Existence...

WendyDarling wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Perfection would not change to imperfection.
I know the spiel, "change is perfection"...but I define perfection and why I deny its existence..
Ask yourself, are you perfect? Am I?
How can the perfect be made up of imperfection?

By "perfect" I mean ordered, absolute symmetry.
Why would order develop consciousness?
For what necessity?

Or should you declare consciousness as a necessary part of order?
Word games.

Why choice, if all is perfect and ordered?
To choose what?
Why natural selection?
What is being selected if all is perfect and ordered and inevitable?
What is suffering?
Why do we feel need, desire?
Why do we will if we already are?

Based on observed reality, perfection is unattainable. If the unattainable perfection found in religious dogma, was thrown out, like gone. Where would that leave us?

Striving for the highest, not the final.

WendyDarling wrote:

In other words, left with imperfect order naturally?

Striving for the highest, in a cosmos where this changes.

WendyDarling wrote:

In other words, why is there an assumption that an absolute consciousness would be perfect, based on what observations?

Based on the inversion of the world, from incomplete to complete, from multiplicity to singularity, from unconscious to conscious, from imperfect to perfect.
All declarations founded on mental inversions with no referents other than in texts or in other minds.

WendyDarling wrote:

Is imperfection a curse or a blessing?

Neither, those are religious terms.
It just is.
But if you ask: is it positive or negative? then it is obviously positive, because it makes life possible and it is existence.

Inversion is nihilism.
It inverts the positive into a negative; and a negative into a positive.
See how nihilism is conventionally defined.
So, a cosmos missing the mental "contraptions" - as the buffoon says on ILP - is negative...no one-god, no universal morality, no purpose, no meaning - implying purpose again, whereas the cosmos as it is that exists and makes life possible is now a "negative".
By the way all these term "god", "meaning", "morality" if properly defined by convecting them to actions - interactions - do exist.
They refer to nothing outside human brains only when they are defined out of existence, or in contradiction to what is.

There are gods if you define "god" as a mysterious force of nature.
There is morality - though no universal morality - if you define it as a biological behaviour that facilitates cooperative strategies.

But when you are an imbecile, a coward, a hypocrite, or a charlatan wanting to take advantage of idiocy, you define it in ways that render the concepts ideological, mystical, non-existent, contrary to the existent.

In regards to consciousness.
I begin with the observable.
This is where I base my theories on morality, free-will, and consciousness.

I've never come across a consciousness independent from a living organic body.
I've never experienced intentionality from non-living matter/energy.
Occam's razor...Simplicity, Clarisse, back to basics.
What is it that this consciousness does?
How do you experience it in yourself and in other?

There is no universal consciousness because it is unnecessary, and that would be a description of a one-god, again.
There is no necessity for a consciousness to explain existence, or life.
Nothing is created from nothing. A creator is not necessary.
Why would a consciousness intentionally make itself ignorant of what it knows? Is it a sadomasochistic consciousness?

Consciousness implies order. In fact consciousness evolves to deal with chaos and flux - interactivity.
Universal consciousness implies universal order...because if there is any degree of chaos it is not universal.

What is an imperfect consciousness, other than a life form?
Is the universe a life-form or is it an idea?

Now ask yourself why you can't let go of this one-god, whatever name or traits you use to describe it?
What is it in you that needs this so mush?

I never begin with "what if?"
I always begin with "what is", and then I may go into "what if?" based on this "what is".
Bottom<>Up.
From the observed.....from the earth we build a structure....and we may then dig a foundation (metaphysics) or project the structure upwards into the sky (idea/ideal)....but I always begin with the structure firmly on the ground, the earth, the environment.

Satyr wrote:

I never begin with "what if?"
I always begin with "what is", and then I may go into "what i?" based on this "what is".
Bottom<>Up.
From the observed.....from the earth we build a structure....and we may then dig a foundation (metaphysics) or project the structure upwards into the sky (idea/ideal)....but I always begin with the structure firmly on the ground, the earth, the environment.

I am keeping your wise words in mind.

Metaphysics is too seductive to resist forever.

Prima Facie-the Idea/s

All arose from the Idea/s.

Prove me wrong.

"Just because" won't cut it.

Idea/s=intelligence=Intelligent Creation

Who can argue with that "logic"?
I bet you win all the debates with your "logicians" over Chinese food.

If you didn't get it with all that I wrote you'll never get it.
I'll have to admit defeat.
Good luck with your god.

Satyr wrote:

Who can argue with that "logic"?
I bet you win all the debates with your "logicians" over Chinese food.

If you didn't get it with all that I wrote you'll never get it.
I'll have to admit defeat.
Good luck with your god.

No one, yet. You have no chance of winning this one. No one does.

WendyDarling wrote:

No one, yet.  You have no chance of winning this one.  No one does.

Yes, all those moronic 'illogical' halfwits like Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, Kant, Hume, the whole philosophical pantheon and everyone in between, all are made obsolete by the superhuman all-encompassing brilliance of some anonymous crazy delusional cunt on the internet. And to think, it was just something she did in her spare time, in between goofing off and whatnot. No big deal.

So the singularity is found then. No need to speak, think, ask questions, or explore anything anymore. Bye.

Kvasir wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:

No one, yet.  You have no chance of winning this one.  No one does.

Yes, all those moronic 'illogical' halfwits like Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, Kant, Hume, the whole philosophical pantheon and everyone in between, all are made obsolete by the superhuman all-encompassing brilliance of some anonymous crazy delusional cunt on the internet. And to think, it was just something she did in her spare time, in between goofing off and whatnot. No big deal.

So the singularity is found then. No need to speak, think, ask questions, or explore anything anymore. Bye.

Put up or Shhhhhh! Anger is not logic. Rudeness never equals intelligence.

