This Vs science and religion…

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This Vs science and religion…

‘Half-state’

Define?-?

Thought I’d make the idea as simple as possible, but is it? What e.g. is…

Half-God
Half-you
Half-conscious
Half-material
Half-immaterial
Half-will
Half-determined
Half-whole

….half-real? Is that even plausible? I had always argued that reality may only ever be entire, that nothing, not even emptiness or illusion can be less than real at some level. Yet it may be so that you simply don’t ever get entireties [not even in fractions] to begin with.

‘Everything is equally and always itself and something else’ ~ Amorphos

I thought this also applies [from one of my posts in another thread]…

[i]“The universe is an abstraction of information which itself [info that is] is abstract, I’d assume then that the reality of both existence and spirit, is in that non-localised ‘space’. All our selves have in this that same original self, the ‘distance’ [I.e. when we consider the half-state as essentially un-localised] between us all is a measure in communications.

Ontology; Information as science knows it, is a term that simply refers to the rate and shape of change. Information as mind knows it is the teleology from whence such abstractions derive and arrive at ”.

_

2

You know you don’t have to quote yourself, you can just write it and…like…we’ll know that you said it.

Anyway, I have no clue what you’re talking about, so don’t mind me.

3

Well QM particles have no initial spatial locations and can be in two places at once, equally we have the universe ~ existence, and what lies outside of that in time and ‘space’ [by that I don’t mean ‘space’ in terms of physics] ~ non-existence.

We also have the will [some would argue] and determinism, the conscious being and the unconscious etc.

It would seem that the truer nature of reality in that all things are in the ‘half’ state’. is it not so that everything we describe can be described as something else etc?

4

It’s possible that your dichotomy is a bit extreme. Rather than existing and non-existing, some have postulated that there is only presence or absence. The difference may appear to be subtle, but it is a large difference. Non-existence implies a beginning and end and that might not be an adequate description of reality. It’s possible that what we apprehend is merely focus from the field rather than field/no field.

5

tentative, interesting reply.

I had hoped that the essential meaning here was indeed that there is no such dichotomy, I used to think there was statelessness and state, but now I am proposing that there is only that which lies betwixt the two I.e. the half-state. I think then I am in full agreement with what you are saying here.
I also agree that the whole thing lacks teleology in terms of anything outside the system, e.g. like a guide or set of laws outside of existence or indeed the half-state…

Indeed, I am interested in how the two are informed by one another. To bring it onto the mental plane, we seem to have a brain as if like a Gordian knot, fully causal with no way for anything ‘non-physical’ to be interacting with that. Yet our consciousness does interact with it, I think via information, where here we have to split info into two types, physical mechanistic info and knowledge or non-material info ~ such as how we experience info.

So now if we get away from the mental side of things, perhaps there is some manner of non-physical information interacting with the info of the field. This bypasses the need for a multiverse and determinism, thence replacing those with a more fluid world like that I feel we experience [a partly determined singular expression of the informational universe].

_

6

Amorphos, I am totally aware of the (your) of suPposed half states. Its naïve to think of something either /or existing or not, however the confusion arises, when we try to analyse in terms-of one into the other.(((Existence in terms of non existence and inversely)

 There are 2 things I have been thinking of, that may relate your problem, and one is logic, and the other, referientiality systems of semantic difficulties as ascribed by the scope of referientiality.  But please scratch the above as purely a solopsism exploration.

 As regards your OP, the confusion of solving and either/or type or reduction, involves the very basic logical process in selection of characteristics, with which to identify so called "factual" evaluations. These may include the supposed facts of religious belief, such as Christ's miracles, the great Schisms of the Church (catholic), martin Luther's source of motivation to break away from said Church, etc.

