Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaIt is a massive undertaking you are suggesting but I think I addressed that in my opening statement. I, like probably the majority of us, are familiar with the most common shared beliefs. Are you suggesting that by laying them all out here we will find some commonality? Perhaps we would but I don't think so. I think all of us are attached to whatever we perceive to be "as is" and to go to that area will most likely lead to what happens in most of the debate forums, religious squabbles. I know I am not qualified to discount anyone's belief just as there isn't anyone to qualified to discount mine. I just have a hard time understanding how all of this does not return to this feeling of uncertainity.
This is a big ask, but perhaps there needs to be a collective sharing by all cultures (starting with 'us' on this forum) to appreciate the magnitude of such a question.
All cultures have their origin mythologies, based on their respective ontology, and many seem to share common beliefs and happenings. If we all post human origin stories/beli ...[text shortened]... haps even a theory ( 🙂)
We could be guided by the maxim, 'Where theres smoke theres fire'.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThanks for your insight Mike. I tend to somewhat agree with your line of thinking or more so your summary of what you have read with one exception: Who is to say we are more or less developed than "God"?
Hey Joe,
Richard Feinman worked a long time on 'breaking a wave". I think he was onto something, though I will never know for certain because I lack mathability.
One thing we have noticed in quantum physics is that until a 'reality' or 'photon' or 'information packet' is observed, it has a dual nature. It carries an "uncertainty" that al ...[text shortened]... subject. I just accept my limits and proclaim what is obvious to me. I will adapt to change.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThat was very interesting and well written. Did that come from something or did you write it yourself?
We shall.
In the beginning was dark. There gathered all beings both bright and dark.
And we were afraid. We knew not whither we came. We knew that all who arrive depart without meaning.
So then came a great sorrow. "If we come into this village and die, and are so forgotten, then what meaning do we possess?"
And we grieved.
There was no ...[text shortened]... on.
India for all. Or... Space.
To live. To grow. To become. To... Be. What we can dream.
It's definitely marvelous. But what does "why" mean? Why suggests a motive or justification. Whose motive? Whose justification? Why do we need a motive or justification for existence?
I don't know and I cannot rationalize the answer that there is no justification, no motive, no purpose.
b]Wonder is an experience or emotion, like any other. What is there to understand about it? Wonderf ...[text shortened]... e of wonder. It's not an inherent quality of something.
Don't have an answer for that one, yet
I think you're making the mistake of putting "man" at the centre of everything, not I.
I disagree. Who is it that's calling them pretty? Rocks? Dogs? No. Humans. "Prettyness" is a feeling that is experienced about something and a judgement, and as far as I know, only humans are capable of this.
You previously said the rose is the way it is to be...mmm...shall we say, more attractive? ...to the bees.
I didn't use those words, but that sounds correct to me.
This is the vanity I was referring to, the desire to "look good" and be desired for it.
This is false. You are assuming the rose has desires. I do not think this is true.
You also say there is no motivation, I beg to differ. If it does not strive to "look pretty" another plant, such as the humble buttercup, will gain the attentions of the bees instead. If the rose does nothing it will die out.
The rose is neither striving nor changing itself. These things happen randomly. Some plants randomly developed color. Some plants randomly developed appearences such that that bees had a hard time locating them. The colorful ones reproduced, and the others did not (much). That's why there are colorful plants now.
Motivation is something that directs a conciousness or a will. Roses don't have these things as far as I can tell. Even if they do, it doesn't seem as though they are actively changing themselves. Their acting on will is limited to turning towards sunlight and other things that plants actually do. Mutation just happens, and some help the plant and some do not. We tend to see the ones that help.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell for me the Bible makes this very clear: In fact it is such a great mystery that it makes perfect sense to me why many of you don't grasp it... The Bible says that he who says there is no God is a fool...
dj2becker -
My worldview vs the Biblical worldview - why mine makes more sense:
[b]1. What is reality?
My worldview (ATY)-'Reality' is a word. Define it however you want. This question makes little sens ...[text shortened]... at question from any perspective unless you're more specific.
[/b]
1. What is reality?
God is ultimate reality. (Ps 90:2; Gen 1:1).
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." John 1:1
2. What is our basis of knowledge?
Our basis for knowledge is God's revelation (2 Peter 1:19-21).
"In the past God spoke...through the prophets...but in the last days He has spoken to us by His Son..." Hebrews 1:1-2
3. How can we know what is right and wrong?
We can know what is wrong and right from the Word of God (Romans 12:1-2)
"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16
4. What is man?
Man is created by God but human nature is sinful (totally depraved) (Gen 1:27,28; 3:6-12; Rom 3:10; 5:12; Eph 2:1-3). Because we are created by God there is some good even in the worst of us. Because we are fallen there is bad even in the best of us.
