Since I believe that everyones perception, of how the universe is, is totally influence by their point of view. Perception can´t ever be objective since it occurs inside the subject, thus is part of the subject, and the subject is by definition subjective.
I have abandoned this discussion. I don´t need to proof to anyone the existence of a divine being. No matter what effect that will have in their wellbeing. After all it is not my responsibility. Everyone has to live with the consequences of the point of view they choose for themselves. I accept my, and that is all that is in my power.
I don´t defend anything, because any defense is an attack and I am trying to live in peace and harmony. I greet you all well.
CuanMarce you have a fundamental misunderstanding of entanglement. 'Anything' that one does to one entangled particle does not affect the other. Only very specific observations made such as 'spin' cause a similar decoherence in the partner particle. It is unjustified to use this phenomenon on its own in support of the 'connectedness of everything'.
CuanMarce2, like paulmarko said in point 1, I dont think you understand Entanglement, and are stretching what little science there is on the subject well beyond the breaking point with unfounded assumptions.
And not to mention, you still havn't validated any kind of proof for a god entity either, but that was expected.
1. Entanglement doesn't work for the nervus system analogy because not all particles are entangled as they would have to be to fit the analogy. If they were then we wouldn't be able to entangle particles.
2. The unified field theory collapses at the moment it influences ANY other particle. So it Only takes place on the quantum level, NOT the macro level as you suggest.
I'm talking *specifically* about rotation, which is not a function of a car. Saying rotation is a kind of movement isn't an answer. Breathing and seeing are both kinds of 'processing' but you can't replace lungs with eyes. Specifics are important. If you shift from my specific point to generalities, you're only arguing with yourself. And I never said your answers weren't timely, I said you witheld my answer to your question. It takes no time to show my answer. You still haven't done so.
CuanMarce2, the wheels of a car also spin and are made of rubber. It doesn't follow that the whole vehicle spins and is made of rubber. When I say "I'm thinking" that doesn't mean my whole body is thinking, even though 'I' am my whole body. You're shifting between different uses of words and using them interchangeably, resulting in flawed conclusions.
One part of me is thinking, my mind. So I am (my person is) thinking. I go from the part to the whole, not to the sum of the parts. A group is never just the sum of the parts, the función between the parts makes it always more. You have to add the synergy
By this logic, the following is also true then: One part of the matter in the solar system (my brain) is thinking, so the solar system is thinking. Your reasoning is invalid.
Try rewording it this way. One part of the matter in the solar system (my brain) is thinking, therefore that is thinking occurring in the solar system. My thinking is invalid if you say it's invalid. That is why I no longer present this as a proof but as a theory. You don't like it, fine. You see yourself as something different than the solar system, fine. I don´t see myself as separate. I guess is a matter of choice.
Cuanmarce2, that is exactly Opterigon's point! All you can say is that thinking is OCCURRING in the solar system/universe etc - not that the solar system/universe etc. is thinking. And again, you're telling people what they think and getting it wrong: Nowhere did Opterigon say he was separate from the solar system. Indeed, he said his brain was PART of the solar system's matter. You're arguing with things that haven't been said.
You are right; I am reading everything that you and Opterigon say from my perspective. Yes, I know that his words do not say he doesn't see himself as part of the Universe. I just read that in his words. I just think one thing implies the other, but I know that is my perspective. Thank you for pointing that out.
(1/2) Well, please ask me, CaunMarce2, before making inferences and statements about what I think and how I see myself, because, as with you did with TheraminTrees, you're getting it wrong. If you simply to stick people's words, without making personal assumptions, then I'll start to feel you're listening.
CuanMarce2, it's not a question of whether or not I like your logic. Your logic is simply flawed. However, I'm glad to see the more accurate statement that thinking is 'occurring' in the solar system. I hope you can see that the same is true for the universe. We can't state 'the universe has a mind' as fact, only that 'mental activity is occurring in the universe'.
So let´s see, the way you see it is that althoght thinking is occurring in the solar system, The solar system has no mind. So although you are part of the solar system you mind is not. Do I have it right now?
In some situations functions performed by the parts are functions of the whole. In some others, functions of the parts are not function of the whole. I suggest an analysis of when functions of parts extend to functions of the whole be conducted.
"Can you give me some example of those situations were fuctions of the parts are not functions of the whole?"
