Let's set the stage:

If mankind 'created' all words and there was no language to tell anyone what to do;

What is your duty to God?


Do we learn from observing nature?

Would the nature of things show us what is pure?

How do you manage to get "duty to god" (or not) from mankind's creation of words?
If I had treacle sponge for lunch should I plant petunias?

Let's set the stage:
If mankind 'created' all words and there was no language to tell anyone what to do;
What is your duty to God?
Do we learn from observing nature?
Would the nature of things show us what is pure?


I have no duty to gods.
WHY would it matter whether nature shows what is pure?

How do you manage to get "duty to god" (or not) from mankind's creation of words?
If I had treacle sponge for lunch should I plant petunias?


How does he manage to get any of his nonsense?
Obviously, you should plant treacle spong.

How does he manage to get any of his nonsense?


That is what i was wondering

this is a religious section (and an unbiased thread)


as well, your sentence is strange (non-sense)

I have no duty to gods. OK



WHY would it matter whether nature shows what is pure?

cuz you live there

Why is it beneficial to know what is pure?

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
How does he manage to get any of his nonsense? ”


That is what i was wondering

this is a religious section (and an unbiased thread)

as well, your sentence is strange (non-sense)


You're wondering where you get your nonsense???

Let's set the stage:

If mankind 'created' all words and there was no language to tell anyone what to do;

What is your duty to God?


Do we learn from observing nature?

Would the nature of things show us what is pure?

-Defend your territory, your tribe, your family, but don't be overly ambitious or aggressive.
-Learn everything you can about the natural world, and use what seems beneficial.
-Elect or somehow appoint a leader, able to solve disputes and coordinate the use of force.
-Expect a couple to pair-bond, and spend a great deal of their resources raising children.
-Conform to the norms of your culture.

You have a duty to conform?

Yes, if we take our cues from nature. Group cohesiveness is very important with social primates.

If mankind 'created' all words

You have it backwards.

A world evolved humans and then humans developed language and created god.


What is your duty to God?

To help people free from the lie of god.


Do we learn from observing nature?

Everything we have learned has its roots in nature.


Would the nature of things show us what is pure?

"Pure" is just a mental abstraction. Nature has things we consider pure. we sometimes increase the purity of this or that for our purposes. But there is nothing magical about something being pure.

Let's set the stage:

If mankind 'created' all words and there was no language to tell anyone what to do;

What is your duty to God?


Do we learn from observing nature?

Would the nature of things show us what is pure?

Please define 'pure'.
And I don't have any duty to something that doesn't exist.

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
How does he manage to get any of his nonsense? ”




You're wondering where you get your nonsense???

lol :D

You have it backwards.

A world evolved humans and then humans developed language and created god. So i was on the money; before words, what is true?




To help people free from the lie of god. that is after 'words'




Everything we have learned has its roots in nature. Words have been used to define what we experience..




"Pure" is just a mental abstraction. so it brings the readers opinion into context; ie.... what you call true and what i call true could be varied

so the word allows each to use their integrity to measure



Nature has things we consider pure. we sometimes increase the purity of this or that for our purposes. now that is abstract as you are changing your environment for your definition, rather than observing the nature of things as they are.



But there is nothing magical about something being pure. that's is where reality stands.

There is no magic, and anything differing from nature is our creation!

before words, what is true?

There is no "true" before words.

Let's set the stage:

If mankind 'created' all words and there was no language to tell anyone what to do;

What is your duty to God?
Language is prerequisite for social exchange.

If you say that there is a time where there was no language yet god and the living entity existed, you are obviously referencing something outside of complex social obligations like "duty"



Do we learn from observing nature?

Would the nature of things show us what is pure?
Does this make language impure?

(The value of ideas are usually held in the vehicle of language, as opposed to language, per se, being a value based commodity)

...
If mankind 'created' all words and there was no language to tell anyone what to do;

What is your duty to God?


Do we learn from observing nature?

Would the nature of things show us what is pure?

???

The premiss is silly. The purpose of language is not to 'tell someone what to do'.

What's worse, the silly premiss entails nothing whatsoever about neither god nor one's duty.


Bishadi, even for you, this is stunning nonsense.

There is no "true" before words.


that fits the mind of a liar

meaning; "everything was true before words"

Language is prerequisite for social exchange. When was the last time you were social with God, personally?




If you say that there is a time where there was no language yet god and the living entity existed, you are obviously referencing something outside of complex social obligations like "duty"

a dog, cat and lion have the same God as you do; but they don't make believe what a god is, because no one is lying to them about what a god is.




Does this make language impure? Language is not pure; people are by choice.

i made a mistake in typing and corrected it

language is NOT PURE.............. clearly put

???

The premiss is silly. The purpose of language is not to 'tell someone what to do'. dahhhhhhhh

but without language, one person cannot tell another a lie and say it is true.

The point was if no one told you what is true (with words) would you be able to do 'good' with simply living as any other beast.

'what would be your duty?'


What's worse, the silly premiss entails nothing whatsoever about neither god nor one's duty.

because you are awaiting someone to tell you what to do, rather than observe that 'living' is doing all by itself.

So without words, then you would never know anything outside of just living (capable of doing good naturally)



Bishadi, even for you, this is stunning nonsense.

because as ooosual, you await others to respond before making a comment based on your own opinion. (you chime in with what others say, versus just addressing the thread as they are)

the thread is intended to allow others to think for themselves and realize that words cause more ignorance (tangents from reality) than just living.

no one is perfect, perhaps try and realize that first reality (meaning, i will never say everything every person can understand)

so to mod it up, perhaps be a contributer and add to the threads with quality INTENT!

a dog, cat and lion have the same God as you do; but they don't make believe what a god is, because no one is lying to them about what a god is.
Nonsense.


Language is not impure; people are by choice.
Language is an approximation.
Purity doesn't come into it.

a dog, cat and lion have the same God as you do; but they don't make believe what a god is, because no one is lying to them about what a god is.
Nonsense.


Why?




Language is an approximation.
Purity doesn't come into it.

instinct shares 'purity' to reality, far better than beliefs created by words

if not, show me otherwise

Why?
Because:
"god" is an ssumption.
animals believing in god is an assumption.


instinct shares 'purity' to reality, far better than beliefs created by words
if not, show me otherwise
You're wandering off into La la land again:
YOU claimed that language is pure: no, language is an approximation to reality.

Because:
"god" is an ssumption.
animals believing in god is an assumption. and what species of animal is mankind?

i said

instinct shares 'purity' to reality, far better than beliefs created by words
if not, show me otherwise

and your respnse is





You're wandering off into La la land again:
YOU claimed that language is pure: no, language is an approximation to reality.

where is your head kid?

the claim is that NO language is pure while instinct is, naturally

are you really having that tough a time?

Notice the thread title and what the OP implied? Or are you posting again, without reading?

The thread is suggesting that if there were NO WORD IN EXISTENCE, what would be YOUR duty?

Is it to live?

To live

or to live............... just like every other ANIMAL on the earth?


And then if 'to live' is the rule, then what is it that would allow you to live longer? Perhaps procreate, perhaps associate with others to share food?

perhaps contribute with others 'to live'

but in all cases of the example: there are no words in the frame to reference.

SO NO LIES CAN EXIST!

is there anything else you want to discuss or did i mesbell a word?

and what species of animal is mankind?
Then why bring up lions, dogs etc?
You assume they have a god, just as you assume god exists.


the claim is that NO language is pure while instinct is, naturally
Correction, you stated:

Language is not impure
Post #20 for reference.
If it's not impure then it must be pure, no?


The thread is suggesting that if there were NO WORD IN EXISTENCE, what would be YOUR duty?
The thread title is about God, not words.
I'm still waiting for you to show that there's ANY duty to god, with or without words.


is there anything else you want to discuss or did i mesbell a word?
Stunning.
Thanks for that one.

Then why bring up lions, dogs etc?
You assume they have a god, just as you assume god exists.

not me.......

but as any human being (other than you) can understand, that whether a word is used or not; if the concept of God is being observed, than that God is the God of everything.

again; if there are no words; what does life (instinct) do?

is it pure to existence?

