Are photons real?
Yes, please do answer that.
“”""""“Yes, please do answer that.”"""""""""
I’m making some headway here… my brain is in an incubation period right now, waiting for the ‘seed’ to trigger. Or the magnetic grid to coellaese with the ‘particles’ being drawn to it in a existential vaccuum (so to speak) =) Straight processing wasn’t working out well, so I’m waiting patiently for the ‘seed to grow’. It’s interesting (to me) that I haven’t solved these precise issues before… it is not part of my ‘reportior’ LOL My innitial notes went the direction of solving for the definition of life, death, simulation and hallucination. I’m starting with death first.
I’m solving for the difference between a simulation that acts independantly of the simulator’s will (axiom: except that it ceases when the simulator is ‘dead’) - and something that acts of its own accord, ‘whose’ life is not dependant upon the simulator’s existence, in relation to other beings. I am trying to solve this problem for solipsism as well. I ‘feel’ the answer, it just hasen’t come yet. As nervous as I get about this everytime, the answer always seems to come from that ‘feeling’. Hopefully I will have something interesting to present very soon!
-Justhink
I would parody you if you weren’t so darned sweet. You’re nothing if not adorable. God go with you, my friend.
Ooo… parady, mockery, sarcasm, intellectual elitism, oh my!
These are fantastic! 'Tis a shame that you should keep them hidden. I find that these ‘degenrative’ processes actually serve a function to my ‘quest’. Not only can they reveal new and engaging forms of thought between the lines (per direct expression of sentient thought upon itself); but they can also add an existential selective pressure towards suicide that helps simulate some of the more elusive patterns. Tools of the trade, if you will. Sometimes it is necessary to internalize them (and ‘martyr’ ones self) to achieve a truly effective existential vacuum; other times ‘acting out’ can elicit such physical corroboration of worthlessness (less one should become to comfortable becoming seperated from the cause and effect of reality). Of course, that would require the ability for you to present a simulation or verifiable construct that I have failed to model and survive thus far - quite a feat IMO.
My life is very simple (if I may extend myself for granduer).
I must either solve for ‘suicide’ (at which point, I would carry it out) or I must solve for meaning; at which point I would carry this out. I must prove this in such a way, as to be irrifutable to any possibility of sentience in conjunction with the outside world; so that no person or group can escape the form either retro-actively, presently or in potential of the future. I cannot make one mistake, and I must complete the project before I die. 'Twould be a shame if my sole meaning was the process itself, rather than a conclusion. I am here for results. To me, life is not worth living unless this problem can be solved. It astonishes me that there exists no societal collective to solve for this issue; or that society does not maintain perspective and thought form encyclopedias.
I have the condition that meaning cannot be a superficial lock (in all instances), creating the condition from a larger system of absolute incoherence. That would be a proof for suicide IMO.
I have a condition that I cannot use knowledge to covertly manipulate the subject of reality itself (including all subsets of individualistic expressions). This assures that the process is pure, incorruptable and can decompile efficiently for all forms of sentience.
That is my fanciful ‘archetype’, or ‘deification’ of myself if you will.
I can reverse the archetype of course, but for all practical purposes it allows an individual to judge me in a manner that is derogatory enough to be dismissive, enabling their indentured system to operate as if I was non-existent to a great extent. Part of the policy of ‘non-interference’. Unfortunately, I am not a complete vaccum (or so it seems), and require feedback from time to time =( I live alone, rot and suffer greatly… I have not discerned a reason to do otherwise. The clock is ticking against my self-deterioration and my ability to solve this problem (either validating that state, or reversing it).
There are ‘all kinds’ as they say. I almost feel like an incarnation sentience itself; a detective if you will, here to discern itself in relation to that which may or may not be itself - aknowledge its own ‘viability’. If anything, it makes a great archetype IMO;
It’s own anthropomorphism, or role-playing game =( boo-hoo
I’ll escape these perspectives eventually, I have confidence in an unassailable resolution.
-Justhink
To all those that say that your god is too complex to fully understand, I have a question. Could you please tell us what you partially understand about your god, and what lead you to believe such things?
Justhink: In my first reading of your posts dated 26[sup]th[/sup] and 27[sup]th[/sup], it seemed that you might be saying that you might kill yourself if you didn’t win this debate, but on subsequent readings, it became clear that I simply don’t understand what you are saying (perhaps my failure to parse your posts is indicative of their non-existence?). It does look like it might be fascinating though, if it could be expressed in terms simple enough for me to grasp.
