That sums it up well RP.  I guess we are always living outside immediate 
time in consciousness of the conscious kind.

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:34:08 PM UTC, RP Singh wrote:
>
> Conscious thinking leaves a greater imprint than unconscious thinking. 
> Controls exercised by conscious will are many times more powerful than 
> thinking on an unconscious level. To change our nature it is better to make 
> conscious effort.
> It is through our nature that all thoughts and actions arise , though it 
> is known that even the will to change arises from our nature and is innate 
> in us. Yet we have to strive such is the paradox.
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:21 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I get that bit RP.  In another sense one might wonder on decisions being 
>> made unconsciously long before we rationalise them, bringing up other 
>> questions on where free will lies, even what has it.  Your scheme leaves 
>> plenty of room for it in the general sense.  In the ants I used to study, 
>> much behaviour is controlled by 'smells'.  Human behaviour in cultures can 
>> look very similar.  Leadership rarely allows free will in followers other 
>> than to follow.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 00:36:55 UTC, RP Singh wrote:
>>>
>>> Choice is there where you can do otherwise , Neil. God has to do what he 
>>> does and hence no choice. We conscious beings are always doubtful , to do 
>>> this or that , the more confident we are, the less hesitant  even if wrong.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:43 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> God might need that touch of malevolence to have his own free will - 
>>>> once totally rational and good you just have to do the right thing.  RP 
>>>> has 
>>>> hit his version will a piece of three by two to evade this issue - so we 
>>>> are like those toys that come out to play at night only 24/7.  Both Tony 
>>>> and RP have that touch of the Lords of Cosmic Jest about them too.
>>>>
>>>> Multiverse theory arose when a humanities undergraduate overheard a 
>>>> drunken conversation between Wheeler and Everitt on why their sums never 
>>>> added up.  They were really talking about normalisation and 
>>>> re-normalisation, but if all you knew about reality was Jane Eyre and that 
>>>> the Greeks and Romans were the good guys of history, some dumb joke about 
>>>> multiple universes with no need to do complex maths is what you'd remember 
>>>> - particularly if they had enough beer to offer you a few.  Myriad 
>>>> universes, even in this dud non-theory, are created every time we make a 
>>>> tiny measurement, identical to this universe except for the measurement.  
>>>> The god of this lot would be too busy to laugh at we jesters, clowns and 
>>>> mug punters and not know which jar to look in.  The humanities graduate as 
>>>> pretty, so John and Hugh spun a long yarn.  Eventually it became string 
>>>> theory and Pat had god lodged in Kaliber Yawn space, where beer is alcohol 
>>>> free.
>>>>
>>>> Me?  I'm off to play with the unicorns at the bottom of Allan's 
>>>> garden.  They are atheists to a man-jack.  With all that horn, they know 
>>>> any generous omnipotent being would have created female unicorns too.  
>>>> Fetch a flask out Allan, I gave mine to some cold Pixies on the way from 
>>>> Schipol. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, 19 January 2015 23:38:16 UTC, facilitator wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tough old world  Wonder if the god in Tony's picture ever thougt to 
>>>>> ask what the people not listening think?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't need to know. Why is the universe so big?  One scenario is 
>>>>> that all of these possibilities are being played out right now in an 
>>>>> almost 
>>>>> infinite number of worlds.  Each world have similar enough Bio-form to be 
>>>>> a 
>>>>> blueprint for the next.  That's how I would do it if I were playing God.  
>>>>> Put them in a jar, shake it up, and see if they fight.  I am of course 
>>>>> impugning a degree of maliciousness, but who has the moral full house 
>>>>> against two of a kind?  
>>>>>
>>>>  -- 
>>>>
>>>> --- 
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  -- 
>>
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> ""Minds Eye"" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to [email protected].
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to