Nightingale-White Darkness Lyrical waste

[Naglfar]

I think you're overestimating the application of philosophical principles to the everyday person. I think that's where we're differing. You consider philosophy sort of an essential language to talk about metaphysics, but as I suggested, most people do not generate their beliefs based on studied, well-thought out principles. It's not the same talking about, say, the universe and conversing about principles of thermodynamics. Maybe to you it seems so, but ideas are a bit... well, they're fluffier than that. Common guy can't really argue with a physicist about the particulars of how the universe works. But metaphysics is a different story... common guy is not very well versed in logic (or has none himself), but he's going to speak a different language than you about god, divinity, etc. That's why most people flipped out on gar; he talks about these things like an evangelical christian.

In fact, if you dig into what Ilan is talking about, you might find there ARE intelligible fundamentals to his logic. He may be drawing heavily from science fiction, popular assumptions about quantum physics... these may be repulsive to you, at least in how he applies them, but nonetheless they are there.

I'm just saying... because he speaks a different language than you, one that allows him to repeatedly to modify his beliefs and justify the particulars when he pleases, doesn't mean that his beliefs are illogical. Trust me, I just spent the last two months shoving history books on Russia and Eastern Europe in my head, and Marxists have been doing the same thing for about 150 years. There's always either core values, or interests, why people leave their beliefs so fuzzy, like Ilan, and even Gar does.

It should still be interesting to you to find that out! Ilan's not trying to be difficult, it's just, well, if his imagination tells him something is unexplainable, instead of getting annoyed with him, you should ask yourself: why?

 

[Kenneth R.]

Ah, I should have definied metaphysics. I am not talking about "beyond physics" as in that which is not physical, essentially spiritual matters. No, by metaphysics I was using the classical definition - a category pertaining to questions of "what is there? or what exists?" As the questions of the existence of God, karma, free will, or determined futures are.

Yes, I realize that logic cannot explain everything. That is why we require faith to believe in things. However, blind faith (as I believe this to be a case of) is not rational. I want to hear those intelligible fundamentals because I agree with you that they exist, but he has not mentioned them yet.

I just cannot fathom why someone would consciously allow their 'religion' to be something so permeable as that it can morph to anything, even to juxtaposition! That says to me that the belief is not grounded on anything, and if it contradicts itself, isn't there a problem with that?

 

[paradoxile]

the existance of free will is comfortable because it makes people think they are in control of their destinies and sets puprpose in people's life instead of feeling helpless.
the illusion of this is needed for the progress of everything.
and like I said earlier within this thread...all you said applies and proven and whatever within a single trajectory.
Determinists believe there's one single trajectory in which free will is indeed not contradicted and yes if there's free will then there's responsibility then all you said is indeed correct.
I've passed through this thread and yeah i guess i can see why i confused you with the whole incorrect use of the determinism thing.

so let's make it a lot clearer now
Determinists believe in a single trajecorty existance
nondeterminists believe in multiple trajectories when you have the option to choose one trajectory through choices of free will.

I take neither approach(or perhaps both combined, depends on how you look at it)
my approach let's call it Ilanism states like nondeterminism the existance of multiple trajectories but unlike nondeterminism also states their coexistance in which all trajectories are active instead of just one.now if all trajectories are active, then each one on its own can be seen through the deterministic approach.

now while determinism and nondeterminism can support free will...Ilansimm cannot as all trajectories coexist youare bound to the choices of your trajectory just as all your parellel selves are bound to theirs...so if you're bound to the choices then where's the free will exactly?Though within your own trajectory it may seem to you as you are free to make your choice
and this is what I mean when I'm talking about the illusion of free will.

now we go back to the whole no free will-> no responsibility-> no Karma
within a single trajectory free will exists(even if it's an illusion) therefore responsibility and karma exist too(as illusions also obviously)
in the wide universe(of all trajectories) ballance must be maintained...it's not karma because as I showed earlier in the post Karma cannot exist without responsibility, yet laws of action and reaction demand there will be ballance in the wide universe between trajectories.this ballance binds the choices and the choices branch out...the ballance by binding choices also denies randomality since in order to have a proper ballance between trajectories, everything must be controlled by the ballance and if everything is controlled then nothing's random.

now to the big point. Determinism and nondeterminism are approaches, you can neither prove nor disprove them...you can argue for and against each approach by bringing arguments that support or deny a certain approach logically but you can't prove or disprove anything.
same with Ilanism.