(is instinct, pure to existence? (God if you like/or not)


Correction, you stated:

Post #20 for reference.
If it's not impure then it must be pure, no?


The thread title is about God, not words.
I'm still waiting for you to show that there's ANY duty to god, with or without words.


Stunning.
Thanks for that one.

Moderators will you guys remove this fool as he is apparently not reading the thread, the opening posts........ as well just a rude troll (as usual)


the whole premise of the thread is if there are no words and what would be the duty of each person and would nature share what is true, naturally...........

apparently oli is not capable of comprehending even when it is written


The thread is suggesting that if there were NO WORD IN EXISTENCE, what would be YOUR duty?

but as any human being (other than you) can understand, that whether a word is used or not; if the concept of God is being observed, than that God is the God of everything.
But many people (more than just me even) don't accept the concept of god.
And you have yet to show that animals (i.e. non-human ones0 have any concept of god.


again; if there are no words; what does life (instinct) do?
What do rocks do?
Dogs?
Etc.


Moderators will you guys remove this fool as he is apparently not reading the thread, the opening posts........ as well just a rude troll (as usual)
So because I take one of your posts at face value (which you still haven't explained), you scream for my removal.
Did you or did you not not state : Language is not impure?


apparently oli is not capable of comprehending even when it is written
Hmm, I did comprehend "Language is not impure".


The thread is suggesting that if there were NO WORD IN EXISTENCE, what would be YOUR duty?
That's a question, not a suggestion.
Why do you assume there would be a duty?
Why do you bring "god" into it if it's a question about the existence of language?

But many people (more than just me even) don't accept the concept of god. i didn't ask you that, you assuming, and is what is making a blanck out of you



And you have yet to show that animals (i.e. non-human ones0 have any concept of god. don't need to, as i was not asking about animals, i ws using animals as an example of instinct



What do rocks do? rattle in your head

Dogs? they like doggy style


So because I take one of your posts at face value (which you still haven't explained), you scream for my removal.
Did you or did you not not state : Language is not impure?

NOPE.....

i stated if there was NO words (language) what would you do (personally) and would you be able to learn from nature (you personally) and would nature offer you a fair shot as learning 'truth' ?????

i was asking what people (their opinions) of the possibility of learning, observing and being capable of understanding the rules of existence from nature?





Hmm, I did comprehend "Language is not impure". Then your comprehension was based on your assumptions, not the thread, any post or anything i ever wrote.





That's a question, not a suggestion. because the initial post was apparently not worded well enough for you, so as always i try and offer each a chance to observe the idea in wording that is simple. ( i was trying to give you another chance with the thread rather than just point out the obvious; you are not here to observe the thread and its intent but to be a rude kid with a magnifying glass)


Why do you assume there would be a duty? your lungs have a duty with our without your choice, correct?

living is the duty of living things and without words, there would be no issue in comprehending that.


Why do you bring "god" into it if it's a question about the existence of language?

because what i consider God and what others consider God is different; i am offering the venue so others can apply.

to me God is existence itself and we all bound to nature, whether we like it or not

where as others believe God is the master of everything that exists.

so rather than put my opinion against others i was offering a venue for each to see for themselves, that nature offers the rules for life all by herself.

I like people to be able to think for themselves, rather than tell them what to think and to me, often asking a question allows people to realize truth by themselves.

the reason you contest each question as illogical is you are not observing the question as it is; hence why i continually have to rewrite most everything for you and even as you reply, you still NEVER address the thread, but continue the tangent of your trollings

you are not doing anything but trolling and enjoying yourself with it.

damn right you should be removed!

i didn't ask you that, you assuming, and is what is making a blanck out of you
A blanck?

but as any human being (other than you) can understand, that whether a word is used or not; if the concept of God is being observed, than that God is the God of everything.
You singled me out...


don't need to, as i was not asking about animals, i ws using animals and an example of instinct
No?

a dog, cat and lion have the same God as you do;
An assumption.


i stated if there was NO words (language) what would you do (personally) and would you be able to learn from nature (you personally) and would nature offer you a fair shot as learning 'truth' ?????
You STATED; Language is not impure.
DO you retract that?


i was asking what people (their opinions) of the possibility of learning, observing and being capable of understanding the rules of existence from nature?
Without language no one would be able to pass on that knowledge and it would be have to be relearnt by each generation.


Then your comprehension was based on your assumptions, not the thread, any post or anything i ever wrote.
I quote AGAIN, your post #20.

Language is not impure
Still wish to deny it?


your lungs have a duty with our without your choice, correct?
Incorrect.
My lungs have a function, not a duty.


living is the duty of living things and without words, there would be no issue in comprehending that.
No.
It's not a "duty".


the reason you contest each question as illogical is you are not observing the question as it is
Or maybe you're incoherent at the best of times and incapable of actually making sense.


you still NEVER address the thread, but continue the tangent of your trollings
Because the intent of your thread is never made clear.


damn right you should be removed!
Aw, poor little Bishadi, maybe you should formulate your questions better.

Let's set the stage:

If mankind 'created' all words and there was no language to tell anyone what to do;

What is your duty to God?


Do we learn from observing nature?

Would the nature of things show us what is pure?


Ok. Aside from the obvious fact that this is nonsensical, I can play with it for you.

IF deity (of any kind) exists
AND we are aware of said deity's existence
AND we have no language
THEN our duty would be to exist, live, and reproduce.

Without instructions and all being up to interpretation, what would there be to learn about a deity from observing nature?

Deity X favors the aggressor in one on one situations?
Deity X does not believe in mercy to those outside one's family unit?
Deity X likes water more than fire?

I mean, what do YOU see to be learned from nature, Bishadi? Please compare your esoteric answers to examples of occurrences one might find in our agreed upon reality.

You STATED; Language is not impure.
DO you retract that?
show me that sentence!

language is NOT PURE....... as I KNOW all words were CREATED by mankind.

there is nothing pure of language and why you don't understand me half the time.




Without language no one would be able to pass on that knowledge and it would be have to be relearnt by each generation. no...shhhhhh

post #20 was corrected.... but i would think someone with loli intelligence would have realized that if the thread opening was implying 'if no words' existed, that it is implying language is faulty throughout mankind understanding

good to have evidence of the trolling of oli.......... all written up and documented (even as he continued)

show me that sentence!
Still having reading problems?
I've told you TWICE it's post 20.
Oh, I see you changed it.
That's somewhat dishonest.. asking me to show you it now.


language is NOT PURE....... as I KNOW all words were CREATED by mankind.
there is nothing pure of language and why you don't understand me half the time.
no...shhhhhh
So you were wrong?

post #20 was corrected.... but i would think someone with loli intelligence would have realized that if the thread opening was implying 'if no words' existed, that it is implying language is faulty throughout mankind understanding
good to have evidence of the trolling of oli.......... all written up and documented (even as he continued)
Incorrect: it merely illustrates that you can't keep track of your own arguments.
It took THREE pointers for you realise even when I quoted you.

Ok. Aside from the obvious fact that this is nonsensical, I can play with it for you.

IF deity (of any kind) exists Then use universe or mother nature or perhaps zeus, maybe existence itself.

The definition of God is YOUR CHOICE!


AND we are aware of said deity's existence
AND we have no language
THEN our duty would be to exist, live, and reproduce. Exactly!

Life is what governs, not opinions.


Without instructions and all being up to interpretation, what would there be to learn about a deity from observing nature?

don't care about a diety............ i want to know what each consider the absolute responsibility is.


Deity X favors the aggressor in one on one situations?
Deity X does not believe in mercy to those outside one's family unit?
Deity X likes water more than fire? No diety if no words.

kind of nice eh?


I mean, what do YOU see to be learned from nature, Bishadi? Please compare your esoteric answers to examples of occurrences one might find in our agreed upon reality. The truth!

but since we know that words have caused a ton of tangents, it is good to see that within there is true reasoning to based reality on


so the last true of absolute reality seems to be 'what is life?'




everything else is speculation


so as i see it, if mass comprehends its existence, then it can cause/create and actually live forever BY CHOICE!


so my duty is to learn and share what i can

how is my ingish

someone please tell the duck, i was wrong by mistypppppping a word

but i can see quick clearly you Oli are a troll

all you want is to be right on something ....

and all i want is to share what any can see for themselves, if they wish too

But you still haven't made your point.
Why should there be any duty?

