11
   

My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

 
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 02:51 am
"Picatchu" explains the future:
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 03:17 am
Explaining viable Starships:


I would ad a suggestion to take embryos that would be retrieved from a cryogenic chamber to be raised by A.I. only in the last 20 years of a voyage to an actual distant Star. It is the best way to save on resources!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 03:21 am
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

The rational is simple Frank:


I am not asking about rationales, Albuquerque. I do not even know what you would be rationalizing.

I asked if you are saying there are no gods. (It seemed to me that you were.) That could have been answered with one word...either "yes" or "no."

So, I ask again: Are you saying there are no gods?

For the record, I can also ask: Are you saying there is at least one god?

If you are answering either of those questions "yes"...it would, of course, be a guess.

I am just wondering if you are answering either question, "yes."



Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 11:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank you totally bypassed the argument against a mind that creates Reality up there, one that is made in the same vain that states that square wheels don't exist, other than that I have no further comments!

PS - I've been keeping to myself precisely to avoid this sort of pseudo debating...if I have to explain it twice then its already not worth it!
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:11 pm
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

Frank you totally bypassed the argument against a mind that creates Reality up there, one that is made in the same vain that states that square wheels don't exist, other than that I have no further comments!


So the questions "Are you saying there are no gods?" and "Are you saying there is at least one god?" were too much for you to answer directly. Instead you pointed to a word salad that may mean "yes" or "no" to either question.

Okay. That is your right.

So...run away.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank if you feel like it we can go step by step on a rhetorical exercise and you will answer for me OK?

1 - Does God by definition is a mind?
2 - Does God by definition is the creator of all Reality?
3 - If you answered yes to the first two questions you can find the contradiction already, if not your definition of God must be clarified, clarify your terms in order to ascertain what is that we are guessing about!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:17 pm
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

Frank if you feel like it we can go step by step on a rhetorical exercise and you will answer for me OK?

1 Does God by definition is a mind?


Did you mean to screw up that sentence...or was it an accident?

If it was an accident, please repair it and I will comment.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank you either follow the steps or go take a Ike!
I am not here to fight or debate with Alzheimer's!

if my English informal and limited is not enough for you press ignore and do us both a favour...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:25 pm
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

Frank if you feel like it we can go step by step on a rhetorical exercise and you will answer for me OK?

1 - Does God by definition is a mind?
2 - Does God by definition is the creator of all Reality?
3 - If you answered yes to the first two questions you can find the contradiction already, if not your definition of God must be clarified, clarify your terms in order to ascertain what is that we are guessing about!


I see you have edited your post after I responded.

I still do not understand the statement, "Does God by definition is a mind?" The sentence does not make sense. Neither does your #2 sentence make sense.

Please do them over again so that they do. I WILL RESPOND.

In fact, I will, immediately after posting this comment, give you the definition of "GOD" when I use it. There is no actual definition of "GOD" because there may be no gods. We have to use a convention, of sorts. We have to tell our conversation partners what we mean when we use a word like "GOD."

I will do that.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
If you are a capable English teacher more interested in the meat of the talk than in a tangent I gladly take your advice on what should be corrected in those sentences please go ahead and reframe those sentences in correct English, I humble thank you in advance!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:31 pm
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

Frank you either follow the steps or go take a Ike!
I am not here to fight or debate with Alzheimer's!

if my English informal and limited is not enough for you press ignore and do us both a favour...


With a name like "Albuquerque" I assumed you were an American. If English is a second language with you, I apologize.

Okay. As I have posted MANY, MANY times here, when I uses the word "GOD" or "god(s)"...I mean: "An entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST."

If you have a problem with what I use when I speak of a god...tell me what it is...and perhaps we can resolve it.

Whether the entity is "a mind" or "a thought" or "a being"...is not something I even consider. When I speak of a god...I am talking about an entity responsible for the creation of what we humans call "the physical universe"...IF SUCH AN ENTITY ACTUALLY EXISTS.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:36 pm
@Frank Apisa,
An "entity" which is not a mind and yet is an agent with volition, I do indeed not follow...I must be dumb sorry but all I can say is that I do not grasp your definition and thus I am agnostic about what it means!

As for my terms they pointed to the well know classical definition of the Abrahamic God on which I showed internal inconsistencies!
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:43 pm
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

An "entity" which is not a mind and yet is an agent with volition, I do indeed not follow...I must be dumb sorry but all I can say is that I do not grasp your definition and thus I am agnostic about what it means!

As for my terms they pointed to the well know classical definition of the Abrahamic God on which I showed internal inconsistencies!


You are not dumb, Albuquerque.