WendyDarling wrote:

Put up or Shhhhhh!  Anger is not logic.  Rudeness never equals intelligence.

Shhhhh!!!!

Ugh. How uncouth. You are asserting your will before the singularity. Please demonstrate proper respect and be silent.

Kvasir wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:

Put up or Shhhhhh!  Anger is not logic.  Rudeness never equals intelligence.

Shhhhh!!!!

Ugh. How uncouth. You are asserting your will before the singularity. Please demonstrate proper respect and be silent.

No logic to argue against my assertions? The kind not consisting of pettiness?

For the record, I never said any philosophers were whatever you claimed I thought.  Facts don't matter to those who abhor truth.

To you energy exists before the idea of its existence. Not logical based on our observations, bottom up. Sure, creativity, instinct, etc popped out of non-existence. Lol.

My god you're a lost cause.

Satyr wrote:

My god you're a lost cause.

Likewise.

The idea of energy refers to that which pre-existed life and all ideas. Man emerged and named it.
Animals exist before men named them.
Rocks existed before man categorized and named them.

You are a Christian - a corruption of Judaism.
First came the word and the word was god - logos.
Straight out of the Bible.
Love ontology - logos ontology.
-place your preferred word here- Ontology

WendyDarling wrote:

Satyr wrote:

My god you're a lost cause.

Likewise.

You're place is on ILP...
Know your self, know your place, know your kind.

Satyr wrote:

The idea of energy refers to that which pre-existed life and all ideas. Man emerged and named it.
Animals exist before men named them.
Rocks existed before man categorized and named them.

You are a Christian - a corruption of Judaism.
First came the word and the word was god - logos.
Straight out of the Bible.
Love ontology - logos ontology.
-place your preferred word here- Ontology

Oh, now its the “idea” of energy? Hmmm, wonder where you got “that idea?”

Too much of a challenge? Maybe your creative use of words has dulled. Literal “idea” stealing. Precious.

Are you this dumb?
Well...I overestimated you.
Slight adjustment, no worries.
There, much better.

Ta, Ta,

Sticky point: there is no merit to your stolen idea, no logic from the bottom up. Certainly continue on carrying your conversations about this “sticky point” into your other thread postings. No amount of self-justifications will fill in your logical missteps.

You, my dear, are a genius. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
I would love to see you debate one of the other geniuses on ILP.
Ecmandu, iambiguous, Fixed, Parodites, your choice - or that which already has been determined.
I want to watch you share ideas placed there from the beyond, with other ideas from the same source.
God debating himself, through his avatars.
Be a doll, and do me the favour.

Satyr wrote:

You, my dear, are a genius. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
I would love to see you debate one of the other geniuses on ILP.
Ecmandu, iambiguous, Fixed, Parodites, your choice - or that which already has been determined.
I want to watch you share ideas placed there from the beyond, with other ideas from the same source.
God debating himself, through his avatars.
Be a doll, and do me the favour.

These theatrics are the sum total of your counter? And only I am the supposed genius here?

Sweetie...it is my entire content. We both know I am void of substance.
Move on.

Difference between knowledge & understanding?
Patterns in patterns.
What is wisdom?
Knowing that you don't try to teach a mule mathematics. Wasted time and effort.
You do other things with a mule. You teach it small things it can learn.
This, too, is born of patterns in patterns.

Satyr wrote:

Difference between knowledge & understanding?
Patterns in patterns.
What is wisdom?
Knowing that you don't try to teach a mule mathematics. Wasted time and effort.
You do other things with a mule. You teach it small things it can learn.
This, too, is born of patterns in patterns.

I agree. I know of a particular mule with attitude issues, yet I persist on, never losing sight that the idea of his energy will burst forth with life giving ideas and intelligence.

sheesh, you are clueless.
Listen, test your chops on iambiguous....and learn to deal with his "we'll need a context of course" and "from my understanding of dasein"..., and "take it down from the intellectual clouds"....when he's in over his head.
Maybe you can try ecmandu and he can tell you about his multiple reincarnations and time travel and how hell really is..."because it doesn't work that way"....You may have thought it did, but it doesn't.
Or maybe you can challenge Parodite's omniscience and the walls of text pretending to be his own insights unable to reduce it all to some concise comprehensible aphorisms...because none of it is his thinking...parroting. Using obscurantism to imply what he cannot show.
Or maybe Fixed can teach you how to really fabricate a word ontology. He chose "value", Christianity left it vague, choosing "logos", word ontology...but you can find a specific nice word of your liking and build a reality around it.

Entertain me, woman. Recipes, music, art...chit chat...post it.
Philosophy is not for you.

Satyr wrote:

sheesh, you are clueless.
Listen, test your chops on iambiguous....and learn to deal with his "we'll need a context of course" and "from my understanding of dasein...", and "take it down form the intellectual clouds"....
Maybe you can try ecmandu and he can tell you about his multiple reincarnations and time travel and how hell really is..."because it doesn't work that way"..
Or maybe you can challenge Parodite's omniscience and the walls of text pretending to be his own insights unable to reduce ti all to some concise comprehensible aphorisms...because none of it is his thinking...parroting.
Or maybe fixed can teach you how to really fabricate a word ontology. he chose "value", Christianity left it vague, logos, word ontology...but you can find a word of your liking and build a reality around it.

Entertain me, woman. Recipes, music, art...chit chat...post it.
Philosophy is not for you.  

No, you entertain me in the ring. This ring will do. Here. Now.

I don't fight children.
It's embarrassing.

Satyr wrote:

I don't fight children.
It's embarrassing.

Ah, progress. No more bullying children on Tues., Thurs., and Sat. Today is Sunday. No worries, this here’s genius against genius. Everyone knows genius is timeless.