But you still haven't made your point.
Why should there be any duty?

I don't think he'll be able to answer. He clearly either doesn't understand the correct meaning of the term duty, or is making use of some bizarre personal definition of it.

I don't think he'll be able to answer. He clearly either doesn't understand the correct meaning of the term duty, or is making use of some bizarre personal definition of it.

But don't forget: I'm the troll :D

But don't forget: I'm the troll :D

I guess we'll have to redefine the term then to mean: a person who critically analyzes insipid blind assertions.

I guess we'll have to redefine the term then to mean: a person who critically analyzes insipid blind assertions.

:worship:

But don't forget: I'm the troll :D


you are a troll

and glaucon has nothing to add to the thread


perhaps he did not read that other folks can comprehend


AND we are aware of said deity's existence
AND we have no language

THEN our duty would be to exist, live, and reproduce.


seems like it was pretty simple to some folks.



i gess mi ingish is 2 depe recwirng an edumacashun


or basic common sense to most children


hey kids, if there were no words for the old farts to lie to you with, what would yur duty be?

I guess we'll have to redefine the term then to mean: a person who critically analyzes insipid blind assertions.

or idiots who cannot comprehend and are so simple minded

that they need every word defined to even hold a conversation


do you remember: Is existence defining itself?


a simple question that stirred up a bunch of idiots and the arguments were all based on the words

you do realize you are feeding the trolls

“ Originally Posted by Bishadi
i didn't ask you that, you assuming, and is what is making a blanck out of you ”



A blanck?


Are you kin to Mel?

or basic common sense to most children


Well then, let's re-examine the topic taking child's steps.

By duty, you mean an obligation, true or false?

language is NOT PURE....... as I KNOW all words were CREATED by mankind.



How does all words being created by mankind make language not pure?



post #20 was corrected.... but i would think someone with loli intelligence would have realized that if the thread opening was implying 'if no words' existed, that it is implying language is faulty throughout mankind understanding


No words existing does not imply language is fawlty.

Bishadi


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Language is prerequisite for social exchange.
”
When was the last time you were social with God, personally?
Just as a technicality, you do realize that social exchanges and personal exchanges are not identical?

For instance any american who has heard a speech by Obama has participated in a "social exchange" with him (assuming that they knew he was the president, etc and that his words are framed in a certain context that is distinct from, say, their local bus driver)


“

If you say that there is a time where there was no language yet god and the living entity existed, you are obviously referencing something outside of complex social obligations like "duty"
”
a dog, cat and lion have the same God as you do;
sure


but they don't make believe what a god is, because no one is lying to them about what a god is.
They are also in a neutral position on many "high end" claims of knowledge and/or ethics.
This is not something that I personally find enviable ..... as are most other people who participate in civilized society.



“

Does this make language impure?
”
Language is not pure; people are by choice.

i made a mistake in typing and corrected it

language is NOT PURE.............. clearly put
so given that this entire discourse is within the typed medium, you are certainly in the midst of a unique conundrum ....
:shrug:

Bishadi:--1) if there were no word in existence, there would be very little possibility for communication--or at best, the communication that did take place could be very easily misinterpreted, which would lead almost inevitably to total chaos rather than any form of cooperation between individuals or groups.

2) As I read it, you see A) our 'duty' to God as being in harmony with each other, and B) with Nature. A) would be impossible, given what I've said above; B) would be extremely difficult at best, because Nature, being an inanimate force, doesn't even know that we exist, and doesn't care if it kills us. Therefore B) would only be possible in the most fortunate conditions. As you may know, we've left the Garden of Eden a long way behind us, and we're not likely to re-enter the garden of paradise anytime soon.

Bishadi:--1) if there were no word in existence, there would be very little possibility for communication--or at best, the communication that did take place could be very easily misinterpreted, which would lead almost inevitably to total chaos rather than any form of cooperation between individuals or groups. fair

but the idea is if there were no words, then what is your obligation to existence?

what will you be focused on?




2) As I read it, you see A) our 'duty' to God as being in harmony with each other, and B) with Nature. A) would be impossible, given what I've said above; B) would be extremely difficult at best, because Nature, being an inanimate force, doesn't even know that we exist, and doesn't care if it kills us. Sounds almost like any God i ever read about.

But i will stop there and share, that nature is where we are still attached to like family, all cases.



Therefore B) would only be possible in the most fortunate conditions. As you may know, we've left the Garden of Eden a long way behind us, and we're not likely to re-enter the garden of paradise anytime soon.

i realize mankind has been led to believe they left the garden but i beg to differ as without 'the' garden, we don't eat, we don;t live and global warming shares we are responsible for our actions.

the thread is being shared to allow each to realize these very claims being made; that we are still of the garden and words are what divided us from knowing this as a continuous fact of life.

and then as even another recognized; if we were not biased, we would all most likely be living the good life.

returning to the garden will be accomplished once life is understood as most not only believe they are separate because of what is learned by words; not reality

There is no obligation to existence.

There is no obligation to existence.
If you don't use the bathroom in the conventional manner you will be obligated in different ways

:o

More unrelated useless babbling.

There is no obligation to existence.


then PLEASE,,,,,,,,,,,, if your life has no obligation to exist, then stop breathing!

Well then, let's re-examine the topic taking child's steps.

By duty, you mean an obligation, true or false?




....crickets chirping....



Yup, that's what I thought you'd say.

Yup, that's what I thought you'd say.


glaucon:

like i said before, as oooosual, you have nothing to offer

perhaps...................read post #50 (first question posted)

then

'go lay by your dish'

glaucon:

like i said before, as oooosual, you have nothing to offer

perhaps...................read post #50 (first question posted)

then

'go lay by your dish'

As usual you have nothing to offer but obfuscation.

It's simple: answer the question.

What's that? You can't? No surprise there.

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
There is no obligation to existence. ”


then PLEASE,,,,,,,,,,,, if your life has no obligation to exist, then stop breathing!


More unrelated useless babbling.

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
There is no obligation to existence. ”






because you perhaps have no purpose in life

“ Originally Posted by Bishadi
i didn't ask you that, you assuming, and is what is making a blanck out of you ”





Are you kin to Mel?

He does have a Daffy Duck avatar, who was voiced by Mel Blanc.

Let's set the stage:
If mankind 'created' all words and there was no language to tell anyone what to do;
What is your duty to God?

unless god talks to you directly you'll never know..
imo
ALL gods were invented by men,
www.godchecker.com
and these men pretending to speak on behalf of god,
want to control you and others by telling you what this god wants you to do.

comprende?

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
There is no obligation to existence. ”



because you perhaps have no purpose in life


There is no obligation to existence because I perhaps have no purpose in life???

unless god talks to you directly you'll never know..
imo


makes sense, if God is who is doing the talking; but Not a ONCE has a God spoken to me; how about you?



ALL gods were invented by men,
www.godchecker.com

fine honesty from THAT statement even if ending with a comma


and these men pretending to speak on behalf of god,
want to control you and others by telling you what this god wants you to do.

comprende?

abollllllllllutely!

the idea of the question was; if there were NO WORDS to lie to you, could "we the people' (you) learn what your duty was (to god)?

(to me god is mothernature/existence/ the universe we live WITHIN)

call'em god if you like!

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
There is no obligation to existence. ”





There is no obligation to existence because I perhaps have no purpose in life???


when you awaken; what is your life for (what purpose (underlying) do you have)

when you understand that, then you might understand the 'duty' living things have.

first question to ask yourself is 'am i alive?'

then what's your job within existence? (don't say wash windows like in your employment, but what is your overall purpose? if you don't have one, then you just don't comprehend life itself; you just don't have a purpose)

You're asking me to prove your claim.

You're asking me to prove your claim.

the only proof is that the claim is 'self-evident'

only takes a weeeeee bit of integrity to figure it out.

