind the cosmos.
It may be that the Godhead avails the renormalization of a perpetual-present to every point of view for every frame of reference. I doubt the previous past abides, except as stored Information. I do not believe the future exists except as potentiality. The only aspect of our unfolding chronology that manifests with measurable Substance is the Information and Consciousness of the perpetual present.
The perpetual present seems to abide as a perpetual flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. For every event, Consciousness at some level seems to affect how Information unfolds to become stored and manifest in Substance. What reconciles that flux may be conceptualized as the Godhead, which presents and abides with the perpetual-present. Math and a Math Activator seem to account for the relational aspects we experience as time, space, matter, energy.
Whatever activates the Math may stand with the Math, but the world it manifests seems to be produced contemporaneously with how the Activator continues to reconcile the math to produce the choices among events that avail to our manifestation. IOW, God has not, and perhaps could not have, left the building.
************
You are concerning yourself with nonsense rabbit holes and then trying to argue why your choice of rabbit hole is better than any other. But why go down holes that are obviously rabbit holes? When you go on about what must have created the cosmos that created the cosmos that created the cosmos .... you may as well go on a fool's errand to seek the largest or smallest possible number. Whatever our cosmos and any source for it may have come from, it is manifest that it and we abide, here and now.
Given that situation, we are confronted with various challenges, such as: (1) To try to understand our physical mechanics in a practical way that avails our survival and propagation (if that is what we desire); (2) To try to determine what we SHOULD desire (to the extent our desires are trainable).
As we confront both of the challenges mentioned above, we tend soon to apprehend that the system with which we live entails a fluxing conservation and cooperation of feedback between that system and its various forms, frames, and fields of relational reference. As we enhance our sciences, we soon learn about unintended consequences and unexpected limits on our capacities to control or cause our desires. We tend to learn that what we suppose to be causes or originating causes are often more like correlates, and that whatever it may be by which every determination is brought into measurable manifestation, such Determiner/determiner seems unavoidably to implicate a metaphysics of some kind that is like a rabbit hole beyond our measure. Such as a Meta-Determiner or a Meta-Multiverse.
IOW, the abiding existence of rabbit holes is a given. However immeasurable they may be, they are an abiding aspect of our Reality. The concern remains: Given that situation, how may we relate to here and now practical concerns of mechanics and morality? Given no objectively knowable prescription for making each and every moral choice, how may each subjectively minded person work together with others to inspire and assimilate mutually cooperative and common mores, values, and purposes?
If not in intuitive and innate respect for good faith and good will, how can we hope to inspire and preserve a representative republic that can sustain and defend each of our opportunities for freedom and dignity? Why, based either on objectivity or subjectivity, would people deem it principled, good, or worthwhile to argue against good will or all forums for assimilating it?
***************
I agree that we use physical science to build. I would not agree that we, as individual mortals, can entirely invent physical science.
I would agree that we may some day shape how science unfolds. For example, if we ever acquire skill to engender a matrix like simulation, perhaps we may prescribe the "scientific" parameters under which its inhabitants would have to abide or live.
****************
Well, there it is: Evidence of unthinking ninnie boys congratulating themselves on their fake intellects.
***************
No mortal institution is without need of continuous improvement.
Empathy and compassion are commonly displayed among lower orders of animals.
I think consciousness is consciousness. It abides at various levels, depending on relational situation and sequence. But for relational situation and sequence, it seems obvious to me, perhaps not to you, that we are all of the same consciousness. That is the basis for innate empathy. IOW, good faith and good will. Like Jesus taught.
I do not think the people clamoring for the undermining of all religion would make for a good transition. I think they are historically naive and self-centered malcontents who would produce disaster. I don't think they are capable of establishing or defending any practical principles whatsoever.
Because they respect no principles, they claim not to be hypocrites. Except they are gigantic hypocrites, because they complain every time a Conservative does not live up to his principles. As if they had any moral standing whatsoever to complain! To have standing to complain about someone else's failure to live up to his principles, I think you need to have some principles for yourself. If Lefties can articulate or defend any sustainable principles, I would like to know what they are. S/
****************
My point did not concern consenting adults. Can you read? My point concerned consenting adults ganging up to use force of government to groom children. I suppose you don't care about that, either?
