Forgiveness & Redemption

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:27 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:Make a distinction between a mind that conceives of a photon and the photon a mind conceived of.


There is not distinction - that is what I am telling you.

It's assumed that the photon always existed and was laying about waiting to be 'discovered' by a mind.

is it possible the photon is put there and whatever it entails goes along with it?


I am showing you that light contains both energy and information with design. DNA is a crystal (as in a radio crystal) that downloaded the blueprint for your brain. The brain is about 10,000 more complex than anything we have engineered to date. Your body is a chemical/electrical/mechanical closed system with a wiring harness that puts the space shuttle to a Disneyland ride.

The information, blueprints, language and energy to construct the incredible machine that processes information was downloaded from the photon.

Information can be written on a chalkboard, sand, paper or computer - it does not matter the mode of communication as the information remains the same. Therefore; light is intelligent and is the thought of God because it requires intelligence to decipher a information.

Instead of seeing your 'self' encased in a body - realize your consciousness is riding the photon that interpenetrates the vast universe.

scientific theories 'fit' phenomena into the theory.
in time, the theory is shown up as a failure to account for the phenomena.
another theory is formatted and so on,
always moving.


You are not seeing what I am saying if you can make this statement. Did you use a computer to type this post? If you did, you just proved what I am sharing.




jupiviv wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:What or who decided to become conscious?


We become conscious if we are caused to. Decision implies the presence of consciousness, so it doesn't make sense to ask who decided to become conscious.


DNA designed your brain to think about cause and effect before you had the thought of cause and effect and so; your sentence does not make sense.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby jupiviv » Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:38 am

Beingof1 wrote:DNA designed your brain to think about cause and effect before you had the thought of cause and effect and so; your sentence does not make sense.


Any finite thing at all is caused to be what it is, and not just my brain. This is an absolute truth. Besides, how did you conclude that my sentence doesn't make sense after affirming it yourself, i.e, saying that DNA designed(caused) my brain?
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:05 am

jupiviv wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:DNA designed your brain to think about cause and effect before you had the thought of cause and effect and so; your sentence does not make sense.


Any finite thing at all is caused to be what it is, and not just my brain. This is an absolute truth. Besides, how did you conclude that my sentence doesn't make sense after affirming it yourself, i.e, saying that DNA designed(caused) my brain?


What or who decided to become conscious?

Are you saying the chemical/electrical energy made a conscious decision to become conscious to think about conditions that caused consciousness?

Is this truly your position?
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:43 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Make a distinction between a mind that conceives of a photon and the photon a mind conceived of.


There is not distinction - that is what I am telling you.



Yes there is.
in the experience, subject and object are like water poured upon water.
on reflection, mind and object are not the same.

Your schema distinguishes many aspects that appear to form as one whole in the experience.

What have you got?

A notion of Absolute (God), not finite, can't be accessed by the senses, the producer.
pieces and parts like,
photons,
electricity, chemistry,
DNA, brain, choice et al.

obviously the pieces/parts lack inherent existence, do not exist from their own side, are not self created, produce nothing, have no selfhood.
so,
the ultimate reality of phenomena is that it has no selfhood in and of itself.
the delusion is imputing selfhood on phenomena.

each piece/part is not the same,
and yet each piece/part is not different in that they are caused and arise dependently.

an all-seeing mind sees the play of causality as the production,
is not fooled,
and rests in the infinite.

Now, a discriminating mind, by reflectively drawing distinctions, giving rise to wisdom,
can see the mostly unnecessary suffering and its causes.
the cause is belief that the self exists from its own side.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby jupiviv » Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:40 pm

Beingof1 wrote:What or who decided to become conscious?


As I said before, that question doesn't make any sense. If you decide to become conscious, then you are already conscious. You cannot become conscious if you're already conscious.

Are you saying the chemical/electrical energy made a conscious decision to become conscious to think about conditions that caused consciousness?


I'm saying that consciousness is caused to think that it is caused, in the same way a rock is caused to be a rock. I don't know why you are so fixated on the idea of consciously deciding to become conscious.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:05 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Dennis Mahar wrote:
Make a distinction between a mind that conceives of a photon and the photon a mind conceived of.


There is not distinction - that is what I am telling you.



Yes there is.
in the experience, subject and object are like water poured upon water.
on reflection, mind and object are not the same.


If you agree with emptiness, how can you make this statement?

The universe is not made up of things, the universe is made of mind.

Your schema distinguishes many aspects that appear to form as one whole in the experience.