:shrug:

It is selfevident that I do not have any duty to any gods.

There can be no duty to a god.

What need would a god have of such a thing?

There can be no duty to a god.

What need would a god have of such a thing?
What need is there for the value of duty to be based solely upon the object of duty?

(usually it works that performer gets a few perks ....)

:shrug:

It is selfevident that I do not have any duty to any gods.
On the contrary, you display a remarkable sense of duty to god - just consider how regularly you post in the religious forum.

;)

You only say that because the devil made you do it.

Whatever made you do it, you display a remarkable ability of arrogant, assinine, ignorant assumption.
You have 3 pieces of a 5000 piece puzzle & think you have it all put together.

Stop playing with your brain & put it back into your head.

What need is there for the value of duty to be based solely upon the object of duty?

Something which has no need of your duty, has no need of your duty.

Trying to pretend you owe it what it has no need for is just self delusion on your part.

You owe duty to your family or country because they have need of it.

It is selfevident that I do not have any duty to any gods.

what God?

Perhaps if you said, duty to YOURSELF? Maybe to YOUR LIFE?

Perhaps to even exist, you have a duty?

Then again, maybe you are on it right now; the duty to be a self and screw the world. (you are it and nothing else matters)

There can be no duty to a god.

What need would a god have of such a thing?


What God?


What need is there of anything except a self in need?

Something which has no need of your duty, has no need of your duty. Life has a need; are you alive?


Trying to pretend you owe it what it has no need for is just self delusion on your part.

You owe duty to your family or country because they have need of it.

awe.... so you feeel you do have a purpose.

So family or even country is your preferred objects of duty but life itself has nothing of value to you? And i never said God is that object of life, in a sense of duty to an outside entity, i asked 'but life itself has nothing of value to you?'

your intent to live, is in itself a 'duty to existence' (God if you like the word)
as it is imposed as an action, even without your choice.

the same 'duty' all life has!

Something which has no need of your duty, has no need of your duty.
That says nothing about whether I (the performer of duty) stand to gain anything from duty


Trying to pretend you owe it what it has no need for is just self delusion on your part.
once again, there is no clear relationship between what one feels one owes another and what the other actually requires.


You owe duty to your family or country because they have need of it.
The larger the object of duty, the less requirement it has for it.

For instance, what real need does a country have for you to perform your duty towards it?

Whatever it is, it is quite slim ... and arguably becomes non-existent the moment you extend it up to something larger like "duty towards the planet" or whatever ....

(in fact if you unpack these statements of duty to planet/country you can see that it all basically boils down to the pursuits of perks - IOW duty to country/planet means "what you should do to insure better life for yourself")

What need is there of anything except a self in need?
How about self expression?

How about self expression?

Even whinning is an 'i' communicating; is that self expression?

Even whinning is an 'i' communicating; is that self expression?
sure

thankfully whining doesn't have the monopoly on self expression however (even though it may appear otherwise on sci)

sure

thankfully whining doesn't have the monopoly on self expression however (even though it may appear otherwise on sci)


i was just adding a spot for you to fit in

i was just adding a spot for you to fit in
hehe

welcome to the party fellow sci contributor

:D

hehe

welcome to the party fellow sci contributor

:D

doing a beep that may be deep

or

'if the bowl is dirty, wash it'

What God?
Look god is your fantasy.


What need is there of anything except a self in need?

You should look around a bit and see if you can find out.


Life has a need; are you alive?

Life is an abstraction. It is the living who have needs.


awe.... so you feeel you do have a purpose.

You are confusing me with some one else. There are no inherant purposes, but I, like most people, am fully able to create purpose as I see fit.

But I did not say it is your purpose to help your family or country. I said it was a reciprication of obligation/duty.


life itself has nothing of value to you?

No, not particularly. I'm more interested in the living than in your attempts to remarket your god. I don't feel any 'duty to existence.'

if the bowl is dirty, wash it'


By whose standards?

By whose standards?

Since he's taking from an old zen story...

When you aren't sure and can't find out, start with your standards and adjust from there as needed.

Or the pithy version... if you are asking you aren't done yet.

By whose standards?

that is why integrity is so important

each know what is BS when they see it, as well what is true

that is why knowledge sets the tone, not beliefs, cultures and idiots

Since he's taking from an old zen story...

When you aren't sure and can't find out, start with your standards and adjust from there as needed.

Or the pithy version... if you are asking you aren't done yet.


to me it is that each know what is in front of them; do it

(talkers are ooooosually a waste of life (oxygen))

You're trying your best to prove that.

You're trying your best to prove that.




walking with 2 feet on the ground is better than being a stranger in a strange land, all the time!

Beside the point but
How is it better?

Beside the point but
How is it better?

to be awake and aware of what you actions are, then not only can a 'rock' be capable of responsibility but also live longer by choice.

now if life to you is being awake, then perhaps it might take a little longer for you to comprehend life itself.

but if you are aware that you are life upon mass, then you can be aware of what you do, whether awake or sleeping just by learning each item you have to question.

the issue is not that mankind cannot become aware, it is that the current systems of understanding are off the path of reality.

eg..... life: abuses entropy.......... versus, "living thing are based from the laws of physics; a reduction of chemical potentials."

life does continue

chemistry is a joke

well then to compare the religions to the sciences, neither have the correct frame

and why a paradigm shift is what combines them both!

as knowledge is known to be evolving (by the children), then each can begin to observe the true principles of how life works, with or without the communities of either religion or science.

neither are correct as both have precepts of 'law' that blind the truth from revealing itself.

to change the comprehension of how life works, then all disciplines of knowledge can combine.

then "mass can comprehend its existence"

Beside the point yet again but
You shouldn't assume I'm not awake & aware.

Beside the point yet again

i know, i post an answer; you miss the point

it's a common psychosis



but
You shouldn't assume I'm not awake & aware.

not me making the assumptions

i was implying mankind as a whole!

existence only operates ONE way and either you are aware or you are not


eg..... what is your duty to god? (since you are of existence itself; what is your duty of life?)

if you don't know that (what life is), then you are unaware!

pretty basic?!?

eg..... what is your duty to god? (since you are of existence itself; what is your duty of life?)

if you don't know that (what life is), then you are unaware!

pretty basic?!?

Having a duty to one's life doesn't necessarily mean having a duty to ancient myths and superstitions, two completely different things. That's even more basic.

Having a duty to one's life doesn't necessarily mean having a duty to ancient myths and superstitions, two completely different things. That's even more basic.

God is just a word to describe a ..............."blank"

the idea that God is a thing, person or zeus guy on a thrown is "ancient myths and superstitions"


but to comprehend what words do and have been used for over the life of conscious articulations; then it can be found that mother nature (existence itself) is that God all of mankind has been talking about.

so rather than God being some dude with a mean temper; i see God as existence itself combined into ONE (all mass, energy, time; the trinity)


so to just run over the mythological renditions; lets perhaps awaken to see God as all of it combined

that means; what is your duty to existence (God)?

i guess this must be the first time you and i have shared because most already know i don't use myths as the foundation to truth.

my last word is not found in a book

nor is the 2LoT, a law that is true.

mother nature (existence itself) is that God all of mankind has been talking about.

I prefer the term 'nature' as that is what it is, no extra labels are required.


so rather than God being some dude with a mean temper; i see God as existence itself combined into ONE (all mass, energy, time; the trinity)

Yet, you're ascribing a label that has no meaning in nature.


that means; what is your duty to existence (God)?

Why not just drop the god label and call it what it is?

I prefer the term 'nature' as that is what it is, no extra labels are required.

and how many laguages are there to describe 'blue'?






Yet, you're ascribing a label that has no meaning in nature. not a word in existence means a thing to nature but mankind uses them to describe things within nature


Why not just drop the god label and call it what it is?


i did, so why not answer the question of the thread?

and how many laguages are there to describe 'blue'?

Probably, the same amount of languages that describe 'nature.' What's your point?


i did, so why not answer the question of the thread?