Because I think everyone who is not intellectually blinded knows that Orwellian totalitarianism is where modern Leftism is headed. Why do you think Lefty stoolies go along with corporatists that want open borders for cheap, easily bribed, easily deluded, and easily ruled immigrants? Why do you think Lefties align themselves so easily to take the corporate funding from Soros? They take the corporate money, then imagine they are not setting themselves up for fascism under a corporate establishment! Lol.
Do you think Soros has your best interests at heart? Do you think Soros and his ilk want to let you keep a say in determining those interests? If so, why does he want to flood the nation and California with so many third-world liberty illiterates? Why does he want California, based on popular vote, to be able to elect the President?
Do you remember or ever think about the book within the book, in Orwell's 1984, about the theory and practice of oligarchic collectivism? Why are Dino-Rino oligarchs of the establishment almost entirely united against Trump? Do you want to surrender the representative republic to their efforts?
*******
I think consciousness is consciousness. It abides at various levels, depending on relational situation and sequence. But for relational situation and sequence, it seems obvious to me, perhaps not to you, that we are all of the same consciousness. That is the basis for innate empathy. IOW, good faith and good will. Like Jesus taught.
I do not think the people clamoring for the undermining of all religion would make for a good transition. I think they are historically naive and self-centered malcontents who would produce disaster. I don't think they are capable of establishing or defending any practical principles whatsoever.
Because they respect no principles, they claim not to be hypocrites. Except they are gigantic hypocrites, because they complain every time a Conservative does not live up to his principles. As if they had any moral standing whatsoever to complain! To have standing to complain about someone else's failure to live up to his principles, I think you need to have some principles for yourself. If Lefties can articulate or defend any sustainable principles, I would like to know what they are. S/
****************
My point did not concern consenting adults. Can you read? My point concerned consenting adults ganging up to use force of government to groom children. I suppose you don't care about that, either?
Because I think everyone who is not intellectually blinded knows that Orwellian totalitarianism is where modern Leftism is headed. Why do you think Lefty stoolies go along with corporatists that want open borders for cheap, easily bribed, easily deluded, and easily ruled immigrants? Why do you think Lefties align themselves so easily to take the corporate funding from Soros? They take the corporate money, then imagine they are not setting themselves up for fascism under a corporate establishment! Lol.
Do you think Soros has your best interests at heart? Do you think Soros and his ilk want to let you keep a say in determining those interests? If so, why does he want to flood the nation and California with so many third-world liberty illiterates? Why does he want California, based on popular vote, to be able to elect the President?
Do you remember or ever think about the book within the book, in Orwell's 1984, about the theory and practice of oligarchic collectivism? Why are Dino-Rino oligarchs of the establishment almost entirely united against Trump? Do you want to surrender the representative republic to their efforts?
*******
I am not sure what you mean by supernatural. If you mean supernatural in the sense of unreal, then I do not agree that immeasurable things that are real are supernatural. For example, math does not entirely measure math, yet I do not consider math to be supernatural. You seem to be confused and/or going back and forth on that. Try to be clear.
Regardless, things are not that simple! There are things we know as tautologies and trivialities. There are things we think we know because they have not been falsified. There are things that are merely appearances that are derivatives of other things. There are things that are more like aspects or properties, that depend for their expression and function on fluxing relationships. There are mathematical relationships that seem presently and reliably to work well to various orders of significance.
There are things we do not know. There are things we can only know and make true, as a matter of will or self fulfilling prophecy. But I think there are also things we CANNOT measurably know, but CAN reasonably believe, as matters of intuitive implication, self evidence, or innate empathy. For example, I agree with various philosophers that something is implicated to be or have been sequentially existent before the Big Bang, but not anything we can objectively know. And, SOMETHING is implicated that determines which among possibilities are actually allowed to come into measurable manifestation.
