Re: QED every living thing knows what gopd is.Re: PHYSICS, TERRORISM & GOD=G_uv

From: Alan (gper_at_mindless.com)
Date: 06/23/04 

Date: 23 Jun 2004 00:32:21 -0700

<snip>
> > > ...the "brain growth deficit"
> > > is UNIVERSAL, no one escapes it, therefore it is
> > > the only effect which is of universal concern... so
> > > universal it is called "God" for instance.
> >
> >
> > Why is it the only effect of universal concern?
>
> [Hammond]
> Why is their a top Quark and a Bottom Quark.... hey
> noboy knows..... all they have PROVED is that
> IT IS. Sme with the Secular Trend.... know one knows why
> there might not be "another Secular Trend"... all they
> have PROVED is that there ISN'T.... there is one and
> only one Secular Trend and it is the only thing that
> significantly and universally affects human perception.
> You might say, "that's the reason there is only one God".
> we don't KNOW why there is only one God..,. but
> Hammond's discovery PROVES it's true.

You missed my meaning. I meant, "How is it known that the growth
deficit is the ONLY thing significantly and universally affecting
human perception?" What ABOUT the things we are taught, implicitly and
explicitly? A person raised in a culture of Voodoo and belief in Magic
will certainly see the world differently than you or I. What (false)
assumptions about how the universe works might *we* be making? Since
we DON'T experience absolute reality, why are you sure that the growth
deficit is the only thing that keeps us from experiencing it?

 
> > I don't know what
> > man's ultimate capabilities are, but I doubt that we can perceive
> > absolute reality without evolving to some higher form.
>
> [Hammond]
>
> 1. Wrong
> 2. There is already a proof you are wrong.

How and where is it proven that we CAN experience absolute reality?

> 3. Why should we care what your "personal
> preferences" are... we're here to discuss scientific proof,
> not "fond desires".

What are you talking about?

It happens that I WOULD prefer that we COULD experience absolute
reality - but I see no evidence that mankind has that capability.
Please cite some.

YOU SNIPPED HERE!!!

Why? Was it an honest error, or didn't you like the point I made? I
continued:

     <reinsert unacknowledged snippage>
We DO have
limits. Even a "fully grown" human...is still only human, no matter
how much of a "superman" he may be.

> > Besides, remember that the ORIGINAL point (go back a few posts) was
> > that if God resides in absolute reality while we reside in perceptual
> > realiity, and we want to get "closer to God", we must make our
> > perceived reality as close to absolute reality as we can, which means,
> > among other things, making sure our facts are right and our logic is
> > flawless.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yeah, ja, ja, ja, ja..... we already know all that.
> But don't tryd to use it to elevate some secondary
> point into primacy over some primary point.

That WAS my primary point, and it was occasioned by *your* being wrong
on some minor factual matter. To the extent we are wrong, factually or
logically, we are removed from absolute reality, and thus from God,
according to your theory - so YOU, especially, should be making
special effort to keep your facts straight and your logic sound,
shouldn't you?

> > > > > > while WE reside in "perceived" reality?
> > > > >
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > true
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why should the only way in
> > > > > > which we fall short of perceiving absolute reality be the
> > > > > > "nearsightedness" of growth deficit -
> > > > >
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > A. Its an experimental fact. The reason "why"
> > > > > we don't know. You might as well ask
> > > > > why the world is round.
> > > >
> > > > But I've offered an example (hallucinogenic drugs) which shows that
> > > > the ONLY cause of perceptual reality not equaling absolute reality is
> > > > NOT the growth deficit. WHAT experimental facts show that the growth
> > > > deficit is the ONLY cause? Besides, I KNOW why the world is round.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > answered above.... the "brain growth deficit" is the
> > > only UNIVERSAL cause which affects EVERY SINGLE
> > > HUMAN BEING WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
> >
> >
> > And, answered above. The limits of our capabilities ALSO prevent all
> > of us from perceiving absolute reality.
>
> [Hammond]
> No, no , no, no..... OBVIOUSLY is an "85% brain" is keeping
> us from seeing "absolute reality" then a "100% brain"
> will ALLOW us to see absolute reality.
> Something wrong with your logical powers?