The identification and categorisation of the certainty of these facts, are subscribed to by an initial acceptance/rejection of alternative certainly held views at the time. These early views, were held in strict logical certainty of the type, which excluded any other view, by virtues of their definitional belief. For instance, the church’s schisms was a direct result of the breaking away of events, dogma which have been rejected out of hand. The greatest schisms the church literally ascribed to was the one having as a consequence two simultaneous popes, one in rome and one in Constantinople. These were logically consistent facts. Luther was inwardly broken, and his case, was the consequence of inner events of self certainty mirrored through his belief of the Soul, as the final arbiter of “Truth”.

But the point being, is that although both pointed to a way to identify the “what caused this to occur and therefore why?”, the mistake is to try directly answer the why? Before the what?

  Before we can "know"(identify) the what?  (As a discriminate among possibilities, we start the process by excluding possibilities.  We exclude them for various reasons, attributes, qualities, thus narrowing the range(scope) of possibilities.  This is how we arrive at what it is, it's identity, this is how we identify, and learn what it is.

After we can identify, learn what it “is”, then we can evaluate it in terms of “truth function”. If, the evaluation does not lead to a satisfactory conclusion, then we go back to qualifying by exclusion.

 These two processes are seemingly anomalous for most, thereby hindering logical train of identification.  We may misidentify   truth values,or, semantically misnamed them, giving false truth values and consequent misuse of them.

From here referientiality may shift, away from the process of quantification—(representation). Toward the primary qualifier—the cogito-in-itself.
(God presenting Himself like in burning bush)
When this happens, science and religion part company, since their relation has to be based on a relationship between absolute and representational Truth, on a logical level. Science tends to “identify” by use of variables, using those variables as standard (fixed). On the other hand, religion, based on ontology, identifies “truth value” by presentation of singular facts, and disqualifying ones that which are not" truth" related. So “existence” is an attribute of God, because God exists. Because God exists, “god does not (not) exist”. Because a non existent God has no truth value.

With science, to say “God exists” is not to qualify or disqualify on basis of truth, but only state a neutral non factual statement, with a potential to evaluate. Science does not operate on the level of qualification truth, (presenting), but representing the presumption of both assertions. The existence of God will not be disqualified on basis logical certainty (eliminating all possible cases of non-existence, but by identifying “God” as the totality which needs to be represented in all of it’s aspects. Since this can not be done “God” as a concept cannot substantially be self referential. It will depend on representations, which can only be defined in reference to other representations. Trying by eliminating by reference to the singularity All (the Almighty God)This will become impossible, since that singularity is self identifying(I am who I am)

In the early days of Descartes, self certainty was a given, within the certainty of assigned social roles, and the erosion of Faith, was a patent view, shown to be latent later on, by Luther, Nietzsche and others.

Forgive the length of this, and hey, don’t’ feel obliged not to read between the lines for a general drift.

7

I’m not convinced we know enough through brain studies to come to any concrete answers. What is brain and what is mind remains a fuzzy abstract. Where do our thoughts come from? Those who wish to see nothing beyond physicalism point to stimulus/brain activity and conflate this into the typical causal chain perspective. This is a beginning/end point of view. They may be right, but we don’t know enough to get to certainty.

I’m hesitant to consider an informational universe as more than conjecture. It sounds good, but opens the door for externalism. It becomes the fall-back explanation of “God did it.” It smacks of New Age everything is love…

I’m still at the I don’t know stage and probably will never get past that. The little we know compared to what we don’t know looms large. The whats and hows of the arrival of physical and mental persistence from the field remains a mystery not yet resolved. But in the meantime, we’ll continue to make stuff up. :wink:

8

Not necessarily. We may not choose to, and yet be obliged to.

9

You are thinking from the standpoint of thought. The fact that you always think about what you’re thinking about tells your thinking a lot. It informs your thinking instrument that it is getting somewhere or not getting somewhere. But, hey, thought is after all limited in its endurance. That’s the secret of intelligence: knowing the limitations of thought …. And realizing the limitation so strongly that it becomes a realization that all there is is thought and no thinker there. There is the illusion that there is a counter-thought (the one that is reading the thoughts), but that is the strong man in the house of your ‘mind’ – the fascist dictator that sits in the seat of consciousness and rears up when challenged.