The question has to do with duty to gods, hence you didn't drop the label.

i know, i post an answer; you miss the point

it's a common psychosis

not me making the assumptions

i was implying mankind as a whole!

existence only operates ONE way and either you are aware or you are not

eg..... what is your duty to god? (since you are of existence itself; what is your duty of life?)

if you don't know that (what life is), then you are unaware!

pretty basic?!?


You have no point & you won't answer questions.
You don't know what life is yet you attempt to delude others.
You evidently don't know what making a point is.
You are quite unaware yet, like most, persist in believing & proclaiming otherwise. IF you actually believe it.

-=- -=-



walking with 2 feet on the ground is better than being a stranger in a strange land, all the time!



beside the point but
how is it better?



-=- -=-

Probably, the same amount of languages that describe 'nature.' What's your point?

to me god is nature (i can call God anything i want, just like the rest of the world does)

to you god is something else

you don't like me using the word cuz is conflicts your usage

sounds like you got a personal problem!




The question has to do with duty to gods, hence you didn't drop the label.

Not on the OP........... no intent too!

i defined what i meant, don't care what you mean! :bawl:

so now that you have increased your knowledge base as to what the question is;

now...

answer the question... :shrug:

what's your duty........... to god/existence/nature.............life?

it's real easy, but you being too stubborn.......... as ooooosual!

You have no point & you won't answer questions. answered all of them



You don't know what life is yet you attempt to delude others.

seems the thread is on YOU, not life

if you don't know what your life is about, then i see why you have a hard time with answering the question from YOUR opinion



You evidently don't know what making a point is.

that you cannot square up with your own mind; easy point for any to see, if they read the thread



You are quite unaware yet, like most, persist in believing & proclaiming otherwise. IF you actually believe it.

unaware of what?

proclaiming what?

I don't believe in anything but reality at face value.


What is your duty........... ?

why not just answer the question?

are you just pointless?

I don't believe you.

walking with 2 feet on the ground is better than being a stranger in a strange land, all the time!


I have no choice but to be a stranger in a strange land. I don't have the means to find & go to a more suitable planet.
Being a stranger in a strange land is better than accepting your delusions.

I have no choice but to be a stranger in a strange land. you have a choice and choose not to


I don't have the means to find & go to a more suitable planet.

because to you, the life you live just ain't good enough

this is neither a heaven or hell (good or bad place) to you because your mind is so far off, you don't see your own feet

you have no idea who or what you are!

you walk in the dark by choice.




Being a stranger in a strange land is better than accepting your delusions.

born, raised and of the very dirt you standing on; but it just ain't familiar to you

between all three of your statements, within your points of reasoning, anyone can see what delusional is!


you lost

ie...the thread is on what is your "duty"

and it seems you would not know because you have been led to believe life has no purpose

seems like the same old 'random' approach within the minds of the fool

the same rules of nature apply to us; perhaps get back to nature and wake up a bit. Use science it will help!

to me god is nature (i can call God anything i want...

Actually, you have it the wrong way round, you're calling nature whatever you want.


...just like the rest of the world does)

Then, you're in a herd of sheeple?


to you god is something else

A figment of your imagination.


you don't like me using the word cuz is conflicts your usage

It conflicts with reality.


i defined...

Well, you see, that's a problem because only you can understand yourself if you decide to define things yourself. Good luck with that.

-=-
No. He doesn't understand himself.

Actually, you have it the wrong way round, you're calling nature whatever you want. then what is nature to you?

i say it is 'everything' or basically existence itself (the garden)





A figment of your imagination. i imagine reality supperceding the ideas of a man created rendition of God




It conflicts with reality. How does considering God to be mother nature/existence itself conflict with reality?

answer that question




Well, you see, that's a problem because only you can understand yourself if you decide to define things yourself. Good luck with that.


new thinking, creates new words and comprehension

you can either choose to follow what everyone tells you is true, or you can be a 'do'er' and contribute

me not like you; i do for a livin

you whine about supperficial word associations; such that you don't do god, but if someone says something that is not norm, like i did by suggesting existence itself (nature) is god; you whine about it!


if you can provide 'evidence' that i am wrong with actually thinking and applying truth to reality, then perhaps put up or shut up


i say, that when people imagine a god, to just look around and experience everything that is (in nature) as that 'it'

the name is just the math to share 'how it works' (the process between mass, energy and time; existence itself)

then what is nature to you?

Just have a look out your window, do you see it?



i imagine reality...

There is no need to imagine reality, it's right there in front of you.


How does considering God to be mother nature/existence itself conflict with reality?

Gods conflict with reality as they've never been shown to exist. Nature is nature, simple.


you can either choose to follow what everyone tells you is true

That's what you do.


you whine about supperficial word associations; such that you don't do god, but if someone says something that is not norm, like i did by suggesting existence itself (nature) is god; you whine about it!

Your personal god fantasies have nothing to do with nature. Simple, really.


if you can provide 'evidence' that i am wrong with actually thinking and applying truth to reality, then perhaps put up or shut up

Ah, so you shift the burden of proof over to me. How convenient and typical.


i say, that when people imagine a god, to just look around and experience everything that is (in nature) as that 'it'

So, why do you need to imagine a god? Because you "choose to follow what everyone tells you is true."

Let's set the stage:

If mankind 'created' all words and there was no language to tell anyone what to do;

What is your duty to God?

To seek Him. To live a Holy life.


Do we learn from observing nature?

Yes. As well as the nature of yourself most importantly.


Would the nature of things show us what is pure?

Of course nature is pure as it is natural quis est naturalis est purus.

Of course nature is pure as it is natural quis est naturalis est purus. Right!!! cancer, plague, viruses, earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, diceases of all kinds, aids, meteorites, etc.

Nature is a curse that needs to be tamed, controlled, or bypassed as soon as possible.

Right!!! cancer, plague, viruses, earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, diceases of all kinds, aids, meteorites, etc.

Nature is a curse that needs to be tamed, controlled, or bypassed as soon as possible.
Interestingly enough, the default position of this statement is that our standards for living are pure.

IOW impurity = anything that transgresses whatever we deem a requirement for stable community (So for instance, weather changes in response to increased carbon emissions can be viewed as an impurity).

Right!!! cancer, plague, viruses, earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, diceases of all kinds, aids, meteorites, etc.

Nature is a curse that needs to be tamed, controlled, or bypassed as soon as possible.

Of course what is natural is pure, but that does not make it foolproof.

-=- -=-



you have a choice and choose not to



because to you, the life you live just ain't good enough

this is neither a heaven or hell (good or bad place) to you because your mind is so far off, you don't see your own feet

you have no idea who or what you are!

you walk in the dark by choice.

born, raised and of the very dirt you standing on; but it just ain't familiar to you

between all three of your statements, within your points of reasoning, anyone can see what delusional is!


you lost

ie...the thread is on what is your "duty"

and it seems you would not know because you have been led to believe life has no purpose

seems like the same old 'random' approach within the minds of the fool

the same rules of nature apply to us; perhaps get back to nature and wake up a bit. Use science it will help!



-=-

Absurd assine assumptions & unjustified unsupported unprovoked insults.


-=- -=-

Right!!! cancer, plague, viruses, earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, diceases of all kinds, aids, meteorites, etc.

Nature is a curse that needs to be tamed, controlled, or bypassed as soon as possible.

And who sent this curse called 'nature'?

Also, are humans not part of nature, did we not come from nature? From where then?

signal,


And who sent this curse called 'nature'?

Also, are humans not part of nature, did we not come from nature? From where then? You are taking me too literally. I mean "curse" in the sense of "it isn't a good thing". Yes, we are part of nature, but doomed to live for such a very short time.

lg,


Interestingly enough, the default position of this statement is that our standards for living are pure.

IOW impurity = anything that transgresses whatever we deem a requirement for stable community (So for instance, weather changes in response to increased carbon emissions can be viewed as an impurity). I guess really I have no idea what pure means in that context. I was commenting on the usage here that it was taken to mean "good".

cortex,


Of course what is natural is pure, but that does not make it foolproof. Huh?

You are taking me too literally. I mean "curse" in the sense of "it isn't a good thing".

Why aren't earthquakes, hurricanes and smallpox and all that a good thing?



