The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

I think it’s a possibility.
For comparison, I also think that it is a possibility that M-Theory is the way existence works, membrane dimensions, and time travelling black holes.

Do I think any of these things rather likely?
Not in the slightest.

You could ask me why, but then again, your idea doesn’t really supply much in prediction to respond to.
" if finite as a whole you might think that the universe, though we recollect things as moving galaxies, may actually be a process of advanced alterations that are complex overall enough to result in some form of thought for the whole. "
(infinite just expands on this)

That’s really just a conjecture of entertaining thought; a fancy.
What can we do from this point?
Not really anything.

Because…"there’s going to be no difference to how things are ticking in life on this Earth as if they do exist then obviously whichever way they bend is already in play "

Same reasoning. My understanding of some large complex network of super-massive-universe-being, the universal turtle in which we ride the back of, makes no difference to what is here right now.
I’m drinking coffee and chatting on the computer. My daughters are building with constructs and watching their morning edition of Wiggles.
My wife is sleeping in to catch up on rest. The weather outside is slightly overcast. It’s Saturday. Poorly made kimchi still tastes like shit. I still have duplicates of the same negative report on my credit to battle off. And I still taste the morning air in my lungs with wetting salivation of loving the briskness.

Nothing changes.
It would be more effective if Santa Clause were real than if the universal being were real.

That’s the idea.

No.
But you already know what you want spiritually. Each person does.
It just takes longer for you to catch up to the names of what you spiritually sync with.

Good.

No; it is not exclusively emotions, nor are these emotions the caliber in which we think of emotions such as sadness, anger, love, or the like.
They are the undercurrent of emotion akin to the undercurrent of a wave. Standard emotions are more like the white caps cresting on the top of the wave.
Of course there are irrational concepts at this level; almost everything there is irrational - literally.
The only way you can state them to be rational at all is by stating that they have a circuit which has a logic unto itself for function.
Aside from this, by common terms of rational and irrational, they are irrational.
This is why meditation is required; to pull them up to cognition where reasoning can be applied.

Let me put it another way.
You have instinct to move in reflex. It is irrational.
You can learn how to evoke this reflex, meditate upon them in practice, and then control the function to a degree whereby reflex has now been altered by training that you decided through reason.
Thereby, instead of simply reflexively moving without controlled form; you can now reflexively react with greater precision to the event practiced.

Similarly, you can reshape your spiritual emotions.

In the example I gave, simply because if I am discussing heat, then the first to encounter that will be the skin.
We are not Vulcans. The first thing that picks up will not be logic. The first thing that will pick up is our implicit responses.

Of course.
Ergo; meditation, not simply going with.

They are both.
How do you identify them?
Your body can tell you the difference between a negative and a positive.
We have different electrochemical responses to those extremes.
One, in strong form, makes you sick nearly immediately.
The other, in strong form, causes a euphoria.
There are many degrees between them.

As to the definite layering; I can’t.
I can only state that spiritual emotions that I am referring to are below intuition on a layering of cognition.
And I can only state that because of what intuition is: an implicit processor.
Long term implicit emotions are one of the things that would be processed by the implicit processor and served over to the explicit processor in translation of simple impulses.

They ran experiments in which people were told to pay attention to material information directly and later recall answers regarding that material.
Then ran experiments in which people were told to play a game while material information was shown indirectly behind their point of focus (the game) and later asked to recall answers regarding that material.
The second test results were equal to, and in some cases (not by a large margin) higher than, the results of the first test.

This is one way it was shown.
The other is still running in an active lab pretty regularly in which they can predict what your answer will be by monitoring where your brain is shuffling energy around. Every time your brain transfers energy to the wrong sections of the brain for the type of problem at hand; they can tell you are going to get the answer wrong before you even start your answer.

In cases of intuitive answering, implicit recall, the answers fair as founded as explicit recall and again, in some conditions it is superior than explicit recall.
It doesn’t mean intuition is the way to go; it means that at some functions, intuition is the better tool. Ergo, why we have it in the first place.

How do I know, or how does neurology know?
Neurology knows because it knows where intuition pops up in the brain and can easily monitor such events.
I know because if it is not something I specifically paid attention to with cognition; then we are talking about intuitive response; implicit recall.

What was the color of the shirt of the man on the sidewalk 2 hours ago next to Moore St. and Vine Cir.?
Unless you specifically noticed this person and targeted them with your direct attention, you are then working off of implicit recall; intuition.

Not to be confused with instinct.

Yes it is.

OK.

i find all ideas to be merely conjectures…

some people begin by saying:
x=x…

I begin by saying

If x=x…

It wouldn’t change things assuming it didn’t just come into existence, such as to be a thing that doesn’t change things.

But I at least think all things exist in so far as they have an affect, and understanding what does exist most often lends to other understandings, yet ultimately we often function the same while believing or thinking of things in a different way, and as such it may not be so important how one understands as that one understands enough to lend to that which is most important to lend to.

