tar

Immortal, Quote The Thirty-three gods is a pantheon of Hindu deities, some of Vedic origin and some developed later. It generally includes a set of 31 deities consisting of 12 Ādityas, 11 Rudras, and 8 Vasus; the identity of the other two deities that fill out the 33 varies, though their roles are generally a creator deity, presiding over procreation and protector of life and the 33rd is an all powerful supreme ruler. The 31 are: Twelve Ādityas (personified deities) – Mitra, Aryaman, Bhaga, Varuṇa, Dakṣa, Aṃśa, Tvāṣṭṛ, Pūṣan, Vivasvat, Savitṛ, Śakra, Viṣṇu. This list sometimes varies in particulars. Eleven Rudras, consisting of: Five abstractions – Ānanda "bliss", Vijñāna "knowledge", Manas "thought", Prāṇa "breath" or "life", Vāc "speech", Five names of Śiva – Īśāna "ruler", Tatpuruṣa "that person", Aghora "not terrible", Vāmadeva "pleasant god", Sadyojāta "born at once" Ātmā "self" Eight Vasus (deities of material elements) – Pṛthivī "Earth", Agni "Fire", Antarikṣa "Atmosphere", Vāyu "Wind", Dyauṣ "Sky", Sūrya "Sun", Nakṣatra "Stars", Soma "Moon" Other sources similar to the Vedas include the two Aśvins (or Nāsatyas), twin solar deities. Indra also called Śakra, lord of the gods, is the First of the 33 followed by Agni Prajāpati "Master of creatures", a creator deity. The generic title, though not the particular names of the deities, was borrowed in Buddhist sources as a name for the heaven "of the Thirty-three gods" ( Trāyastriṃśa). These things, like bliss and thought, and life and speech are things we all are familiar with. Citing them is not evidence that they exist in personified forms in reality. Abstractions for sure, but you are providing us no reason to take them as existing persons. And you don't even claim them to be existing persons, they are to you, and to me, abstractions. Things we do as humans. Giving each a name, and an identity, separate from what we do, is not factual. You cannot have breath without a breather, or thought without a thinker, except in the "ideal" abstract sense. That the abstract exists is no proof that each abstraction requires a separate God to instill it in us. Where is some empirical evidence that would suggest that there is only one, or exactly 31 separate identities, responsible for various aspects of existence. Or that there are only five abstractions, and each must have a God associated with it? If I say my cousin Eddie built my house, and you ask me to prove it, me, showing you my house, does not prove my claim. (And little did you know, I don't have a cousin Eddie) Regards, TAR2 Why is there not a God of enclosed spaces, to whom I am indebted for my home? And if I were to claim such a god's existence, and say the name of the God was Eddie, would it be any more true if I said it again? You must be a liar, if you sit in your home, protected from the wind and the rain and the cold, and at the same time be so idiotic as to suggest there is not, Eddie. What's more, if I find an old scroll, that names Eddie as the god of enclosed spaces, and reveal this secret to you. Would things then be clear to you that Eddie must exist? Is this any evidence that you would accept? Evidence of what, exactly.? Ah poop...there IS a goddess of enclosed spaces. Gaia, ruler of the cave and the womb. Darn, the secret is out, and it turns out it really wasn't Eddie.

Oh, sarcasm...nevermind the unrequired rebuttal.

I was not claiming anything but that whatever astronomical cycles the Mayans were tracking, are now at the point where one long cycle has ended, and another has begun. And in claiming this is a fact, bringing focus on the fact that it was no big deal to have made this transition. It did not and does not have the significance that the new agers had thought possible. It might still mean something, but nothing Earth shattering. No different in retrospect, than claiming that the rising of the sun tomorrow will signify the dawning of a new day.

Rigney, Had a thought, looking at the statistics you linked. Might not be directly linked to to the consideration of guns in school, but it was interesting to me that many of the countries that had the higher percentage of homicides by gun, were countries in and around central america, which might suggest a correlation with illegal drug traffic, and the associated violence. Just for the heck of it, I wonder what the figures would show, if drug related incidents were subtracted from the numbers. It might show, that the U.S. has a tremendous amount of guns in the hands of people(potentially good responsible people) who do not use them to murder. And that we have a drug problem. Regards, TAR2

Either way we have entered a new age, and have survived the transition. No getting thrown out of orbit. No Gods of war and creation, have appeared. No space ship for the believers. No use for the bunkers (which I never quite understood the logic of anyway...if the world has ended, that goes for bunkers too.) (well maybe some use...probably make a good root cellar for storing your onions and potatoes).