Yes, we are part of nature, but doomed to live for such a very short time.

'Doomed' by whom?

-=-

There is no by whom. It's simply doomed.

you Q i believe you have me mixd up with someone else



Just have a look out your window, do you see it? you bet i do as NOTHING else do i have duty too



There is no need to imagine reality, it's right there in front of you. reminds me of Mark Twain:

Truth is STRANGER than fiction, but it is because fiction is obligated to stick to possibilities; truth isn't!




Gods conflict with reality as they've never been shown to exist. Nature is nature, simple. God is a word; describing nature!




That's what you do. i follow NO ONE

i have just learned what is real

you believe God exists and fight any who says anything about it in contrast i know God as nature (existence itself) (no person, place or thing)




Your personal god fantasies have nothing to do with nature. Simple, really.

there is nothing else except nature and we live within it; perhaps grow up and deal with it

like i said, i believe you talking to the wrong guy!




Ah, so you shift the burden of proof over to me. How convenient and typical. that is your comment when i put reality in your face with

you whine about supperficial word associations; such that you don't do god, but if someone says something that is not norm, like i did by suggesting existence itself (nature) is god; you whine about it!

your comment does not fit the bold comment i made; perhaps try again

i am pointing out that God is nature itself, i did not ask for proof; as common sense will allow you to understand what i am stating, if you had enough material knowledge to understand it




So, why do you need to imagine a god? Because you "choose to follow what everyone tells you is true."

not me; as both physicist and theologist don't like me

both have their paradigm and i can prove both wrong!

2Lot is a joke

and God ain't some dude controlling mankind

both are easy to comprehend with enough material knowledge

reality is; energy runs the show, not mass

and God is nature itself (the total of existence as ONE : all mass, energy and time;) where as the math to define the process is the name


then to comprehend that would share that 'the truth' combines them

To seek Him. To live a Holy life. what is the difference of a 'holy life' to an inuit and an indigenous indian of north america?



Yes. As well as the nature of yourself most importantly.
it seems since 'mother nature' created mankind, that my 'self' is less important than the nature of life itself.

the key is, to understand the life of nature; not the life of a 'self'



Of course nature is pure as it is natural quis est naturalis est purus.

so 'the garden' is what is pure and all outside of that understanding is 'man created'

and that is perfectly understood when realizing mankind 'created all words'!

-=- -=-






-=-

Absurd assine assumptions & unjustified unsupported unprovoked insults.


-=- -=-

typical ad hominen; from the strangersfrom a strange land; the land of BS and ignorance

why not just answer the questions versus trying to pin me down?


that is why you are so frustrated

perhaps be humbled to learn

perhaps try articulating your inquiry


but only a fool would fight truth and expect to win!

Originally Posted by Cris
Right!!! cancer, plague, viruses, earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, diceases of all kinds, aids, meteorites, etc.

Nature is a curse that needs to be tamed, controlled, or bypassed as soon as possible.


this has got to be the stupidest comment i have ever read on a forum

Nature is a curse that needs to be tamed, controlled, or bypassed as soon as possible


how foolish can monkeys get?

cortex,

Huh?

Nature is not inextirpable.

bishadi,


this has got to be the stupidest comment i have ever read on a forum

Nature is a curse that needs to be tamed, controlled, or bypassed as soon as possible

how foolish can monkeys get? The issue is very simple, and apparently has not occurred to you. Nature is a fundamantally undirected phenomenon. It has no awareness of what might be good or bad and deals both with total indifference. As sentient beings that have arisen as a result of nature we are at the beginning of being able to manage and direct nature to our needs. Genetic engineering for example is one area where we can direct nature to do what we want. AI is another area we can consciously and deliberately create entities superior to ourselves or used to enhance our abilities.

If we simply do nothing and allow nature to rule us then we will all perish in the next major meteorite collision.

Many assert that we should be "one" with nature, that nature is good. This is nonsense, nature is neither good or bad, it is indifferent.

bishadi,

The issue is very simple, and apparently has not occurred to you. Nature is a fundamantally undirected phenomenon.

let me guess; 'it's all random'............?

almost like what your keyboard is tapping out; just random garbage!




It has no awareness of what might be good or bad and deals both with total indifference.

are you within nature? are you aware? then some of 'nature' is aware.

God ain't some dude 'aware' sitting on a thrown with a lightning bolt in his hand.


As sentient beings that have arisen as a result of nature we are at the beginning of being able to manage and direct nature to our needs.

we can use and create an environment to create magical radio waves and magical metalic flying birds; we created dem doooood!

we (mankind) are the ONLY thing tinking about God and using words to talk about it.

but we are still a part of nature. We are sentient and can create and are life within nature; describing itself!


Genetic engineering for example is one area where we can direct nature to do what we want. bits and pieces,

at this point it can be compared to water and oil chemistry and is just being touched


AI is another area we can consciously and deliberately create entities superior to ourselves or used to enhance our abilities. not even close

and to even speak such when realizing just how much data comes in from our eyes alone, you would be quiet before uttering such stupidity

AI is like a calculator, when a coherance of memories will 'always' snap a binary system to pieces.

first fact you may need to comprehend; the brain is not running like a computer; so NEVER EVER think a binary system will even come close.



If we simply do nothing and allow nature to rule us then we will all perish in the next major meteorite collision. you need oxygen, food and gravity to survive; nature already rules!




Many assert that we should be "one" with nature, that nature is good. This is nonsense, nature is neither good or bad, it is indifferent.

good: support life to continue

bad: loss to the common

we the only thing in existence that can think it is not a part of the pond and keeps trying to 'jump out'

you are a life; your 'duty' is to live and contribute for life (by choice)

but you just don't know it!

Bishadi,


let me guess; 'it's all random'............?That’s silly, I thought you already knew that nature isn’t random.


are you within nature? are you aware? then some of 'nature' is aware.Yes and potentially capable of self-direction. What’s your point?


God ain't some dude 'aware' sitting on a thrown with a lightning bolt in his hand.I don’t see what a god has to do with any of this. Why bring it up?


we can use and create an environment to create magical radio waves and magical metalic flying birds; we created dem doooood!What are you going on about?


we (mankind) are the ONLY thing tinking about God and using words to talk about it.Huh? What’s your point?


but we are still a part of nature. We are sentient and can create and are life within nature; describing itself!And if nature is left to itself we will certainly die. Our awareness and intelligence regardless of whether it is considered outside of nature or part of nature offers the potential and likelihood of being able to re-direct parts of nature to suit our desires rather than have nature dictate our destiny.


“ Genetic engineering for example is one area where we can direct nature to do what we want. ”

bits and pieces, at this point it can be compared to water and oil chemistry and is just being touchedYes it is in its infancy. That doesn’t alter my point.


“ AI is another area we can consciously and deliberately create entities superior to ourselves or used to enhance our abilities. ”

not even close

and to even speak such when realizing just how much data comes in from our eyes alone, you would be quiet before uttering such stupidityWhat makes you think I am not aware of what is required? Computing is my business.


AI is like a calculator, when a coherance of memories will 'always' snap a binary system to pieces.

first fact you may need to comprehend; the brain is not running like a computer; so NEVER EVER think a binary system will even come close.Sure it is. Some 200 billion neurons operating at about 300Hz each, makes for a massively parallel processing system. Each neuron takes multiple inputs to fire a single signal when a certain voltage potential has been reached. That’s digital processing, just on a scale far in excess of anything we can achieve with conventional computers so far.


“ If we simply do nothing and allow nature to rule us then we will all perish in the next major meteorite collision. ”

you need oxygen, food and gravity to survive; nature already rules!Then change those requirements so we don’t need them, or go somewhere else to find them if this planet ceases to exist.


you are a life; your 'duty' is to live and contribute for life (by choice)

but you just don't know it!My only duty is to my continued survival, and life does not always need to mean biological life.

Bishadi,

That’s silly, I thought you already knew that nature isn’t random. i do.... as i know why and at the mathematical and atomic scale


Yes and potentially capable of self-direction. What’s your point? we (mankind) are defining existence (words, math, comprehension into a transcend form (cover time, crosses time; in books)

no single set has the truth; but it does combine!


