It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Spiritual Reorientation 7: We are not connected

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I do believe that we are all connected. I think THAT is the spiritual truth of the matter. We are all the same, and we all come from the same matter, the same creator. We only think we are separate from each other and from God. That is the illusion.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Please discuss the Topic and not Each Other.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Shortly before Whitney Houstons death was announced, my wife experienced a crisis apparition of Whitney. Thus she knew that Whitney had died before the public knew.

When my wife was a kid she met Whitney and the connection inside us all was strengthened between them, through an act of loving compassion that Whitney did for my wife and her crippled mom at a concert.

That connection between them lay dormant in my wife for years, until Whitney had to say goodbye. Then it burst through from the unconscious mind to the conscious mind in a flash of non-local awareness.

Over the years, my wife and I have experienced again and again a connection to each other that transcends local awareness. It hasn't made our marriage perfect but it has made it magical.

You will never convince people like us that "we are not connected". It's not religion or science that makes me and others like me so resistant to your eloquence, even though they both point to our connection. It's years and years of astounding and veridical psychic experiences.

Such experiences have informed "superficial spiritual systems" throughout the ages. It's not plagiarism or wishful thinking or poor logic that accounts for the uncanny unity of mystical traditions. It's shared experiences such as that. Experiences of non-local awareness of each other, non-local unconditional love. Such experiences can be the most important moments in a persons life.

I hope that someday you find a love that reaches deep inside you and brings your connection to us exploding to the surface, where you can't deny it and your eloquence can't make it go away.


edit on 969Thursday000000America/ChicagoJun000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: earthblaze
I am also intrigued as to why you feel the need to annotate the brief sections in your writings and that they always amount to 4


Apologies. I meant number not annotate. One of the symptoms of my illness is words sometimes come out wrong, both vocally and written/typed. I tried to edit but there is a 4 hour limit.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Atleast this view I have brings people together, dare I say connects us. Yours in the narrow view that cant even get through itself, your generic depressive cynical view drowns itself. I don't know if I should even try to explain to your closed mind. But ponder this: The Fibonacci and golden ratio, can be found in plants, humans and up to universal scale. You can break everything down to the same basic atoms and neutrinos. The Fibonacci sequence seems pretty simple to me: 1,1,2,3,5,7. Guess that's just reality being 'simple and childish' though



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Kashai


In order to claim that the non-existence of God is real it must be deduced.

To do that you would have to know everything.

It is illogical for you or me to think you know everything.

Therefore you have not deduced your apparent conclusion.

Any thoughts?


I have deduced my conclusion long ago.

First of all, I think God does exist. It is impossible to discuss the nature of nothing. When we discuss God, we are not discussing nothing. I also think that the “non-existence” of something is a contradiction. Something cannot both be a something and at the same time not exist, or in other words, a something cannot be a nothing. What we must discover is what it is exactly we are talking about when we use the term God.

Let’s deduce. The english word “God” is a word that has been applied by theologians to all ideas of a monotheistic creator and supreme being, as found in various religious cannons. Zues is God, Allah is God, Yahweh is God, the trinity is God etc. etc. etc. The concept of God does exist, as does the concept of “democracy”, or “freedom”, and has simply been used haphazardly by westerners as an umbrella term to connote the general idea of a supreme being. This is what people talk about when they talk about God, and what they refer to is the only God they have ever “known”, and “loved” and believed in—that is, the words, art and scripture of the religions and their bibles.

What have you deduced?


When you speak of religion you seem to be referring to what is offered in general to the masses?

Western concepts of religion are not all the concepts and when it comes to relating to the Judea-Christian. As with all systems of belief, one must immerse oneself in the tradition/perspective as related by those who are entrusted with ancient knowledge that is not common knowledge.

Deducing the noun "God" or even relating to God as we do does not define God. A better analogy to the existence of God in respect to reality (as well as relating to reality in and of itself). Is in relation to the thought experiment of the Four Blind men trying to describe an Elephant, by approaching the animal from four different sides.

To deduce a thing one must know everything about it. Understand all its nuances and with access to all the data about the thing and the required background to understand that data in a fact based way. In example I can deduce that Aspirin treats headaches in people. This is because pretty much everyone on the planet has access to aspirin.

Science can not be used to present that God cannot exist however scientists have related the conclusion. That understanding a system of belief, by immersing themselves in that system has a profound effect upon that person.

Scientist have made apparent that in relation to what we today comprehend in general about reality. Our capacity to perceive reality in relation to the common senses constitutes about 3% of what is really out their.

Logic in my humble opinion dictates that before we can decide something we must first understand it, in its entirety.






edit on 5-6-2014 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Well done everyone. Your words here crystallized to be read for years to come, and is the result of you and your art. One day you might return to see what of yourself you've left behind. Stand by your handiwork proudly.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Lol... a perfect response to a thread full of redactions.