The reality of the matter is, by yourself alone you have no way of finding out anything. But when I say that, or rather when thought thinks that, you will stand with your instrument of thought inside your brain and insist that there is some mysterious information that is in the universe helping us know stuff. But that is just thought rearing its head in protection of its own continuity which has a separate and parallel existence and purpose of its own. You are not there in the absence of it.

10 
 Partly true. Thought is limited by the thinker(s), and thinker(s) are limited by the extent, intent, and scope of the thought. I think that the thought and the thinker are inseparable.  This does not entail that one can attain knowledge singuarly.  The mysterious place you describe may or may not exist, though. That's one of the remaining unknowns.
11

… and this again is affirmed by thought.

12

First there are assumptions that, without knowledge, cannot exist. Then comes the question of whether there can be the experience of what is assumed apart from the knowledge of it. Thus the original assumption had not been generated by you alone. IOW the brain is not a creator of thoughts that create assumptions … they are not internally generated.

13 
 How can you be certain? Maybe it comes not from thought. Maybe it comes from that mysterious place, without thought. And what is thought? Can you define it? If you can, then its no longer mysterious.--if you define it as a desription(physiological, psychological, then thought has surpassed the scope of it's use, and there remains the mystery of what is meant by thought) so it's difficult to defeat the mystery of thought.

But I did not start from the position of thought. Only from the position of it’s "mystery.((In the beginning-----------------------was the word)))

14

A mystery or a thoughtless thought may or may not be the cause of the experience that’s associated with the thought, you are the one linking them necessarily. It may be unnessesarry to understand where it comes from or what it is, or whether its caused internally or externally. Dualities break down in the mysterious. Again, this is predicated on the idea that thought/no thought do not necessarily signify anything. The mysterious source, too may be just as unreliable, as the source of it’s own idea.(It’s self identity) but then again, it is a possibility within he scope of qantum truth value.

15

We are always talking about thought and thinking. What is thought? Have you ever looked at thought, let along controlling thought; let alone manipulating thought; let alone using that thought for achieving something material or otherwise? You cannot look at your thought, because you cannot separate yourself from thought and look at it. There is no thought apart from the knowledge you have about those thoughts – the definitions you have. So if somebody asks you the question, “what is thought?” any answer you have is the answer that is put in there – the answers that others have already given.

You have, through combinations and permutations of ideation and mentation about thoughts, created your own thoughts which you call your own. Just as when you mix different colors, you can create thousands of pastel colors, but basically all of them can be reduced to only seven colors that you find in nature. What you think is yours is the combination and permutation of all those thoughts, just the way you have created hundreds and hundreds of pastel colors. You have created your own ideas. That is what you call thinking. When you want to look at thought, what there is is only whatever you know about thought. Otherwise you can’t look at thought. There is no thought other than what there is in what you know about thought. That’s all that I am saying. So when that is understood the meaninglessness of the whole business of wanting to look at thought comes to an end. What there is is only what you know, the definitions given by others. And out of those definitions, if you are very intelligent and clever enough, you create your own definitions. That’s all.

When you look at an object the knowledge you have about that object comes into your head. There is an illusion that thought is something different from objects, but it is you who creates the object. The object may be there, but the knowledge you have about that object is all that you know. Apart from that knowledge and independent of that knowledge, free from that knowledge, you have no way of knowing anything about it. You have no way of directly experiencing anything. The word “directly” does not mean that there is any other way of experiencing things other than the way you are experiencing things now. The knowledge you have about it is all that is there and that is what you are experiencing. Really, you do not know what it is.

In exactly the same way, when you want to know something about thought, or experience thought, it is the same process that is in operation there. There is no inside or outside. What there is is only the operation, the flow of the knowledge. So you cannot actually separate yourself from thought and look at it.
So when such a question is thrown at you, what should happen is the realization that none of the answers have any meaning, because all that is acquired and taught. So that movement stops. There is no need for you to answer the question. There is no need for you to know anything about it. All that you know comes to a halt. It has no momentum any more. It slows down, and then it dawns upon you that it is meaninglessness to try to answer that question, because it has no answer at all. The answers that others have given are there. So you have nothing to say on that thing called thought, because all you can say is what you have gathered from other sources. You have no answer of your own.

16 
 Non signification may also be harmless, it may be a void, that's not similar to absolute emtiness. To me a zen state may or may bother with the inclusion/exclusion logical distinction, thought is no thought.  And no thought is thought, but it is.
17 
 There is no necissity to define thought as singular, as you did. I didn't. I didn't even desribe it as you tried to do. I merely tried to show that your position of "no thought" is equally as "thought" since they are both of cognitive content. The thought tha's differnt, objectless is the formal elements of thought that do not require an object of thought.if you counter "what is that?" (A thought without content) I would say it is what you signified as non existent--a mysterious place. Anything that's unknown can be said to be of a mysterious place, I meant It in that sense.
18

You may counter with, “that mysterious place may too be a thought”, but that too can be contended with that the identity of that mysterious thought may not be excluded from a formal definition of what thought is. A formal definition may be likened to a capacity to think, but not the actual thinking. We may have a a precognative, awareness potential to think, without it “existing”.

19

I’ll answer more as I get time, thanks for all your answers!

obe hi, speak as lengthy as you so wish.

Well language has a profound affect upon us and perhaps we have little else. I’d like to think we can get beyond language as mere reference to the fact, yet it seams that the ‘fact’ is equally ambiguous.

It is easy to get confused in worldly events and characters, but then something comes through, perhaps the ‘other’ information I was talking about. I’d like to think that all religions ancient and modern have that, or at least the human mind does irrespective of such confines.

Perhaps the burning bush relates to a higher order of communicability, where the expression of the other side of the informational dialogue is perceived in vision. We have to remember that all religions have such things occurring of course. perhaps the expression is as like poetry to the word, and science isnt so far?

So how do you conceive of an whole God?…

Does that make evolution/universe a part of his expression? More importantly here, is gods expression constantly revaluating itself in each moment?

The way I see all this, is as some manner of cyclic communication between the immaterial and the material, and which only finds actual form or expression betwixt such polarities.

20

tentative

Indeed. I don’t think our thoughts come from anything, but more relate to informations of source. To me its as if mind is a passive receptacle to informational input, how could we conceive of lower life-forms in any other way?
Brains are as reality is, if there is immaterial info [and quale, the experiencer etc] then perhaps it is part of natural mind/brain function.

An analogy I am considering is that of a film, the human observer sees a fluid representation of the world or a world. Yet an observer of the gaps between the stills would only perceive the void, and that it has some manner of informational relationship with something beyond itself.
As observers of this material world it may be initially impossible to see the other side of the ‘coin’, but I do think our minds can reach beyond that if only in art and poetry etc.

On the other hand I love to think of the kind of technology knowledge of that other world of info could give us, something in my imagination that is beyond quantum entanglement etc. ~ whereby vehicle-less transport is quite feasible. Scotty wouldn’t beam us to another location, we’d simple move there with the atoms we already have lol. Imagine the possibilities of the pre-manifest! Of things before they are things.
Lol I may be a tad drunk now. :slight_smile:

No, no, that isn’t what I mean, I already said I consider all informations to be within the same system.
Indeed we cannot say a ‘half-god’ did it, can we?!

For me its strictly a relationship between the two halves.

An example; if a series of 01’s = “hello” [a ‘bit’ of info kinda] where the former info simply refers to gates opening and closing, then how does that contain the actual info in the message?
We know what the knowledgeable info means, but a computer can never ‘know’ what hello means!

_