Although this was addressed to Terrefirmaterrafirma, I should say I'll be giving some examples of that in my final video response to this. All the best,
One comes to mind from topology. Define a topological space to be locally path connected if given any neighborhood in the space any two points in the neighborhood can be connected by a continuous path. If a space is locally path connected, then it is path connected. Here we have a local property that extends to a global property.
Yes, although I am no expert in topology, I think ,if I understand you well, that this is an example of how the functions performed by the parts are functions occurring in the whole, which is what I am stating. I was asking for just the opposite. Or perhaps I don't understand you well.
In algebra, there are myriad of examples of properties of mathematical structures that hold locally, but not globally. For example, in group theory a group may have the property that all its finite generated subgroups are free (ie have no relations), yet the whole group may fail to be free ( ie have relations in its presentation). See page 36 of Presentations of Groups, By D. L. Johnson, for an example.
CuanMarce2, I already gave an example of functions of parts that are not functions of the whole: the spinning wheel vs the spinning car. You ask me a question ("Do I have it right now?") but withold my answer. If you're just going to ignore comments when they're inconvenient to your assertions, that's your choice, but it makes talking with you seem like talking into a dead phone.
Yes Opterigon I remember your comment about the spinning wheels. However it doesn't do it for me. I see that a move of one kind translates into movement of another kind in going from the part to the whole. But it is still movement. And please forgive me, if you find it in your heart, that my answers are not timely. My other activities have priority in my life, and I try to fit my participation in a busy schedule.
Part 7- I am not interested in defending religion as I present a new concept of God. I am not religious. I understand that for many people religion serves a very important purpose. I do not think that God and religions are inseparable. I don´t think religion is bad. Everyone interprets the world differently and religion is no different.
Part 6- It's important to have holistic thoughts for the good of each and everyone involved in this experience. I generate peace inside of me and it follows its natural path to the outside in my expression. I offer these thought for those who want them. They are good for me and good for the world.
Part 5- I am in charge of what I think, and I think what I want. I want to think what is best for me. From my point of view, it seems to me, that is using one's mind well. I use my mind to make me happy because (the way I see it) happiness is where it is at.
Part 4- I am not defending my point of view because it needs no defense. What can anyone do to a point of view? If someone's words make it tremble and fall that means that I was sincere enough with myself to contemplate it and, the new point of view serves me better. I am not here to serve an idea but ideas are in my mind to serve me. I am not looking for the Truth, the truths are many. Everyone has its own reality.
Part 3- I am not trying to win the argument. I am not interested in a good fight. I am interested in a good peace. That to me is more important than been right. I know that everyone will see this conversation from their own perspective.
Part 2- One can take a few minutes and consider that we human, all together, are acting as a sleeping god. We are in charge of this creation. The concept I present puts us all in the driving sit. Our thoughts produce our intentions, our desires, our emotions and as a consequence of those, our actions.
Part 1- My aim is to present a probability for those that are willing to consider a different way to look at things. There are people that would prefer to believe in a generous God but see no way of explaining such a reality to themselves. In these videos I present a probability that would explain many things.
Theramin Trees has such great patience to sift through this and make sense of it to the point that he could counter it and go through such great pains to illustrate his points. CuanMarce2 must be very flattered
Theramin Trees will do what he wishes to do and that is fine with me. He has his reasons as I have mine own. I don't have him in a pedestal and his time, if he wishes to spend it one way or another is his business. I am enjoying this conversation but it would not diminish me in any way what my dear Theramin's actions are. He is free to do as he considers. CuamMarce2 is flattered that you posted a note in his video. Thanks a lot.
I've watched the whole debate between you and Theramin Trees, its very interesting. But now you are at a point where you have degraded the concept of God below any threshold of what we consider religion to be, or at least any religious dogma. So it seems to me you replace the unknown properties of science (like entanglement) and give them a label of "God". If you aim is to point at what science cannot explain, it certainly doesn't prove God, and orthodox religion disputes it outright anyways.
You are right the new concept of God I present is not based upon any orthodox religion. And Theramintrees is right I don´t need to prove its existence. All I really want is to present is its probabilities.
I've just seen this new video is up — I didn't get a notification. Thank you for recording this. The counter-arguments are straightforward and won't take long, so I'll wait for your next video to see if I have a response to that which I can also include.
By the way, you *do* need to prove God's existence, in terms of the burden of proof. What *I* said was that *I personally* don't get hung up on the issue of proof in discussions — hypotheticals are fine. I hope that distinction's clear.