And there is another thing we can do to stop Newtown copy cats. Heard about it today. Happened in PA. Boy A told Boy B he was going to shoot up the shool. Boy B told his parents. Parents told the police. Police went to Boy As house and found an AR-15 and two automatic pistols. Make sure your kids know that "telling on a friend" is the right thing to do, if the so-called-friend is planning to "shoot up the school".

john5746, I am pretty much a nonconfrontationalist. If there is a way to defuse a situation, or allow the situation to disperse, without causing harm or injury, I would prefer that course. Swallow my pride from time to time to accomplish this. I would probably shit in my pants if I had to fight. But if it was the only way out, or other people were relying on me to do it, I might just be able to pull that trigger. I think it very unfair of you to challenge people's manhood and intenstinal fortitude, without knowing the people that you are referring to. As to people not wanting to lose personal power, name me someone that is in favor of losing personal power. I live in NJ, one of the biggest nanny states in the country. If one person gets hurt doing something, nobody is allowed to do that thing anymore. My personal rights and trust in my personal judgement are taken away left and right. It is not my macho pride that is being hurt, it is my self-esteem, the fact that everybody else, doesn't trust me, to use good judgment and do the right thing, without help from the state. I do not mind giving up some of my rights for others, because I know that 250 million people are giving up some of their rights for me. Personal responsibility is what I would like to see rule the day. Trust yourself to do the right thing, and trust everybody else to have the same judgement. So when a large group of people feel that the state should not take away their weapons, I agree with them 100%, and do not visualize these people as deranged people unable to do the right thing. I see them as my family and friends and neighbors, that know exactly how to be toward others. I do not own a weapon, thought about it, but did not want one around the house as my girls were growing up. Now, I don't want one, because the only value it would have is to shoot someone, or something, and in most situations I can envision, there might be a better way to handle the situation. And in those situations were a firearm might be just the ticket, perhaps a neighbor has a gun, or the police can come and control the situation. And if Helter Skelter arrives, I know some people with weapons, and I know where the local armoury is, to go to and enlist my services. All this taken into account, I think it right and proper that guns be in the hands of those in the public that want them, for any reasonable purpose, and what is reasonable may be different in rural areas than in suburbs and then again different in cities. Local rules and laws should hold sway over federal regulations...except in the case of weapons of war. These should be behind armoury walls, under lock and key, until we need them, for training, or use. And certain other weapons only in the hands of certified professionals or public servants. To guns in school. Reasonable in the hands of those that are qualified and certified, and wish to have them in their hands, and at the bequest of the local principle, school board and surrounding community. It need not be a one size fits all policy. It probably should not be a one size fits all policy, but we need to protect our hearts, that gather together every day in school. We need somebody there with the power to stop a threat, that would take the lives of our children or the child of a friend or relative. And we need to trust people with guns, inorder to have a "good guy" there, to protect us, and take control of the situation, so that actions like Adam Lanza's cannot be successful, and will not be copied. Regards, TAR2

Waitforufo,<br /><br />Interesting how the law is written. You have a semi-automatic weapon with a pistol grip, where the gas from the previous round loads the next from the clip, allowing you to fire off 30 rounds as quickly as you can squeeze the trigger, but its not an assault weapon. Add a flash suppressor or a bayonette mount and then its an assault weapon. Doesn't really make much sense to me to make such a distinction. Forgetting the grenade launcher for a moment, you can do some rather fancy assaulting if you are not concerned about muzzle flash or hand to hand combat.<br /><br />You could take an M-16, permanently disable auto mode, so you could not simply hold the trigger to empty a clip, file off the bayonet mount, and you would have, not an assault weapon?<br /><br />I guess that is basically what they have done, with the Bushmaster. If it fires the same tumbling .223 rounds I am familiar with, at the same high velocity, it is as deadly as a battlefield weapon. In the service, on the range, we kept it in semi-automatic and routinely "killed" man size targets, at 300 yards. The only reason I ever fired one in auto mode was a time I was in the last group at the range and we had to expend the extra ammunition.<br /><br />Point being that such a weapon does not belong in the hands of the public in peace time.<br /><br />They should change a few words in that law. Rearrange some of those ors and ands.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

