Quote: Original post by Running_Wild
By "non-existence", do you mean death? ;)

You have to exist to be able to die, don't you? [smile]
By non-existence I mean nothing at all, not even a void, just nothing. No universe, no infinity, nothing.

Quote: Original post by Tape_Worm
I can't help but think there's more than mere coincidence to this pattern.

I certainly think that way as well. If you apply Occam's razor to the problem, I'd say it's more likely that some entity just made the universe, and that's that, instead of saying "there has been a long series of universes, with varying natural laws, and now we're just lucky to inhabit a universe which works as well as it does."

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by Running_Wild
By "non-existence", do you mean death? ;)

You have to exist to be able to die, don't you? [smile]
By non-existence I mean nothing at all, not even a void, just nothing. No universe, no infinity, nothing.

Ha! I was just messing around with you man. But yeah, I agree. I think the idea of the universe pre-big-band is interesting. Scientists need to get on that idea and start giving us some good theories...

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MSW
Scientology and Creationism are NOT related

Scientologists believe our bodies are infected with the ghosts of other belief systems called Thetans. And that through a process called 'auditing' a follower can remove these Thetans and achieve that status of 'clear'. Scientology is a religion founded by science fiction author L.Ron Hubbard.

Creationists believe the origin of the universe story found in the biblical book of Genesis is factualy true.

Well I think we can agree on the fact that those theories are, at best, very unlikely.

Why are there theories any more unlikely than yours? They all have about the same amount of proof.

Quote: Original post by jColton
Why are there theories any more unlikely than yours? They all have about the same amount of proof.

We're talking about what happened before the universe came into existence, I don't think you'll find any definite proof for anything for this particular topic - it's philosophy. The fact that the Earth is older than 6000 years is easily proved, though. And for the Thetans, sure, believe in it if you want...

I know there isn't proof, I was just mentioning that you can't call someone else's idea unlikely when you have no way to back up your own.

That being said, my belief the universe doesn't have a creator but instead just balanced itself out has the same lack of proof.

(I do agree that the Scientologist idea is a bit crazy.)

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original Post by Oberon_Command
I sleep because my body tells me to sleep, not because I anticipate "waking up restored". It's instinctual. You're attributing abstract and human meaning to things that are just instinctual drives.

You choose to sleep because your brain desires you to. You can ignore this instinct.

At the cost of my sanity, yes. Not to mention that eventually I will fall asleep involuntarily at some point. One can only ignore an instinct for so long.

Quote:

Quote: Original Post by Oberon_Command
Look up the pleasure principle. I can't help but seek pleasure. My instincts demand that I do those things, and I obey. Note that this is a personification and not a declaration of sentience on the part of my subconscious, because my subconscious IS me and I am it.

You are not your brain.

I disagree.

Quote: Though, in extreme situations your brain is able to act completely on its own, without caring about any input from the consciousness. This explains the sensation people describe in a crisis situation where they "just perceive themselves acting without attempting it."

That is how I usually think, actually. When I'm playing, say Super Smash Bros, it's not my consciousness that is playing the game; there's usually no conscious thought involved. I generally play all games, converse, write, draw, etc. intuitively. Your explanation leaves no room for presence of intuitive thinkers.

But my intuition is still ME. The subconscious is not a separate entity from the conscious. That is a misconception a lot of people hold.

Quote:
A meaningful activity is whatever leads towards the fulfillment of the Creator's purpose for the universe.

That doesn't tell me anything at all. I don't know what this "Creator"'s purpose for the universe is. All you've done is pose more questions; not only what is the purpose, but why does the Creator have that purpose? What IS the Creator? Why is the Creator here? What Created the Creator?

See, my way is much simpler. You don't have to deal with questions like that, because there are no questions of that sort that are answerable.

Quote: It is. If moral has no meaning to it then why should I bother with it? I'm sure my reproductive success would be a lot greater if I had no morals.

Because morals are what our society appears to be based on, and your reproductive success would be DAMAGED if you had no "morals". It's hard to reproduce when you're in jail or dead, or socially ostracized. That aside, the morals themselves are entirely human constructs. If more people recognized this I think we could come up with a better set of rules and definitions of morality.

I think invention is the greatest human talent. We can create things that never existed before in the forms we give them. If sentient lifeforms in the universe have no higher being to bow down to, then we must do just this, create our own structure and morality so that we can all live together in peace. That is the purpose of morality, is it not? Enabling conflicting viewpoints to live together.

Quote:
To find my way back to the Creator in order to once again merge and become one with it, as a consequence of my actions carried out by my own free will. This is the Creator's purpose.

Ah, so you have a purpose defined. But how do you know what that purpose is? And why does the Creator have a purpose?

Quote: If you are nothing but a collection of particles, where from all actions and thoughts are just a result of natural chemical reactions, then sure: there is no meaning. The universe just is.

Precisely. And everything becomes much simpler and easier when you see things that way. Occam's Razor; the addition of a Creator to the picture seriously complicates things, moreso than science, which only describes what's there.