And of course, I personally think of things in the manner that a Sentient Ultimate (as you nicely rephrased) is affecting things
and thus plays a role in the whole
such that in recognition of such i find a form of logical progression that seems suited to functioning the best, at least for myself.

It is an interesting matter to attempt to think without the use of names or words, and then even images…

Makes sense, I might say everything may hold some irrationality, as in order to know logic is sufficient we use logic…

Makes sense mostly, although actually controlling the reflex seems contradictory, but I think I see what you mean if i look past the “names” or words:
By practicing the reflex one is controlling the effectiveness and quickness of it?

Interesting thought, but how would such be good?
Almost sounds dangerous.
Do you mean alter the way the spiritual impacts you to elicit emotions, or alter the way your emotions react to the spiritual, or what…I don’t know I grok this?

(the non-emotional idea with regards to Vulcans I could logically argue with them…it would be interesting…)

The skin may be the first part of the self to encounter the heat so long as one considers the self as within the aspect which is defined by what we see is our boundary.

After other discussions I’ve had, I think the idea of really being able to arrive at a definite layering of any aspect of the things mental is not really possible anyways.
When we think about possibilities we don’t literally think such and such is 73.444455556567% possible some can but only after other thoughts and it won’t be perfectly accurate and thus uncertain. What we tend to do it would seem is just say thing x is more likely than thing y and thing z more likely than that, and i guess it goes the same when leveling any ideas…Rather one might say we relate rather than definitively level.

This makes sense now that i have thought more about it.

But the study would seem to suggest that having commercials in the back ground on tv, or at the side of a web page, might be quite functional at what some might then call “subliminal” coercion.

Might I quote you i might use this in other arguments, and do you know of a reference to this, like a Wikipedia article or something?

I would like to be tested by that, might you know how I could arrange such? Or have any idea how i might find the place doing that and/or contact them.

I would think intuition would be better for dealing with things which have pervaded the human condition the longest, where as logic would be better for dealing with more recent actualities.

Socializing though is an example where both are needed, as while socializing has been around longer than we have been considered human, the logical mind of others is more associative with the here and now and so in more need of logical relation. Whereas when buying a house, we have used houses for a very long time in our culture, it would seem better to go by how it makes you feel then how it looks or what logical arguments the seller suggests, though of course some logic is needed to insure appropriate expenditure (of course there would seem to always be a mixture of logic and feeling in action): and one might even recognize logic behind this as how it makes you feel will tell you the comfort you will have in it, and comfort/good-feeling with regards to where you live the most is highly conducive to functioning in all sorts of things, especially studying, i do believe.

Some are quite a bit more useful than others.

OK, the most important thing for me to lend to is not discerning gods in an actuality thesis.

Yep.

We actually don’t have a choice. Our prefrontal cortex necessitates this behavior.

If you train one particular motion, then your entire system becomes bias to using it as the implicit and explicit muscle, tissue, and neurological memory have an efficient method of response in store.
Basically, you can narrow the range.

Take the block in fighting.
By training a block many times, you can effectively ingrain your reflex to an attack to a degree range of the ideal block motion.

The same thing is true with psychology, and in so being true with psychology, true in neurology and that also means in spirituality.
Which we already know.
Cults use this feature to subversive measures.
Many religious practices use it for goals towards some concept of raising such as enlightenment or righteousness.

Expanded more next.

Continuing,

It means that you can control your existential emotions that are long term emotional cycles, rather than short term as the cognitive emotions are.
Let’s say that you feel generally displaced and separated from your own reality; you feel despondent and unable to connect.
Let’s also say that this is not in response to any one direct thing, but instead simply seems to have risen softly over time.

Now, this spiritual emotional state will change which cognitive emotions you will have, as well as augment your reason since your amygdala is processing higher towards this spiritual emotion.
Thereby, any reason, which requires processing through the amygdala, will be slanted in this sense.

If you want to control your slanting, your spiritual emotion, then you can through evocation of your sense of existing in existence, and your relationship to that.
Different religions approach this issue in different manners. Some approach by using modules which supply an understanding of harnessing a strength. Some offer a release. Some offer transition. And others offer transcendence.
There are many, many more such concepts; these are but a few common examples.

The focal is that you can effectively control your impression of existing with existence and back unto yourself by a vast array of modules heavily found in spiritual adoptions.

Even the simplest of things can facilitate this; no more than a pencil dot on a sheet of paper in some cases. In others, merely one tiny idea.
And in some unique cases, nothing; turning everything off without trying to turn everything off.

Can it be dangerous?
Absolutely; ergo the Cult concept previously mentioned.
Does that mean it shouldn’t be used? No.
Under that logic, I should never use fire either.