Hi TheraminTrees. I think it is fair to say that my next video about god is still a few videos ahead since I have to build, with this other videos I am publishing, the concepts upon which it will rest.
Also, you can consider that you want the argument since I don´t think I have to proof anything. My intention as I mention at the beginning of the exchange was not to win an argument, not to convince you of my ideas, but simply to express them. Happy holidays.
Hello CuanMarce2. My concern is not 'winning' arguments. Of my 12 atheist videos, 10 are responses to *people who've approached me* with their ideas — like you did. The other 2 are personal experience videos, aimed at no one. If people send me their ideas, I will of course respond — I'd assume that's why they sent them to me(?) If you'd like to end our exchange on 'god', I respect that — maybe we'll connect in other fun ways in future. I wish you a wonderful 2008. Love, Theramin.
I see you haven't yet approved my last comment — I've never used the approval system, but I guess it seems to take some time. Do you ever find that that delay disrupts the 'flow' of an exchange?
Ah .... I was just going to continue by replying to my last comment, but I see you use approval system. I'd like to say I appreciate what you give voice to, regarding the personal assumptions I mentioned in my last video. I'm not going to talk of attacks and defence — again, I feel we see/experience things differently there. All I want to say is that I thank you for your warm gestures and look forward to a new start. I have a lot of affection for you. Peace.
'Please do not see any of my words as sarcastic - they are not'
WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID? -Watch from XXX onward!
sitemountain 2 years ago
Since I believe that everyones perception, of how the universe is, is totally influence by their point of view. Perception can´t ever be objective since it occurs inside the subject, thus is part of the subject, and the subject is by definition subjective.
CuanMarce2 2 years ago
I have abandoned this discussion. I don´t need to proof to anyone the existence of a divine being. No matter what effect that will have in their wellbeing. After all it is not my responsibility. Everyone has to live with the consequences of the point of view they choose for themselves. I accept my, and that is all that is in my power.
I don´t defend anything, because any defense is an attack and I am trying to live in peace and harmony. I greet you all well.
CuanMarce2 2 years ago
ricardo montalban's ... slightly challanged brother? sorry bro but the other guy is right.... and much more articulate
Danectown 2 years ago
CuanMarce you have a fundamental misunderstanding of entanglement. 'Anything' that one does to one entangled particle does not affect the other. Only very specific observations made such as 'spin' cause a similar decoherence in the partner particle. It is unjustified to use this phenomenon on its own in support of the 'connectedness of everything'.
herbiepop 2 years ago
CuanMarce2, like paulmarko said in point 1, I dont think you understand Entanglement, and are stretching what little science there is on the subject well beyond the breaking point with unfounded assumptions.
And not to mention, you still havn't validated any kind of proof for a god entity either, but that was expected.
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
1. Entanglement doesn't work for the nervus system analogy because not all particles are entangled as they would have to be to fit the analogy. If they were then we wouldn't be able to entangle particles.
2. The unified field theory collapses at the moment it influences ANY other particle. So it Only takes place on the quantum level, NOT the macro level as you suggest.
paulmarko 3 years ago 6
I'm talking *specifically* about rotation, which is not a function of a car. Saying rotation is a kind of movement isn't an answer. Breathing and seeing are both kinds of 'processing' but you can't replace lungs with eyes. Specifics are important. If you shift from my specific point to generalities, you're only arguing with yourself. And I never said your answers weren't timely, I said you witheld my answer to your question. It takes no time to show my answer. You still haven't done so.
opterigon 4 years ago 2
CuanMarce2, the wheels of a car also spin and are made of rubber. It doesn't follow that the whole vehicle spins and is made of rubber. When I say "I'm thinking" that doesn't mean my whole body is thinking, even though 'I' am my whole body. You're shifting between different uses of words and using them interchangeably, resulting in flawed conclusions.
opterigon 4 years ago
One part of me is thinking, my mind. So I am (my person is) thinking. I go from the part to the whole, not to the sum of the parts. A group is never just the sum of the parts, the función between the parts makes it always more. You have to add the synergy
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
By this logic, the following is also true then: One part of the matter in the solar system (my brain) is thinking, so the solar system is thinking. Your reasoning is invalid.