Inow, Ok I am naive. But I am trying to separate various aspects of this debate, and look at them as critically as I can, from various perspectives. I personally feel safer with guns in the hands of my fellow citizens, than I would if I knew there were none allowed. And I do not think giving schools a good plan for security, including an armed trained guard, is a bad idea. Arming random teachers on the other hand is rather goofy. There is a middle ground available, where private citizens are trusted with weapons to protect themselves and the rest of us, from deadly threats, and overkill weapons be more carefully controlled. In the same way that allowing tanks and warplanes, and gunships to be held by private citizens, there is a border line drawn that considers what powers we should have as private citizens and what we should have as government agents, and then again as what we should have as members of the military. I will agree that firing an M-16 with a 30 round clip,in full auto, at a 25meter target, from the hip, is a rush. And raking barrels on a ridge 1000yards away with an M-60 machine gun, with a tracer round every 7th, provides a similar rush. But I did those things once, in a controlled environment, training to use those things, while in the Army in the service of my country. What concerns me, is this. I heard a person, that knew the family of last week's killer say that the mother had taken the son to the range to enhance his self esteem. In retrospect, I don't think suggesting to the son that his personal power and control might be found at the trigger end of a weapon, was a very good idea. Regards, TAR

String Junky, I agree with you. It is us that composes the government, and the army. We have nothing to fear from us, as a society. We will automatically take care of internal threats that arise. Which brings the argument back to what level of firepower is required in the hands of private citizens, especially those that would be anti-social, anti-government, sociopathic, severely troubled or otherwise mentally incapacited. My advice would be to limit weapons of war to our army, and limit automatic firearms to our police and law-enforcement personnel. And if you own a semi-automatic weapon, which you cannot think of a good reason to have, for hunting, or sport shooting, or personal protection, or as defense against a wild animal or madman, don't wait for somebody to ask you, just destroy the damn thing. We don't need it in your hands, or need it around for some disturbed individual to turn against us. Inow, of course Texans are excused from the plea. Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs, You mean you KNEW we were in a new age months ago, and you didn't tell me!? Regards, TAR2

The Mayan calendar ran out at 1:11AM HAST in Honolulu. Our cosmic clock just reset to 0. We are still here.

Looks like we will have to perform the next act on the same stage, with the same cast of characters.

They would probably need a way to rehearse manipulations of their environment and assess the outcomes, before making the move. They could probably use a way to communicate their innovations and intentions to others of their kind. But these things too, might be achievable in formats dissimilar to human form. And like abj said, they would probably need a supporting cast of prey upon which to sustain their organism. (sorry that wasn't an English sentence)

Moontanman, They would probably need some way to manipulate their environment. They would probably need some way to record their environment. They would probably need some way to sense their environment. They would probably need some way to pass their working pattern onto a new generation. So as you suggest, the environment in which they develop will most likely play a key role in what works and what does not. Given the range of environments that there are, that are unlike the lands or the waters of Earth, I would not expect humanoid development to be a universal rule of any sort. Even in an identical environment, which underwent a similar history as the Earth, an evolving organism could easily find various ways to manipulate their enviroment, as is shown in the variety of life forms on Earth. For the recording, something similar to a brain might be required, but even a cushion has a memory, and will regain its shape after the force that deformed it is removed, so there may be a wide range of working patterns there too. The sense development would be responsive to their particular environment, and like us they may develop multiple senses to notice different types of changes in their environment, so in this the only limiting factor in the number and type of sensors would be the amount and type of changes that their environment could throw at them, which is a considerable amount of concievable stuff. And considering the variety of ways different life forms on this Earth have found works for passing on the pattern, I would say our way to do that is probably not a requirement either. So all in all I vote for "not humanoid". Regards, TAR2 Bigger question is "would we recognize it" as intelligent life.