Most things in nature have their uses, overuses, and abuses.

Works for me.
Either way, doesn’t matter; you get the idea.

9 levels of hell, and there order; I am not outlining.

Yep, but really; that doesn’t much matter.
You don’t actually lose to your subconscious that easily because your conscious choice trains your subconscious into a kind of behavior - like a parent - and so your subconscious ends up adhering to your conscious satisfaction concepts most of the time.

Quote Gerard P. Hodgkinson. He’s the one that did all the hard work.
nif-dev-web.nbirn.net/about/publ … uition.pdf

Sure,
Contact Dr. John-Dylan Haynes
Read up on it in this PDF.
socialbehavior.uzh.ch/teachi … 08_ext.pdf

Not at all.
Intuition is actually best used with things foreign.
It is best used in things known, but poorly recalled by explicit memory.
Intuition is essentially implicit memory, and works by motive through simple sensory impulse in a near binary manner of either/or as its relay to the active and aware cognition.

That is useful pretty much daily.
If I throw a basketball at your face, your intuition will be what commands the logic of that instance.

The rest was pretty on par.

what do you mean by “actuality thesis”?

Or so we might deduced by logic.

It might sometimes be best not to be habituated to a specific response, so as to alter intuitively with respect to the given situation, as no situation is exactly the same. Though at least some training is needed either way.
As Rumi said In order to be cleaned it must be wet and the dried.
In fighting it is best to first learn the more common responses, or to simply practice certain ones, over time a fighter learns many styles, and then the next fighter learns to be loose of habit and respond in accordance to attack, opened to new methods of response by the self and the other.

According to Dante right?

Thanx

My thinking was along the lines that many feelings arise due to a longtime association of something with a common occurrence.
But then I recognize the power of the non-conscious/non-higher-awareness to interpolate amazing things based on connections it makes.

Determining the classification of a thing’s actual relationship with existing.

I refer to this currently as the way of the reacting spirit, and it strives to outline exactly how to purposefully accomplish this.

That was the reference, yep.

np.

Yep.

So it would seem implied that you simply don’t believe that if God existed that it would have any impact on anything.
I would think that in order to exist a thing must have some impact.
For example if it did exist and as a result others believed in it that would have an impact…

Each being varies as to what may progress them, few if any processes are suited for all.

No.

Yes.

If a god or gods exist in any fashion, then they already do.
If they already do, then they are already accounted for in the system of the universe and my acceptance or lack of acceptance of their presence makes no difference to their impact on reality.
And if by some far stretched chance my disbelief or belief does matter on such a grand scale for their account of existence, then my state of disbelief is already accounted for in the system as it stands and poises with no direct need of change.

86%+ of the world’s population (~6.02 Billion, OK; probably more around 5 to 5.5 Billion once we remove non-theist forms of Buddhism) already believe gods exist in some fashion.
If the gods do exist, then you showing a logical conclusion of how they could exist won’t have any variance on that statistical effect and impact that is already present.

I’m not delusional.
I don’t expect anything I do to fit everyone.
Hell, I don’t want it to.
All it will be attempting to do is reduce the rigidity of form so that the modules are more adaptable to each person as they want them for their body and mind’s fitting, if they so want to use a given module.

I would think you are wrong there, as so long as something exists it impacts everything. For if it impacts anything that thing impacts something that impacts something that impacts eventually you and all other things.

That would seem only to be the case so long as you thought it would only matter that you always believed, i tend to think that in most these things what is important is that you believe at a point before one is simply made to know.( in fact I tend to think making kids know is very wrong…) And while I can see how simply believing doesn’t seem to be relevant, it might be in so far as in understanding it makes it easier to do things that are right though they may seem not fun, eventually to the extent that they begin to seem fun simply in that they are right. Of course what others think are right most often seem illogical to others.

There would be variance, but i think what you mean is that the effect would be insignificant relative to the whole, but I believe every little bit counts.

I didn’t intend to imply I thought you were delusional, though I see that you may not be implying that you thought I did. :smiley:

I think in summation, this is apt.

Except, I would change that to:
“i think what you mean is that the effect would be insignificant relative to you

Let’s say that you could prove gods exist to me.
Now, then you would have to prove that I should care that they exist.

Let me put it another way.
M-Theory proposes that there is an 11th dimension.
If you could prove to me that the 11th dimension exists, then you would also have to prove to me how that matters to me since I don’t interact with the 11th dimension in any way directly or indirectly in which my belief in it existing will grant me any added leverage for the control that I personally have over reality.

Well the first thing i would suggest is subsiding the Idea of “proof” in the sense of there being something that is 100% probable.
There is always the possibility that something, or someone is wrong about something no matter what it is.
Even though math deals with 100% possibilities it does so hypothetically through hypothetical situations.