Czarcasm: After drafting three or four abortive attempts to answer your request here, I’m starting to think that I might not be able to do justice to it without resorting to over-use of imperfect analogy, or without waffling on about stuff that is entirely subjective and individually trivial - neither of these would be particularly useful, I feel.
Incidentally, Had I known that this debate would require me to precisely and accurately define God, I would not have entered into it. (Interpret that any way you like, but IMO it’s an impossible task).
*[sup]And I’m not going there again, not today, anyway.[/sup]
Czar,
Is your request to know of God, as I apprehend His being, through my imperfect perception and understanding, or are you asking me to provide evidence?
I have no evidence for you, as I have told you many times before. But I have evidence for me. My experiences have been real. I cannot provide any way for you to differentiate my report of my experiences from delusion, or out and out lies. In fact, I assure you that nothing I could honestly report to you is essentially different to your perceptions than any fraud, or cult come on. (Well, different in that I don’t want any of your money, I guess.) Nor do I think that you should rely on my experience and faith to know God yourself.
Tris
“The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure.
The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.” ~ Lao-tzu ~
The * in my post above was intended to refer to use of analogy; don’t know what happened there.
Do you actually think that you will come to some gratifying conclusion through this debate between the strong-willed? Will one side eventually abate and yield to the opinion of the other? Will a collective solution reveal istelf?
You debate for the sake of debate. Always keep that in mind.
::bows:: now, continue.
I’m not sure I agree with that…
Eventually? Certainly. In fact, from the Absolute Reference Frame, it already has.
A scheme whereby all strife would cease? too absurd to think about 
K2Rage101,
Do you mind if I call you K2?
We do not debate to convince each other. We debate to present divergent views. Changing of minds may happen, even though none of those so affected choose to post to that effect. It is the nature of public debate that the participants are only advocates of opinions. The popularity of any of the opinions may change as a result of the debate, or not. Neither of those cases are germane to the argument, of course. Argumentum ad populum, you know?
And, to a certain extent, the debate serves the participants as intellectual calisthenics. The mind is a tool which becomes sharper, with frequent use.
Tris
“People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.” ~ Lao Tzu ~
I have in memory the idea that something can move around a corner and travel great distances to the point where I would be so hard-pressed to find it again, that I may not even be sure if it exists at all; had it not been in my memory. Reality is the very thing which never walks around that corner, it is the extension of this concept into perception itself; that it would walk around an indefinite corner and cease to ever be visible to perception; or motion or existence itself. Something which cannot be within the clutches of motion; can never return. Reality is the very thing which does not ever turn this corner; suggesting that the corner itself cannot even be humored as possible to be.
We can work on this, or we can move back to the idea of God…
-Justhink
I think that in order to continue this debate, I’d have to be able to interpret your linguistic style; but I can’t.
I see words. I see sentences. I even see paragraphs. But I feel like I’m reading something from Bj0rn. In Icelandic.
I think I get what justhink is trying to say, but if I may be less poetic, I would simply submit that “reality” is the sum of our perceptions, that is reality is everything that we perceive with our physical senses or can infer indirectly from those same senses. Of course this definition is wide open to Cartesian doubt and all sorts of other epistimological questions, but for the sake of coherent debate, I think it is sufficient.
The postulation of “God” is that of another “reality” which exists outside of (and perhaps created) our own perceived reality. Nothing in our reality has yet “proven” the existence or non-existence of any hypothetical “meta-reality” (God) . assertions as to the latter seem to be largely based on extremely personal “experience” which is far from universal, and is not repeatable, testable, or communicable from one individual to another. Furthermore, these “experiences,” however intense they may be, are just as subject to Cartesian doubt as any other experience, even more so since they are not universal, and indeed are not even consistent in content within the pool of individuals who DO have such experiences. We also have the further complication of separating “true” experience from psychotic episodes or hallucinations.
Personal spiritual “experience” is simply not helpful or persuasive as a proof of God, because it is not possible to communicate the experience to others. It is one thing to point and say “look at that rock,” when there is a high degree of reliability that another person will, in fact, see the rock. It is different to say, for instance, “feel God’s love,” since this is an experience outside of physical perception and cannot be “pointed out” so to speak, to a person who does not already share the experience.
Sig line material there, for sure.