For another example, I suspect something of empathy (good faith and good will) is in some quality innate to every perspective of consciousness. Indeed, this is why some avowed atheists suppose they do not need religion to be good (empathetic), because they take such empathy to be inherent in biology and/or nature. What they forget is that such conscious mental empathy is, by definition, subjective and ephemeral, rather than entirely objective or constant. In supposing such a subjective and immeasurable quality is innate or inherent, they are in some quality supposing a shared but non-objective Source of morality. IOW, they are supposing an Innate Source of Empathy, even though they balk at giving that Source a name of reference (like God). Moreover, in supposing church forums are not needed to promote respect and assimilation for that empathy, they are neglecting a systemic tendency that advantages corrupting sociopaths to attain positions of power in most institutions.
*************
What I get from the conception of a Living Algorithm is the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. IOW, good faith and good will (which necessarily entail subjectivity, not purely measurable objectivity). IOW, capacity to assimilate ought from is. Which you seem to admit you lack, or at least, are unable to assimilate sustainable moral values and purposes in respect of. Apart from forced celebration of a doped up people farm, that is.
*************
Did Christianity harm civilizing respect for human freedom and dignity? In some ways, because of magical-belief over-emphasis on salvation hereafter, Christianity impeded science for awhile. However, what laid Western Civ open to Islamic hordes may have been more attributable to its weakening by pestilence and disease.
That said, during and after the Enlightenment, Christianity was perhaps essential to the promotion of Western Civ. After all, America, as a representative republic, was founded under the work of Pilgrims, Christians, and Deists.
Lately, much of the clamor against Christianity seems to be fomented by militant gays and their militant atheistic friends, who do not like to be called abominators. But I think they have way over done it.
The essential ingredient to promote human freedom and dignity is good faith and good will. In Jesus' formulation, that would be similar to the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. Secular atheists want to say religious-like inspiration is not needed to sustain viable good faith and good will. I disagree.
**********************
Yes, I do think the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule are more or less imprinted on every perspective of Consciousness. However, they are not imprinted on every social organization. Nor can humanity, in competitions among social organizations, necessarily be said to exhibit basic goodness. Absent institutions, such as churches for attracting congregants in order to inspire them to assimilate and to seek to perform voluntary charity, it becomes harder to establish or sustain decent civilization.
While malcontents tend to complain as assimilations do not always please them, and they tend to seek things to complain about, I doubt they would have been happier or more contented had Christianity never flourished. In my judgment of history, the evil that humanity did amongst itself before Christianity, and since in places without Christianity, has been, and would continue to be, all the more brutish and unpleasant.
There tend to be all manner of malcontents, most of whom probably do not consider themselves to be bad, but who, in aggregate, tend to be dysgenic and cultural drags against human freedom and dignity. There are quiet homosexual couples, loud and demanding and parasitical homosexual couples, deviants that want to abuse and groom children, deviants that want tax money and public education to help them groom children for abuse, anarchists that hate ordinary society, orgy maniacs that think heaping helpings of group drugs and sex should not just be legal but also be publicly funded, immodest deconstructionists that want to parade and argue for rights to defecate and fornicate publicly with and/or marry their dogs and horses, and so on.
Each kind of malcontent seems often to think his own kind of deviance should be legalized, tolerated, celebrated, funded, and eventually forced. Many seem to believe society has no legal or moral right to defend itself and its institutions against such proclivities. As such malcontents acquire the funding, time, and means to gang up against ordinary society, what sustaining mores can survive? Especially as we see how sociopaths leverage advantages for gaining positions of power in every institution.
The USA is already unraveling. How has the madness of agglomerating and malcontented deviants, as they seek to undermine every church for inspiring good faith and good will, helped in any way to secure the republic or common decency? How has de-defining marriage and the family and replacing such institutions with bureaucratic supervisors helped to sustain the kind of common values needed to preserve the representative republic from the plunderings of mad deviant elitists and their over-sexed, immodest, and unprincipled shills, flash agitators, stoolies, and wannabe sheeple-farmers?
In my judgment, such people tend to seek access to children less to devote themselves to their best interests, but more to use and abuse children, as trophies. Rarely in debates about how to legalize various forms of sex and drugs does one ever hear concern from such people about their effects on children and persons of less than responsible judgment. Indeed, there seems to be a full on assault to force schools to groom children. I do find this to be detestable. And unsustainable for a republic, unless it wants to surrender its Constitution and simply be ruled by established and corrupt corporate elites.
