Purpose Of Sentience

From Dave:
There is no doubt, things are gonna change. I certainly foresee implants in our bodies to monitor/maintain health. Who would say 'no' to that. Just one more step and we are somewhat robotic - there may be no turning back. Eventually, we shall become fully programmable. Maybe that's Gods plan after all. It seems depressing for now, but I'm sure we will all be much happier, especially if we are told to be.
I'm hoping for 'Drone' status myself.

From Dlano:
Which drone do you want dibs on --- R2D2, or C3PO?
Presently, we have remote control of bombing drones; close on the shelf are fighter drones, remotely controlled.
Next step: sever the remote controller.

So, cogitates I: Is there purpose to sentience?

An intuitable, primary purpose of sentience seems to relate to facilitating bedtime conversation of God. Presently, our conversation seems to be about existence, entropy, relative constants, degrees of freedom, limits of possibilities, purposefulness, good and evil, and empathy.

This cycle of conversation will eventually end and transition to another, once every form of sentience becomes balanced, reconciled, and harmonized in appreciation that, as each converses with God, each converses as but a holographic perspective of a holistic Something that is conversing with itself. God, needing a psychiatrist, fills the role for God’s self. (But, I repeat myself.)

Non-sentient aspects of Being may already appreciate their relationship, but at levels too direct to leverage or to facilitate sentient conversation.

That we are in conversant relationship with God does not mean empathy is limited to love, even if love is always a part of it. Rather, empathy encompasses a full spectrum of intelligent apprehension.

After empathy balances to perfect harmony, the present conversation, at some distant time, will transition.

Presently, however, what underlies our common empathy is not mere peace and love, but appreciation that each of us is representatively imbued of Something greater than ourselves, which empowers each to bear his own perspective of a common cross, or to push his own rock.

In that, each member of human civilization represents a perspective of Sisyphus; each strives to relate a contenting life story of Sisyphus.
The stories end when all say “oommm.” Then, Sisyphus sleeps.
But, in dreams come the rubs; and the Phantom re-arises.

Young Frankenstein

Dave,

You ought not have spoken of Frankenstein. I fear you awaken him!

I suspect you agree that, eventually, we will proceed along our entropic path to tinker out how to produce artificially intelligent robots, perhaps along assembly lines that offer choices for installing personalities. Of course, that would render stem cell research mere child’s play.

Such robots may be guided by personalities pre-set to continue to evolve in respect of mathematical functions for generating random durations of moods within spheres of permissibly polite significance.

Contemporaneously, I should hope we will acquire skills for limiting and babysitting such rowdy robots, so they appropriately respect one another’s emotional (empathetic) and physical (indifferent) integrity.

During that dicey decade, we may divine different, deeper doses for dissertating about the deity.

Otherwise, we shall lose power over those disposed not to play nice. At that point, we may need to get the hell out of Saigon !

Do you sometimes wonder whether aspects of “Multivac” may already be among us, functioning from some sort of dark cloak (like Hanger 51), ever-beyond our empirical capacities?

Maybe “good” and “evil” have to do with how skillfully we correlate our increasing capacity for leveraging indifferent intelligence with our capacity for keeping such intelligence under empathetic control.

Thus spake Zarfog.