sn_nav, Our zero hour is near. Pursuant my bet (post #9), I have readied my pen to write you a million dollar personal check, should I not be here, and there is no here to be at, at 6:12 AM EST. The Mayan long age ends at 1:11 AM HAST in Honolulu today. I suggest you ready your magic marker, so you can write yourself a note on your forehead at 6:12 AM EST. But don't worry, I will give you a few weeks leeway, and write you that check immediately upon an actual cessation of existence. Regards, TAR2 On the other hand, if a large spaceship lands in France to whisk away the believers, and the God of War and Creation shows up, in a couple hours...I have a magic marker up in the kitchen, for my own note. And just so you know, if science where to predict that the world will end in 4.5 billion years...I would not bet against them. But science has predicted that the Sun will rise today, and I am 100% betting that indeed that will be the case. ((proof being you are (in an hour and a half) reading this, after 1:11 HAST))

stardustbrain, I think I might be a pantheist, if you require a label. I however measure myself as an atheist as that I, along with you figure the God of the bible does not exist as advertised in the Bible. So your assumptions about me, are probably off the mark. You could read through Inow's thread "people that believe in God are broken" and you would find some clarification of my general appoach to this issue, as well as the approach of dozens of other thoughtful people that range from hard atheists to quite solid theists. You will find you are not the first person to think about this, and much of what you alude to in your analysis of my response, speaks of insights already had and refined, discussed and countered. I think you will find the thread useful. As to the 20, the God of the Bible, did not show up. But whatever God there is, had to be there, because there is no other place but here, there and everywhere, for any God to be. So its not the God of the bible. Suggest something else. Why do you think it happened? And what can we, together, do about it? And why does it affect us so much, if it didn't happen to us? And if there is no God of the bible to be responsible...for stepping in, or not stepping in, what entity do you propose IS responsible? Must be us, there is nobody here, but us. Questioning why God did not step in, is thus a more involved question than you think. And your answer is a non answer. You say God did not step in, because he would of, if he existed. It was your image of God that failed to live up to your expectations. You cannot fault a God you don't believe exists, for acting improperly...well you can, but it doesn't make any sense to do so. Regards, TAR2

Monday's Assignment: Die, The redefinition was conditional for the consideration. "If God is general vividness" then, for consideration of the logic, and during the consideration, God will stand for whatever you consider general vividness. As you have conception of this general vividness, and it commands a rather all incompassing, reality based existence, and I have a conception of this general vividness, and it commands a rather all encompassing, reality based existence, there is a decent chance that there is some intersection, in reality, of our two possibly very different conceptions. "If God is general vividness" is an attempt to define God, at least when you and I are attempting to decribe it, in a mutually understandable way, as the intersection of the real components that you are referring to when you use the term "general vividness" and those components that I am referring to when I cogitate on the term. Sort of like saying "If you are talking about the same thing that I think you are talking about, then..." And I knew you were not talking only about brocolli. Regards, TAR2 I suppose this is what I keep trying to get at, when suggesting that Immortal and I are probably refering to the same intersection of conceptions when he alludes to Brahman and I allude to general vividness, and Hawkins alludes to reality, or the universe. It is, in this, why I propose one give the other, the benefit of the doubt, and assume they are talking about the intersection, and not stress the differences in the particulars that are not equally evident to the both. And to the thread title, the conclusions would be that people are broken, if they hold so strongly to their particulars, that the rest of us can not find where that conception intersects with ours.

stardustbrain, You seem to be offering arguments to show that an interventionalist god can not, under the circumstances be the case. You were given some good counters that were indeed tangent to your thesis. 1. Such an interventionalist god could work through agents such as bullets and humans. 2. Such an interventionalist god need not have your outcome in mind, ie. she could be a Jets fan, or a Titans fan. Additional questions I would ask you. 1. Why did absolute morality not kick in, and save the day? (Your god did not help either) 2. Could the event be, like 9-11, an example of the presence of evil in the world? (Bad, interventionist Gods, if you will) In anycase, the event was beyond horrible, to us all. And there is probably nobody, that doesn't want to find a way for it to not happen again. Which, interventionalist God or not, suggests to me that we all would like to have had a way, to intervene. But we did not. Regards, TAR2 Correction, We did intervene. We rushed to hall and were shot, we hid and shielded the children and saved many lives. We lost 20 children, and we mourn the loss, and look for answers, so that we can pre-intervene, and prevent such horror in the future. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, I skipped around a bit in the video, but it did not look promising as to being likely to "answer all my questions". I was atter the 'technical" answers, and the fellow said that they were unimportant, as long as we were headed in the right direction. And to the animal thing he said it was possible but probably no soul would be punished by being demoted, and once you were a human you would come back as a human...and so forth. All just guesses that would be internally consistent with the vauge overall "belief" but with no particulars that you could inspect, test, expect, get wrong or right, or anything close to answering the questions I asked. Nor in the few minutes of the interview that I watched was there any evidence of how one comes upon this knowledge. It could be this way or that and it doesn't matter, as long as you are trying to be nice. No different a belief than I hold, as an atheist, that does not believe in reincarnation and the consistency of an "individual soul", absent an individual body. You will have to do better than that, to answer all my questions. Regards, TAR2 Monday's Assignment: Die, I like your checklist, but the existence of general vividness is different than the existence of general brocolli. Regards, TAR2 PeterJ, Not sure what Absolute Idealism is, but it absolutely sounds ideal. Regards, TAR2

