Oh my Turd…
Do you have any clue the countless angels that aren’t famous???
The countless saints who give you their spirits who nobody’s heard of…
You’re still stuck in flatland
Do you really think the famous ones are the best??
I have my time here…
If the famous ones were always the best …
That’s like a hopeless royalty, or oligarchy…
You’ll get your moment someday Turd
Yes I do Ecmandu.
I’m glad we understand each other in that capacity…
Nobody believes I’m a saint??
You’re going to have a rough time with that one…
I de-saint people…
You think you call me on my bullshit…
You should see the bullshit I call…
Are you the man Turd???
I ask you again …
Do you want this to be your life??
m.youtube.com/watch?v=bG5N3GC-m20
Think really hard on that…
The thing is… You are not the singularity unless everyone is…
Think about who you choose !!
Sounds like an emotional imbalance.
Ok, so this thread summarized. A crazy (Turd) tries to prove Ecmandu is crazy using some links.
I stopped reading the links after the first paragraph. Because it says that the only 3 things that can be known is the self God and the world.
Then Ecmandu says God is not real, but that he was one of Jesus’s disciples, and that all of the saints and angels and demon’s are real, but not God.
Then, an 80’s music video about a lonely man.
That’s basically this thread summarized.
Trixie, I’ve been through so much amazing shit…
It’s hard to not say there is something…
But you must understand…
An omnipresent being who is omniscient, would HAVE to have us all be omniscient…
It’s the most basic logic!!
I follow basic logic always…
It’s more important than a name actually…
Not necessarily. God consciousness could have all the info of our consciousness, but we might not have all the info of God consciousness.
Its like a ven diagram, we are the smaller spheres.
Doesn’t work what way Trixie…
Omnipresence is total presence in a spirit, otherwise you can’t be all knowing …
When a being is all knowing… It has to be in every spirit, experience everything they experience…
The problem here is that a being who is omniscient and resides in every spirit…
Every spirit must be omniscient!, because it’s omniscient
No you basically disregarded the last thing I said.
Read it over again without any bias.
Let’s say it is like a Venn diagram …
Is god yellow, blue or green or all three ??
Clearly, all three…
If god is there it’s omniscient right??
More to the point…
There would be no yellow, blue, green…
So your analogy falls apart
You problem lies in to differentiating between conscious and unconscious.
The process of information flow requires a contrast and division from that which is not. There is only so much information in a scene that can be conscious. Why I will tell you why and you know why. Because our scenes are limited to one body one mind therefore in order to experience the same exact experience are experiencing in that moment, God (atm) must be limited to one body one mind or else they are missing data and not omnipotent.
But your failure lies below. Omnipotence does not require all information to be conscious and the very idea is silly since the flow and perception of information requires a division and a discarding of irrelevant information. If there was a scene with infinite information it would result in no information at all and just a blob of white noise, so information is in a sense, reductive.
So, what is required in omnipotence is not being conscious of all information (since being conscious of all information would result in no division or form and thus unconsciousness) . All that is required is a subconscious method of storing information and a subconscious system that returns relevant information when you need when you need it based on it’s benefit utility. Ie. God doesn’t need to know the name of all the forest pokemen until he answers the prayer of the kid who want’s the latest Nintendo DS game. So God is subconsciously omnipotent
This is nonsense Trixie…
I’m not talking about omnipotence, but rather omniscience, and from that perspective …
You wrote word salad
The idea of sub conscious storing of information is problematic Ultimate, because that kind of storing can not be consciously restore an association of original relevance by association.
Association has to be consciously programmed to be recalled, and this is why programs of sub conscious learning are ineffective. An unconscious state has no conscious relevant and intentionally set up associations, because, there is no conscious thinking in a sub conscious state.
There is an area of the subconscious that adapts and becomes like an autonomic nervous system… So we can store choices into reflex… Other than that, you are generally correct
I would hardly call that “a area” and what is “subconscious” differs by the personality type. We aren’t all conscious in the same ways generally, though through the day we will all make use if the various functions of the mind.
I will not think as Amorphous thinks, nor will Arc, nor Sauwelios, nor will Orbie, nor will Joker… We each have different “conscious” and “unconscious” aspects to our general personalities.
The ability to recall memories isn’t dependent upon personality, but some types are better at making sense of it since they sit closer to the final steps of memory storage and retrivial.