"For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works..." Ephesians 2:10
5. What happens to a person after death?
After death each one of us shall face eternal judgement and shall either enjoy God's gracious rewards in Heaven or endure just punishment in hell (John 5:28-29; Dan 12:2; 2 Thess1:8-9).
"Man is destined to die once, after that to face judgemnet." Hebrews 9:27
6. What is the meaning of History?
History is His-story. God is sovereign over history (see Lev 26, Deut 28 and 32; Jer 18:7-10; 2 Chron 7:14).
"The most high is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives to anyone He wishes." Daniel 4:25
7. Why is there suffering and evil?
Suffering and evil are the result of man's rebellion against God since the Fall (Rom 1: 18-32).
"Do no be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." Galations 6:7
8. What is the purpose of our existance?
The purpose of our existance is to glorify God and to worship Him forever (John 4:24).
"...Whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:31
9. How should we live?
We should therefore live in obedience to the Bible (1 Sam 15:22; Matt 7:21).
"The Lord your God commands you this day to follow these decrees and laws, carefully observe them with all your heart and with all your soul." Deut 26:16
Originally posted by StarValleyWy6 times? Are you ugly or something?
Ok. I now take this as a personal challenge. I have been rejected six times.
Let's try "I take our sexuality as a given of nature. We will do all we can to trump our enemies/competitors".
May the force be with me. <chuckle>
Ever loving the thought police.
In any case if you're only taking it as a personal challenge after your sixth attempt then that might go a long way to explain your previous failures...
As to what possible relation this has to vanity in un-thinking objects, that you are going to have to explain.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFor a start, I never used the word "prettyness", I used the term "look good" and included the quotes. Please pay attention...I'd hate to think I'm wasting my time explaining this to you.
[b]I think you're making the mistake of putting "man" at the centre of everything, not I.
I disagree. Who is it that's calling them pretty? Rocks? Dogs? No. Humans. "Prettyness" is a feeling that is experienced about ...[text shortened]... the plant and some do not. We tend to see the ones that help.[/b][/b]
This is why I stated that you are being humanist and not I, unless you wish to argue that a pile of rotting meat doesn't "look good" to a fly? Or a rose doesn't "look good" to a bee? You're assuming that this term can only be used from the perspective of humans...
"The rose is neither striving nor changing itself. These things happen randomly."
When something has an identifiable cause, such as the sun, and effect, such as pointing at the sun, we dont usually call that random... The rose does change itself or growth and mutation would never take place. Since the rose has every fibre of it's being (genetically) dedicated to the vain goal of "looking good", "strive" is a perfectly appropriate word to use.
As to "random mutation", chance, fate and will...these will typically only end up being successfull if they comply with "vanity". This is a motivational factor by the very act of reproduction and death that you have just described.
Motivation is, in common every day usage of the word, usually considered a conscious or will directed phenomena, but that is not inherent in it's meaning. One thing that is really worth bearing in mind in these discussions is that your language is not designed for discussing these kinds of topics, it's designed for human interaction.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by MayharmOriginally posted by Mayharm
For a start, I never used the word "prettyness", I used the term "look good" and included the quotes. Please pay attention...I'd hate to think I'm wasting my time explaining this to you.
This is why I stated that you are being humanist and not I, unless you wish to argue that a pile of rotting meat doesn't "look good" to a fly? Or a rose doesn't ...[text shortened]... designed for discussing these kinds of topics, it's designed for human interaction.
MÅ¥HÅRM
[b]For a start, I never used the word "prettyness", I used the term "look good" and included the quotes. Please pay attention...I'd hate to think I'm wasting my time explaining this to you.
Actually you did use the word "pretty", here is a copy of your post:
If that's the case, roses cannot be vain, so why are they pretty?
Originally posted by Joe FistWhoops! 🙂
Originally posted by Mayharm
[b]For a start, I never used the word "prettyness", I used the term "look good" and included the quotes. Please pay attention...I'd hate to think I'm wasting my time explaining this to you.
Actually you did use the word "pretty", here is a copy of your post:
If that's the case, roses cannot be vain, so why are they pretty?