Monday's Assignment: Die, If no wit or plan, was involved, was there any vividness involved? "It cannot be shown" produces an interesting question. Shown to whom? If you say qualia/quale can not be tested, you have already backwardly conceeded that you already know that you are not the only one that has it/them. That this vividness indeed is a constituent of reality, that exists in other places, or entities, or "happens", even if you are not the one it is happening to. PeterJ knowns this thing, Immortal has recognized that it demands a unitiy of all things, others are not able to find its home, or "show" its existence, so they call it imaginary or supernatural. Are people that have quale broken? Are people that experience vividness broken? Are people that believe in God broken? Somewhat depends on who or what you think the answer is important to, If God is vividness in general, then its existence is already assured, and our arguments about it, are truely just a misunderstanding of what we are each calling what. There still has to be a what to call. There still has to be some callers. And if there are some callers there must be "a" caller as well. Regards, TAR2

PeterJ, Consciousness is a central point in religious discussions. What of it is "our" doing, and what of it is something "given" to us. There would be a lot of strong arguments to suggest that reality has given us consciousness. And an especally sound conclusion, considering there is nothing but reality to have done the job. But since reality is the only source availible, even if we were to take some of the credit, it would be OK, since we are real, ourselves. You say strong AI can not be "put" into a machine, but that assumes you have a distinction that you make between what is artifical and what is real. What if the question was, can we put strong RI (real intelligence) into a machine? Then you could look around our constructions and see, that we already have done this. Depending on your criteria. And whether or not it has to be "human" intelligence that you wish to achieve. For instance, a dog (anybody that has had one would probably agree with this) has an awareness of its surroundings and its position in it. It remembers patterns and events, and can get excited and known what is coming when it hears the word "treat".or sees its owner reaching for the box, or shaking its contents. They have a unique personality, a territory, a collection of insiders and outsiders, and many more "characteristics" that just belong to it. It can morn the loss of a pack-mate, etc. We would not consider it had "human" intelligence, but it certainly is intelligence of some sort that is not tremendously different than that which us humans have, that it has. Would you demand that there was a dog god, from which a dog had received this dog intelligence? Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs, Would not your logic require that the picture painted by the equations be a complete one? I have not seen the equation for a peanut butter cup, and I require their existence in my universe. A universe without peanut butter cups, might completely collapse and blink out of existence. Since the equations of science make no mention of peanut butter cups, the equations do not paint the whole picture. Regards, TAR

PeterJ, I up arrowed your post, but would say that the reason that logic alone is not enough for understanding, is that an awareness of something to be logical about is also required. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, If I did come up with a way to develop a machine with strong AI, or a machine that was conscious of its own existence, wouldn't you quickly find a rational to explain it as a cheat in some way, where I had actually taken some of your gods, put them into the machine, and erroneously claimed it was "my" idea? Regards, TAR2 Or perhaps you would suggest that I had found a way to grab disembodied souls, on their transit from a former life to the next, and coax them into residing in my machine. In any case I think you might not release your belief in gods, just because scientists developed strong AI machines. Immortal, By the way, since I mentioned it, how many souls do you figure there are, in total? This reincarnation thing, does not seem to work out right, as the population of humans grows. Are there human souls of a certain number? Or can any mammal soul become a human soul? Or can the soul of any life form, become a human soul? Is it just the count of souls on Earth that we care about, or if we should birth more beings than the souls available, do we import souls from other planets? If you have answers to these questions, can you give us the empirical evidence that was used to arrive at the number? Regards, TAR2 (don't forget to subtract the souls that have reached nirvana, as it would not be cricket to put THEM though the whole eternal process again) By the by the way, this reaching nirvana thing has another related glitch, as that you would still be inhabiting a mortal body after you reached nirvana. Either that, or you would immediately expire. Seems a logical problem, to me.