Moderator: Global Moderator
Maybe not if Stephen Hawking is correct about "spontaneous creation".MediumTex wrote:...since we know that any observed effect must have had some cause, right? ...
During the episode, Hawking talks about experiments in which sub-atomic particles have been observed to appear from nowhere. He feels this is proof that the universe is self-creating, as the Big Bang started out as a particle smaller than an atom.
Awesome!!Tortoise wrote:Very well said. Some people define God as reality itself: the totality of everything that exists, existed, and ever will exist. It's hard to argue with that definition, much like the "first cause" definition.MediumTex wrote: Ultimately, isn't the existence of God a matter of definition? It seems like if we defined God as the first cause, then it would be hard to argue that there wasn't a God, since we know that any observed effect must have had some cause, right? OTOH, if we define God more narrowly and in more anthropocentric terms, then it starts to feel more like allegory to me.
Some people might say, "Well, if you're defining God to be all of reality itself, then how does it make sense to talk about God having a personality?" To which I simply point out that I have a personality, and I'm part of reality. If reality contains me, doesn't it possess all of the properties that I possess, and more?
) only the five essential senses to survive on this planet, but who is to say there aren't 100's of other senses that would give us a completely new version of the Universe.
It sounds like some of you here might really be interested in taking a look at the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), a theory developed by high-IQ celebrity-of-sorts Christopher Langan.interactive-processing wrote:reality is influenced by what you think about it, in order to get useful results the observer must be part of the equation... ( insert mystifuzical references to quantum physics and relativity here)stone wrote: If God is simply all of reality itself, then religion seems redundant to me. Reality doesn't care what I or anyone else thinks about it.
Processing, interactions.
Tuning interactive processes.
Processing interacting is all I ever tune in.
I cannot tune in anything but interactive processing.
"raw"
WOW! Smartest man in America, can bench 500lbs, and won $250,000 on 1 vs 100...that's so not fair!Tortoise wrote: It sounds like some of you here might really be interested in taking a look at the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), a theory developed by high-IQ celebrity-of-sorts Christopher Langan.
Although he apparently had a horrific childhood, so it's amazing he has been able to harness his gift.This reminded me of two of my favourite sayings by Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas:In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.
I'm not completely sure what it all means, but it sure is interesting.3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."
...
70. Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you [will] kill you."
One of the things that I love about internet forums (the good ones anyway) is that they can take on a life of their own, and a sort of free flowing narrative can develop. As this narrative takes shape, it begins to soak up the knowledge and experiences of all who participate in the forum so that ultimately the forum can become like "V'Ger" in the first Star Trek movie where it takes an essentially "dumb" data collection tool and it turns into something that is smarter than any of the people who created it.Gosso wrote: I liked this paragraph from the Q&A on the CTMU website (had to read it a few times before it sank in):
In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.
Wow! As a newbie on this forum I'm not sure I have anything to add, but I just have to say I never imagined any forum where the discussion involves Julian Jaynes, mushrooms, CTMU, and Niels Bohr's coat of arms.Lone Wolf wrote: Great stuff. This thread is an embarrassment of riches and it's difficult to know where to start.
You folks just get more interesting every day. And talk about raising the bar! After this, who's going to want to hear my stories about experimenting with caffeine?
Actually I don't think I've ever had an opportunity to carry on a decent conversation about the Bicameral Mind with anyone ever.
Welcome! There was some science news a few years ago about how early man learned to paint on cave walls as the first language similar to how Jayne theorized it would have happenned. Vindication?alvinroast wrote: Wow! As a newbie on this forum I'm not sure I have anything to add, but I just have to say I never imagined any forum where the discussion involves Julian Jaynes, mushrooms, CTMU, and Niels Bohr's coat of arms.
Have you found that Util/CS to be better in terms of the PP overall than the S&P500? It was on my to do list to backtest.I really just logged on to double check if my use of EDV for LT made sense and if there was anyplace for my O'Shaughnessy (WWOWS) Utilities/Consumer Staples in my portfolio. Now that all seems rather boring.
Is this the guy who came up with the bicameral spleen theory :Gosso wrote: WOW! Smartest man in America, can bench 500lbs, and won $250,000 on 1 vs 100...that's so not fair!
Funny you should mention Star Trek: The Motion Picture, because it's kind of like a sci-fi film equivalent of a mushroom trip.MediumTex wrote: One of the things that I love about internet forums (the good ones anyway) is that they can take on a life of their own, and a sort of free flowing narrative can develop. As this narrative takes shape, it begins to soak up the knowledge and experiences of all who participate in the forum so that ultimately the forum can become like "V'Ger" in the first Star Trek movie where it takes an essentially "dumb" data collection tool and it turns into something that is smarter than any of the people who created it.
LOL! Bicameral spleen... You just made my day, stonestone wrote: Is this the guy who came up with the bicameral spleen theory :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHr6uGWXuaQ
Definitely. It's a shame that there is so much disagreement among historians regarding what Jesus of Nazareth actually said and did. It's worth noting, though, that some of the elements of the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament--his virgin birth, his divine call to duty, his performing of miracles, and his death and resurrection--are common elements of the well-known "hero's journey," variants of which have been told by virtually all cultures throughout history as explained by Joseph Campbell in The Hero With a Thousand Faces.Gosso wrote: This reminded me of two of my favourite sayings by Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas:
I'm not completely sure what it all means, but it sure is interesting.3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."
