I’ll read it, sure. I don’t care about fame.
You read it here first. Do you need me to explain something?
Everything about the entire idea was presented here, in full? This is all of it? There’s no more reading to do in terms of evidence, arguments, the things the theory explains that aren’t as well explained by other theories - none of that, everything is all right here?
I never said anything about “all of it.” I did not post “all” of my thoughts, and I do not have any supporting documents. It’s all in my head.
Do you usually post all that you know about something in a thread?
No, I don’t post all of it, and so when someone asks me “where can I read more about it”, I give them resources to go read more about it.
I see, the defensiveness about me wanting to read more about it makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
It is my idea in my head. I posted some (not all) of my ideas on the internet. You can find some here and some on sciforums.com. Then there’s a ton of stuff on automotive sites. Go find it and start your education today!
Guys, the more stuff is absurdly reduced, the less will understand it accordingly, the rudeness of this extensive process noggl s the mind, finally encompassed by a singly pointed singularity
Modern science has no answer to your question. According to the law of karma, the determining conditions under which the mobile soul re-enters the world are conditions with respect to the conduct of the person in his previous life. Per the doctrine of karmic law, actions and their retribution can be viewed as the law of causation applied to the moral realm. The law that every action has a reaction works in the scientific world, as well as in the moral world. What we did in the past has determined in part what we are today and what we do today will determine our tomorrow.
(I’m not a panpsychist, so this answer is part Ideological Turing Test.)
Isn’t the anthropic principle enough? Or is the consciousness to simpler beings equivalent to the consciousness in all respects? Aren’t there humans who are incapable of meaningfully asking that question who are nonetheless conscious?
I don’t think pointing to the anthropic principle is quite the same as saying “it just is that way”; rather, it being that way is a precondition for you asking why it is that way.
“the determining conditions under which the mobile soul re-enters the world are conditions with respect to the conduct of the person in his previous life.”
If that’s how it works, then whoever is runnin this karma stuff (god, cosmic score keepers, whatever) is playin everyone against each other and is either a lunatic, a sadist, or both.
Here’s why and how. If the law of karma is true, and i steal your car, u deserved to have your car stolen or else I wouldn’t have stolen it. This means that my act, which will gain me bad karma, was retribution for something u musta done. So, the law of karma uses us to do bad things to punish everyone for doing bad things, which it then punishes us for doing.
It’s utter nonsense or the work of a cosmic asshole.
Nature personified is both nurturing and vicious, is it not? And yet it results in increasing complexity and intelligence. Karma is, in any case, unprovable. So, if Dogbert is asking why he in particular was born a human instead of a mosquito, or indeed, why he was born at all, there is no scientific answer.
What if action-reaction, and the fact that when it doesn’t happen that way in human relationships, we think something unjust has happened, is like training wheels to understand we can not only interrupt action-reaction (play catch with the apple rather than just letting it drop to earth), but interrupt “revenge”/wrath with (consensual) grace? That is what Jesus demonstrated, and what is meant by “mercy triumphs over justice/judgment” and “I desire mercy, and not a sacrifice”.
The devolving antithesis of that is demonstrated in the social credit system. On earth as it is in hell.
“What if?” indeed. The question is what follows from panpsychism? Everything is conscious. Now what?
“Do this in remembrance of me”?
Non sequitur.
1 Like
Just because you do not follow doesn’t mean it does not follow.
Cryptic.
Not cryptic as a recollection as a coming after a revision the second time around
Revolving around reversibility
And that depends on the power of the will, not willing something, say, insubstantial
What if there is only one time/recollection, but all the revisions are included a priori?
Withdrawn, your honor. Stricken from the record. Jury, make your decision as if you never heard that.
Let’s take a recess.