On 26 Aug, 13:43, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > > Heh wrong end of the stick I'm afraid old bean. I said that we all do
> > > things that we do not wish to do. Not that we have all done things
> > > that we wished we had not.
>
> > Simple time difference. if we are doing something we don't wish to
> > do, once we have done it, we have done something we wished we hadn't.
> > The time-frame is relative and doesn't alter the concept of whether
> > there was a choice involved. If you do that (things you don't wish to
> > do) a lot, you may wonder why. The exact details would take volumes
> > to explain but the simple truth is, you had no choice.
>
> Ahh again I'm going to have to disgaree there. An example I think:
>
> Work the majority of us do not really wish to do it, but in order to
> buy the things we need to live , food ect.. we must work. I worked
> yesterday, I have no feeling of wishing I had not. I could of course
> choose not to work, and then I must face the consequences of that
> choice, but to say that I have no choice in the matter is not correct.
>
> I choose to work, yes I choose it because in order to live and provide
> for my family I must, but really the only thing that ensures I
> continue to work is myself, my own priorites my childrens needs, I
> could always neglect these, I could choose to be selfish.
>
It appears that way, but that is part of the illusion cast by not
being able to see what will happen. As far as choosing to be selfish,
given only One, we have no choice BUT to be. ;-)
> > > Sorry sir that also is not what I mean. When you inveriably reply to
> > > this post you will no doubt careful choose the words you wish to
> > > make. Each and every word you use you will think about prior to
> > > typeing it, this is you choosing. What compels you say, perhaps 'It
> > > is not so' rather than 'No, things are not like that'?
>
> > > Both mean the same, so where is the compusion?
>
> > The compulsion might derive on whether I feel one might be less (or
> > more) offensive to the reader. And that, in turn, requires reflection
> > and loads of presumptions that would be impossible to trace out.
>
> So then what you belive here is not on the basis of evideance but
> faith. On offense, again why would the choice or your wish not to
> offend the reader have any bearing on the matter? It is your choice
> to not cause offence presumably, you could choose it's opposite could
> you not?
>
No, it's based on more things than I have time to write here without
losing my job. And that's my compulsion.
>
>
>
>
> > > Ahh Pat I'm afraid my grasp on that sort of logic is pretty bad, you
> > > may have to find another way to explain it, that loks too much like
> > > maths to me, and my brain does funny things when ever I see that kind
> > > or formula written. Which is anothe way of saying that I have yet to
> > > discover a coping mechinism in order for my eyes to see and my brain
> > > to translate exaclty what that means.
>
> > > I wil say this though, and I have probably got your meaning entirly
> > > wrong but here goes. Choice A, eat the bacon sandwhich, choice B eat
> > > the banana sandwhich. What of choice C eat both, or D eat none, or
> > > choices E and F which are about the order of eating both of them?
>
> > The gist is you can only perform 1 of your choices not some
> > combination and there is no going back to redo and overwrite history.
> > There are no loopbacks in the premiss, so there is no chance of any of
> > them upsetting the arrow of time through space.
>
> Okay well I guess that must be taken as is, always. I mean I can not
> comprehend of any choice, which lets face it simply means do this or
> do that, that lets you do both. I still don't get the relevance of it
> in this context though Pat?
>
When it comes time to act, only one act can be performed at any one
place at any one time. This is the definition of an event. a spatio-
temporal point. And none are missing, therefore, all events are
extant in the whole. The future is always just around the temporal
corner, but, just because you can't see around the corner, don't
assume that there is nothing there.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > >Not necessarily. There could be a gun to your head each time and
> > > > > > you are buggering, as it were, for your life and it has nothing to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > with one's sexuality.
>
> > > > > Yet if there was not?
>
> > > > You could have some other reason. We could go on endlessly with
> > > > hypotheticals. Are there any real examples we could discuss?
>
> > > Well thats the point Pat, there could be many reasons, and I say
> > > unless we can nail every single one of them down then we can't claim
> > > for sure that it is due to determinism rather than choice, to do so is
> > > claim based upon faith.
>
> > And to waste time nailing them all down is just that, a waste of
> > time. Let me save you that time...belive what I'm saying. ;-)
>
> Heh a copout if ever I saw one sir!
>
Only for the same reason as above and that to list the entirety is too
much for this forum, even, to contain.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Unless there's a gun to your head or some other stimulus that
> > > > > > temporarily overrides your sexuality nature by the drive to survive
> > > > > > (or protect loved ones, etc.). We don't read the lines until
> > > > > > they've
> > > > > > been drawn.
>
> > > > > So we can therefore make temporary changes to our nature?
>
> > > > No, you discover that another aspect of your nature kicks-in and
> > > > overrides the other part. No change but, perhaps, a new, internal
> > > > revelation OF one's nature.
>
> > > Yet you used the phrase 'temporarily overrides your sexuality nature'
> > > you did not mean this then? You meant instead undiscoverd part of
> > > your nature?
>
> > Yes. However, it may appear to the individual (with little
> > reflection) that it was a temporary override, thus allowable. We
> > justify all our acts internally based on what data we have at the
> > time. New data, later, may make us wish we'd had THAT data before.
> > But, in those cases, acceptance is the key.
>
> In essance then what you are saying here, specificaly about sexual
> preferance but the logic can of course extend elsewhere, is that ones
> 'nature' cannot be said to be known at all as you may discover other
> parts of it latter?
>
Or, rather, over time, we see more of it, just as more of our space-
time worm is revealed as the future meets the past in the present.
> Which to my mind brings into doubt the whole concept of Self
> awarness. Again Pat, I do not like where this may lead. I was
> pondering while I was at lunch, the concept of religion.