Not compared with 99+% of other people.

You haven't established that an "85% vs. 100% brain" is the ONLY thing
preventing us from seeing absolute reality. I've got 3 pounds of
brain, residing on a speck of dust, billions of light years from most
of the rest of the universe, and I have spatially and temporally
limited sensory apparatus - why SHOULD I expect that if I were able to
use all of my brain, rather than 85% of it, that I could experience
absolute reality? Further, scientists and philosophers are divided on
the question of whether "physical reality" is the "ultimate" reality -
and theologians are convinced that it is not. Experiencing, then,
physical reality, rather than some "other" reality, what would lead to
the conclusion that having "a 100% brain" would allow the perception
of absolute reality?

You did it again. It's NOT on purpose, is it?

     <reinsert unacknowledged snippage>
   And, too, why should we, as
individuals, solely be concerned with that which affects all of us? If
my facts are wrong or my thinking illogical, I am that much further
away from absolute reality, and God, aren't I?

You didn't do it to avoid answering, did you?

> > I HAD asked, "Why should the only way in which we fall short of
> > perceiving absolute reality be the "nearsightedness" of growth deficit
> > - why cannot we fall short of perceiving absolute reality through the
> > "astigmatism" of incorrect thinking and erroneous facts?", and you
> > replied, "Its an experimental fact." When questioned, you said the
> > growth deficit was the only factor of universal concern, but that
> > wasn't relevant to my question, since I WAS speaking on an individual,
> > not a universal, basis. Also, how is it established, as "an
> > experimental fact", that the growth deficit is the ONLY universal
> > cause? There ARE the limitations that we have as biological organisms,
> > and who knows what else?
>
> [Hammond]
> Na, na , na... you're still beating a dead horse. you are
> confusing the "importance of seeing' with the "importance
> of thinking"..... SEEING is far more important than
> thinking because as we know "SEEING IS BELIEVING".
> God has NOTHING to do with "thinking" it only has
> to do with SEEING.

A dull-witted person doesn't perceive very much, in general, does he?
No matter how keen his vision, right? So HOW is seeing more important
than thinking? You also didn't answer my question, "Also, how is it
established, as "an experimental fact", that the growth deficit is the
ONLY universal cause?"

> > > On the other hand, taking LSD only affects the
> > > individual and consequently his behavior is immediately
> > > noticed by others not so affected.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > B. Once discovered and proved, it seems
> > > > > quite reasonable, obvious and likely.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Where and how has it been established that the growth deficit is the
> > > > ONLY cause? I HAVE just offered a counterexample.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Your "counterexample" is not an example because
> > > it is not UNIVERSAL whereas the brain growth
> > > deficit IS.
> >
> >
> > But it was only on questioning that YOU brought out the "universal"
> > term - I had not, and WAS speaking on an individual basis. You also
> > have not answered the question, "Where and how has it been established
> > that the growth deficit is the ONLY cause?"
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Observational FACT.... the same way "electric charge"
> is known to be the only source of an "electric field".
> No one knows "why", in fact I don't even really care,,
> and neither does anybody else... that's a question for future
> research.... WE ARE HERE to recognize that the fact has been
> discovered that IT IS the only universal effect and it
> causes the existence of God.... don't try to change the subject...
> nobodies interested, it's irrelevant in the face of this
> monumental discovery.... it is not a viable counter argument
> or a challenge to the theory, just like the fact that
> "electric charge is the only source of the electric field" is
> NOT a challenge to Maxwell's equations.

I don't deny that if we used more of our brains, we would perceive
something closer to absolute reality, but what have you observed that
leads you to conclude that if we were to use all of our brains, we
would perceive absolute reality itself?

It is NOT in evidence that "WE ARE HERE to recognize that the fact has
been discovered that IT IS the only universal effect and it causes the
existence of God". I do not subscribe to your religion, sir, and I
will not "repeat after you".

You call it an "observational fact". If this is science, please cite
those observations. Who observed this? Under what conditions? Are
those observations repeatable?
   

> > > > > > why cannot we fall short of
> > > > > > perceiving absolute reality through the "astigmatism" of incorrect
> > > > > > thinking and erroneous facts? Could we not then "force" our way
> closer
> > > > > > to Godliness by MAKING our thoughts and perceptions align as
> closely
> > > > > > as possible with absolute reality, by making sure all our facts
> are
> > > > > > straight and our logic IMPECCABLE?
> > > > >
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > No.... you're confusing two different kinds of phenomena:
> > > > >
> > > > > God is a PERCEPTUAL phenomena, not a LOGICAL
> > > > > phenomena.
> > > > > "Seeing" is fundamentally different than "thinking".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But our reality is affected by the way we think, not just the way we
> > > > see. Other animals can see as well as, or better, than we can, but the
> > > > difference is the way we process and interpret that information, as
> > > > well as the thoughts that we have.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Wrong. Animals cannot talk and don't do a lot of
> > > deep thinking... yet they know and experience God.;..
> > > exactly because "God is a perceptual state, not a
> > > cognitive state". Even a clam knows what God is
> > > and it is doubtful that a clam can think. He can however
> > > feel, see and smell.... and he knows darn well he isn't
> > > "seeing, feeling and smelling it *all*".
> >
> >
> > A CHICKEN has no idea what is going on (I was in a rural area once
> > where it happened that chickens were being "harvested" and slaughtered
> > on the spot, with feathers flying everywhere, and the other chickens
> > were calmly eating the feathers of their fallen comrades, totally
> > oblivious to the fact that THEY were next), so I doubt that a clam
> > does. On what basis do you state that "Even a clam knows what God is",
> > and if a clam can't think, HOW can it know "darn well he isn't
> > "seeing, feeling and smelling it *all*"?
>
> [Hammond]
> Your question is nearly so elementary and obviously answered
> that I think it is unfair for you to think that I should sit here and
> type a hundred world answer to you. :
>
> 1. every living thing has a secular Trend growth deficit.
> 2. the growth deficit causes God
> 3. Ergo, every living thing knows what God is.

ASSUMING 1 and 2, 3 does NOT follow. Ever been really drunk? You
didn't know or perceive a helluva lot, did you? Your higher brain
functions weren't working. A clam may "experience" something, but
without much in the way of a brain, how can it "know" anything (and
this is NOT a rhetorical question - because if you cannot answer it,
your statement about what a clam "knows" is effectively refuted)? It
doesn't know enough to know it isn't "seeing, feeling and smelling it
*all*" In fact, a clam, being totally dependent on it's senses, rather
than being able to think, is completely rooted in perceptual, or
relative, reality, rather than absolute reality, isn't it?

Even IF 3, above, were true, it does not follow from premises 1 & 2.
That's like, "Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefor, 1 is
less than 2." I'm a living thing, and *I* don't know what God is, or
if He, She, or It exists. You MAY reply that I'm an ignoramus - but
even if that were true, I'm *still* a living thing that doesn't know
what God is.

Your argument, therefor, is fallacious - and just what I was talking
about in the first place, about making sure your logic is impeccable.

> sorry i don't have time to spoonj feed you a tutorial,
> but lets face it there's no percentage in it for me...
> you're not worth it.

My worth is not at issue. Kinda reminds me of when I ran into
Scientologists for the first time. THEY tried to spoon feed me stuff,
but when I questioned them, they ushered me out of there REAL quick.
That was religion, though, where you're not *supposed* to question,
while this is *supposed* to be science...

>
> <snip rest>

Easier to snip than to answer, isn't it? You really don't seem to like
the implication of your own theory, that getting your facts and your
reasoning in line with absolute reality will put you closer to God, do
you?

     <snip sig>

Relevant Pages
Quantcast