...
70. Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you [will] kill you."
There were also thousands of different messianic stories flying around at the time. Even if the story wasn't literally true, does it really matter? It had a profound effect on the world and people believe[d] in it. Ideas have consequences.Tortoise wrote: Definitely. It's a shame that there is so much disagreement among historians regarding what Jesus of Nazareth actually said and did. It's worth noting, though, that some of the elements of the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament--his virgin birth, his divine call to duty, his performing of miracles, and his death and rebirth--are common elements of the well-known "hero's journey," variants of which have been told by virtually all cultures throughout history as explained by Joseph Campbell in The Hero With a Thousand Faces.
). The whole six hours used to be on YouTube but now only the first hour is available. I believe the book by the same name is based on all 20 hours of the interview between Joe and Bill, but I haven't read it yet.Thanks, Gosso, I'll be sure to watch it. Sounds like something I'll enjoy.Gosso wrote: Joesph Campbell is wonderful. . . I recently discovered and watched (twice) the entire 6 hour interview Joe did with Bill Moyer called The Power of Myth. The whole six hours used to be on YouTube but now only the first hour is available. . . Well worth the hour to at least watch the first hour, plus it has a Star Wars twist. "Follow Your Bliss!!"
For the people who focus more on Jesus's teachings and less on the supposedly "supernatural" details of his life, I would agree that the truth of those details doesn't matter much. The teachings stand on their own merits, and even if a man named Jesus of Nazareth was not even the one who taught them, their truth and utility would not be diminished.MachineGhost wrote: There were also thousands of different messianic stories flying around at the time. Even if the story wasn't literally true, does it really matter? It had a profound effect on the world and people believe[d] in it. Ideas have consequences.
Putting aside the mindMediumTex wrote: Put aside the forms
Focusing on the essence
Truth will fill the void
When it comes to rationally explaining Jesus as God I think C.S. Lewis has an interesting argument; it is called Lewis's Trilemma:Tortoise wrote: Although most of these people don't come right out and say it, what they seem to believe is that if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, and if he didn't die on a cross and rise again, then it's no use even discussing his revolutionary teachings--because they would be meaningless.
At the time when I was reading Mere Christianity I thought the trilemma was all well and good, and did not question it too much. But as I dug deeper into the details of the history of Jesus and the Bible (as an Engineer I cannot help but look into the finer details), I began to lose grip on the assumption that the Bible is the 'Word of God', and therefore does not accurately portray the life of Jesus. Since the foundation of Lewis's Trilemma is based on the Bible being the 'Word of God', I could not continue to believe it. But then again it could be Screwtape trying to deceive me??It is sometimes summarized either as "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or as "Mad, Bad, or God".
...
"Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable."
I don't see why someone couldn't both be mad and also say stuff that has important truths in it. I'm saying this as someone who has been mad and spoke even more crap when I was mad than I do when I'm sane"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."[5]
BUT in principle I don't think madness need neccessarily always preclude everyone from saying worthwhile stuff. Remember we aren't saying that a significant minority of mad people say anything worthwhile. We only need one person to have done that.C.S. Lewis was an outstanding writer, but the reasoning behind his writings on Christianity strike me as someone who is starting with a conclusion and then interpreting the available information in a way that validates the conclusion.stone wrote: Gosso, from your link:I don't see why someone couldn't both be mad and also say stuff that has important truths in it. I'm saying this as someone who has been mad and spoke even more crap when I was mad than I do when I'm sane"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."[5]
"This is not what I had in mind. I was trying to tell you to essentially turn away from institutional and bureaucratic religion and you have built a bigger organized religious apparatus than I could have ever conceived.
I was trying to tell you to be kind and loving toward one another, while recognizing that none of you is perfect, and what you have done is used religion as a pretext for war after war after war.
I was trying to tell you that the peace in your own heart and soul comes from direct experience of that which is transcendent, and you have instead turned over to all manner of hucksters the job of guiding you to truths that are very simple to access on your own.
I was trying to tell you that the path to enlightenment requires one to understand the limited ability of worldly things to create lasting happiness, and you have instead built the largest churches in the world around the idea that God will express his pleasure with his people by essentially making them more worldly by allowing them to accumulate possessions as evidence of his favor."
It bugs me when people (I'm referring to Lewis, not you) suggest that using the rationality that God gave you is evidence that Satan is attempting to deceive you.Gosso wrote: But then again it could be Screwtape trying to deceive me??
If we did a cruise, I might suggest that we charter four separate small boats, just in case something happened to one of them.BearBones wrote: Damn it would be fun to meet all of you folks. Who would have guessed that an investing forum would have such bright, interesting, and "think out of the box" characters.
Assemble a PP Forum cruise, and I'll be on board!
lmaoMediumTex wrote:If we did a cruise, I might suggest that we charter four separate small boats, just in case something happened to one of them.BearBones wrote: Damn it would be fun to meet all of you folks. Who would have guessed that an investing forum would have such bright, interesting, and "think out of the box" characters.
Assemble a PP Forum cruise, and I'll be on board!
Cruise ship captains apparently make the same type of mistakes that hedge fund managers do.
... insider jokes for PP followers... you gotta love it...