What I am saying is that if ANYTHING has created what we humans call "the universe"...that is the thing I am referring to when I use the term "god." If there is such a thing...if the thing we humans call "the universe" was created by such a thing...then that is what I call a god.

If what we humans call "the universe" was not created by anything...but just always was...then there is no god.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
My name derives from heritage from Afonso de Albuquerque, the Portuguese Viceroy for India in the XVI century, check him on Wikipedia...your little city got its name probably from one descendant that went to America!
By the way I am Filipe de Albuquerque, Portuguese...you should remember me!
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 12:52 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Lets see if we can further narrow and clarify what you meant...

As far as I am concerned the act of "creation" entails only 2 processes.

One is an agent with a mind and will/volition.

The other is natural selection and Evolution.

If you are not referring to creation by a mind, then whatever gave rise to the Universe must be a process of natural selection, like for instance some variations of the many worlds hypothesis postulate with a Multiverse...

...and this is why I bypass words with new baggage like Universe now has..I said the whole of Reality, and as far as I can see Reality cannot BY DEFINITION be created by any entity which is a mind as that mind itself has a priori properties which itself did not chose to create.

This makes the traditional definition of God has the Creator of all Reality fall in a contradiction as it takes out "free will" from God!

Worse it takes out all the traditional elements of what a mind roughly is, a questioning machine, a problem solver, an incomplete being that troubleshoots and navigates its surrounding environment!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 01:25 pm
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:


Lets see if we can further narrow and clarify what you meant...

As far as I am concerned the act of "creation" entails only 2 processes.

One is an agent with a mind and will/volition.

The other is natural selection and Evolution.

If you are not referring to creation by a mind, then whatever gave rise to the Universe must be a process of natural selection, like for instance some variations of the many worlds hypothesis postulate with a Multiverse...

...and this is why I bypass words with new baggage like Universe now has..I said the whole of Reality, and as far as I can see Reality cannot BY DEFINITION be created by any entity which is a mind as that mind itself has a priori properties which itself did not chose to create.

This makes the traditional definition of God has the Creator of all Reality fall in a contradiction as it takes out "free will" from God!

Worse it takes out all the traditional elements of what a mind roughly is, a questioning machine, a problem solver, an incomplete being that troubleshoots and navigates its surrounding environment!


My thoughts on your last post, Albuquerque:

I prefer not to use “universe”…but rather, ‘what we humans call ‘the physical universe.’” “The whole of REALITY” may be much more than what we humans call “the physical universe”…so I will stick with “what we humans call ‘the physical universe.’”

It is possible that what we humans call “the physical universe” was not created at all. It may be eternal and infinite…had no beginning…just always existed. That certainly is one of the possibilities. (If this thing we humans call “the universe” has always existed…there may be gods that also have always existed, but I am not referring to those gods if they exist. I am only referring to the “creator” of this thing we humans call “the universe”…IF SUCH A THING EXISTS.

It is also possible that what we humans call “the universe” WAS CREATED by something. If that is the case, whatever that “something” is…is what I mean by “god.” It either has a mind; is a mind; or just is. I have no idea. However, if something is the cause of the creation of this thing we humans call “the universe”…then that is what I am referring to when I use the word “god.” I do not want to get any more complicated than that.

Now you are saying that some inconsistencies and seeming contradictions are present in the notion of a mind that created “all of REALITY…and I agree. But I also acknowledge that on something as complicated as this…there may be things we humans do not know or understand or even consider…that may account for and explain those inconsistencies. I am NOT willing to rule in or out anything simply because we see inconsistencies, because I do not consider us knowledgeable enough to explain everything. There easily may be inconsistencies that seem insurmountable to us right now…that seem to be logical inconsistencies…that might be explained after further human evolution or further discoveries.

Did I clarify my position?
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 01:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
By my own terms a smaller version of the traditional definition of a creator of whole reality, a "final God" is a "demigod" if it did just create one domain of reality like perhaps our Universe...

The modern version of that hypothesis is the Simulation hypothesis which claims that perhaps we live in a past simulation controlled by very advanced aliens, a civilization that wants to simulate the past to know how it possibly was....As Nick Bostrom explains statistically speaking the number of possible simulations is much bigger then the one true reality, and thus he argues statistically that is far more probable that we are living in a simulation of sorts then in the "real" Universe...

What goes wrong with Nick Bostrom hypothesis is the very concept of Reality with a big "R"...as domains of reality like simulations, or dreams are also phenomenologically real, that is to mean, such domains are themselves a part, a subset of big Reality as a whole...

When we speak of a creator of the whole Reality we are confronted with first attributes properties as whatever "creates" must have a priori properties, thus rendering the whole talk of a creator of the Whole of Reality totally mute!