It looks like the legacy left will be... nothing!


I guess that is Norse spirituality.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

This is deduction:


God is a word, (true)
Words are written and spoken by man (true)
Therefor, God is a word written and spoken by man. (true)

If the argument is valid and and the premises are sound, the conclusion is necessarily true. Deduction does not involve us knowing everything about something, it involves following true premises to true conclusions.

Here's the Christian version:

God is a supreme being, (unknown, therefor, unsound)
A supreme being created the Earth, (unknown, therefor, unsound)
Therefore, God created the Earth. (false)

Neither of the premises can be proven true, and therefore, the conclusion is impossible to deduce and is therefor false. The logic, though valid, is not sound.

Physics practices mostly induction, which brings about a whole slew of problems in regards to truth and certainty (see Hume, Popper). Induction is a major hurdle for science.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism


You have to be more careful- the terms you are using here have very strict definitions in formal logic, and you are using them outside those definitions.

It is worth noting that logical "soundness" as you are referencing here only applies to arguments (namely those of a valid logical form, and with true premises), not premises, which are either true, false, or unknown (unknown is a placeholder, because ultimately the premise is true or false). The last bit is very important- premises are true or false regardless of whether they are known as such. Unknown premises do not default to being false.

Therefore, with your "Christian version" argument form, aside from the point that the logical form is invalid (God being a supreme being doesn't necessitate that God is the supreme being that created the earth, if you do not disprove the possibility of there being more than one supreme being, therefore the premises don't force the conclusion to be true in all possible situations).

The refutation should read, "Because the argument form is invalid, it is unsound" (again, worth noting that if it was a valid form, the soundness of the argument would not be known, because the truth of the premises is not yet known).

Your statement about induction though is on the money (outside of mathematical induction, which is actually a kind of deduction by exclusion).



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: joeraynor


You have to be more careful- the terms you are using here have very strict definitions in formal logic, and you are using them outside those definitions.

It is worth noting that logical "soundness" as you are referencing here only applies to arguments (namely those of a valid logical form, and with true premises), not premises, which are either true, false, or unknown (unknown is a placeholder, because ultimately the premise is true or false). The last bit is very important- premises are true or false regardless of whether they are known as such. Unknown premises do not default to being false.

Therefore, with your "Christian version" argument form, aside from the point that the logical form is invalid (God being a supreme being doesn't necessitate that God is the supreme being that created the earth, if you do not disprove the possibility of there being more than one supreme being, therefore the premises don't force the conclusion to be true in all possible situations).

The refutation should read, "Because the argument form is invalid, it is unsound" (again, worth noting that if it was a valid form, the soundness of the argument would not be known, because the truth of the premises is not yet known).

Your statement about induction though is on the money (outside of mathematical induction, which is actually a kind of deduction by exclusion).


Thank you for the correction. You’re right.

An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true. All invalid arguments are unsound. Though some valid arguments are unsound. Although whether an argument is sound or not hinges on the veracity of the premises, it isn’t the premises themselves that are sound, but the entire argument. Does that sound correct?

You’re also right about the christian argument as well. I suppose I wrote it wrong. “A” supreme being is different than “the” supreme being. I left room for other supreme beings. Better logic would have been: God is the supreme being. The supreme being created the earth. Therefore, God created the earth.

My formal logic is quite stale. I speak four languages, but symbolic logic is a language I’ve never been willing to learn with any interest. So, tell me if I’ve got this right. A deductive conclusion is neither true nor false if the premises are unknown, because the “unknownness” (for lack of a better term) of the premise, follows necessarily to the conclusion, just as truth or falsity would. So though an argument with unknown premises may be completely valid in its logical form, it would be unsound because the truth value of the premises are unknown, and thus the conclusion is unknown?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: P-M-H




Atleast this view I have brings people together, dare I say connects us. Yours in the narrow view that cant even get through itself, your generic depressive cynical view drowns itself. I don't know if I should even try to explain to your closed mind. But ponder this: The Fibonacci and golden ratio, can be found in plants, humans and up to universal scale. You can break everything down to the same basic atoms and neutrinos. The Fibonacci sequence seems pretty simple to me: 1,1,2,3,5,7. Guess that's just reality being 'simple and childish' though


We do not find math in nature. We look at nature, and invent the math from what we see. Ratios and sequences are abstract and in the mind and in the discourse. All math is. You could look for thousands of years and never find one single number in anywhere else but human discourse.

Your view brings people together under a banner of ignorance. If you are proud of that "connection", and it makes you happy, who am I to say otherwise?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism




An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true. All invalid arguments are unsound. Though some valid arguments are unsound. Although whether an argument is sound or not hinges on the veracity of the premises, it isn’t the premises themselves that are sound, but the entire argument. Does that sound correct?


Yes, that looks right to me.