I am not at all confident that such people have a clue, or that they have the fortitude needed to sustain or defend any kind of decent society or nation. Impressed with their infantilized mores, mal-educated intellects, and drunken acceptance of oligopolistic border-destroying propaganda, I am not.
Problem is, they may already have corrupted the republic beyond its tipping point and made it ripe for the deluge. I suppose they merit a kind of Congrats. Sarc.
******************
I grasp that the Reality that affects us includes the measurable aspects of reality and the immeasurable aspects of reality. Evidently, you think every thing and every aspect that cannot be entirely reduced to math-based measurement is non-existent. (You may want to do some reading concerning The Measurement Problem.)
Stephen Hawking said that even if we had a TOE (which Godel seems to implicate is impossible), it would necessarily be a set of equations. Hawking wrote, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" Evidently, Hawking felt some thing (ït") beyond the equations themselves is implicated. If numbers with equations relate to measurable reality, what is it that is implicated that accounts for the numbers and equations? What activates the math, or what avails the universal algorithm to "live"? Well, that would seem to abide as an implicated but immeasurable aspect of "reality."
Some thinkers want to suppose that reality is entirely independent of conscious mind. I do not conceptualize reality as being either entirely independent of mind or entirely derivative of mind. Rather, I conceptualize conscious mind as being part of a flux that expresses three fundamental aspects: Self-evident Consciousness, measurable Substance, and cumulating Information. I do not believe any of those fundaments can be expressed without entailment of the other two. I conceptualize that those three fundamental aspects are the fluxing product of a Living Algorithm, which abides with potentiality to activate fields of relational presentations to various perspectives of local sensation and experience. I do not conceptualize the future to exist except as potentiality, nor the past to exist except as a cumulated record of Information. I conceptualize that the perpetual present is presented as a relational flux of CSI that is the derivative of a "Living Algorithm" (changeless-changer, or Godhead).
I recognize this is not a measurably provable conceptualization, but I do not see how it could be construed as less reasonable or less testable or self-evident than various alternatives, and I think it carries advantages for inspiring decent civilization that can subjectively and practicably assimilate apprehensions of "ought from is." IAE, I do not see how alternative conceptualizations can reasonably stake any claim to greater objectivity.
I do not see how dumb math, absent an activating "fire breather," could continue to effect specific determinations from among all possibilities, absent the continuous involvement of an Activator.
There may be thinkers that believe everything is entirely derivative of dumb math. I do not believe in such a conceptualization. For example, Tegmark conceptualizes that physical reality (universe) is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and that "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". His conceptualization would implicate that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions, physical constants, or altogether different equations may be considered equally real.
Perhaps he attempts to resolve the incompleteness problem as described by Godel by positing that all computable mathematical structures exist (in some computable universe)? In other words, that no thing "really exists" except mathematical structures. In that case, the problem as described by Hawking recedes: How can mere dumb math objectively measure math?
**********************
You can do your own research about meta ideas regarding meta multi-verses, etc., and decide for yourself how objectively scientific they are. The internet is easily accessible for that purpose.
Mainly, I am simply saying reality entails both measurables and immeasurables. To my subjective intuition, self-evidence, and innate empathy, the fact that numerous choices are available to me, and somehow determined without any objective way knowable to me to have pre-determined them, is a real aspect of life. Now, if you are committed to a subjective belief that nothing can exist that is not objectively measurable, then I doubt I can be of service to you.
I do not seek objectively to prove any immeasurable aspect to Reality exists. I take such proof/evidence to be subjectively self-evident, directly intuitive, and empathetically reasonable.
How do you "weigh" or completely objectify subjective-consciousness? How do you measure what it is that determines which choices are actuated into measurable manifestation among all the choices that were possible? You can track how and where consciousness and conscious choice is associated. You may procreate or manufacture to produce replicative kinds of exemplars of such. You can test for intellect or problem solving capacity. But I do not see how you can weigh consciousness itself. Yet, at least for yourself, you can by self-evidence know it abides.