Nice catch. I cant believe I managed to miss that even after checking 🙄
Still... I maintain that you weren't grasping the intent, though the fault is probably mine for that slip.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by MayharmWell I think I see your intent but I agree with ATY in the sense that it is mankind that assigns any type of value to anything. That is not saying that all creatures of the universe do not "value" what they need to survive. Most creatures need some kind of nourishment, security,etc. It is just that we are the ones that label things as "pretty, ugly, vain, scary...etc".
Whoops! 🙂
Nice catch. I cant believe I managed to miss that even after checking 🙄
Still... I maintain that you weren't grasping the intent, though the fault is probably mine for that slip.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by Joe Fist"It is just that we are the ones that label things as "pretty, ugly, vain, scary...etc"
Well I think I see your intent but I agree with ATY in the sense that it is mankind that assigns any type of value to anything. That is not saying that all creatures of the universe do not "value" what they need to survive. Most creatures need some kind of nourishment, security,etc. It is just that we are the ones that label things as "pretty, ugly, vain, scary...etc".
Yes, that's the point I was attempting to make earlier about language. Those concepts exist with or without the label for them, the label you use creates bias, in this case a human bias, as to how it applies and to what and where and how. In effect building the belief that without you these concepts do not exist, e.g. the humanist point of view, that man is the measure of all things.
To communicate with you about this topic I have to use your labels despite the fact that what we are discussing is their pre-existing concepts. Normally I dont need to do this and would use precise terminology to prevent confusion. That isn't possible here...vanity is the best word I can think of to describe to you why you and I exist.
Would it help if I defined the concept a little better? Let me see, how about, "the motivation to be observed"?
MÅ¥HÅRM
PS. Apologies for the last post, I automatically thought you were ATY when you made the catch.
Originally posted by MayharmNo worries, I am enjoying this subject matter 🙂
[b]"It is just that we are the ones that label things as "pretty, ugly, vain, scary...etc"
Yes, that's the point I was attempting to make earlier about language. Those concepts exist with or without the label for them, the label you use creates bias, in this case a human bias, as to how it applies and to what and where and how. In effect bu ...[text shortened]...
PS. Apologies for the last post, I automatically thought you were ATY when you made the catch.[/b]
Mayharm -
For a start, I never used the word "prettyness", I used the term "look good" and included the quotes. Please pay attention...I'd hate to think I'm wasting my time explaining this to you.
Thanks for the catch, JoeFist. Now I don't have to check.
So do you feel bad about being so patronizing and obnoxious to me about this, as you were the one to make the mistake, Mayharm?
This is why I stated that you are being humanist and not I, unless you wish to argue that a pile of rotting meat doesn't "look good" to a fly? Or a rose doesn't "look good" to a bee? You're assuming that this term can only be used from the perspective of humans...
I said: "Prettyness" is a feeling that is experienced about something and a judgement, and as far as I know, only humans are capable of this.
You made a good case for other animals being able to experience the feeling that things "look good" (bees specifically - I don't know how the fly flower looks, I only referred to it's smell, but that's a small point and basically irrelevant). However note that I said "as far as I know" - I didn't absolutely exclude other beings.
When something has an identifiable cause, such as the sun, and effect, such as pointing at the sun, we dont usually call that random... The rose does change itself or growth and mutation would never take place.
Mutations do have identifiable causes. However, if you take a specific plant, you cannot predict how it's descendents will mutate and evolve. This is different than your sun example. The mutations are random, because the effect, though identifiable in retrospect in specifics and identifiable in very general terms in the future, is not predictable in detail - you don't know what kind of features something will evolve. The rose may someday evolve a "bee trap" that captures bees and pours pollen on them. This could be more effective than flowers, but it's not pretty.
The rose does not change itself with respect to mutations and evolutions. Outside agencies, like radiation or chemicals, change it.
Since the rose has every fibre of it's being (genetically) dedicated to the vain goal of "looking good", "strive" is a perfectly appropriate word to use.
Again, the rose isn't initiating the changes that lead to it's evolution.
As to "random mutation", chance, fate and will...these will typically only end up being successfull if they comply with "vanity".
Define 'vanity' please. The common definition involves a self satisfaction with one's appearance and a pride in it - possibly with tones of excess - as well as desires to look good. There is no reason that I know of to believe roses experience self satisfaction, pride, or desires or any other kind of emotion that humans experience.
Motivation is, in common every day usage of the word, usually considered a conscious or will directed phenomena, but that is not inherent in it's meaning.
OK. Please give me the definition you are using. You've admitted you are using it in a different way than the common way. No word has "inherent meaning", so it's self evident that will is not part of the inherent meaning of the word 'motivation'.
One thing that is really worth bearing in mind in these discussions is that your language is not designed for discussing these kinds of topics, it's designed for human interaction.