I could go further into the rabbit hole and talk about what minds are normally ascertained to be, incomplete beings by requirement, as problem solvers in order to question, to wonder, to problem solve, to troubleshoot, in order to be alive and aware must be incomplete...

Something totally complete cannot be a mind as it has no questions, no doubts, no wondering, nothing to problem solve, nothing new to know...it might just as well be a rock, the rock of all Being, that something is not what we traditionally call a mind...thus whatever concept of a final thing there is I can call "God" it is certainly not a mind in my book!
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 01:54 pm
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:


By my own terms a smaller version of the traditional definition of a creator of whole reality, a "final God" is a "demigod" if it did just create one domain of reality like perhaps our Universe...

The modern version of that hypothesis is the Simulation hypothesis which claims that perhaps we live in a past simulation controlled by very advanced aliens, a civilization that wants to simulate the past to know how it possibly was....As Nick Bostron explains statistically speaking the number of possible simulations is much bigger then the one true reality, and thus he argues statistically that is far more probable that we are living in a simulation of sorts then in the "real" Universe...

What goes wrong with Nick Bostrom hypothesis is the very concept of Reality with a big "R"...as domains of reality like simulations, or dreams are also phenomenologically real, that is to mean, such domains are themselves a part, a subset of big Reality as a whole...

When we speak of a creator of the whole Reality we are confronted with first attributes properties as whatever "creates" must have a priori properties, thus rendering the whole talk of a creator of the Whole of Reality totally mute!

I could go further into the rabbit hole and talk about what minds are normally ascertained to be, incomplete beings by requirement, as problem solvers in order to question, to wonder, to problem solve, to troubleshoot, in order to be alive and aware must be incomplete...

Something totally complete cannot be a mind as it has no questions, no doubts, no wondering, nothing to problem solve, nothing new to know...it might just as well be a rock, the rock of all Being, that something is not what we traditionally call a mind...thus whatever concept of a final thing there is I can call "God" it is certainly not a mind in my book!



When I write REALITY...I almost always do it in capital letters.

We may not be able to reach agreement on how to define what we are discussing...GOD.

Your "definition" seems to me to be used mostly so that you can conclude "there is no such thing." That is the antithesis of what theists do...which is to define what we humans call "the universe" as a "creation"...and then demand that since it is a creation, it requires a "creator."

I simply reject both of those positions.

Even using the totality of REALITY...as all that exists...including any GOD that accounts for it coming into existence...there is the possibility that it exists as proposed. The fact that we cannot see the logic in it is inconsequential to me. What we humans know about the REALITY...may be equivalent to what a gnat knows about the observable cosmos. Maybe less. Maybe much less.

If there is a creator or not is something we can only guess about. There is no way any human can say with even a modicum of certainty..."There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

As I said...I doubt we can even get past the job of defining what is meant by "GOD" or "gods."
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 02:04 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Well Frank for as far as I know you and I are human, and we use human language...

In the Human language domain we have premises for concepts and when we debate we establish clear premisses in order to debate possibilities, otherwise we are just rambling about our ignorance and not making any progress within our frame of competence...I do not care if our frame of competence is limited or finite or incomplete, I do care in making progress within our Human linguistic boundaries.

Thus it follows that in a fruitfull honest conversation about any topic we clearly establish our terms for things like "mind", "Reality", or even something as obscure as "God"!

In my past 30 years of thinking about the matter I've been making a critique of the traditionally used coinage for those concepts and showing self contradiction and internal inconsistencies in the arguments...that is as far as I am willing to go within the limits of human lingo!

As to what might be the case that is transcendental to humans talking about undefined concepts or concepts that transcend our ability to cognize them is a fruitless endeavour!

Thank you for your time, have a great day!
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2022 03:06 pm
I will make a general remark about my recent preference for bypassing all the typical internet debates and just post what caught my eye for those of you that might be interested in following it.

I am fed up with the human need to win debates instead of learning POV's and their justifications...

I am not, was never here, to win debates, but rather to find some way of advancing my own cognitive perception about the world...

...and while, I am well aware, we all may fall for the temptation of wanting to be right, some of us are more curious about what is right rather then what appears to the public to be right! Thus winning debates on the public eye is futile and vain...an absolute useless waste of thinking power in an already to conflated, to hyped uninformative online community...I wont ramble no more and keep posting my little videos business as usual... I am avoiding online ego interaction, and will only reply to honest willing questions that show curiosity on why I think the way I think, and that may produce any advance in my own endeavour of advancing my knowledge!

Thank you all for your patience rambling out!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/06/2022 at 08:14:03