I have very few myths to which I would seek to bind the eternal and infinite Godhead. My only task is to participate in trying to help inspire and assimilate sustainable good faith and good will for a civilization that would seek here and now to avail dignity for its citizens above that availed for subhumans or incompetent sheeple.
We don't know any objective answer to how we should design our world or universe. Yet, we have no choice but to make choices. To fail to make a choice is no answer, because such failure is itself a choice. So the problem remains: How to participate to help a society assimilate and sustain a decent civilization that respects the freedom and dignity of its citizens. Unless, of course, one prefers indecency, mind servitude, indignity, and sheeple-treatment.
Although there is no objective answer to how to derive ought from is, there is subjective participation in pursuing common subjective answers. And that participation is unavoidable. For that purpose, we have, I believe, spiritually metaphysically innate conscious empathy. Because, fundamentally, we are all simply different perspectives of the same consciousness. Consciousness, while it abides with different and variable levels, is consciousness. The Great Commandment (love God/good faith) and the Golden Rule (love your neighbor/good will) are based in innate empathy. Under all the figures of speech employed by Jesus, that is what He taught.
If a secular-atheist wants only to have mores that can be objectively proven, then what he is really saying is he does not want to be responsible to any society, republic, or civilization. Rather, he wants to pretend to be superior while he does his dope and gratification act.
Pretending that there is nothing to reality that is beyond mortal measure is pretty arrogant and ignorant.
It's pretty obvious to most reasonably smart eighth graders that they have choices among possibilities each step of their lives. There is little in what I said that is beyond the ken of a reasonably smart and informed eighth grader. But maybe I don't know what passes for smart nowadays. Maybe what passes for smart nowadays is oblivious faith in moral scientism while having no clue how to derive ought from is. Or guffawing about pastafarians.
The eternal Godhead is the Godhead. We can intuit IT's entailment, but only someone like a ninnie-stupido would argue or analogize IT to a particular form (like a bearded old man, a giant pastafarian, or a many-faced elephant).
But the story of eternity cannot be confined to a book. No history of stories about the eternal, infinite, inter-penetrating, omnipresent, omniscient omnipotent, godhead (that has access to all the power and knowledge that can be accessed) can be without metaphors when taught for the purpose of inspiring people to come to reason and emote together.
As metaphors, the meanings attached to such stories can change with usage as well as with the unfolding physical expressions and significations sponsored with the godhead. Much as the meanings attached to words change with usage over space and time. It is not so much a problem that such stories are metaphorical as it is a problem that so many dunces (militant atheists and religious fundies alike) are either so literal-minded or so entirely lacking in appreciation for the role of sacred or inspiring metaphors in binding and assimilating people to share values.
For a citizenry that values a decent representative republic, the unfolding test question is not, "How would I want society to be required by its laws to support me if I were a (black, hispanic, gay, jew, fundie, handicapped person, deviant, trans, fluid, child, fetus)?"
Rather, the question should be, "How would I want citizens in general to volunteer to treat and opportunize one another?"
To continue to respond to and answer that question, it is needed to have forums, such as churches, to inspire people to come together to reason in good faith and good will. Much more so than to rely on central-governmental-despots and knowitall-moral-scientisimists to farm and rule the people as sheeple.
How would a literal-minded militant atheist propose to inspire people to come together to reason in good faith and good will in order to assimilate sustainable and shared values, without resort to metaphors? They never want to attempt to answer such questions. Rather, they seem usually just to want to spout profanity, guffaw about giant spaghetti monsters, or scurry to their mutual admiration and gratification societies.
Decent Americans need to stand up and firmly push back against the dividers, race-baiters, blood-suckers, literal-minded secular-atheists, and establishment-funded sociopaths, shills, and stoolies.
***********
The eternal Godhead is the Godhead. We can intuit IT's entailment, but only someone like a ninnie-stupido would argue or analogize IT to a particular form (like a bearded old man, a giant pastafarian, or a many-faced elephant).