It does form the whole once you put the pieces together.

What have you got?


A doorway or key to understand there is no longer the worldview of impossible/possible but instead easy/difficult.

A notion of Absolute (God), not finite, can't be accessed by the senses, the producer.


I just gave you a practical way to access the infinite.

pieces and parts like,
photons,
electricity, chemistry,
DNA, brain, choice et al.


The pieces and parts by themselves are meaningless. The conclusion however results in a paradigm that allows for real answers to real life questions.

obviously the pieces/parts lack inherent existence, do not exist from their own side, are not self created, produce nothing, have no selfhood.
so,
the ultimate reality of phenomena is that it has no selfhood in and of itself.
the delusion is imputing selfhood on phenomena.


Right back to your mantra all the while typing a post out.

I can see you in a real crisis:"don`t worry folks, your not really here and there is no crisis - its all just pieces and parts."

each piece/part is not the same,
and yet each piece/part is not different in that they are caused and arise dependently.

an all-seeing mind sees the play of causality as the production,
is not fooled,
and rests in the infinite.


That is what I said alright.

Now, a discriminating mind, by reflectively drawing distinctions, giving rise to wisdom,
can see the mostly unnecessary suffering and its causes.
the cause is belief that the self exists from its own side.


Who posted this?
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:08 am

jupiviv wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:What or who decided to become conscious?


As I said before, that question doesn't make any sense. If you decide to become conscious, then you are already conscious. You cannot become conscious if you're already conscious.


You are not making any sense at all.

Are you saying the chemical/electrical energy made a conscious decision to become conscious to think about conditions that caused consciousness?


I'm saying that consciousness is caused to think that it is caused, in the same way a rock is caused to be a rock. I don't know why you are so fixated on the idea of consciously deciding to become conscious.


I don`t know why you cannot see the illogical loop you are in.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby jupiviv » Sun Jun 03, 2012 3:56 am

Beingof1 wrote:
jupiviv wrote:As I said before, that question doesn't make any sense. If you decide to become conscious, then you are already conscious. You cannot become conscious if you're already conscious.


You are not making any sense at all.


Asking who decides to become conscious is like asking what an obese woman should eat in order to become obese. An obese woman is already obese, so she cannot "become" obese, because that would imply that she was not obese before she became obese. Decision already implies consciousness, unless your definition of the word is different from mine.

I'm saying that consciousness is caused to think that it is caused, in the same way a rock is caused to be a rock. I don't know why you are so fixated on the idea of consciously deciding to become conscious.


I don`t know why you cannot see the illogical loop you are in.


Your basic argument - and correct me if I am wrong - is that causality cannot apply to a conscious mind because it is aware of causality. Do you also believe that the law of identity cannot apply to a conscious mind because it is aware of it? Causality applies to any finite thing whatsoever, because the existence of any finite thing depends on the existence of other finite things.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:11 am

jupiviv wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:
jupiviv wrote:As I said before, that question doesn't make any sense. If you decide to become conscious, then you are already conscious. You cannot become conscious if you're already conscious.


You are not making any sense at all.


Asking who decides to become conscious is like asking what an obese woman should eat in order to become obese. An obese woman is already obese, so she cannot "become" obese, because that would imply that she was not obese before she became obese. Decision already implies consciousness, unless your definition of the word is different from mine.

I'm saying that consciousness is caused to think that it is caused, in the same way a rock is caused to be a rock. I don't know why you are so fixated on the idea of consciously deciding to become conscious.


I don`t know why you cannot see the illogical loop you are in.


Your basic argument - and correct me if I am wrong - is that causality cannot apply to a conscious mind because it is aware of causality. Do you also believe that the law of identity cannot apply to a conscious mind because it is aware of it? Causality applies to any finite thing whatsoever, because the existence of any finite thing depends on the existence of other finite things.


1) I have already demonstrated choice was involved before you had a brain.

2) I have already demonstrated choice was involved before you had a brain.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby jupiviv » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:31 am

Beingof1 wrote:1) I have already demonstrated choice was involved before you had a brain.

2) I have already demonstrated choice was involved before you had a brain.


Again, I can only guess what you are saying here. It would be helpful if you elaborated a bit on what you mean though.

You supposedly think that choice negates causality. Choice is a distinction between what we choose and what we do not choose. That distinction is necessarily caused.

