You are right Pat, maths does make my head do funny things, science I get, even the odd abstract idea is comprehensible to me, and maths of the kind you are speaking of, well it's only shorthand isn't it give me the long version.
Or better still explain to me what it was that made you belive what you say is true? I do get this idea of certian things being determined by other things that have happend, I belive that without the evidance to show it, that it is a massive leap to then assign the same to all things, easpecily to conciousness. Even my cats I can show you have differant 'personalities' they use differant methodes to get food or petting, from differant members of my family, they have faveroite resting places and prefer to cuddle up to differant family members. One of the reasons for my disbelife here though Pat are your own words. You say for instance that one cannot see the future, that what will be, and that we have no control nor can we change that which is destined to happen, but then you say that we cannot see into the future. So how do you know? How do you know that we cannot change what will be, if you cannot see into the future? There is an inhernt flaw in making claims of cerian knowledge when you also claim that we cannot know, is there not? If you claim certian knowledge, as you do, you belive that this system is correct, then you have already made a mockery of part of your system. I'm sorry my freind, but as we know 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' yet each and every time I ask you to provide some, you wiggle out of it, not some of the time, not once or twice, but each and every time. Yes I know I keep banging on about it, but if you know, and you expect me to belive you then it is not unreasonable to ask you to show me how you have this certian knowldge (even though the having it contravens your own system), is it? You claim a lack of time, yet none of your posts can be considered short, you have enough time I notice to answer each and every other question, as long as it is not a request for proof. What conclusion I wonder would you draw from such behavouir in another here? On 27 Aug, 17:21, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 Aug, 17:10, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Pat my fine fellow, that is just the thing, you keep on saying, and do > > no showing. > > > Let me say this. I have two hands one is black the other is white. > > You do not belive me? Let me tell you this then. I have two hands > > one is white but the other is black. > > > What you still do not belive me? Then let me explain this to you. Of > > the two hands that I have, one is black, but the other, it is white! > > > Ahhh so you would like me to show you both of my hands so that you can > > see the validity of my claims for yourself? Yes I will do > > that.....tomorrow! > > Cute, but irrelevant. What you want to see is implicit in the > mathematics. You tell me your eyes glaze over when confronted with > mathematics. So, what can I show to an individual who has glazed > eyes? > > The 'truth' about 4-D space-time and determinism is not MY idea. > It sprang forth from Einstein and Minkowski. If you don't believe > them or me or grasp the maths, the only thing left is to show you your > future. I don't have that ability. And it doesn't matter how many > times you ask. Buy a book on Special Relativity. Buy the collected > works of Einstein/Minkowski. I've stood on their shoulders and seen a > little farther. Whether or not you accept the truth of it doesn't > give you the choice you imagine you have. Try as you might, you will > only ever perform one event at any given place/time. And the universe > is just a string of similar events. And it forms a straight line with > no branches. No branches, no choices. > > > > > On 27 Aug, 16:51, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 27 Aug, 16:34, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Yes Vam, Pat's arguments are convincing, but as I say no evidance yet, > > > > only his belief. > > > > > It is one thing to say that all in my life is so because of > > > > determinisim, and another to show that it is so. > > > > You want me to show you your future? You really don't want that, > > > trust me. Determinism is implicit in a 4-D space-time. Einstein knew > > > that, Minkowski knew that and I know it. The mathematics is solid. > > > What more can I say? > > > > > On 27 Aug, 16:22, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Lee, you've kept it simple and the rigour of the mirror you've offered > > > > > is remarkable. That is, untill I've read Pat's response. > > > > > > On Aug 27, 5:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yet Pat does not say this at all Molly. We choose nothing, it may > > > > > > be > > > > > > that circumstanes enable us to discover more about our 'nature' or > > > > > > it > > > > > > may not, we have not say in the matter. The very words I am using > > > > > > in > > > > > > order to explain this I am not choosing, they are coming out due to > > > > > > my > > > > > > lifes circumstances and other compulsions that 'I' am unaware of. > > > > > > > So we cannot choose our awareness, nor can we change who we are. > > > > > > > And that's the pint I am making, if we really have no choie then > > > > > > what > > > > > > are Pat's motives, I can't control if I belive in this system of > > > > > > his, > > > > > > so why is he trying to change my mind if my mind is not mine to > > > > > > change? > > > > > > > I think this shows that Pat himself is engaged in using his own > > > > > > will, > > > > > > which invalidates what he says. > > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 13:33, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I can't speak to Pat's motives, but I will say what I think in > > > > > > > light > > > > > > > of his work. He courageously outlines for us, the realm of > > > > > > > possibility as he sees it. He tells us that we cannot change > > > > > > > what is, > > > > > > > which is everything possible. But we choose our awareness of all > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > is, our viewpoint. But doing this, we change who we are and live > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > potentiality of all that is. This is how we, as some say, co > > > > > > > create. > > > > > > > We do by making the possible real. We don't really change what is > > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 8:20 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The thing about it though, all of it is that here Pat is giving > > > > > > > > us > > > > > > > > what he rationalises as a cure for man's ills, a system based > > > > > > > > upon the > > > > > > > > spirtual belife of the Oneness of God, but who's logic is > > > > > > > > scientific. > > > > > > > > He presents it as a viable system for the betterment of man, > > > > > > > > and yet a > > > > > > > > part of it says that what will be will be, and we have no > > > > > > > > control over > > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > So why present it at all, what are his hopes? It is clear to > > > > > > > > me that > > > > > > > > the uptake of this idea may not ever happen, at least on the > > > > > > > > scale > > > > > > > > that Pat says is must. Who's mind is he trying to change and > > > > > > > > why, in > > > > > > > > the light of his revelation that none of us have a choice in the > > > > > > > > matter. > > > > > > > > > If instead then he wants us all to become more aware of the > > > > > > > > truth of > > > > > > > > the matter, then agian how are we to do this, if we cannot will > > > > > > > > it so? > > > > > > > > > This idea denies us any sort of control over our Selfs or our > > > > > > > > destiny's, so really what is the point of mooting such an idea > > > > > > > > to us, > > > > > > > > if we cannot control wheater or not we belive it? > > > > > > > > > In short what are Pat's motives for posting this? > > > > > > > > > If Pat has motives then I'm afraid I am witnessing the evidance > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > Pat's own will here, which invalidtates his claim that he has > > > > > > > > none, > > > > > > > > does it not? > > > > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 13:06, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What I like most about your work, Pat, is that it takes us > > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > > monism into a new paradigm, into completion with the > > > > > > > > > inclusion of > > > > > > > > > modern science, allowing clarity of the rational in the trans > > > > > > > > > rational. I have been tossing around your no free will > > > > > > > > > concept, and > > > > > > > > > suspect that reticence to it may be a matter of semantics. I > > > > > > > > > have the > > > > > > > > > same trouble when people talk about the world being > > > > > > > > > "illusion", or the > > > > > > > > > world of duality an illusion. In our lives, there is > > > > > > > > > duality, but > > > > > > > > > there is also more, there is non duality. And we can choose > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > viewpoint, giving us the feeling of free will. We are at the > > > > > > > > > pool of > > > > > > > > > Bethesda and our own self image prevents our entry into the > > > > > > > > > waters. > > > > > > > > > Only our own higher ontology can stir the water for us, and > > > > > > > > > in this > > > > > > > > > awareness, we are the first in. But, as you say, we reach > > > > > > > > > the point > > > > > > > > > where we understand that what we are choosing is to be aware > > > > > > > > > of our > > > > > > > > > own divine nature in a different way. So when you say that > > > > > > > > > it always > > > > > > > > > is, but our awareness of all that is changes, not being but > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > of being changes- be still and know that I AM, this I can > > > > > > > > > understand. > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 5:16 am, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Over the past few days, as I’ve returned to this forum and > > > > > > > > > > responded > > > > > > > > > > to various statements from my own viewpoint, it seems that > > > > > > > > > > I’ve caused > > > > > > > > > > a bit of a stir. That’s fine, but I think many have found > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > statements confusing in certain ways, particularly in the > > > > > > > > > > area of > > > > > > > > > > morality, which seems to be a popular topic on the forum > > > > > > > > > > based on the > > > > > > > > > > recent posting titled ‘More morality’. In particular, > > > > > > > > > > Lee’s reticence > > > > > > > > > > to accept that a decent morality can be derived from my > > > > > > > > > > viewpoint, > > > > > > > > > > especially in light of the proposed loss of free will. So, > > > > > > > > > > I feel > > > > > > > > > > compelled to reveal a few of the cards I’ve been holding in > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > regard. The following is an excerpt from my book from the > > > > > > > > > > chapter > > > > > > > > > > called ‘Sin and Damnation’. This part comes AFTER I’ve > > > > > > > > > > described my > > > > > > > > > > theoretical monistic model of which only some of the older > > > > > > > > > > members > > > > > > > > > > here are reasonably aware (Essentially, it uses string > > > > > > > > > > theory to > > > > > > > > > > describe the universe as a function of one entity of > > > > > > > > > > stringy energy > > > > > > > > > > and explains that this one entity, the only entity that > > > > > > > > > > really exists > > > > > > > > > > is, in fact, God.). Note: I don’t go into the ‘damnation’ > > > > > > > > > > topic in > > > > > > > > > > this excerpt; I’ll retain that card for a moment. > > > > > > > > > > Now, of course, I don’t expect everyone will agree > > > > > > > > > > with my > > > > > > > > > > theory, as no one, yet, has come up with a theory to which > > > > > > > > > > everyone > > > > > > > > > > subscribes. But I expect that the following excerpt will > > > > > > > > > > allay some > > > > > > > > > > fears people have when they realise that the NEW morality > > > > > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > > > > derivable from my theory is the old morality. The > > > > > > > > > > difference being > > > > > > > > > > that, now, rather than relying solely on faith, we can > > > > > > > > > > practice it in > > > > > > > > > > the knowledge that it is based on logic and a scientific > > > > > > > > > > view of > > > > > > > > > > reality (given that I work from a premiss that my theory is > > > > > > > > > > correct). > > > > > > > > > > So, to paraphrase The Who, “Meet the new morality. > > > > > > > > > > Same as the > > > > > > > > > > old morality.” As always, let me know what you think!! ;-) > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > What is sin if there is only one actor in the > > > > > > > > > > system? Wise > > > > > > > > > > King Solomon had the answer to that when he told us, in the > > > > > > > > > > book of > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