I don’t see what a god has to do with any of this. Why bring it up? because God can be understood by understanding we live within the environment that 'created' us (the garden): nature!


And if nature is left to itself we will certainly die. Our awareness and intelligence regardless of whether it is considered outside of nature or part of nature offers the potential and likelihood of being able to re-direct parts of nature to suit our desires rather than have nature dictate our destiny. nature will universally remain a contender, forever!

we can divert rivers and mover mountains; so what! It that best for the bigger picture? Such as, are dams just a good thing for our ease of use (electricity/water).... when it destroys ecosystems (salmon runs).


Sure it is. Some 200 billion neurons operating at about 300Hz each, makes for a massively parallel processing system. Each neuron takes multiple inputs to fire a single signal when a certain voltage potential has been reached. That’s digital processing, just on a scale far in excess of anything we can achieve with conventional computers so far. can you put your computer in a 2 tesla, 2 ton electromagnet and mark it work?

brains can.

what is wrong with that picture?




Then change those requirements so we don’t need them, or go somewhere else to find them if this planet ceases to exist. maybe next summer


My only duty is to my continued survival, and life does not always need to mean biological life.

all life is biological; it's the law!

Bishadi,


“ I don’t see what a god has to do with any of this. Why bring it up? ”

because God can be understood by understanding we live within the environment that 'created' us (the garden): nature!God is a fantasy concept, leave it out. Nature exists (fact) but we have no idea how it began or even if it had a beginning. We weren’t created, we evolved.


nature will universally remain a contender, forever!I never implied it wouldn’t.


we can divert rivers and mover mountains; so what! It that best for the bigger picture? Such as, are dams just a good thing for our ease of use (electricity/water).... when it destroys ecosystems (salmon runs).I really don’t care much about those things. My thinking is much more about the undirected path that human evolution is taking us and that we are about to start altering that path to suit our own desires rather than hope nature will take us in a fortuitous path. More species have become extinct than the ones that have survived. There is no guarantee that undirected evolution will ensure our ultimate survival. With our intelligent direction we are more likely to gain a far more rapid improvement in our genetic structures and gain a greater chance for ultimate survival.


can you put your computer in a 2 tesla, 2 ton electromagnet and mark it work?

brains can.

what is wrong with that picture? Can you put your brain in an airless environment and make it work? My computers can. How long can you survive in a weightless environment without suffering fatal bone loss? My computers have no problem there. How many centuries can you survive before dying of old age? Gosh only 1, my computers have an open ended lifespan. What’s the likelihood of you contracting a fatal disease or dying of cancer before old-age? Pretty high. My computers are immune.

So what’s wrong with your story? A lot.


all life is biological; it's the law!Why? There is no such law. If we create a self-aware AI capable of reasoned thought and emotions, and has an intelligence greater than man, are you saying it isn’t alive?

The problem you have here is that you have no reasonable definition of “life”. Your attempt earlier was utterly useless, and framed in meaningless unintelligible gibberish.

Life based on carbon is all we have known so far but that does not preclude non-carbon based life from existing somewhere or being created by us. But all of this depends on the definition of life, which is why I raised the question earlier.

If I create a self-aware AI fully capable of independent action and can communicate with humans at the same intellectual level then I would deem that to be a living sentient entity.

Bishadi,

God is a fantasy concept, leave it out. can't;

the majority on the globe are biased by the beliefs, accounts and literature. Much of it has meaning, perhaps metaphorically and also scientifically. (entanglement)


Nature exists (fact) but we have no idea how it began or even if it had a beginning. We weren’t created, we evolved. yes.... 'evolved', from atoms and energy not adam and eve




I really don’t care much about those things. My thinking is much more about the undirected path that human evolution is taking us and that we are about to start altering that path to suit our own desires rather than hope nature will take us in a fortuitous path.

try comprehending the idea that we are just rocks defining existence. We are that nature 'doing it'.

So in a sense we are doing a bit of both 'good and bad' within existence.

The 'good' is the progression of knowledge (trial and error; evolving)

the bad, is the 'self' of people is isolating the pursuits to be focused on individual gains without the concept of what them 'needs' really mean or are.

That is why the thread in on 'your duty' to existence (GOD).




More species have become extinct than the ones that have survived. There is no guarantee that undirected evolution will ensure our ultimate survival. we are a bit of each of many of the 'species' and since we the pinnacle species (of choice, aware) and God to the ant hill and half the species we have already imposed an 'extinction' to. (bad ol'judges)


With our intelligent direction we are more likely to gain a far more rapid improvement in our genetic structures and gain a greater chance for ultimate survival. really?

could the best choice for an ultimate survival be for "mass comprehending its existence".............? Meaning 'it' can understand what 'it' is.

And by what would an 'it' be able to understand?

Could it be, 'knowledge evolving'.................. by the 'words created by mankind.''............(we them stupid 'its')......?

kind of neat how adam gave up a rib but to an educated person, all cells must divide (give up a portion of itself) to continue life.

to see them metaphors takes knowledge but to comprehend they were written before the knowledge to understand them, would mean there must be a "spooky action at a distance" (entanglement)

but would you know how that works, or are you waiting for a computer screen to tell you (like right now) (or AI)



If we create a self-aware AI capable of reasoned thought and emotions, and has an intelligence greater than man, are you saying it isn’t alive? Sounds like a child. (the best of the best)

aware, capable of reasoned thought, emotions and has an intelligence greater than yours, man.............

if we are men, then they better be smarter than we are!

Go ai in some other dimension duuuude.......... if you were seriously aware of the science behind it you would know, i already said enough. (Moore's law; got fired)




The problem you have here is that you have no reasonable definition of “life”. energy (em; electromagnetism) is the specimen, not the mass. The energy is the focus not the structures. (that is the ignorance of chemistry, no concept of the energy as the specimen)

From the sun, through to meat; the energy is what is consumed, not the mass.

Dead person; is all the same mass but the 'lights' are out.

See the flame; performing 'on-ward' until the environment changes. (That's the new method of thinking. )

Life: purposed to continue. (it's the law) (brand new)

You are alive with a built in "duty", by nature! (you can try and jump out of the lake, but it will NEVER happen; all you will do is go 'extinct')



Your attempt earlier was utterly useless, and framed in meaningless unintelligible gibberish. it may seem unique but it's all true and combines more 'junk' than you could imagine!

here is another stupid one

the cross.......... (you know the symbolic 'thing' people like to carry)

well it is a perfect rendition of em (electromagnetism; light)

"electric and magnetic fields at perpendicular planes"............ it's a cross of energy orientated to its source. (see 'the' light) (perhaps start at Thoth)

basically a stupid photon (don't matter the wave length)

this is real material knowledge from combining; there's nothing funny about it

and if you knew about how entanglement is a property of shared energy between mass, then you could understand more phenomenon (dejavu)


as even Einstein said, it's a 'spooky action at a distance'

and if i am not mistake he also said something to the effect that

he believes, god "is the garden and i have been trying to catch him at his work"

typical ad hominen; from the strangersfrom a strange land; the land of BS and ignorance

why not just answer the questions versus trying to pin me down?


that is why you are so frustrated

perhaps be humbled to learn

perhaps try articulating your inquiry


but only a fool would fight truth and expect to win!


Typical fallacious accusation of ad hominem
& more absurd assine assumptions & unjustified unsupported unprovoked insults.

Bishadi,


try comprehending the idea that we are just rocks defining existence. We are that nature 'doing it'. We are part of nature. But we are also aware of nature. A rock is not aware and cannot influence its own destiny, we can. The difference is essential.


“ With our intelligent direction we are more likely to gain a far more rapid improvement in our genetic structures and gain a greater chance for ultimate survival. ”

really? Sure. Undirected evolution takes millions of years to make effective changes. Through genetic engineering we could improve brain ability, for example, in decades.


could the best choice for an ultimate survival be for "mass comprehending its existence".............? Meaning 'it' can understand what 'it' is. Understanding what we are and how we function would help, but ultimately it is more about not being squished by something bigger and more powerful than us, no matter what we know.