Trixie’s contrast and division of how knowledge works isn’t correct, but not bad either… I say this in the sense someone embracing such a understanding of how knowledge is filtered through the modes if the mind has a better concept than most, and you can do generally good in thinking by such a model, but at the same time it is incorrect, in that a complex mind (more advanced than say, a ant) doesn’t operate by this principle.
Information travels along several channels in the mind, and a lot of synchronization goes on… a lot of a priori conception is generated from this, the world we see, hear, touch is largely synthetic. We have more understanding of our senses that impression provided to our senses.
Nothing is quite passive, we aren’t just a focusing prism separating and breaking down the colors of the rainbow… we all too often make the rainbows in the dark. That… that… that is consciousness. Our ability to think or reason isn’t much different from “passively sensing”, networks are networks.
That’s my simplified version of the OODA Loop.
In more complicated, backwards versions on the net, you see the emphasis on reflex and cognition. I didn’t include it because it us superfluous and has scale, mine works at any level of consciousness or society, or creature… the people making the graphs didn’t quite get what Col. Boyd was aiming at:
The ability to Observe and React has two paths in this model, Hypothesus and Reflex (the didn’t label it as such, don’t know why)
Of course, you can’t observe unless your senses react to look to observe, at any level of the process… but it gives you insight to the fact that there isn’t a single place everything is stored to react knowingly by later on, the learning process us more complex than this, why PTSD happens, unbalanced triggers, yet parts of us know nothing is happening, while other aspects can’t.
Reflex in my model is the pure red arrows.
The bulk of our “sensory experience” isn’t red, we “see” in the mixed arrow spectrum. It us a hybrid of nature and nurture… seems to happen instantly without thinking.
If I and Sauwelios was to look at a image, I would see more as I’m more knowledgeable, Sauwelios less, as he is generally stupid and worthless, in a Stoic sense (see Arius Didymus).
There has been a lot if studies on this phenomena. I will post a few.
TF,
Where’s the internal observations?
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … tists.html
And yes, they could see blue, yes it exists in nature… but gets you involved in the basic idea. We use two hemispheres to think, only one is linguistic, language theorists all too often ignore this fact. I assure you, cats can see all the color available to them.
No patience today Turd. Where do your internal observations feed into your chart before orientation?
They don’t.
I left that open because, as a common mistake on thus forum I don’t even bother to correct, given how impossibly prevalent it is, we don’t Orient in either the Cartesian or Aristotelian Sense, because both senses already superimposed a later mode of mind for how we sense and make sense if the data.
I provide a closed system, just seems to generate, which we interpreted as we must.
If you close your eyes, and poke your eyeball softly, you see light. You see “light”… think about that. Your set up to Orient naturally through that feedback, and you “see” light, even “color”. Light wasn’t involved at all. That is a fully closed off system. By labeling “outside” I make a terrible mistake of assuming a duality on par with the Pythagorean table of opposites (not implicitly stated) is already in progression:
Inside/Outside
Subjective/Objective
That’s not the case, that is a mode of reasoning we go to to explain the phenena of seeing light, but not all we see is caused by light.
An example, I saw a sign on the front door of a shop a few days ago, it said “Spend”, looked at it stunned again upon passing, stepping back, it only said “Open”. My thought when first passing that shop? "Why the fuck would anyone want to shop there? ".
Light was involved, color scheme was correct, font was approximate…but that sign didn’t say spend. But in a sense, it did. A unconscious sense, that thought it as fast as I saw it.
So I just represent it as a closed system, you don’t actually know if it is external or internal data, and the presumption of a sensor can be misleading when it comes to the subject of knowing. It becomes a crude play at scientism after a while. I tried to simplify the OODA Loop as much as possible, so as to better explain competitive feedback loops. You add factors, you add presumptions of later theory of mind that become superimposed upon it, and that’s bad philosophy. This forum, and modern philosophy in general, automatically presumes… I even see debates by atheists of all people here claiming consciousness is external. A lot of Christians would be hesitant to assert that. It should send up a red flair something is wrong, but we live in a dark, stupid, stupid age so whatthefuckever. Blah blah blah, consciousness is external, even though externality can’t exist until a few other Pythagorean dualisms are first triggered…