But the story of eternity cannot be confined to a book. No history of stories about the eternal, infinite, inter-penetrating, omnipresent, omniscient omnipotent, godhead (that has access to all the power and knowledge that can be accessed) can be without metaphors when taught for the purpose of inspiring people to come to reason and emote together.
As metaphors, the meanings attached to such stories can change with usage as well as with the unfolding physical expressions and significations sponsored with the godhead. Much as the meanings attached to words change with usage over space and time. It is not so much a problem that such stories are metaphorical as it is a problem that so many dunces (militant atheists and religious fundies alike) are either so literal-minded or so entirely lacking in appreciation for the role of sacred or inspiring metaphors in binding and assimilating people to share values.
For a citizenry that values a decent representative republic, the unfolding test question is not, "How would I want society to be required by its laws to support me if I were a (black, hispanic, gay, jew, fundie, handicapped person, deviant, trans, fluid, child, fetus)?"
Rather, the question should be, "How would I want citizens in general to volunteer to treat and opportunize one another?"
To continue to respond to and answer that question, it is needed to have forums, such as churches, to inspire people to come together to reason in good faith and good will. Much more so than to rely on central-governmental-despots and knowitall-moral-scientisimists to farm and rule the people as sheeple.
How would a literal-minded militant atheist propose to inspire people to come together to reason in good faith and good will in order to assimilate sustainable and shared values, without resort to metaphors? They never want to attempt to answer such questions. Rather, they seem usually just to want to spout profanity, guffaw about giant spaghetti monsters, or scurry to their mutual admiration and gratification societies.
Americans need to stand up and firmly push back against the dividers, race-baiters, blood-suckers, literal-minded secular-atheists, and establishment-funded sociopaths, shills, and stoolies.
**************
Beyond fluxing presentations of CSI (consciousness, substance, and information), I suspect that whatever the Algorithm that defines us, IT is nothing more than potentiality to activate fields of relational presentations to various perspectives of local sensation and experience. I do not see how C, S, and I could exist as independent states of being, apart from being tied to fluxing relationships with one another. I do not see how any bit of Information could be added or recorded with any Substance without adding a necessity at some level to effect Meta (Conscious?) Determination(s) among sequentially following possibilities.
Generally, I take "metaphysical" and "spiritual" to pertain to that which abides, but perpetually beyond the realm of physical measure or descriptive completion by any mortal. For example, that from which the laws that regulate our physical universe are derived, caused, or reconciled. Or the meta-source-or-rules by which the flux among consciousness, substance, and information is regulated. Or that which avails what is next determined from each new array of possibilities that is added to our system as each new bit of information is added. Or that which seems to implicate that the fundamental consciousness and qualitative experience of each of us would be the same, but for how our perspectives have been divided by historical and situational sequences. Or that seemingly implicated essence from which all relationships that we can measure are derived, and in respect of which all purposes are inspired --- whether or not consciously appreciated as such. Or that which seems to have availed the expression of measurables (however incomplete) for our universe within an otherwise inexplicable infinitude of mathematical possibilities.
IAE, to expect to use measurements to disprove the existence of meta-things that may or may not be beyond measure seems to violate basic logic. IOW, merely to assume all of existentiality ("Reality"?) entails only physical measurables, with no metas that are beyond mortal measurement, seems to violate basic logic. Unless, that is, one deploys a specialty definition of "metaphysical" that amounts only to a circular attempt to prove by assumptive definition.
There are various problems with assuming that everything that "really exists" must be measurable to mortals (as opposed to being intuitively or empathetically implicated or appreciated). One is that no mortal can take himself outside the universe in order to measure the universe. There is the observable, measurable universe, and there is the universe that may abide, have expanded, or have vibrated or phase shifted beyond or perpetually outside the reach of our local measure.
There are other problems with measurements that are inherent. No mortal can take a measurement that is objectively and entirely independent of his own conscious perspective in taking the measurement. Every event being measured will have already passed as soon as the measurement is completed. And the act of taking the measurement will have affected what is being or was measured.
