romansh

I like John Bell too. But I do think his point is valid (and not so much about the right to be arbiters). My individual collection of atoms has the same right to arbitrate the universe (in the Bell's sense) as a 86 kg pile of dirt in my backyard ... or yours for that matter.

Oh one is correct ... where do you think atonement comes from?

Here is a quote from the late John Bell. Some say he would have won a Nobel if it were not for his premature death Sometimes I find the New Agey interpretations as weird.

Steve I get where Burl is coming from too. I spent fifty years of my life believing this dualism/illusion to be true. If one believes cause and effect to be true or at least a sensible proposition, then a form of oneness is a logical conclusion if not the logical conclusion. Now I personally don't buy into this kumbaya oneness either ... nor I do believe God is love etc. Having said that I am not sure who has bought into this lovey-dovey divinity ... but I have not certainly proposed this. Despite Burl's protestations.

I can wait Thormas ... but bear in mind I think ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are valid points of view. Also notice that wiki has its own page on the problem of religious language.

I think ... the individual-Burl has pulled off a massive bait and switch here. We are trying to juxtapose the idea that an [intrinsic] self is an illusion with distinct individuals exist as somehow mutually exclusive. Well this [individual] fish got off the hook and is one with the ocean.

Did you read the essay?

I have no problem distinguishing individuals ... but I do understand that the boundary I use to distinguish that individual in one sense is arbitrary. I might use the skin and hair as that boundary. But I will ignore the person's education, experiences, environment, evolution etc. I will ignore the causative factors that go into that distinct individual.

Personally I am more aligned with complete arbitrary individual distinction.

What is this God/Being? What is this more? What is Present? Is there something more than the cosmos?

Two questions immediately arise: 1) How do you know this is not some atheist dogma? 2) How did you as an entirely separate individual divine this bit of knowledge?

You know this how Burl?

Try John 10:30 ..

On the old Joseph Campbell forum the definition of transcendent that was commonly used was ... beyond all categories of thought. What is yours? But if what you mean is beyond all categories of thought then ... it does become a little meaningless, does it not.

I posted this essay before it did not get any traction. Am I conscious now? It was obtained by deep meditation and introspection ... so it must be right ...

I am afraid I increasingly find transcend is one of those none words. It means different things to different people. It is like emergent that scientists use. The're various flavours of monism ... Mine is quite simple ... all is connected through cause and effect despite Burl's protestations. I understood "Who's on first", the above paragraph I did not. Personally I don't feel this oneness. Just logically if cause and effect are true it must be that way. I feel like an individual (so I have some sympathy for Burl's belief) but I am old enough to recognize at least some of the influences in my illusory life. I also recognize there are many influences that are totally subliminal. Also I understand well enough that the underlying chemistry that constitutes "I" is really not controlled per se. Again I don't have a clue what you mean by transcends ... the universe is unfolding. Man is of the environment. Evolution will continue [we will no longer be homo sapiens] . The Sun will expire. In the mean time enjoy the ride.

We end up playing a tortuous philosophical and semantic game here Burl. What is awareness? Does awareness require sentience? Oh we are patterns ... you and I keep repeating ourselves (for example). Life is what it seems for you? Fair enough. but if you do a little bit of research ... especially on xenobiology and what astronomers might want to look the definitions become a little tenuous. Wiki definition is also interesting. The second paragraph begins with ...The definition of life is controversial. That you think of yourself as entirely separate, beggars belief ... at least mine.

Simply and it is simple ... yes Other than man and "her" environment are "one" ... I come and go from the environment. The eddy is continually sucking in carbohydrates, proteins and excreting stuff degraded in terms of "useful" energy. Am I more ... is a an eddy more than the water that is comprised off? It is a pattern of energy continually changing and eventually it will be subsumed by the environment. As I will be. Is this what you mean by more? Individuals will come and go and eventually not come ... at least not as we experience them. There are things my mum knew that I will never know. But we do have the accumulated learnings of mankind. But this is just another pattern made up of other patterns. Like Carl Sagan said ... we are a way for the cosmos to know itself. We are of the cosmos. At least I am ... you and Burl will no doubt decide for yourselves. The universe is winding down. Our Sun is, at least temporarily, allowing us the illusion that it is not ... at least here on Earth. Tariki might approve ... The metaphor of Indra's net https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net

Actually romansh is my internet persona ... It is a combinations of a typo my middle name and my last initial. The typo ... lower case r was a fortuitous accident ... My middle name Romans ... (pronounced closer to romance) never worked with the girls though ... Romans is my middle name. rom or Rom works fine.

Thormas ... we are only separate in that we are by and large completely unaware of our connection to our environment. Perhaps you can explain to me how I am independent ... of the food I eat, education, experiences, evolution, genetics ... you name it. While an individual is a useful approximation or short hand for a pattern of energy/matter ... that is all it is. Perfectly adiabatic containers are useful metaphor for learning physics and chemistry ... Human beings are not them ... what goes into one comes out in some form another. We might be magical ... but we are not magic.

I suggest you go reread my posts Burl ... that way you may have some idea what I am driving at. As far as I can tell .. I have not argued on way or the other about uniqueness; I have not used the word unique ... other than quoting someone else. But to address your point ... I think we can be seen as unique patterns/(eddies) We can be treated as individuals ... but you continue to avoid my central point ... as individuals we are not independent of the environment. there is not one piece of me that is not a function of cause and effect. (Joseph sees it slightly differently). Now if you can point to something in your sentience that is not a response to cause and effect now is the time to speak up.

Don't know ... but then again your does the number fingers have no effect on the environment? try entering into the discourse Burl ... you may have an effect.

So your supposed sentience makes you independent? No the world does argue against it. Our lack of (or at least very incomplete sentience) just reinforces it.

Burl ... you are like the eddy that thinks it is independent of the water it finds itself.

Hi Thormas (aka Thomas ) Hope Father Christmas was kind too you and you left him a glass of milk and some cookies (biscuits) for those on the other side of the pond. While I will let those on this site argue as to what their faith is or is not ... my majority statement still stands. As to your apocryphal "a person of faith" that person is whatever you imagine that being to be. Not terribly helpful in discussions, but there we go, As to illusion ... that Lisa believes this universe is real (as I do) does not mean she believes it is not illusory. I still sense some confounding in the discussion. I must admit I like Joseph Campbell's quote: To me this describes in a religious way what science (for me) describes as reality. Monism rules ...