Quote: Here's something to consider, though:
I assume that you are like everyone else, which makes you enjoy/want pleasure.
Why shouldn't you maximize the amount of pleasure you receive from this short period of actually being conscious as a result of your brain? Why waste precious time you could spend in euphoria on doing mundane tasks, holding a job, or just generally being a nice person? It doesn't matter, does it, because all these things that you perceive as meaningful are just chemical reactions in your brain, which forms this perception of the world.

Doing those mundane tasks will maximize my euphoria and pleasure later. Look up the pleasure and reality principles.

Quote: So, why shouldn't you just ignore any moral obligations and just maximize the amount of pleasure you experience from your body?

Because the pleasure would not last very long. If I accept the way society works, my pleasure will last for longer.

Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command
Doing those mundane tasks will maximize my euphoria and pleasure later. Look up the pleasure and reality principles.

Quote: So, why shouldn't you just ignore any moral obligations and just maximize the amount of pleasure you experience from your body?

Because the pleasure would not last very long. If I accept the way society works, my pleasure will last for longer.

Are you sure? Let's make a simple equation, Pleasure = Intensity * Duration.
Your brain is probably capable of expressing a P value far greater than you'll ever experience just by ordinary life events. For the sake of simplicity let's say that every human's lifetime is exactly 100 years. During these 100 years, an average human would experience an I value of, say, 1. So, instead of experiencing a mundane P = 1 * 100, you could hook yourself up to your drug of choice intravenously along with essential nutrients for the maintenance of the human body, and experience a whopping P = 15 * 10. Going by the numbers alone, it's worth it. So, why not? You're just a meaningless collection of particles anyway. [smile]

Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command
Ah, so you have a purpose defined. But how do you know what that purpose is? And why does the Creator have a purpose?

Why shouldn't the Creator have a purpose?
I'm not making this up all by myself, though. It's from a philosophy called The Law of One, which basically states that everything is just one single entity. The philosophy calls this entity the one Infinite Creator. The whole thing spans five whole books (all five books are available for download as a .pdf, free of charge), so there's lots more detail to it than what I've presented here.

Here's a quote from the first few pages:

Quote:
Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define the infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

I'd be glad if someone could debunk this, but it seems that its integrity just strengthens as time goes on. For example, even though the material was manifested in the early 80's, it has successfully foreseen the climate changes, as well as the political/economical changes that we are now seeing.

[Edited by - polymorphed on March 10, 2009 9:09:22 AM]

Having read only a couple replies on page 1, I'll just add this quote from Wikipedia (it's not there anymore), it sums up how I feel about the issue.

Quote: "... Eventually a primitive cell was formed, and life continued to evolve by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection[citation needed]. Based on these or similar theories, some philosophers [attribution needed] say that because life was entirely coincidental, one cannot expect life to have any meaning at all, other than its own self-perpetuation - reproduction[citation needed]." -Wikipedia, "What is the origin of life?", July 21st, 2007

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Are you sure? Let's make a simple equation, Pleasure = Intensity * Duration.
Your brain is probably capable of expressing a P value far greater than you'll ever experience just by ordinary life events. For the sake of simplicity let's say that every human's lifetime is exactly 100 years. During these 100 years, an average human would experience an I value of, say, 1. So, instead of experiencing a mundane P = 1 * 100, you could hook yourself up to your drug of choice intravenously along with essential nutrients for the maintenance of the human body, and experience a whopping P = 15 * 10. Going by the numbers alone, it's worth it. So, why not? You're just a meaningless collection of particles anyway. [smile]

That is true, but only if you assume that every human's lifetime is exactly 100 years. In reality, this is not the case. Your assumption is invalid.

What I am saying (though my words seem to be falling on deaf ears) is that following the rules of your society (our morals) allows you to live longer, hence maximizing the duration of your pleasure. You don't seem to be listening to me, so I'll try to rephrase using a metaphor. Humans after all seem built to think in metaphors. [smile]

Consider the the old Aesop (?) fable about an ant and a grasshopper (?). The grasshopper pissed away the summer frolicking about doing pleasurable things, while the ant gathered food all through the summer. The grasshopper, being unprepared for the winter, died of starvation and cold. Meanwhile, the ant got to party (pleasure!) because it had enough food stored up to last it through the winter.

I do things that I do not consider pleasurable because I realize (or my instincts realize, whichever you prefer; in the case of animals it is evolved instinct) that if I put off pleasure now in favor of performing certain actions that are not pleasurable, I will get pleasure (or have the opportunity to feel pleasure) when those tasks are complete. I work so that I can play.

It is said that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All play and no work makes Jack a dead or dying boy. If all Jack does is play all day, he will be considered useless to society and unable to take care of himself. He will hence be undesirable for mating, and his genes will not be passed on to the next generation.

Hence, straight-out explicit pleasure seeking, devoid of anything else, is not something that will lead to an individual's survival.

Once again: I urge you to look up Freud's "Pleasure Principle" and "Reality Principles", because everything you are saying is answered/explained by those two conceptions.

this perfection is just that after such a long time, we are getting pretty close to the equilibrium of the markov chain our universe is