Another problem is that qualitatives abide that are not measurable quantitatives. Examples: Your Identity, you-ness, or I-ness. A perspective of consciousness that has committed to identify with the preservation of a local pattern or organism and its context cannot simultaneously measure what it is like, qualitatively, for another perspective to have committed to identify with the preservation of a different pattern or organism and its context. Try taking a complete measure of what "you" are or will become.
Another problem is that orders of significance and context for measurements vary depending on one's practical purposes. One cannot cannot take a measurement that will be precise enough to suit all purposes and models. Per Godel, is is unlikely that humanity can ever synthesize a complete Theory of Everything. Can one completely pre-measure love, respect, or commitment?
Another problem is that one can only measure basic components or particles by using aggregative and relational methods. No essential particle-in-itself is knowable to mortals. If there were such a particle, we could not know it to relate to any other particle without its losing its identity as a particle-in-itself. And, if a particle were knowable of itself only, then it would not be subject to the rules that control and relate to the unfolding of our universe.
At quantum levels, what are particles? Are they bits of substance (matter or energy), or are they bits of math-based information? Do they flux as they exchange bits of information, so that any attempt to use information to measure them will upset the information that was meant to be measured? Do they avail an array of possibilities, the complete determination of which is beyond mortal control?
Another problem is that our measurements are based on assumptions about models. A measurement that suits one model may not suit another. It does not appear that any TOE model is available to mortals to ever explicate everything -- consistently, coherently, and completely. See Godel.
Moreover, the unit values for our models seem to flux and phase. For example, some think the speed of light may not always have been the same value we commonly think of today.
Another problem pertains to moral purposefulness. We cannot avoid making choices about our purposes. Yet, neither can we rely entirely on measurables to derive how we ought to purpose ourselves.
Another problem is that local feedback alters local purposes and local niches, so that measurements in respect of such niches become less reliable to their original purposes. We participate in determining how our bodies and worlds unfold, so that measurements taken today may become less relevant tomorrow. This is problematic when we rely on past measurements to recommend future actions. Do environmental pressures select which organic mutations are most availed to replicate, or do organic mutations cause environments to evolve? Or is the process more one of correlative (meta?) feedback than one of "causation"?
MORAL SCIENTISIMISTS:
To the extent militant atheists claim truly to want only to relate to that which is objectively measurable, then they belie that claim each time they claim superiority for prescribing moral choices and values that are beyond objective determination.
There is no science by which to say the cosmos, universe, or Gaia is or should be better or worse off for more or less Humans, Atheists, Christians, Perverts, Communists, Socialists, Sociopaths, Animal Lovers, Polygamists, or Annihilists. Or, if some avowed atheist says there is, let him prove how to derive "ought from is." And show his work.
IOW, to the extent we value civilizing assimilations of moral values and purposes, we need to avail means with which to assimilate them. And there is no purely scientific or objective means for that. Notwithstanding all the whiny howls of ninny boys.
******************
HOW THINGS ARE DETERMINED TO FLUX AND CORRELATE:
The universe-defining Algorithm abides (seemingly of infinite expansiveness and eternal sequentiality) --- simultaneously as a holistic particle-like entity and as a variable wave
-like field (of vibrations, undulations, amplitudes, frequencies, intensities, polarities, spins, anti-spins, charges, entanglements, balances, divisions, relationships, storages, momentums, attractions, repulsions, potentialities, energies, hungers, senses, sensations, patterns, organisms, perspectives) --- as perpetual potentiality in three simultaneously present and fluxing states: Being a trinity composed of tautological Consciousness, measurable Substance, and cumulating Information.
From any adopted perspective (locus of determinable sequence and spatially relational manifestation), the Algorithm (of "living math") may flux to present in various states of relationships among Consciousness, Substance, and Information (CSI).
Beyond its fluxing presentations of CSI, the Algorithm is nothing more than potentiality to activate fields of relational presentations to various perspectives of local sensation and experience. C, S, and I cannot exist as independent states of being, apart from being tied to fluxing relationships with one another. No bit of Information can be added or recorded with any Substance without adding a necessity at some level to effect Conscious determination(s) among sequentially following possibilities.