 

[paradoxile]

@Naglfar:I realize that it may seem as I'm changing my beliefs constantly thoughout this thread but that in fact is not the case.
It's more of a trying to explain something without finding the right words to convey the full meaning of the messege, when you covey the messege partially or incorrectly, you're bound to get that sort of reaction from Ken.

 

[Kenneth R.]

So you support parallel worlds then, in theory. You believe in a multitude of universes, each branching from one choice or another that makes them seperate from the others. That I can credit, scientifically, although I don't agree with it. How then do you account for the meaningfulness of choice as necessary with the ideal of karma?

 

[paradoxile]

well as I said, the meaningfullness of choice is within it's being a neccessary building block of multiple universes(as you call it).
as for the Karma thing, I've been trying to talk about the ballance itself when I mistakingly tried to redefined it as Karma without free will.
I do believe in Karma (even though it's an illusion) within a single trajectory simply because it's a manifestation of the law of action and reaction just like the ballance in the wide universe.
the whole meaningfullness is perhaps within the illusion-ness(can i say it like that?) of all it all...Even though I deny free will(and not the illusion of it), the resposibility still feels real and it's paves the way to Karma.
since we do all feel as we're living in a single trajectory (we physically can't experience two choices at the same time because two universes can meet only in one point which is the singular choice from each they both originate).

so now that we're on the same page...the field I've been talking about is what binds everything together. if properly using your brain(technique is a bit tricky) you can access any info in existance, be that the present, the past, the future of this or any other trajectory including knowing in advance the color of dag's almighty undies in the making of WD.
remember me telling about visiting a trajectory where I was born a girl(one of the trajectories anyway) so in this reality i looked "my husband's" name in the phonebook found several but the freaky part is that one of them lives in the same adress of our first appartment together.I remember from there in detail names and faces and adresses of people I've never met, places I've never actually been to...It's a bit too much to imagine.I can call him up and ask to meet him but that's time and money consuming, but I bet that if i do meet him, he'd have the same face that I saw there.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Alright, so how do you know that these experiences aren't your imagination?

 

[Naglfar]

@Naglfar:I realize that it may seem as I'm changing my beliefs constantly thoughout this thread but that in fact is not the case.
It's more of a trying to explain something without finding the right words to convey the full meaning of the messege, when you covey the messege partially or incorrectly, you're bound to get that sort of reaction from Ken.

There's nothing wrong with changing your beliefs constantly, we all do it subconsciously. I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I don't wonder if some asshole is out to get me when my 4th set of headphones breaks in less than a 3 month span. =)

 

[Kenneth R.]

Sure, I agree. Changes in beliefs because of reasonable provocation are natural. It's the random change that makes me suspect, and those who remain the same despite contrary evidence.

 

[paradoxile]

Alright, so how do you know that these experiences aren't your imagination?

just the fact that I found the guy from my experience living in this world ione of the adresses I used to live with him in the universe where I'm the hottest chick ever(I really am...looked at myself in the shower and I would totally do me )...is good enough of an evidence for me.

or maybe you're asking how can i differ a regular thought or imaginiation from let's say a vision or some sort of experience like telepathy.

well it took me several years to recognize what's a vision and what's a regular thought...basicly a vision is a thought that comes to my head without a connection to anything of i've experienced lately...i thought at first it was just my unconscious mind finishing to process stuff but I was having like 3 deja vus every day...too much to be a coincidence. i started logging stuff up to try to find a pattern and I didn't except the fact that all the visions came true.I used to call it my special radio and tv power because I envisioned scenes from a films that i didn't see for years or a song on the radio from the 80's that i haven't heard for years...it wasn't like "I'm feeling there's going to be a britney spears song today on the radio" cause you don't need to be psychic to know that the radio runs a britney song for 10 times a day.