>
> Specificly the dogmatic axioms of religoin, more specificly the
> budhist tenant that life is suffering.
> It seems that a logical argument can be made to show the validity of
> this tenant, yet it also occours to me that an equaly logical argument
> can be made to show that it is not valid at all. Ultimatly then it
> must reside in the mind of the individual exactly which she believes.
> All the time realising that she may be objectivly incorrect, and a new
> understanding may occour anytime, yet what guidence for us is there to
> show that this new understanding is correct, or that the belife that
> you have disgarded is not incorrect? No Pat rather than aiding
> mankind it hinders him and places obsticles of doubt every way he
> turns. How can you then speak with such certianty if at anytime you
> may discover new data that shows your current stance to be wrong? How
> are you right now at this time sure that you are correct even?
>
More on this below!!
> > > Sorry Pat you missunderstood my point there. In essance this
> > > philosophy denies choice, then there really is no morality, we are not
> > > culpable for any of our actions. This is not a denial of truth, it is
> > > a dislike for the inevitiblity of where such a philosophy leads.
>
> > Yup! Me too. But I'm not so wrapped up in 'what I'd like to believe'
> > that I'll forsake the truth to prefer a lie. Morality is a tool for
> > getting along with others. Yet, there is only One. What Morality
> > does One need?
>
> Yes I can readily agree to that, but only because that is how my
> subjective belifes tells me it is. Even then I can't help but feel
> that if I am part of the One, and I think and feel these things, I
> have these questions, I daily use both faith and logic in my life then
> that must be according the plan. What morality does the One need?
> Well I can't answer that but I can say if we humans feel that need
> then as part of the One that need must be real, yes?
>
Exactly! Now, what IS that morality? I was just out at lunch
thinking about THAT! ;-)
Previous moral codes have been nothing more than varying sets of rules
of societal engagement. NONE of them, though, to my knowledge, has
ever been derived after a scientific recognition of every individual's
necessity to exist. The key to a morality based on my understanding
of the universe would require each of us to acknowledge the necessity
for each of us to exist. From that, we can derive that all are, in
the eyes of the whole, equally required to do that which we will do.
If we would like to have the 'right', for example, "to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness", then we need to grant that right to
everyone else. Everyone. This is a great leveller to any power-based
system and brings us all back to the same playing field. Thus some,
who would lose power, would (and will) reject this. Until now, we've
been competing like animals with a 'might makes right' attitude. If
my pepole kill your people, we win, as if we have a greater right
proven by my win. But, the flaw in that is displayed when I realise
that the existence of your people alone justifies that your people
have JUST AS MUCH right as mine. Well, the world changes...and not
for the worse. In those days, once this morality is driven through to
all our hearts, there will be no more wars, or famine, or homeless and
we will all care for one another BECAUSE we, to assure our own right
to be the best we can be in everyone else's eyes, ought to. We will
do unto others as we would have them do unto us because we have a
greater understanding of the universe and our place in it.
> > I feel this take on reality is the step that will lead
> > us into a more socially aware society. You (and many others) forget
> > that one thing that falls out of this is that all that which exists is
> > equally vital to the whole. So, by this reckoning, the homeless
> > person has equal status as 'the leader of the Free World' purely
> > because he exists. This forces us to acknowledge the right of
> > existing humans to 'be the best they can be'. And all existing humans
> > should endeavour to foster one another such that we can all be the
> > best we can be. Rather than focus on the losses, look at the gains.
> > I'm not saying don't look at the losses, but weigh them WITH the
> > gains.
>
> Yes yes, I understand this, and as I have said countless times, a
> major part of my thirst is to understand the differances between us
> human animals, as it is apperant that there are so many kinds of human
> mindset. I know deep deep down I just know it, that these differances
> are so many and can the gap between them can be so vast that we will
> never speak with one voice, nor think that one thought together, we
> will not ever have that much in common. So we must enevour to
> understand instead, it will be the very best we shall manage, and even
> that I think is impossible, as for every understanding Lee, there are
> bound to be others that see no merit nor value in such an endevour.
> Indeed we know that there exist people who do not feel as we do, do
> not wish to question, see no merit or value in such things, infact
> have never even asked of themselves questions of merit or value.
>
Yes, but they, too, must accept the right of others, if they wish
to be regarded their right. And by 'right', I mean an agreed-by-
mankind thing. The Divine Right to exist is granted only so long as
the rules of physics allow our 'living' to continue. I.e., murder is
morally wrong (in conflict with man's understanding of societal
benefits) but does not conflict with the laws of physics.
> > Correct. You exists in spacetime. Because space-time contains all of
> > space and time, you have always existed in your place and time (and
> > always will!!). This is that time. You, my friend, were inevitable,
> > and your existence (together with the geometry of space-time) proves
> > that.
>
> Ahh you have gone all spacey on me! As to Geometry though, that has
> no real bareing on objective truth, I would say that it is relative
> would you not?
>
Geometry is incredibly powerful. The shape of things determines
how they interact. Thus, the fact that the rectal cavity doesn't end
in a uterus shape (that has fallopian tubes and ovaries) means that
your sexual intercourse is buggery (bad news), but also means that
there won't be any unwanted children (good news). A clearer example
may be in how biochemicals react. Membranes have slots of different
shapes and different chemicals fit into the different slots to turn on
or off various processes.
> Let me explain, a cube is a cube right? Unless you tip it at an angle
> and view it as a diamond!
Rather that's a square and a diamond. A cube is 3-D and a diamond is
2-D. This DOES show the power of language, though, in describing
rotational symmetry insofar as we have a different word for a square
that is rotated by 45 degrees.
>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