We arrive at most things, including math, by logic:

“In order to prove the overall validity of logic one must use logic, and such a method, of proving a thing by assumption of that thing, is shown to be a fallacy by logic.” Quoting my self from elsewhere.

But that can be a minor thing…And I’m not sure that you would disagree.
But I would suggest that it would not be a matter of “proving” God exists or that God matters but of showing you that it is highly likely that he does and that it would/should matter to you.

This is a very hard thing to do.
I might start with this:

What does end mean, to you?
And what have you witnessed ending?

Start with the end. :smiley:

A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually.

It would be a far shorter list to cite what I haven’t witnessed ending.
That would be pretty easy; not one thing.

I don’t know, however, what you specifically mean by the word “end”.
There are roughly 15 to 20 different meanings of that word.

It is good that you don’t allow yourself to prescribe to simply one definition of a thing…

i should have said based on your definition what have you witnessed ending?

“A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually.”
How do you know what the limit of a thing is?

Then again, it would be easier to ask the opposite question of what I have NOT witnessed ending: Not one thing .

That depends on which kind of end is being described and what condition a thing is in.
For instance, I know the end of a ball because it has a skin that is visible as the properties of being a ball and to which can be observed in interacting with other things by the limitation of that skin which defines its shape.

Or, I can know the end of my meal because the plate is now empty and my belly is full; therefore indicating the properties identifiable as the end of the meal.

Ultimately what I am getting at is that it would seem to me that what most people think of as an end is not accurate. Things don’t cease to be all that they are, unless you define them to be something specifically finite. And it would seem then that when something ends it is more a matter of perceiving an alteration in the state of a thing such that it is no longer recognizable as what it was. Would you agree?

Yes, and no.
Yes, in the sense of matter and energy within a system. What you described is the physical truth of the matter.

No, in the sense of what counts as an identity of a thing to the human consciousness.
If I cut off my hand and burn it to ashes, I don’t say that my hand still exists.
Yes, it does according to physics, but effectively to the identification of function being my hand; it does not.

i believe that might be my point that the idea of ending is a matter of perception/consciousness, it only ends so long as it we/you don’t recognize what we/you thought of as it.
The hand when cut off may not be there by our recollection but all that it was continues to have an affect, the seeming absence of it would be a continuously altering aspect of our lives.
Rather it would seem what really ended was a particular state.
What I am getting at is that what typically happens is just a matter of change/alteration, end is just a type of alteration/change?
So what I might then ask is have you ever seen anything actually stop changing, rather than it just seem like it has?

No, that would be a physics impossibility.
If any single thing stopped changing, regardless how small, every law of physics would shatter to pieces and the universe would implode faster than observation could notice.

So would you think that the consciousness would stop changeing after death?

Consciousness is a state, not an object.
It is like asking me if running would stop after the race, or if the engine would stop after the car was shut off.

It’s not like asking me if my legs would still exist after the race, or if the engine would still exist after the car was shut off.

No, it is like asking me if the current still exists in the circuit after power has been removed from the battery and the circuit decays into being separated matter of another form.

Let me put it this way to elaborate further.
Water is a collection of water molecules.
When together, we have water.

If I take a cup of water and stir the water therein, then I can say that I have current.
If I take away the cup and let the water move to another basin, then there is still water with current.
If, however, I put the cup down and walk away, then the current will eventually cease over a long enough time.
Once it stops, it will rest.
Could I regenerate the current in that water?
Sure, that’s easy; I walk up and excite the water. It is a simple compound so that is not too difficult.
The more complex the compound, the more difficult such an event becomes.
But if I leave that water alone, it will evaporate.
The hydrogen will begin to separate from the oxygen slowly.
Essentially, the water will begin its version of decay.
Eventually I will be left with an empty cup.
The current was first to stop, then the water separated its bonds and departed.
If I wait long enough, the cup will also decay, separating its bonds.

Once the water separated its bonds and hydrogen and oxygen left in separate motives, it is no longer water.
The atoms still exist that existed in that cup of water, but they do not exist in their arrangement that made them the water, nor do they exist in proximity to each other in their respective and individual forms they have taken in leaving the unity of being water.
Instead, they have atomically left to join and bond with other atoms and create other compounds useful for other means that are not the body of water that they were a part of previously.

And in even this, the current that was present in the body of water hasn’t any relation at this point of existing at all.
It now only exists as a concept of what has taken place in the past but is no longer taking place.
That specific arrangement of atoms moving in that specific manner in which they could; that current; it is no more and never will be.

If the hydrogen atom is separated from the oxygen atom it is by our perception that they are separate. one might could think that even after death of this state, that even after seeming separation to our current state, that after say death, one’s consciousness continues regardless of separation…But I wouldn’t think of it that way.

But I might ask if time is to continue endlessly, wouldn’t it be inevitable that eventually, even maybe a relatively infinite distance away in time, that all those particles that make you would come back into form?