No perspective can be experienced without relational reference to a field that fluxes to define and limit it. To every sequence and measure of focus (point of view) and field (frame of reference or recordation) for the emergence of sensate perspective, its field of potentiality will seem to abide and recede as an infinity beyond measurable confinement. No particular perspective can take any measurement without reference to (or "outside of") the field of potentiality that defines and limits it.
Potentialities for focal points may seem to recede towards the infinitely small. Potentialities for fields of measurement may seem to recede towards the infinitely expansive. Potentialities for sequentialities may seem to recede towards eternity. But this is only because they cannot abide but for their relationship being tied to the Algorithm. What seems to abide as infinite space, perpetual energy, and eternal time are, in respect of the Algorithm, merely derivatives of relationally-perpetually present math-icality.
How may the Algorithm rule, as energies seem to expand beyond resolution, as space expands towards oblivion, as information cumulates to a limit, and as consciousness seems to die to time? Well, how did the Algorithm ("living math") rule before the postulated Big Bang? And what was the character or nature of that which then and/or there ruled it? Well, no merely mortal derivative would seem to have capacity further to understand.
What a mortal can do is to appreciate the tautological aspect of conscious Identity, to appreciate the metaphorical re-presentations of models and conceptualizations regarding "Reality," and to appreciate roles in a never-ending story and unfolding of innate empathies.
**********
Consciousness can be conceptualized as building on different levels. Self awareness, awareness of surroundings, awareness of nutrients or sunlight, subconsciousness, organic stimulus response, determination among potential alternatives or choices, informing of potentialities of Consciousness, maybe even systemic regulation and reconciliation of events within and of parameters. I do not see how mere substance could cumulate a storage of information (stored consciousness?) absent an expression of consciousness at some level. I do not say substance is consciousness, but I do not see how it could be expressed in ways that cumulate information in the complete absence of Consciousness.
I would agree that Consciousness can be conceptualized as not being required, but only if one wants to assume a specialty definition of Consciousness and a meta notion of a multiverse.
I doubt substance, information, and consciousness can exist without one another. I suspect an algorithm fluxes them as they avail expression of one another.
I think the process of cumulating information entails a process of cumulating untold potential choices and reconciliations. Each new bit of information does not just pre-cumulate or cause one specific possible next manifestation, but an array of choices. That entails reconciliations. That entails something more than dumb-matter.
****************
The unfolding "design" is in respect of a process of systemic feedback and appreciation. Systemic feedback and appreciation seem to entail conscious determination. Unless one prefers to imagine that everything that can occur does occur somewhere or sometime in some universe.
Ideas, values and visions also evolve as part of the system of feedback and appreciation. Entropy of substance seems to be offset by cumulation of information. As information increases, conscious design seems to acquire more complex capacity.
Even if we are of a simulation, that simulation would entail "design" unfolding under a systemic process of feedback and appreciation. Soon, we may evolve to design our own systems of simulations.
Insofar as any idea of unfolding design seems to entail conscious feedback and appreciation of measurable substance and cumulating information, it seems that the fundamental fluxors that define and allow our expression are a trinity of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Whatever the systemic holism or algorithm they obey, they seem to abide as the Godhead of its expression.
When our moral vision becomes poor or demented, the civil system we produce will tend there to follow. If we want a more enlightened society, we have to take a share of responsibility for how our feedback affects the system. Without vision, a people are lost. Evolution as a model, without conscious respect or regard for decency, is a model that cannot support a vision of civil decency. Absent moral vision, governance tends to devolve to conscienceless people-farmers.
If atheistic evolutionists can show an objective basis for decent mores that is free from metaphysics, let them lay it out. I can always use a good laugh.
*************
I agree that what is processed into measurable manifestation by consciousness is not itself conscious, but only a signifier or expression of consciousness. I do not think consciousness is "in" the measurable aspect of a brain, atom, or quark. But I do not believe any such a measurable could be manifested in the complete absence of an expression of consciousness.
I do not think consciousness need be bound to a pre-determined plan or design. I think it can appreciate, respond to, be "surprised" by, and reconcile among innumerable perspectives of itself. But for variation in situational loci and sequence, I think we are all of the same consciousness. Which I think is the meta basis for empathy. There but for fortune go "I".