the telepathy and "universe scouting" are voluntary.for telepathy i close my eyes empty my thoughts and transmit or recieve from a transmitting person.later i check by talking to that person to see if everything recieved is exactly as it's transmitted...I still need to work on the telepathy cause my reception is good but whenever I transmit, the messege gets distorted a bit
like i'm tried to send a card and two numbers 0-10 and 11-20. I sent 3 of hearts 5 and 17...the messege recieved was 3 of diamonds 7 and 15.
you can see it's close but it's not exactly the messege.
the whole universe scouting is done under deep meditation just like looking at past lives...only with past lives i get flashbacks sometimes when i'm not meditating.
It's all a matter of practicing these things enough.
after I'm done with university I'll go do a theta healers course so I can fill in about the stuff i'm missing...then I'm really going to be spooky

 

[paradoxile]

There's nothing wrong with changing your beliefs constantly, we all do it subconsciously. I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I don't wonder if some asshole is out to get me when my 4th set of headphones breaks in less than a 3 month span. =)

I am changing my beliefs ...it allows me to evolve
I'm just saying that from the beginning of the thread my beliefs have remained the same...that's all.

if you look at gar's old thread "dan do you question existance" or something like that you'd see I've written some things that are different in their core from what I'm saying now.

@Ken:in general I agree with you...both about those people that stick to their faith despite contradicting evidence, and both about change in beliefs after provocation...you learn stuff from yourself and from other people so it's natural that you're faith will progress somewhere.
The "random" change indicates mostly people that are lost...trying to find themselves and don't quite have the tools...but over time you'd see a change in a speciffic direction and not something that would appear random.
and well I already said I deny randomality...aspecially in a thought process.
everything has a reason so those changes can't be random...they just appear random because you can't see the pattern.

 

[Kenneth R.]

What if randomness has patterns? It sounds like a paradox, but think: Suppose there is a random sequence, and I spot patterns in it - because I'm looking for them, yet it truly is a random sequence and that there is a pattern is simply coincidence - a product of its randomness? You see what I'm saying?

There is an old adage that I think is very true - You see what you want to see, or in other words, We find what we are looking for because we look for it in everything we see, whether it is there or not.

 

[paradoxile]

What if randomness has patterns? It sounds like a paradox, but think: Suppose there is a random sequence, and I spot patterns in it - because I'm looking for them, yet it truly is a random sequence and that there is a pattern is simply coincidence - a product of its randomness? You see what I'm saying?

There is an old adage that I think is very true - You see what you want to see, or in other words, We find what we are looking for because we look for it in everything we see, whether it is there or not.

well I had a course the previous sememster that's called "random signals and noise" which was dealing with this issue exactly within the field of signal processing...patterns within the random signal are recognized by use of the laws of probability( base theorem) and some speciffic algorithms based on certain forms of integration...but that's all very boring stuff.

I see completely what you're saying...seeing things that aren't there is human. But let's think one step forward in this...this pattern whether it is or isn't there in any case causes people to react as if it is there for certain
in a supposed universe where randomality exists off course.
now as for the rest of the random sequence(with that pattern excluded)...you regard it as a random sequence in every case...therefore you get the same result every time(people saying that it's random)...but that makes it not very random now does it.
in a way by labeling something as random you're turning it to meaningless.
and in the laws of action and reaction nothing is meaningless as everything affects something.
from here it's easy to see that regarding something as random and therefore meaningless is the pattern of randomality itself.

 

[FatefuL]

when i was like 16 years old a priest once lend me "Wildhoney" from Tiamat. Altought he's a priest he's a metalhead..

also Tom Araya from Slayer is a christian. .

so what ?

doesn't matter what you do belive .. but please..

// and I still belive in nothing //

 

[paradoxile]

off course...I'm the same metalhead I've always been
*growls manly*