opterigon 4 years ago
Try rewording it this way. One part of the matter in the solar system (my brain) is thinking, therefore that is thinking occurring in the solar system. My thinking is invalid if you say it's invalid. That is why I no longer present this as a proof but as a theory. You don't like it, fine. You see yourself as something different than the solar system, fine. I don´t see myself as separate. I guess is a matter of choice.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
Cuanmarce2, that is exactly Opterigon's point! All you can say is that thinking is OCCURRING in the solar system/universe etc - not that the solar system/universe etc. is thinking. And again, you're telling people what they think and getting it wrong: Nowhere did Opterigon say he was separate from the solar system. Indeed, he said his brain was PART of the solar system's matter. You're arguing with things that haven't been said.
prer0gative 4 years ago
You are right; I am reading everything that you and Opterigon say from my perspective. Yes, I know that his words do not say he doesn't see himself as part of the Universe. I just read that in his words. I just think one thing implies the other, but I know that is my perspective. Thank you for pointing that out.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
(1/2) Well, please ask me, CaunMarce2, before making inferences and statements about what I think and how I see myself, because, as with you did with TheraminTrees, you're getting it wrong. If you simply to stick people's words, without making personal assumptions, then I'll start to feel you're listening.
opterigon 4 years ago
CuanMarce2, it's not a question of whether or not I like your logic. Your logic is simply flawed. However, I'm glad to see the more accurate statement that thinking is 'occurring' in the solar system. I hope you can see that the same is true for the universe. We can't state 'the universe has a mind' as fact, only that 'mental activity is occurring in the universe'.
opterigon 4 years ago
So let´s see, the way you see it is that althoght thinking is occurring in the solar system, The solar system has no mind. So although you are part of the solar system you mind is not. Do I have it right now?
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
In some situations functions performed by the parts are functions of the whole. In some others, functions of the parts are not function of the whole. I suggest an analysis of when functions of parts extend to functions of the whole be conducted.
terrafirmaterrafirma 4 years ago
Can you give me some example of those situations were fuctions of the parts are not functions of the whole?
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
"Can you give me some example of those situations were fuctions of the parts are not functions of the whole?"
Although this was addressed to Terrefirmaterrafirma, I should say I'll be giving some examples of that in my final video response to this. All the best,
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
I will appreciate that.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
One comes to mind from topology. Define a topological space to be locally path connected if given any neighborhood in the space any two points in the neighborhood can be connected by a continuous path. If a space is locally path connected, then it is path connected. Here we have a local property that extends to a global property.
terrafirmaterrafirma 4 years ago 3
Yes, although I am no expert in topology, I think ,if I understand you well, that this is an example of how the functions performed by the parts are functions occurring in the whole, which is what I am stating. I was asking for just the opposite. Or perhaps I don't understand you well.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
In algebra, there are myriad of examples of properties of mathematical structures that hold locally, but not globally. For example, in group theory a group may have the property that all its finite generated subgroups are free (ie have no relations), yet the whole group may fail to be free ( ie have relations in its presentation). See page 36 of Presentations of Groups, By D. L. Johnson, for an example.
terrafirmaterrafirma 4 years ago
CuanMarce2, I already gave an example of functions of parts that are not functions of the whole: the spinning wheel vs the spinning car. You ask me a question ("Do I have it right now?") but withold my answer. If you're just going to ignore comments when they're inconvenient to your assertions, that's your choice, but it makes talking with you seem like talking into a dead phone.
opterigon 4 years ago 2
Yes Opterigon I remember your comment about the spinning wheels. However it doesn't do it for me. I see that a move of one kind translates into movement of another kind in going from the part to the whole. But it is still movement. And please forgive me, if you find it in your heart, that my answers are not timely. My other activities have priority in my life, and I try to fit my participation in a busy schedule.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
If something would hold the car up so the wheels dont touch the ground, the wheel can spin, while the car doesnt move.
Does that do it for you?
IAmNotNico 2 years ago
Part 8- My best is all I can ask of myself. Thank you for your comment and be well.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
Part 7- I am not interested in defending religion as I present a new concept of God. I am not religious. I understand that for many people religion serves a very important purpose. I do not think that God and religions are inseparable. I don´t think religion is bad. Everyone interprets the world differently and religion is no different.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
Part 6- It's important to have holistic thoughts for the good of each and everyone involved in this experience. I generate peace inside of me and it follows its natural path to the outside in my expression. I offer these thought for those who want them. They are good for me and good for the world.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
Part 5- I am in charge of what I think, and I think what I want. I want to think what is best for me. From my point of view, it seems to me, that is using one's mind well. I use my mind to make me happy because (the way I see it) happiness is where it is at.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
Part 4- I am not defending my point of view because it needs no defense. What can anyone do to a point of view? If someone's words make it tremble and fall that means that I was sincere enough with myself to contemplate it and, the new point of view serves me better. I am not here to serve an idea but ideas are in my mind to serve me. I am not looking for the Truth, the truths are many. Everyone has its own reality.