Moreover, you still haven't responded to what I said in that post and the one before it. I laid out my reasoning, and it is time for you to point out the errors that you see in it, which you haven't done yet. Just saying "you don't make sense" doesn't make it so.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:03 am

jupiviv wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:1) I have already demonstrated choice was involved before you had a brain.

2) I have already demonstrated choice was involved before you had a brain.


Again, I can only guess what you are saying here. It would be helpful if you elaborated a bit on what you mean though.

You supposedly think that choice negates causality. Choice is a distinction between what we choose and what we do not choose. That distinction is necessarily caused.

Moreover, you still haven't responded to what I said in that post and the one before it. I laid out my reasoning, and it is time for you to point out the errors that you see in it, which you haven't done yet. Just saying "you don't make sense" doesn't make it so.


Choice always is made or is the cause before any effect whatsoever.

The real question, that I have asked repeatedly is, who or what chooses?
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:43 am

A who is a condition.
Choosing is a condition.
A who choosing is a condition.

conceptual.
depends on.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby jupiviv » Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:17 pm

Beingof1 wrote:Choice always is made or is the cause before any effect whatsoever.


Choice is a simple distinction between what we choose and do not choose. If you have a different definition of choice then you should explain it. In any case, you seem to be saying that choice is an uncaused cause, but there cannot be such a thing, for obvious reasons.

The real question, that I have asked repeatedly is, who or what chooses?


I've answered that already.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:20 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:A who is a condition.


A condition of what?

Choosing is a condition.


Because of a previous choice?

A who choosing is a condition.


A condition of what?

You just make these statements as if they are self evident. If they are, then point it out.

conceptual.
depends on.


Depends on what?

You are using evasion again. That is not wisdom its designed denial to appear wise.

You are not answering the question nor are you making any statements.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:26 pm

jupiviv wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:Choice always is made or is the cause before any effect whatsoever.


Choice is a simple distinction between what we choose and do not choose. If you have a different definition of choice then you should explain it.


I just did.

Here - let me repeat:
Beingof1 wrote:Choice always is made or is the cause before any effect whatsoever.



In any case, you seem to be saying that choice is an uncaused cause, but there cannot be such a thing, for obvious reasons.


If it is so obvious - care to point out why?

Just saying it is so does not make it so. Just give a counter example and make it crystal clear for us.


The real question, that I have asked repeatedly is, who or what chooses?


I've answered that already.


Could you point out where you addressed this because I cannot find it.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:14 pm

Absolute is informal, impersonal.

a who is conditional or a condition, it depends.
a who indicates a personality with attributes.
relative.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby jupiviv » Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:02 pm

Beingof1 wrote:
jupiviv wrote:In any case, you seem to be saying that choice is an uncaused cause, but there cannot be such a thing, for obvious reasons.


If it is so obvious - care to point out why?

Just saying it is so does not make it so. Just give a counter example and make it crystal clear for us.


An uncaused cause(or "first cause") is like a married bachelor, i.e, a contradiction in terms. Any finite thing is necessarily a cause of everything except itself, and it is necessarily caused by everything except itself.

As for who or what makes choice:

If you define choice as a distinction between what you choose and what you do not choose, or what you value and do not value, then that distinction can be made by a conscious mind.


I answered it on the 3rd page.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:38 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:Absolute is informal, impersonal.

a who is conditional or a condition, it depends.
a who indicates a personality with attributes.
relative.


More evasion. If you cannot manage to answer a question without puff speak political word chess - I am done.

Are we done?





jupiviv wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:
jupiviv wrote:In any case, you seem to be saying that choice is an uncaused cause, but there cannot be such a thing, for obvious reasons.


If it is so obvious - care to point out why?

Just saying it is so does not make it so. Just give a counter example and make it crystal clear for us.


An uncaused cause(or "first cause") is like a married bachelor, i.e, a contradiction in terms. Any finite thing is necessarily a cause of everything except itself, and it is necessarily caused by everything except itself.


First you tell me that "An uncaused cause(or "first cause") is like a married bachelor, i.e, a contradiction in terms."

Then you say any finite thing is the first cause.

Then you say everything except this finite thing is the first cause.

Yep - you do not make any sense at all - none - zip - nada - zero.

As for who or what makes choice:

If you define choice as a distinction between what you choose and what you do not choose, or what you value and do not value, then that distinction can be made by a conscious mind.


I answered it on the 3rd page.


Ok - I am not used to your writing style.

If you are saying the distinction is made between the choice and what is not chosen - which is what I think you are saying - where did the will to choose come from?