You’re also right about the christian argument as well. I suppose I wrote it wrong. “A” supreme being is different than “the” supreme being. I left room for other supreme beings. Better logic would have been: God is the supreme being. The supreme being created the earth. Therefore, God created the earth.


I suppose this point stuck out to me because I know from studying Parmenides and some medieval Scholastics / Gnostics, there are a few curious examples where a reasoner tries to work out what a universe with two or more supreme beings would be like... sometimes it is suggested that a precondition of omnipotence is omni-benevolence for some reason, and that the multiple supremes wouldn't be a logical threat to one another's omnipotence because they would be in total agreement about everything. Seems like an odd mental game to play, but then you throw in doctrines like the literal trinitarians hold, and you end up needing arguments like that to bail you out.




So, tell me if I’ve got this right. A deductive conclusion is neither true nor false if the premises are unknown, because the “unknownness” (for lack of a better term) of the premise, follows necessarily to the conclusion, just as truth or falsity would. So though an argument with unknown premises may be completely valid in its logical form, it would be unsound because the truth value of the premises are unknown, and thus the conclusion is unknown?


I took formal logic from a Torah mystic. Seems like an odd combination of traits for that person to hold, but it makes sense in a way; my understanding of formal logic prior to then was that it was a mechanical system that produced direct and incontrevertible results; what I found was endless shades of gray and layers of mysticism, that stemmed from how you declare fringe cases like these to be arbitrated. "Little things matter later", as they say. Because you are writing the rules for how you determine what is ultimately true or not, you don't have room for any small error. But then... even to this day there are still disagreements about some of those little things, and when you are reasoning on a professional level, you need to declare what system of logical axioms you are using.

To put that more concretely, take a curious phrase like, "The number three exists". Is that true or false would you say? How you determine that will determine a lot about the logical system you are developing around it. For instance, you might say that "all nonsense phrases are defined to be false"... but then why? Why can't they be neither true nor false? Well, you have the "law of the excluded middle" that most systems like to rely on, stating that a premise is either true or false, and not both, and not neither, that gets you out of a lot of logical binds. Now you are stuck choosing between keeping the law of the excluded middle, or keeping your non-commitment to assign truth values in borderline cases. You can see how this stuff builds up fast. If you want to enter the big leagues... how about the phrase "all dragons are female". In this universe, would you say that is true or false? Some logicians assume as an axiom that in order to be false, a premise requires a counter example. But then we have no male dragons to help us out... does that make it a true statement? Someone else would suggest that true statements like those require one affirmative example... you can see how committing to one of those axioms has consequences later.

Getting to your question, I think this is one of those gray areas. I am one of those law of excluded middle guys, so therefore to me the systems I favor don't allow the assignment of unknown as a truth value (that doesn't mean that I or others can't not know something, just that we can't use it as a value to produce results with in our logical systems). Now being unsound generally requires as you have correctly pointed out one of two conditions, either an invalid argument form, or a false premise. It is important here to notice that because you are allowing a third truth value, namely "unknown" into your reasoning, in your system, not being true doesn't force a premise to be false as it would in most other systems. I reason this out to mean that having an unknown premise but a valid argument form means the argument is not unsound, but rather of unknown soundness.

But that follows from the axioms one assumes. The systems that I generally have encountered though would not declare the unknown false (I think the reason for that doesn't require an example, I think you can see how fast that would get out of hand)- I think that is the root of this issue.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Deduction:

1.All men are mortal. (premise)
2.Socrates was a man. (premise)
3.Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)

Induction:

1.Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2.Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3.Socrates ate fish. (conclusion

Socrates could have been allergic to Fish.


Fibonacci sequence is often related to as a Law of Nature.



In the late 12th century, Leonardo Fibonacci encountered the Hindu-Arabic numeral system and introduced it to Europe. In doing so, he discovered a sequence of numbers that occurs so frequently in nature that it is often referred to as a "law of nature.” We know it today as the Fibonacci Sequence.


Source

Further

edit on 6-6-2014 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Math as numbers and the arithmetic system you learn in school was invented by human minds, but why? Because being a part of everything makes us want to quantify into understandable parts. It basically breaks down into information, and information is in everything, everywhere. Laws of information science say information cant just spring up from nothing, there has to be a spark or placement of it. Now we use numbers to learn this and other things, but the root of it is more primal than 'numbers' The Milky way galaxy, older than anything on earth, (I hope we can both agree on this atleast) and yet it has the same formula that formed the milky way is in sunflowers, nautilus shells and more of nature, there is something that influences these things that transcends numbers and even our human understanding. Meaning that it can never be truly understood from the physical perspective. But disregarding it is like shredding all the work that has been put in to get to this point, sure you can say we arent connected, but how do you really prove that differently then I prove we are. All we really share here is our own aphorisms..... We can't force eachothers view on another, but we can consider them. I just don't see how you can look at the whole of reality and say like such that we aren't connected from some level.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join