CuanMarce 4 years ago
Part 3- I am not trying to win the argument. I am not interested in a good fight. I am interested in a good peace. That to me is more important than been right. I know that everyone will see this conversation from their own perspective.
CuanMarce 4 years ago
Part 2- One can take a few minutes and consider that we human, all together, are acting as a sleeping god. We are in charge of this creation. The concept I present puts us all in the driving sit. Our thoughts produce our intentions, our desires, our emotions and as a consequence of those, our actions.
CuanMarce 4 years ago
Part 1- My aim is to present a probability for those that are willing to consider a different way to look at things. There are people that would prefer to believe in a generous God but see no way of explaining such a reality to themselves. In these videos I present a probability that would explain many things.
CuanMarce 4 years ago
Theramin Trees has such great patience to sift through this and make sense of it to the point that he could counter it and go through such great pains to illustrate his points. CuanMarce2 must be very flattered
TheReapersPit 4 years ago 3
Theramin Trees will do what he wishes to do and that is fine with me. He has his reasons as I have mine own. I don't have him in a pedestal and his time, if he wishes to spend it one way or another is his business. I am enjoying this conversation but it would not diminish me in any way what my dear Theramin's actions are. He is free to do as he considers. CuamMarce2 is flattered that you posted a note in his video. Thanks a lot.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
I've watched the whole debate between you and Theramin Trees, its very interesting. But now you are at a point where you have degraded the concept of God below any threshold of what we consider religion to be, or at least any religious dogma. So it seems to me you replace the unknown properties of science (like entanglement) and give them a label of "God". If you aim is to point at what science cannot explain, it certainly doesn't prove God, and orthodox religion disputes it outright anyways.
erkd1 4 years ago 3
You are right the new concept of God I present is not based upon any orthodox religion. And Theramintrees is right I don´t need to prove its existence. All I really want is to present is its probabilities.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
I've just seen this new video is up — I didn't get a notification. Thank you for recording this. The counter-arguments are straightforward and won't take long, so I'll wait for your next video to see if I have a response to that which I can also include.
By the way, you *do* need to prove God's existence, in terms of the burden of proof. What *I* said was that *I personally* don't get hung up on the issue of proof in discussions — hypotheticals are fine. I hope that distinction's clear.
TheraminTrees 4 years ago 11
Hi TheraminTrees. I think it is fair to say that my next video about god is still a few videos ahead since I have to build, with this other videos I am publishing, the concepts upon which it will rest.
Also, you can consider that you want the argument since I don´t think I have to proof anything. My intention as I mention at the beginning of the exchange was not to win an argument, not to convince you of my ideas, but simply to express them. Happy holidays.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
Hello CuanMarce2. My concern is not 'winning' arguments. Of my 12 atheist videos, 10 are responses to *people who've approached me* with their ideas — like you did. The other 2 are personal experience videos, aimed at no one. If people send me their ideas, I will of course respond — I'd assume that's why they sent them to me(?) If you'd like to end our exchange on 'god', I respect that — maybe we'll connect in other fun ways in future. I wish you a wonderful 2008. Love, Theramin.
TheraminTrees 4 years ago 2
I see you haven't yet approved my last comment — I've never used the approval system, but I guess it seems to take some time. Do you ever find that that delay disrupts the 'flow' of an exchange?
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
Yes perphas it requires more time, but I do it to eliminate spam or advertising of irrelevant things or viedos.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
Ah .... I was just going to continue by replying to my last comment, but I see you use approval system. I'd like to say I appreciate what you give voice to, regarding the personal assumptions I mentioned in my last video. I'm not going to talk of attacks and defence — again, I feel we see/experience things differently there. All I want to say is that I thank you for your warm gestures and look forward to a new start. I have a lot of affection for you. Peace.
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
I have a lot of affection for you as well.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago
Thank you for your comment.
CuanMarce2 4 years ago