The conscious mind can draw distinctions and can be made to think about anything - who or what tells the mind what to think about?

When your conscious mind draws distinctions or asks itself a question, who is it talking to?
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby jupiviv » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:05 pm

Beingof1 wrote:First you tell me that "An uncaused cause(or "first cause") is like a married bachelor, i.e, a contradiction in terms."

Then you say any finite thing is the first cause.

Then you say everything except this finite thing is the first cause.


A finite thing is not an uncaused/first cause because it is caused by everything that is not itself. I plainly stated that in my post, but you imputed the exact opposite meaning to it. Are you being deliberately obtuse to say that I'm not making sense, or do you have a problem understanding simple english? I see no other reason why you would do that.

Moreover, a first cause implies time, whereas the causation of a thing by all except itself is simultaneous, so there is no reason why you would think I was saying a finite thing is a first cause if you understood what I wrote. And that's another thing - an uncaused cause cannot exist, because it would have to be literally *everything*, since the lack of any causes would mean the lack of anything to contrast it with.

If you are saying the distinction is made between the choice and what is not chosen - which is what I think you are saying - where did the will to choose come from?


I am saying that choice itself is a distinction between what is chosen and not chosen. I don't know what you mean by the "will to choose", so I can't answer.

The conscious mind can draw distinctions and can be made to think about anything - who or what tells the mind what to think about?


Nothing tells the mind what to think about.

When your conscious mind draws distinctions or asks itself a question, who is it talking to?


No one. "Talking to oneself" is only meaningful as a manner of speech. You can't converse with yourself in a literal sense.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:48 am

jupiviv wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:First you tell me that "An uncaused cause(or "first cause") is like a married bachelor, i.e, a contradiction in terms."

Then you say any finite thing is the first cause.

Then you say everything except this finite thing is the first cause.


A finite thing is not an uncaused/first cause because it is caused by everything that is not itself. I plainly stated that in my post, but you imputed the exact opposite meaning to it. Are you being deliberately obtuse to say that I'm not making sense, or do you have a problem understanding simple english? I see no other reason why you would do that.

Moreover, a first cause implies time, whereas the causation of a thing by all except itself is simultaneous, so there is no reason why you would think I was saying a finite thing is a first cause if you understood what I wrote. And that's another thing - an uncaused cause cannot exist, because it would have to be literally *everything*, since the lack of any causes would mean the lack of anything to contrast it with.


Why then did you ascribe first cause to my statement?
This one:
Choice always is made or is the cause before any effect whatsoever.


If this is an uncaused/first cause so is your finite thing.


If you are saying the distinction is made between the choice and what is not chosen - which is what I think you are saying - where did the will to choose come from?


I am saying that choice itself is a distinction between what is chosen and not chosen. I don't know what you mean by the "will to choose", so I can't answer.


You have no idea what the will to choose means?

Its me being obtuse?

The conscious mind can draw distinctions and can be made to think about anything - who or what tells the mind what to think about?


Nothing tells the mind what to think about.

When your conscious mind draws distinctions or asks itself a question, who is it talking to?


No one. "Talking to oneself" is only meaningful as a manner of speech. You can't converse with yourself in a literal sense.


Ok - I am done.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby jupiviv » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:49 pm

Beingof1 wrote:Why then did you ascribe first cause to my statement?


Because you said choice is the cause "before any effect whatsoever". That, to me, means that it was not caused by anything prior but caused everything that came afterwards. Moreover, you yourself said you define choice as an uncaused cause, which is the same as a first cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens

If this is an uncaused/first cause so is your finite thing.


What is your reasoning for this? So far you haven't actually responded to a single one of my arguments. You've either ignored them completely or put words in my mouth to distort the meaning of my statements.

I am saying that choice itself is a distinction between what is chosen and not chosen. I don't know what you mean by the "will to choose", so I can't answer.
You have no idea what the will to choose means?

Its me being obtuse?


I never said anything about a "will to choose", and nor did you. You're the one who suddenly introduced the term with this question, so you have to define it. It seems your "questions" are usually about things that have no actual relevance to the discussion itself. One would almost suspect that you are trying to evade addressing the other person's point.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby Beingof1 » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:07 pm

Jupiviv,

You are to dishonest to talk to. You are so engulfed in lies - you think they are the truth.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Forgiveness & Redemption

Postby jupiviv » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:40 am

@Beingof1, what are you talking about? Can you provide one instance where I've lied or been dishonest in this thread?
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Previous

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron