tar

Tim the Plumber, I did witness something once, with a dozen or more others, where the best explanation we could come up with, was aliens. I don't offer it as any proof, because all the witnesses were in their late teens, and it was during a party, where various drugs and alcohol may have been in play....but...it was on a farm in Pennsylvania where a high power line, ran nearby, its closest point about 500 yards away. A couple of us were out smoking cigarettes, watching the night, and we noticed some lights, about 5 or 6 as I remember, hovering over the trees, all together, about a mile or less away over the power lines. We could not figure what they were, there was no sound, and the night was rather still. As we stood there wondering, others came and watched and wondered out loud what they could be. We figured it most probably was visitors from another planet, because at the time (30plus years ago) we knew of no technology that Earthly humans had, that could hover silently like that. We tried to cast "good vibes" in their direction, so that if there should be contact we would offer a friendy face as representatives of our planet. They must have been there 10-15 minutes at least, because quite a group of us were watching and discussing the situation, and what we should do. Then as we watched, one start to move up and away and then accererated and was gone in a blink of the eye. The others one by one, did the same. As speed of movement, that nothing we knew about could have accomplished. Our only explanation was that they didn't care about us at all, and had just stopped to fuel up, off the high power lines, in a more or less remote spot. The vantage point of where we were standing on our farm probably offered the only clear view, of where they were. Aliens, or voyagers from a lost undersea civilization, or something, but not any technology you can read about. Maybe some super secret government project, but that seemed rather unlikely that such advanced transport could or would be kept under wraps. No proof to offer, of the event. But from the event, I am thinking that its possible that we witnessed aliens. And that incident may not have been the only time visitors have come through, and stopped for a recharge. Regards, TAR2 40 plus years ago, that was in the late 60s

ydoaPs, Perhaps cosmologically speaking we have to look at your assumptions and definitions contained in your other statements in your argument. 1) for instance, talks of objects A and B without mentioning the duration of the objects. Let's take for instance the causal relationship between the sun and its environs and Alpha Centuri and its. Alpha is really a binary or tercary system, but we will call it one object for the purposes of this question. In this case, and for causal relationship purposes, and temporal definition purposes we will look at each object, taking their whole existence from big bang till now, into consideration. Soon after the inflationary period of our universe, this object A and object B stood in causual relation to each other. The gravity from the one, reached the other, and soon after photons could travel, the photons from the one reached the other. The gravity and radiation, from the each to the other has been constant, with never a break, for 13.8 billion years. Alpha affects Sol mightily and causes many things to happen around here. Consider that if you are a human and live where you can see the southern constellations, and you look up on a clear night, the visible photons from Alpha enter your tiny eyeballs, and cause a chemical signal to be released from the rods and cones in the back of your eyes. Now consider not only visible light, but higher and lower frequency electromagnetic energy, and a tiny gravitational effect causing changes to occur, not only on your eyeballs but on your face, your whole body, the whole neighborhood, the entire Earth, and every other planet and peice of matter in Sol's system, including Sol. That is a lot of joules and newtons causing things to happen around here. And such effects have been continual, since near the beginning. So what exactly is the temporal relationship between object A and object B in this case. Which is prior the other? Regards, TAR2

Imatfaal, If all time and all space, are within the bounds of the universe and no time or space can be outside these bounds, is there anything else, that might be outside the bounds of the universe? If we are prone, as humans to consider space and time as pure intuitions, and from these intuitions, understand movement and causation, if we use these notions to recognize differences and similarities, then we should not conclude that we are in possession of the only possible understanding of the universe. We should not conclude that nothing can exist beyond our understanding. On the one hand. And on the other, we should not conclude that the past any longer counts as part of the universe, since it no longer exists. It counts as history of the universe, or memory of the universe, but it is a ghost, with no actual existence, anymore. Similarly the future has not yet occurred, and can not count as being part of the universe, or within the bounds of the universe, yet. The only part of the universe that is actual is what is happening now, how it all is positioned in relationship to the rest of it, currently. If in our minds eye, we can consider past present and future a story, titled "the life of the universe", then we have, ourselves, stepped out of the bounds of time and space to tell the story, and use time to mark a beginning and an end, and space to mark the progression (as in starting from a point and expanding til...). We cannot actually take this position outside the bounds, inorder to see it as "one thing"...and we probably do not have the equipment to make much of anything of it, without referencing time and space. Let's say for instance that the laws of physics came into being at the first moment of the big bang, and they will cease to exist if the universe should ever come to an end. Math could not have existed prior. Relationships, and differences could not have existed prior or outside the bounds of the universe...but "outside" is a distance thing, a relational thing. And it begs the question of what was the environment like, what was the stage upon which the big bang occurred and continues to occur and what will that stage be like, when the big bang ceases to occur, ceases to be. And if it not time, or space that is outside the bounds, then there either is no boundry, or there is something other than time and space, that lies outside the bounds. Lets say Alpha just went super nova. It will not affect us, it will not be real to us for a year or two or however long it takes light to bring us the news. So, tomorrow, when asked, if Alpha exists as part of the universe, what is the answer? True, or false. Which now do we use, the here and now, or the universal now? Regards, TAR2 Any "old" star we see in a distant galaxy is probably dead by now, and any young star we see is probaby old by now, and the dust we see has probably pulled itself together into a young star by now. What is that distant galaxy "really" like right now? We have no clue. We only know its here now, in our skies. Looking like it does.

Imatfaal, I suppose, I am challenging the accepted definition. I do not consider the universe as currently containing all points in time. It has aged. From the godlike stance, considering all points in the universe, as currently existing in a particular state and arrangement, positionally referencable with all other points, there is no point that is other than 13.8 billion years old. 1 billion years ago, every point was only 12.8 billion years old. That condition, no longer exists. It is the past. For the entire universe. I suppose I am suggesting that time, as in age of existence, is one thing, and time as in distance, is another. This concept, that I have been entertaining since a stint of reading a few books on QED and relativity 20 years back (the math was beyond me) keeps me from accepting blindly equations that have a symbol for time in them, because I am not clear, on which sense the term is being used. Age or Distance? I thusly do not agree that one can go backward in time(age) because you have to be growing older while you are going anywhere. And thusly as well, I am confused on the TWIN paradox, because the velocity at which one twin moves away from the other, is exactly the same velocity as the other moves from the one, and should have no bearing on their ages. My overall theory is that the universe has done 13.8 billion years worth of stuff, and all that is past, and no longer exists. And the universe has not yet done, what it is going to do next. So only now exists. Regards, TAR2 Imatfaal, In your link about Prior, one of the thinkers was speaking of time not being linear, but consists of branches from now. What the thinker did not include is what would be the opposite of branches that would define the past. I think it a more complete thought, to imagine now as a point consisting of as many branches coming in, or prior to now, as those going out, or that will occur later. And the idea of a branch suggests a discrete line going in one direction and then branches from there, each branch another discrete line. How do you picture this backward? What is an "unbranch" that points backward in time? I don't think reality is a thing easily granualized, since it rather needs the rest of it, to constantly "be there". 13 year old TAR no longer exists, anywhere in the universe, the only TAR there is, is 59 years old. Even though the light of the match I held to the stars when I was 15, has not yet reached a "neighborhood" star 50 lightyears from here. All points in time do not exist in the universe, only this one now, everywhere. That is my take, and I think it makes number 3 false, if my take is true. Which would allow for something "prior" the big bang, even if that would mean consideration of a "different" reality that existed, that allowed for the big bang to come into being. Regards, TAR2

Imatfaal, Well anyway, thanks for the link. I got a lot out of it. Those modalities are quite "informative" as to the grammar that we use to think and speak to each other. My underlying investigation for the past couple of years has been a investigation of the meaning behind language. I have Kant and Pinker and Deutscher and Chomsky just a half an armslength from my seat. I believe there is a way to find the categories in the way our brains and minds and senses are setup. Though I think there is an inherent impossibility of reaching an "understanding" that is not going to be, by definition a human one. One should, in my estimation, alway be careful not to overestimate or underestimate our capabilities. It seems we have to be, as conscious individuals, cabable of subjectivity and objectivity, both. What is sort of odd, is how imaginary things are images of real things, in many cases, but associating oneself directly to these things is not realistic. Although we have the capability to put ourselves in somebody elses shoes, we are not really in there shoes, even though their shoes and them are real. Such is my problem with ydoaPs number 3. "The universe" itself is not in one place at one time. If we hold a model of the entire thing, in our heads, it is in one place at one time, but not really, just imaginarily. The actual thing is quite spread out and by most accounts, should look somewhat like the way we see it, from any "current" observer's point of view. That is, with close stuff, about our age, and farther stuff younger looking. But our reality is constructed from the actual electromagnetic and gravity waves that are arriving at our postion, now. Thus an understanding of how Alpha is now, what really is the case, at Alpha, is quite immaterial to our current here and now. We have no way to "get there" and back and know about, or report its current condition. It is none-the-less real, and will be affecting us in a few years, so what IS the case, is a difficult truth table problem. Not to be Bill Clinton about it, but it all depends on what your definition of is is. With any formula, or any mathematical space, the whole space is conceived of at once. This might not be reflective of reality, at all. And the translation between objective stance and subjective stance might be readily accomplished by a genius, but not readily switched between by a lesser intellect, like TAR. I have to look at it the one way, and know I am sort of temporarily ignoring the other, to do it, but allow that the other way is real as well, and only by seeing how the one fits with the other, can you sort of get a feel for reality. In any case, ydoaPs number three is suspect, because the universe is too big and too lively to be understood "at once", even though, from an imaginary godlike view, it may indeed be in a particular state, right now, any actual resident sees it quite the way we see it, when we look up at it. Which would indicate that the way we see it, is the case. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, "If the objects perceived in both waking and dreaming are illusory, who perceives all these objects and who, again, imagines them?" The human. By realizing there is a reality that he/she is in and of. This reality, in total has formed the physical person, and informed him/her of all the forms that exist outside the limited space of their person. The "illusions", while waking are internalized analog representations of the forms that exist outside the person. This outside, we call (as Atheists) in the West, the universe, or reality. That we as persons are connected, for real, with this outside is a given. There would be no place to come from, no where to go, nothing to interact with, and nothing to effect us, and nothing to dream about without it. The dream, is made from the same forms, but the forms are mixed together in unrealistic fashions. Mappings and simplifications, pattern matching, analogies, metaphors, and dots and lines filling in gaps that put a dream reality together that need not follow the rules of reality, and need not fit together as solidly and continually as the forms of reality fit together. The self combines the forms contained in the dream, and the forms experienced in the waking state, and notices the difference between and the similarities between. To eliminate any confusion as to whether the dream fits reality, one tests the dream against what is found in the waking world. If it fits, it is usable. If it doesn't fit, either the dream is incomplete or incorrect, or reality needs to be adjusted by real actions, to match. So we are back to the same question. What is your next action, after dreaming you are an illusion in the dream of God. My contension is, you make breakfast, and arrange yourself and your surroundings, to match your dream of what you are going to have for supper. Regards, TAR2

Wonder why a gentleman named Prior, and one named Chronus would spend so much time thinking about it.

ydoaPs, I was wondering about 3). From here, it appears that the farther we look out, the farther we look back in time. But one could argue, that every point in the universe is exactly as old as we are (as a galaxy of material). In which case, what the universe is "currently" doing, is not something we will see for quite a while, and far away quasars are quite old news to the universe. I would argue that the universe has already done 13.8 (or whatever) billion years worth of stuff, and no point in the universe, no observer is in "another" time, currently. Therefore the universe does not contain all points in time. Only this one. The past has already happened, and the future has not yet occurred, everywhere. How did we come to the conclusion that 3 is true? (without differentialble manifolds) Regards, TAR2 (Figuring that to an observer sitting on a planet circling a sun in a galaxy spawned by that quasar, WE are at the quasar state)

Immortal, The passage you quoted did not answer the question I had. My question was not "can you imagine god?". My question was "what do you do after imagining god?". That is, how do you apply it to reality? What is your next move? If you can not associate it to the rest of us, then you are doing it alone, and as such you are ignoring every single "other" real component of reality. In which case, you have not really become one with everything, but had fooled yourself into believing you have. What defines religion? I am thinking, from the thrust of this thread, that is has something to do with one holding on to a thought, so tightly, that you figure the thought itself, trumps reality. I see it strongly in the passage you quoted, where the "teacher" has reached a height, higher than the student, and is operating on a plane only possible in the teacher's imagination. The student knows already the feeling, the connection he/she has with reality, that can not possibly come from anywhere but reality. The student already knows reality, and is already in it, and of it. But the teacher claims you can know reality better, by not knowing it at all, and this is not realistic. It has no bearing on reality, or anything that the student can realistically acheive. All that the student can do, is self hypnotise him/herself into the same state of euphoria, and "believe" the merging with reality, is better when you ignore it completely and wallow in your own internal short circuit. Proof of this, is the constant claim in just about every religion I can think of, that the "believer" knowns more about reality, by associating with the "supernatural", which by defintion is by associating with what is not real, but imaginary. My contention is that we all, already are solidly associated with reality. Any claim of yours, that this link can be "improved", by linking with a "higher" power, that does not really exist, but in yourself, and your own belief, is somewhat an inside/out way of dealing with reality. Think if you will, about a hundred thousand Muslims, circling the stone, in Mecca, reciting over and over and over again, verses from the Koran. They are together in a state of union with their creator...or so they imagine. But it does nothing for me. I cannot join their particular ritual. I do not have the belief they have. Reminds me in a way, of the invincable, euphoric guy, on top of the world, reaching the highest heights, high on drugs, and lying in the gutter. The question remains, what bearing, does reaching nirvana have, on reality and the rest of us? How would you define the difference between understanding ultimate reality, by taking LSD, or learning the secret of the Vedas? Regards, TAR2

Immortal, But consider this question. If you were to reach a perfect state of henosis, at one with the Godhead, what would you do next? Would there be a more perfect state to achieve? And more importantly, what good would that do me, and what would you then eat for dinner? Regards, TAR2 Or assuming you are fasting to reach such a state, what would you have for breakfast?

Immortal, If the history of the universe is to be considered, we must agree that there is a universe, with a history, to consider. If the current state of the universe is to be considered, we must agree that the universe has a current state, observable in two manners. Once from a local, here and now, point of view, and once from a godlike hypothetical view, where a zillion observers stationed everywhere there currently is a station, report their here and now observations to us instantaneously and we add back the distance between the observers, and the time lag from the speed of light and such, and we build a mental model of how immense and longlived the reality we inhabit, really is. There is a built in error that we can easily make when making our assessment of Alpha Centuri. Is it the star we see that is real, or the star we imagine currently shining that is real? There are not two instances of Alpha Centuri, one real, and one imagined. There is, in reality, only one instance, and no observer in the universe actually is informed of Alpha's presence, immediately, it take years for Alpha's current state to reach us, and hundreds of thousands of years to reach other Milky Way observers. But we can add back, and figure the whole situation, hypothetically, in order to understand how it really is. With easy errors built in, because we see it now, as it was before, and depending on which and what you are calling the real current state of Alpha, you can easily imagine someone being in error if they say Alpha just pulsed based on observations of Alpha. I have a theory, that such descrepencies between what the current state of Alpha Centuri is, are also possible when considering the current state of a quantum particle. Where are we placing the hypothetical observer? Is it real when we see the state, or when we add back to figure what it must have been, or when we add back and figure what it could not have been? Such a quandry might be understood if you would attempt to make a model of the state of every quark in a sugar cube. What instant would you use to "freeze" the sugar cube in a particular state? Would it be from the vantage point of the upper back left hand corner, or from the center, or what? The speed of light separates one corner from the other, in a manner that creates the same dual considerations of what is real, that we have with our consideration of Alpha. When you talk of mind, and god, and reality, and empircal evidence and such, I parse it through the above screening process. I give a human both the capability to see a real thing, and to know what seeing it might mean about reality. We have the capability to "add back" and say something, and know something about reality, based on our observations of it. We see the entire visible universe, instantly, when we peer up at it. And none of what we see is representative of the "current" state of the universe. Which are you calling real? Our guess at the current state, or what we see? Or both, put together? I still think you are mistaken if you think you can parse reality into its proper real and imaginary components, and the rest of us cannot. And am rather sure, that in anycase we have to both be trying to say something about the same real Alpha, which there is, in reality, only one instance of. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, "The universe does not 'exist out there/ independent of all acts of observation. Instead, it is in some strange sense a participatory universe." Well perhaps I already believe myself to be participating. How many times have I used the phrase "a reality we are in and of"? And a while back, in my muses on consciousness I developed a definition of love "love is when you include another entity in your feeling of self". And, when considering the genesis of life on this planet I often refer in my muses to an "epiphany" I had on a mountaintop overlooking the Rhine valley, where I "understood" treeness, and how life on Earth had grabbed organisation from a universe tending toward entropy, and a species of tree represented an enduring victory, that from inception til now, was just an instant, a momentary flash in the overall scheme of things. And I have recognized that the model of the universe I hold in my brain is only an analog, detailed model of "actual" reality. A representation of the "thing as it is", that I am in and of. All these things speak to an objective reality that is "out there", operating in sync with me, but independent of my "observation". I am informed of it, but not informed of all of it, at once. I only possess "here and now". And I must figure how that adds back to the real entities that are informing me of their existence and arrangement and history, characteristics and capabilities. And I must figure how my human self, my body/brain/heart group, that exists at a particular place and time (here and now), relates and positions itself in amoungst all the "other" real entities that exist. It is not me that is being hypocritical and ignoring the truth. I am looking for the real things that we both are in and of. And I know the difference between imagination and reality. I know when you are talking about the real world that we all experience, and when you are talking about some ideal or pattern that a human mind has dreamed up in a cave, or noticed while musing on a mountaintop. Besides, if your thesis is that reality does not exist "out there", then the gods you speak of, cannot exist either. And as such, if I would define religion, it would be "the belief that the priests and sages and wisemen of your religion know how to escape here and now". (and as such, would suggest that this is not a real possibility). Regards, TAR

Immortal, Mohammed was rather insistent in the Koran, about straightening out the idol worshippers, and explaning how they were in error. The Koran divides us all very clearly into believers and disbelievers. Does not seem to me that the Muslim religion is very pluralistic. Not so willing at all to accept that Allah has any associates. Since the stories of the old testament are retold "correctly" by Mohammed in the Koran, and the information contained in the Bible, New Testament and the Koran came from the same "human" tradition that you find contains evidence of 33 gods, someone has to be making something up, and not seeing it "correctly". I think the laws of probability and some common sense would say that Immortal is not the first human who "thinks" he has it all figured out correctly. And being as that Immortal is not the first or the last to address the issue, I would say it is rather clear that arriving at a final, correct answer is not very likely. Throw in the wide disagreements in the important details between the plethora of religious beliefs that exist on this planet, and I would say that your thesis about the true nature of reality being found in the teachings of the ancients is highly fragile, and has very little solid evidence behind it. If on the other hand, humans have certain tendencies to think in certain ways, and there is a kind of Universal Grammar underlying language and thought, then the similarities you have noticed between the traditions of separated civilizations, might well have their basis and explanations in how it is we are put together, as humans. Kant's categories are a well thought out breakdown of "how we think". And what we can say/think about anything. I'll wager we can find all 33 gods in the structure of human understanding...if we cared to look for them there. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Answer me this, if you will. Why is your "now", the same as my now? Is this not indication that we belong to the same reality? That we are in sync with the cycles of the same Earth? Your day is my night, if we live on opposite sides of the planet, and we neither see the mars rover do anything until 14 minutes after it does it, but there is only one instance of the Mars rover, and only one instance of you, and only one of me. And we all three belong to the same reality, that has a history, a current arrangement, and a future that has not yet been realized. Don't you think? Regards, TAR2

menageriemanor, I waste even more time arguing with Immortal, than reading through this entire thread. I usually spend portions of my drive home from work, arguing with this "unseen other". I win most of those arguments, and my "unseen other" immortal rationally yields me the points I earn. The actual immortal never yields a good point, or attempts to look for any other explanation than the one he has settled on. If it doesn't fit the immortal scheme, its just childish babbling to his ears. The BIG thing he misses is the fact that what is "out there" in reality from the vantage point of immortal includes everthing that he is unaware of. Which is, in actuality the majority of reality. And in amounst that large amount of real stuff is a mind, a self named menageriemanor, and one named TAR and one named Moontanman and other named Iggy and so on. Each of us is an example of, or a peice of objective reality, that is really "out there" to the subjective mind of immortal. Well its a BIG thing to me, anyway. Its a reality check, a grounding principle, a validation mechanism, a way to KNOW the thing as it is. Just ask a piece of objective reality, that knows the same language you know...anything...the fact that they have a response, validates the both of you, instantly, along with the reality, the two of you share. Talking to imaginary gods, or noble principles, or perfect ideals, (or the "unseen other" immortal, on ones drive home) is not an actual conversation with objective reality, it is instead an imaginary dialog that is subjective and unvalidated, by definition. Its communication with a secret, invisible friend, that does not have a mind of its own, but is constructed by your own rules and will. It is not a way to step out of the cave, it is a way to pretend you can see in the dark. For my money, if god is real, it is the sum total of reality itself that is god. And if this is true, then any flower, or rock or fish or cloud, is evidence of it. Knowing of these things is knowing a little of the thing as it is. I am in and of it, you are in and of it, and recognizing each other, and knowing the other recognizes you is a BIG step toward "knowing" reality/God. Don't understand immortal's insistence that this "real" path to knowing God, is exactly wrong. To me, it is the only way that makes any sense, at all. Regards, TAR

Immortal, A factor I think you should acknowledge is the fact of the real existence of "other" minds than yours, that you are communicating with on this forum. You could close your eyes and "wish" real hard, that TAR is only phenomena of yours, but that is not the case. I really exist. I have a history. I have been places, real places, that others on this thread have probably been. Perhaps Toyko, or Times Square, or the Grand Canyon. I watch the same Sun and Moon, and stars that you do (maybe slightly different stars due to latitude of our respective home towns.) The history of your country is documented, as is the history of mine. We can both pick up Critique of Pure Reason and read Kant's thoughts, experience his mind, and his understanding, and his logic. If you would contract a search light company to send a beam of light upward from the high school in West Milford NJ, at 10 o'clock PM EST time on the 13th of Feb. 2013, I could go outside at 10, and see the clouds illuminated by the beam. For real. No imagination required. I think you have to grant reality and the experience of it, to everyone reading and posting on this thread. We are not figments of your imagination. Grant us reality first, and then we can discuss what of it we have in common, and what strides human thought and language and meaning have made in the last 4 thousand years, or 40 thousand or 400 thousand years. Secondly, if you know there is mind that is "other" than yours, that is real, your first evidence and proof of this you probably got looking up at your mother's eyes as she held you in her arms. I can assure you, with 100% certainty, that your mother was real, had a mind of her own, and she probably never knew of TAR and I probably never knew of her. Regards, TAR Or is it EDT? Which is it "really", Immortal?

Immortal, I am stuck on your contention that an 8 year old, schooled in Eastern systems of thought knows more about the nature of reality than a physicist. I am envisioning a barefoot, poor, starving wretch searching some garbage pile in Mumbai, and countering the image with a scientist at CERN. This thread was split off of "correlation with poverty" and there may indeed be some reasons why poverty is associated with religion. Gnostic thought tends to discount "matter" and reality, and promote "spiritual" wealth. Seems to me, that MIND came about, so we could more effectively deal with reality. Seems like a waste of MIND, to use it as an escape from reality. Or it seems elitist to administer it to the masses, as an opiate. In either case, I don't think you have a leg to stand on, if you cut it off, as a premise. Either reality is real, and that is where "fullness" can be noticed, or knowlege of reality is a dream. You, Immortal, still have to answer John Cuthber's question. What real equipment do we use to inform our MINDs? Regards, TAR2

Immortal, "According to Irenaeus, Basilides taught that the universe began when five Aeons (or Aions, literally "eternities") emanated in succession from the Unbegotten Father. These were: Mind (Nous) or Christ, Word (Logos), Intelligence or Prudence (Phronêsis), Wisdom (Sophia) and Strength or Power (Dynamis). These five Aeons constitute the Plêrôma ("Fullness")." Ok, so why not look at the situation empirically rather than magically or imaginarily? Let's say at some point during the evolution of man we usurped and repurposed our predictive motor simulator to extend our motor control past the limits of our nervous system, and thusly developed "MIND". Then we found ways to communicate and symbolize and share our MIND and thusly developed language or "the word" or LOGOS. Workable excercise of language, orderly cooperation and experimentation in affecting and controlling our environment, outside the range of our nervous system and physical body, developed intelligence or Prudence of (Phronesis). Wisdom came with generations repeating and passing down the most workable systems of thought and real world implementation (Sophia). And strength or power naturally accrued to those best suited, most educated and most capable at affecting the world and ordering the world, beyond the reach of their nervous system and musculature. We get the same 5 universally (human) repeating patterns, with no need for magic, with no need for them to have prexisted, and been "given" to us, and leaves all 5 thouroughly empirical, sensible and proovable, within the greater understanding of the genesis of life and evolution of man, on this planet. Why not look for development of these things within the confines of empirical reality? If they developed to give us some power over our environment, why not take them as the real things that they are? There is no purpose in figuring them to be something based in supernatural land. Especially since we might be able to actually trace their development for real. Regards, TAR2

"Yes empirical things are the things which exists inside our minds and the things that religion deals with is what exists out there in noumenal world. That's our basic view of the world in the east." Well here I am in the West, which exists quite outside your mind, and I am actually empirically sitting here in my basement in a New Jersey suburb. And you not only do not control my existence with your thoughts, but I could point to a few billion other living souls, that not only are not players in your emination game, but do not even know the rules. If these gods of yours were emirically real, and NOT illusions of yours, everybody would notice them, straight away, with no need for special training, as soon at you pointed to one and said "there". I dislike the crazy backwardness and holier than thou tone of your remarks. Everybody else is stuck in the cave, yet you have escaped? I am rather sure, that if we are stuck in a cave, we are all in here together, and if being human separates us from Brahman, then by golly we are separate for now. We cannot rejoin until we are no longer human. As far as I am concerned, my job at the moment, EVEN IF I am an emination of Brahman, is to be human. Once I am not TAR, then I won't be TAR anymore. I just would have been TAR to the rest of the Earth, during my life on it. All that would remain, for anyone to empirically withness, would be recordings and photos, memories and the works that I did, and the pieces of things I undid. What difference would it make to anyone that survived me, if I melted in with the "force", or rejoined the river of life, or went to heaven, or went to hell, or sat at the feet of Zeus, or was boiled in oil by Allah for the rest of eternity? Thing is, even if the entire universe was once a single point, it is not now. Even if the fate of the entire universe is to rejoin eventually into one black hole and be compressed again to a point where there is no distinctions, it has not done so yet. We, as humans are WELL insulated by time and space from these things being a present concern. And my view is that even imaginarily "stepping out" of the cave, I see a universe that has come a long way, and has not yet done what it is going to do next. From my view, here in the West, empirical things are the things that exist for your "plurality" of minds. That we can together have a collective conscousness, is an emergent property of individual minds. The internet is empirically real, and it did not exist when your masters were sketching out their eminations. In the evolution of life on Earth, and the emergence of man, and the development of language, allowing for the sharing of thoughts, religion developed. It was story telling, and wisdom passed down from generation to generation, and it was not static. Workable stuff was retained and unworkable stuff was tossed. We did not discover religion, we developed it. We did not discover the internet. We developed it. We did not discover peanut butter cups, some one of us, invented them. The Abrahamic religions are base on certain ones of us being talked to directly or through angels, by the creator of the universe. Then Jesus came along, and told us God had been a little rough on us at first, and he really was a kinder sort, and loved us dearly, and if we just loved one another, and held the Savior in our hearts, Jesus himself would guide us through the gates of heaven. Then Mohammed came along, was visited by an angel who told a modified version of the word of god, pointing out the failures of the Jews and Christians to truely understand the message, and Mohammed relayed to the rest of us, that not only was this message (received in a cave) the true message, but it was the LAST message, and no further communication would be forthcoming. We therefore are to accept the last lowly messenger as a proxy for Allah, and anything that was due Allah could be given to Mohammed, and anything Mohammed said or did, could be taken as the way a true believer should attempt to conduct oneself. Then along comes Immortal, who through careful study of empircal evidence and copious amounts of reading of the philosophers, and wisemen through the ages, has determined that the whole story was predetermined, and just some dream of a big, eternal human, who had a brain fart one afternoon and is suffering a tempory bout of "multiple personality" syndrome, which can be easily cured, by waking the old crazy bastard up. From my seat, here in the basement in the West, I think Immortal is demonstrably incorrect. He cannot stop being a human existing within empirical reality, at will. And neither can he himself outlive his life, and become immortal. It is something we can all dream about, but something not a one of us, has yet actually found a way to accomplish, in reality. Regards, TAR2 Other than having kids, and making it possible for them to live and have kids. Or perhaps by leaving a gift to enhance everybody's kids lives, as many of our forefather's and mother's have done, and many of our contemporaries are working and planning to do. (Reaching Nirvana on your own, is not noteably helpful in this regard. You have to accomplish something empircally useful to the rest of us.)

Immortal, Which of the four quadrants of religion and spirituality do you figure yourself to inhabit. I would guess that you promote first, your own spritual nature (nothing is real except the unreal) and that you have chosen the Gods of the Buddist to be the most descriptive of reality?, so you appear to me to have chosen to be a rather strong inhabitant of the upper left quadrant. My thought on this, or should I say my thought on you, is that you yourself have set yourself up as a perfect strawman. Your views can be so easily taken apart and defeated as contradictory and false, that you, by taking the ultimate non-secular positon, have soundly defeated yourself, and given secularity a solid boost. Another proof of this is your insistence that science and religion are two separate things. Your thesis is that the only real connection, the only solid connection to reality that a human has is his/her ability to completely discount reality, and become one with its "essence" instead. An essence that is supernatural and unreal, by definition. And since YOU know this imaginary thing, better than most, then only folks teaching or recognizing the same delusions as you have witnessed reality at all. In actuallity you have very little claim to knowing reality. You have only claim to knowing the visions of the Vedic masters. These portions of reality are not accessable to me. I do not know these particular secrets. There is no evidence for them. They are themselves illusions. Reality is quite real, on its own, without such imaginary, "supernatural" additions. If you cannot provide evidence that shows where religion and spirituality is actual pertinent to reality, and what their basis might be in reality, then you are dreaming. And your dream is no more real than mine. Regards, TAR2 How a human should be is defined by oneself and by other humans. In this humanism is the only source for inspirations available. If we are by definition inhabited by the divine, then we "should" be able to take it from here. And not be constrained by the divine inspirations of wisemen of old. We can have similar inspirations, but I think it a definite drawback to lock onto the human judgment of old, as anything more than a guide for the human judgment we must excercise presently. In this, I side with the morality of the others on this thread that have challenged your ability to dictate that which is divinely inspired, and who has fallen from "the way". If sexism is wrong, then Eve was not created from Adam's rib and the Bible is suspect from the start, in terms of whose words they might be, that are written there.

imatfaal, I do believe it is of great importance to stand up for ones own ethos. Its a tricky business though, because others don't have identical rules, and have not come to similar rules for the same reasons. I for instance am not in a position to make people "not lie", even though honesty is very important to me. I hate when people lie, because I figure that life is complicated enough without deception, plus I have never figured out why and how people do it, Everything fits together, and I can tell when someone is lying, when things don't add up, I figure other people have the same capability to see through a lie, and fabricating a story that is not true, is hard to maintain if you do not intend to keep up the same lie, should other evidence that contradicts it, show up. So another reason I don't lie, is that I have no talent in manufacturing the more complicated lie required to cover up the first, and figure that it therefore is better to tell the truth. My theory does not seem to affect the creationist. Million year old fossils don't add up with the 4000 years worth of begatting, that the bible lies about. So the more complicated lies about how carbon dating faults and finding the fossils under layers might be explanations are reaches way beyond any kind of credibility. It just gets so silly, that any reasonable person HAS TO discount any literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. Except not everybody operates under my ethos and people rationalize the situation out to fit their requirements. Lie to themselves, or accept the lie, or ignore the lie, and still hold on to the general message, for other reasons, or take things figuratively, that cannot be honestly accepted as literal. It is quite hard to assume that someone else will bow to your logic, just because you see the corner they have backed themselves into. Think of all the different kinds of philosophies that very intelligent people have come up. Each person that holds a particular philosophy can see with clarity, where people with opposing philosophies have backed themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of, and still retain their philosophy. But few of us recognize our own corner. We have our own rationalizations that allow us to think and act as we do. I think people act, to various degrees, as if they represent their families, and their families them. And every family member differs in philosophy, intelligence, character, personality, capability, history and knowledge. But in many families, if you discrace the family, you lose your membership. If you are in a group with traditional values, and you break the trust of the group by going against the traditional values, you risk losing membership. Under these conditions, "citizen of the world" is not a title anybody can, in reality hold. Such a title can only be held imaginarily. Because there is not now, nor will there ever be, a situation where 6 and half billion people, with 6 and a half billion wills, personalities, characters, capabilities, values and purposes can each and every one, be pleased with your every action, and never a one find your actions discraceful. You say it is only me that is the judge. This is a lie. We have billions of judges currently operating. They, together would have to be the God of the secular humanist. And no secular humanist is willing to accept the judgement of most of the humans currently on the planet. Not many secular humanists care to be citizens of the real world, they view the place as a mess that can only be cleaned up if people changed their attitudes, and adjusted them, to match the attitude privately held by the secular humanist making the judgment. I think such thinking is a discrace. I view it as elitist, and bigoted, and hypocritical. It is not workable and it ranks no higher in "good" than the approach to the world of any god fearing man or woman on the planet. I have recognized that we each are selfish protectors of our own club rules. Act locally, think globally, is the best any man or woman can do. Act globally, think locally is the worst. I do believe we have to meet in the middle between our responsibilities to others, and our responsibilities to ourselves. And we HAVE been attempting this feat already. And a human needs to feed his/her body, mind and spirit and many have been finding better and better ways to do these things. I would like to find ways to associate the beliefs of the religious with the beliefs of the humanist. Because I have this theory that both camps are actually basing their beliefs on the same thing. There only is one reality that we share, there therefore has to be a mapping that would translate between the opposing camps. Seems better to look for these common things, and accept ones own biases, than to attempt to prove oneself unbias. Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs, I missed the debate. Biola never sent me an e-mail linking me to the stream. How did it go? Regards, TAR Is belief in god reasonable? Had a waking thought this morning that we might tie into the debate. Sleep. And dreams. Why do we sleep, and when we do sleep, who or what do we trust to keep the ball rolling 'til we wake up? And who or what, has never failed to do the job? There was something on the job prior our birth. Something will be on the job after we die. Something we believe in 100%. Can't be human. Can't be a dream. Has to be real. We can control certain portions of our waking lives, but not by our selves, not completely independantly. The plans and methods and good ideas of people that came before us, and people that live around us stand guard while we sleep, and assist us in our control of the environment. We trust others to watch over us, and we trust the world to never fail us, to always be there in its entirety when we wake. Always working by the same unchanging rules, always fitting together exactly. Dreams give us complete control, to experiment without consequence. To try out plans and "do" stuff and see if it works out or not. Fly, vanquish demons, have relationships with movie stars, put our boss naked in front of a truck, or whatever we need to try out. But it need not follow ALL the rules, we can leave out and add in, whatever rules we "dream" up. However, upon awakening, the old rules, the constant rules, reality, is in control. Much as it was when you closed your eyes. And it fits together flawlessly. Every motion and rearrangement with consequences. Flying into your dream girl's bedroom is not going to be possible, it is not going to work out, it does not fit reality. Reality has rules. Many imposed by man, many more imposed by something else. Who or what, never fails to be the case? Is belief in this, eternal truth, not reasonable? Is it not apparent every time we wake? Can we not put our trust in it, unconditionally? Was in not the case before we opened our eyes? Will it not be the case after we close them for the last time? Is it not reasonable to believe in God? Regards, TAR2 A blizzard is supposed to show up later today and affect the lives of most of Northeast residing folk. I am going to go upstairs now and look out the window at the road infront of my house, and see what currently is the case. For real.

Imatfaal, Well this subjigation to the larger church is also a tenant of the humanist (just that the imaginary judge is some unknown collective consciousness, that we just have to trust, to do all things in our best interest). And here is where I see the parallels and wonder how much "selfishness" is allowable and reasonable, and how much sacrifice is allowable and reasonable. Just as a vague generalisation one could consider that there are more people suited to follow, than are suited to lead. And likewise, as you consider larger and larger size groups of people there are families that do it better than other families, clubs that are more capable than others, companies that follow "best practices" and those that don't, states that are poor and weak and states that are rich and powerful, nations that are uneducated and ruled by a mullah/dictator and nations that are mostly educated middle class, ruled by a quite powerful and capable industrial/political/scientific complex. Orderly families, clubs, companies, states and nations, don't require being enlightened by "outside" rules. At each level, it is "their" rules that make the most sense, their purposes and values that guide their actions. Rational humanists, in my estimation, cut out all the real middlemen that stand between the individual and the human collective. They figure that their rationaly arrived at rules should be good for everybody. This one size fits all, does not consider the possibility that human judgment has already been engaged at every level, and a goodly number of workable solutions to conflicts, already engaged. Promises made, contracts signed, consensus arrived at, and trust already placed in the capable and loyal. Social cohesion is not some static thing. It needs constant maintenance, repair and adjustment, to meet the conditions reality imposes. Look at Egypt. Sure the power of the individual has increased with the internet, and an idea can spread like wildfire among the populace, but it does not generate social cohesion. If the long standing rules and structures are tossed, there is not a sensible, realistic "idea" that can just be inserted in its place, There is no realistic grounding to the new power holders. All the required peices have not been cobbled together over generations. There will be winners and losers and chaos. Like in Sryria, the King will, as good Kings are supposed to do, try to hold the place together. By force, if required. And like John Lennon's "Imagine", we could all live as one, once you join us...if it were not for those daft Chinese communists. Regards, TAR2

Imatfaal, I think you and I share a great deal of common "consciousness", as to which collective societal thoughts are valuable and workable and which are antiquated and conterproductive, and nearly evil. In harmony, you and I, at least enough to guess that you, along with me, consider, as a guiding "spiritual' principle, the ascending Hegelian spiral, where "we" retrace our cyclical path, but on a higher level every time we pass over a familiar mark. But I will still hang back a bit, and be apologist for the religious, because humanity as a whole has to progress together, or not at all. The progress of an individual or a small group of individuals is either inconsequential or imaginary, and might act only as an example for others. Such individual progress is akin to the sage on the hilltop reaching Nirvana. Does imaginary wonders for the Sage, but absolutely nothing for the rest of us. The sage does not reach down and in reality pull the rest of us along, Instead he/she might instead consider it a "secret" he/she knows, that the rest of us, are oblivious to. In this I would like to make sure that the rational humanist does not get to "heady", and keeps their feet on the same ground where the rest of us stand. Regards, TAR2

imatfaal, I do agree with you, mostly. I wish people could take the bible, and take messages that work, in the literal way that they indeed work, and take other messages more figuratively, as a suggestion as to how it most likely is to turn out for the good. And like you, I completely agree that one can be good, and have a conscience, without some made up threat, hanging over their head, and a made up reward for doing it right. No pretend stick and carrot should be required for an adult human. The rational, real rewards for propler behavior and the real punishments are enough. You get to eat later, if you plow the fields and plant and water and wait and harvest, and store, and cook. You get awfully hungry if you don't. And fulfilling your role in society tends to keep you fed and warm and free to pursue happiness. Anti-societal actions on the other hand tend to leave you in uncomfortable situations, where you are alone and possibly restricted in your freedoms. For real. But here I have noticed is exactly where the truth in religion, might be found. The real world, in actuality does judge you. The people on your team, can find you pleasing and helpful, or irritating and harmful, and thus other people, collectively, form a very real and very true objective reality, that is much much larger and more significant than you. So many of the objective rules of behavior, the difference between good and bad, are completely and truely enforced by the world of men and women, and institutions that inhabit the Earth. And people can talk about you, and be affected by your voiced thoughts and your actions, while alive, even after your death. The world will judge you, and remember your additions and substractions to it. For real. But if this is true, then the clouds and Sun and stars we all know, are true as well. And they extend, at least the stars, for distances so emmense we can not comprehend them, and have been in existence for a time so long we can not comprehend it. And as small and short lived as we are, from birth to death, each of us contains a complex myriad of cells, and each of these structures and chemicals, and each of them molecules and atoms and quarks. For real. Any pattern we can recognize is just one example of it, that may well repeat in both directions, like a Mandebrot pattern. We can never hold even one instance of a cell in its complexity in our focus and memory in a complete way. We cannot know the history and relations of every quark in every atom and every molecule in every strand of DNA and RNA and in every protein and structure in even a single skin cell that just fell off our left pinky. And that is just one cell. And just one current arrangement of that large group of quarks. The actual world, outdoes any imaginary concept, by a very significant amount. And the whole deal, is not something we can actually contain. It rather contains us, and everything else. For real. Regards, TAR2