“ If we create a self-aware AI capable of reasoned thought and emotions, and has an intelligence greater than man, are you saying it isn’t alive? ”

Sounds like a child. (the best of the best)

aware, capable of reasoned thought, emotions and has an intelligence greater than yours, man.............

if we are men, then they better be smarter than we are!

Go ai in some other dimension duuuude.......... if you were seriously aware of the science behind it you would know, i already said enough. (Moore's law; got fired)That didn’t remotely answer the question. Would it be considered alive?

Sigh! I can’t bring myself to waste so much more time attempting to unravel your extensive and largely unintelligible gibberish.

I’m outta here.

-=-

You gave it a try
As did I.

Bishadi,

We are part of nature. But we are also aware of nature. A rock is not aware and cannot influence its own destiny, we can. The difference is essential. i know a rock aint thinking

but we are just made of the same elements as many rocks

the difference is not the elements (mass) but the energy upon that mass

from the base lipids (phospholipid bilayers) to the pores of the nucleus; the mechanism of how that works is not understood in chemistry, biology, physics and even basic common sense of 'we the people' (the rocks that can think)

that is why knowledge "evolving" is so important


Sure. Undirected evolution takes millions of years to make effective changes. Through genetic engineering we could improve brain ability, for example, in decades.

sorry charlie; that be pipe dreams.

eg... memories are fixed structures within glial, not the neuron. (look up einsteins brain and glial)

what that all means is the community doesn't even know how it (the brain) works and you want to genetically alter it (billions in oldtimes desease (park,alzheim) and not a single comprehension of 'how it works')

perhaps keep your feet flat on the ground rather than read an article and think it is a reality.


Understanding what we are and how we function would help, but ultimately it is more about not being squished by something bigger and more powerful than us, no matter what we know.

are you scared of something? Too many asteroid theories upon your mind.

If the sun spits a solar flare at the earth, while the earth is going thru a magnetic field reversal (no magnetosphere/solar sheild)......... if the combining does occur (no shield and solar flare as the same time)............ we all gonna need sun tan lotion anyway!




That didn’t remotely answer the question. Would it be considered alive?

that is one question that is up to you. My point is nature does not require a division life and inanimate matter into classes; that is what mankind does.

i say the core 'progression' of natures energy (light) is to continue

eg..... take a flat pond, tap the surface; see the wave moving thru time.

some might say, 'well the pond will equilibriate once the wave has passed" but they fail to realize the energy from that imposition is still moving. We may not see it but it is still entangling more mass over time. So the wave may seem smaller or even gone but reality is the wave has affects on more mass based on the ONE tap.

notice the eye opener by simply increasing the observational parameters!


i noticed you still don't see 'life' itself as having an innert 'duty'.......
(a reversal of current understanding)

Originally Posted by Bishadi
typical ad hominen; from the strangersfrom a strange land; the land of BS and ignorance

why not just answer the questions versus trying to pin me down?


that is why you are so frustrated

perhaps be humbled to learn

perhaps try articulating your inquiry


but only a fool would fight truth and expect to win! Typical fallacious accusation of ad hominem
& more absurd assine assumptions & unjustified unsupported unprovoked insults.


i offered suggestions to learn and perhapss articulate your questions

it is not me who has a name 'stranger in a strange la' (land).......... (your handle points out your ignorance in your own self-perpetuating namesake)

you are lost and know it but too prideful to use your head instead of your emotions of defence

Why not just focus on the thread and its title rather than my good looks. :shrug:

God is a word; describing nature!

No, it isn't. YOU have decided it is, you alone.


grow up and deal with it

Said the pot to the kettle.


like i said, i believe you talking to the wrong guy!

Or, I'm talking with a guy with wrong definitions.


i am pointing out that God is nature itself, i did not ask for proof; as common sense will allow you to understand what i am stating, if you had enough material knowledge to understand it

There is no common sense in your claim, whatsoever. Knowledge and understanding would disagree with you.



not me; as both physicist and theologist don't like me

both have their paradigm and i can prove both wrong!

You've failed so far, when are you going to get started?


God is nature itself

Nope. Failed again.

No, it isn't. YOU have decided it is, you alone. Only one has the NAME. (the math to describe the process between the trinity; mass, energy, time (key transition)


Or, I'm talking with a guy with wrong definitions. or perhaps someone making NEW ONES. (creating knowledge from the previous input; evolving)

newton, darwin even jesus and confucious did the same thing; they contributed

i see the 'duty' of life and can define it

you just hot for my good looks and can't stand it

(my wife says, most of what i say is common sense and my attitude puts people off, because the people may be just sitting back and actually realize; 'why didn't I think of that')




There is no common sense in your claim, whatsoever. Knowledge and understanding would disagree with you. Ptolemy put math to paper sharing how the roaming bodies criss-crossed the nite-sky (planets) and that was the sound judgment of the majority of the time. (all scientific like)

then a few like copernicus, galileo, newton came into reasoning the previous knowledge and found, the old school were idiots

kind of like what i say

(notice it is oooosually single folks who reach the next plateau?)



You've failed so far, when are you going to get started? because to folk like you, your mind is caste in clay and do not have enough integrity or education to comprehend what is being said.

if you had the integrity you would do the homework

if you have the depth of knowledge, you would capable to articulate questions relevent to even an opening post

we all know the duty to life, but you too stubborn to be honest




Nope. Failed again.

and why you will know who i am; 'when the young begin to teach the old'

or perhaps someone making NEW ONES. (creating knowledge from the previous input; evolving)

Who are you to decide to redefine definitions? On what authority?


newton, darwin even jesus and confucious did the same thing; they contributed

They did not redefine definitions. Jesus was a myth.


then a few like copernicus, galileo, newton came into reasoning the previous knowledge and found, the old school were idiots

kind of like what i say

You are clearly not in the same league, by any stretch of the imagination.



because to folk like you, your mind is caste in clay and do not have enough integrity or education to comprehend what is being said.

if you had the integrity you would do the homework

if you have the depth of knowledge, you would capable to articulate questions relevent to even an opening post

we all know the duty to life, but you too stubborn to be honest

If you knew what you were talking about, you might have a point.

Who are you to decide to redefine definitions? On what authority?

what authority do you have to question me?

i ground what i do/say to the last word (the math)

may seem esoteric but from newton, einstein, feynman and the majority in between, i have read and comprehend their work (most all of it)

and since combining knowledge is how knowledge evolves


now "gravity" can be defined rather than believed




They did not redefine definitions. Jesus was a myth. you can't prove that but we can observe stories of confucius kirshna buddha and even moses and thoth.........

i never said, they the last word; but the stories shaped the worlds populations and to be better educated, then it is good to be aware. Almost like reading the Hobbit (lord of the rings triology)......... lots of stories to convey honor, courage, wisdom and perseverance............ but none of the theologies can show you how the human brain works

nor what 'life' is except metaphorically (the light)




You are clearly not in the same league, by any stretch of the imagination.

it is hard to use their names too, as i Love what they each contributed to the 'book of life' (the evolution of knowledge; pinnacle is like an owners manual)

me just the idiot to bring them all together

i wonder if that is why i was born 6/66



If you knew what you were talking about, you might have a point.


something told me, to use the word 'integrity' would throw you off....

im sorry.............. it means, if you had any character, you would check the material before opening your trap

same with 'life'............ if you comprehended what life truly is, you would not be arguing with me; that i can assure you!

instead you would be responsible for every action you impose

as well, you would be pursuing the truth at all times because you care for the future over your own self.


you a Q ................ and to u, that is all you do is focus on u

(stinks like PU)

what authority do you have to question me?

The authority of your silly claims.


i ground what i do/say to the last word (the math)

may seem esoteric but from newton, einstein, feynman and the majority in between, i have read and comprehend their work (most all of it)

You are lying.



it means, if you had any character, you would check the material before opening your trap

If you had any brains...


you a Q ................ and to u, that is all you do is focus on u

(stinks like PU)

Give us a shout when you leave the kindergarten playground.

Time to close this thread. There appears to be no new useful content.