I disagree.
Yes, that's the point I was attempting to make earlier about language. Those concepts exist with or without the label for them, the label you use creates bias
The labels are totally neutral in and of themselves. They are sounds and pixels. We can define them however we want. If we define a sound and pixel arrangement as a representation for a concept, then there is not necessarily any bias. I think you are making up brand new definitions for the labels and then getting on my case for using the standard definitions. If you make up new definitions, please be explicit about it.
Normally I dont need to do this and would use precise terminology to prevent confusion. That isn't possible here...vanity is the best word I can think of to describe to you why you and I exist.
Well if 'vanity' isn't the right word for what you are trying to express, then don't use it. Especially don't use it and then give me a hard time for showing you it's not the right word. Explain your position with more words instead of insisting on using new definitions of commonly used words without clearly stating that you're using a new definition.
Would it help if I defined the concept a little better? Let me see, how about, "the motivation to be observed"?
As far as I am aware, motivations require a will. If I misunderstand the common definition for the word please correct me, give me a clear definition, and preferably steer me to a website like dictionary.com that agrees with your definition.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes I apologise, but no I dont feel bad. I would feel bad had I actually been patronising and obnoxious.
Mayharm -
[b]For a start, I never used the word "prettyness", I used the term "look good" and included the quotes. Please pay attention...I'd hate to think I'm wasting my time explaining this to you.
Thanks for ...[text shortened]... a website like dictionary.com that agrees with your definition.
[/b]
My apology is genuine, just as the irritation I displayed and am apologising for is genuine. I'm irritated because I find myself arguing "religion", something I prefer not to do...especially when it's my faith that is being argued.
So, first let me explain why your language cannot easily cope with this topic.
Language exists to enable communication between beings, vocabulary exists to provide a common definition to facilitate that communication. Those definitions are therefore common to the beings who created them, if they weren't then communication would be impaired.
Here is the problem, how do you communicate with the universe? How do you create a common definition with something that you can barely comprehend, let alone communicate with? Now the cocky answer to that is of course "maths, the universal language". 🙂
Unfortunately that's not very helpfull, it limits the discussion in the same way that trying to talk about the contents of a database would be by using the machine code that was used to create it. The most we can get from that is a few simple concepts such as infinity, energy, mass, etc. Asking the universe why we are here with maths is like asking your financial database who are the highest earners with a bunch of 1's and 0's.
Without being able to ask the universe, anything you or I say would be a projection of our own perceptions filtered through a language that couldn't possibly convey the "true" meaning of the answer the universe would actually give us.
Therefore any discussion about a subject such as this will involve approximation, imagination and analogy.
Vanity is the closest approximation I can find for what I am describing. When I use that word you will first think what it means for you, a woman putting on make-up perhaps. If you're thoughtfull enough you might consider what it means for others and refer to the dictionary, but it requires imagination to apply it to anything else. I can only demonstrate the meaning of what I'm describing through analogy such as the rose.
Despite the fact that I have been saying that the "common" interpretation of the words I'm using will not suffice, you have consistently argued that because they dont fit the "dictionary definition" they are invalid. You dont want to use your imagination? Fine, dont. Just dont expect to ever learn anything outside human experience.
Now as to some of your specific points:
"Mutations do have identifiable causes. However, if you take a specific plant, you cannot predict how it's descendents will mutate and evolve. This is different than your sun example. The mutations are random, because the effect, though identifiable in retrospect in specifics and identifiable in very general terms in the future, is not predictable in detail - you don't know what kind of features something will evolve."
The point I was making, and admittedly not very well, was that while the event that causes the mutation is random (e.g. cosmic rays striking DNA) once the "cause" has happened the effect is predictable or at least follow comprehensible and mostly non-random rules that can be determined.
The point to be made though is that whether or not a mutation is random, it's success/failure is not. It follows the basic premise that the universe operates on (whatever you decide that to be).
"Again, the rose isn't initiating the changes that lead to it's evolution."
Irrelevant to whether the rose is "striving" or not. The "striving" I was refering to is not dependant on whether it evolves or not.
"OK. Please give me the definition you are using. You've admitted you are using it in a different way than the common way. No word has "inherent meaning", so it's self evident that will is not part of the inherent meaning of the word 'motivation'."
In this case the dictionary definition is certainly close enough and makes no reference to will or consciousness except as example (dictionary.com). I also find it curious that you say no word has inherent meaning when most of your dispute over my word usage is based on them having exactly that.
MÅ¥HÅRM