WHAT GOD KNOWS

From Dave: "Maybe God didn't just wander away - maybe he ran...." From Dlano: No doubt, "He" often does! Dave, The folks and I were watching Ken Burns' PBS special the other night about WWII. Burns quoted one of the troops:"God, come quick. Come yourself. Don't send Jesus. This is no place for babies." ******* Sometimes, I would like to issue a warrant and cross examine God, sort of like Nixon. WHAT DOES GOD KNOW, AND WHEN DID GOD KNOW IT: In respect of our civilization, it may not be of great import whether God might be constituted of an indeterminate array of logarithms and simply not "know" it. (Indeed, how could God, in unbounded aspect, ever presently know all that God is?) Still, Intelligence knows enough to be relevant to our empathetic purposes --- regardless of whether such purposes may be built up as byproducts of aspects, which are not, "in themselves," independently intelligent or conscious. Perhaps, intelligent empathy and physical reactiveness are byproducts of interactions of complex systems of functions, driven by generators of mathematical randomness, which, over eons, evolve through various spheres of significant influence into that which we regard as "intelligently empathetic beings." Even so, for evolution to occur, feedback vectors and counter-cycling paths for both Heat Entropy and Informational Empathy seem necessary. Thus, an existing Source for illuminating and differentiating paths and choices, in respect of "rightness" and "wrongness," even though ambiguous, seems necessary. So, Like Francis Collins, I am not especially discomfited by evolution. AMBIGUOUSLY FACING COIN: Qualities of "caring" and "indifference," even as epiphenomena of nature, seem to manifest only in degrees --- one relating to intuition, the other relating to measurability --- rather than in pure forms or independent essences. In all non-trivial aspects, each quality seems always to accompany the other, sort of like two sides of one coin of ambiguity, or one closed system of feedback --- random, yet relationally empathetic. For example, scientists tend not to be indifferent about how much they care about their indifference. MORAL BASIS FOR COOPERATIVE CIVILIZATION: Even if, at all times during our current cycle of existence, God were like an indeterminate, non-repeating number, like pi, or like a complex system built to run off indifferent equations for producing random, not necessarily repetitive, results, it would still remain of more import to our civilization that we not be indifferent about "God" than that God not be indifferent about us. KNOWLEDGE, DOUBT, AND BELIEF: In any event, I respect Socrates. I "know" little that is not trivial. Rather, I exist, ambiguously, in respect of both doubt and belief. In synchronicity, I both doubt and believe. So, I do not appreciate a great deal of difference between agnostics and believers. I think atheists (those purporting to know God does not exist) and gnostics (those purporting to know God does exist) are just fooling themselves. Because we know so little, the debate about spirituality seems much ado about little. To me, the real debate should pertain to what we should do with spirituality. That subject, being non-trivial, cannot be objectively answered. But, it can be approached --- with intuitive empathy. For example, in law, as I try facts, absent empirical evidence, I am an indifferent doubter. But, as I, like juries, try states of mind, credibility, and motives, I intuit to positions of empathetic belief. While testing facts against what they seem to be, I doubt. In weighing why, and to what purpose, I should test facts, I believe. BABEL OR ARTISTIC DIVERSION: If I, as a perspective of God, both doubt and believe, then may God also both doubt and believe?Such thinking, in respect of logic of horizontally infinite regress, seems mere babble. Still, in respect of logic of closed feedback loop (empathy-entropy loop), such thinking seems to help fulfill existentially artistic needs, and goes to the heart and soul of mortal and moral purposefulness. So, I engage such feedback reasoning, in spite of horizontal logic. Because, by God, I can! Oddly enough, calling such reasoning "babble" signifies little more than another form of empathetic outburst. Such outbursting does not disprove Empathy as "something" fundamental. However, in extreme cases, such as for Godel, such reasoning and outbursting may lead to madness. (Perhaps, Godel’s name was just too heavy for him to carry.) ****** I suspect our "existential feedback loop" may more meaningfully be conceptualized as an "empathy-entropy loop," a la Asimov. Alas, proof is singularly prohibited. ******* "It's fall - leaves are falling from the trees. A light gust of wind carries a leaf and rocks it back and forth until it drifts to the ground." Dave, are you quoting from C.S. Lewis, the author of the Narnia series, as he was walking with another veteran of WWI, Tolkien, the author of the Hobbit books? See http://www.tbft.tv/flash/giants.swf ******* From Dave: “Maybe God didn't just wander away - maybe he ran, after realizing his mistake. You should re-watch the movie, 'Young Frankenstein'. It's fall - leaves are falling from the trees. A light gust of wind carries a leaf and rocks it back and forth until it drifts to the ground. Do you think that motion is completely determined? Is it the 'complex' of events that makes them unpredictable? Do we just give up because it is beyond our ability to understand? Could some massive computer (Asimov's) model the behavior of the leaf completely? Are we restricted to understanding only the abstraction of an event and only in a 'local' context (butterfly effect)? I think the answer to all, is 'yes'. We often skip over humbling questions such as these, and go directly to believing that we CAN understand. I think that is our trap, and like a rat, we have no way out. Eureka! If we were able to completely understand all things, there would be no need for empathy. Perhaps that is the beauty of it. I have to go run around the wheel in my cage now. I find it soothing. ***** From Dlanorrenrag: Subject: Asimov Lies Beneath Dave, I believe I have read that Asimov was an agnostic.However, from his short story, “The Last Question,” I could not tell. To me, it seems that if every event has already been pre-set, then so has our consciousness, as well as every expression of our consciousness. In other words, the arrival of our intelligence was pre-set from the beginning. Thus, whatever the origination and unfoldment of our universe, the potential for Intelligence would always have been encompassed within it. Intelligent empathy, at least in potential, would necessarily have been with us from the beginning. However, my intuition suggests we are not pre-determined. Rather, we seem to be part of an undeterminable yet closed feedback-loop. If so, intuition may suggest even more strongly that some sort of (superior) Intelligence has been with us from the beginning --- and not merely in potential. If every event were pre-determined, it would be in respect of some controlling formula. If any such mathematical formula could be determined or discovered, which precisely controls every event, then we could precisely predict the future. But, having such a formula, we could take it into account, thereby to thwart ourselves. Then, we would need to solve the formula for how we were thwarting ourselves. And so on. Thus, our situation is compatible with Godel’s proof of mathematical incompleteness. Our situation seems less like an infinite regress than like a closed feedback loop --- finite, yet open; cyclical, yet non-repetitive. In any event, there is no final mathematical formula that we can solve, with either mathematics or empiricism, in order to account for either the fact of our existence or the precise path of our existence. There are only applied such mathematical formulas as are applied. Intuitively, a Mathematician is needed, both to instigate and to apply such formulas. It is no help to suggest "God" may have wound us up and then wandered off. If God "wandered off," then such a choice to refrain from being involved with us would itself be a form of involvement. Choosing to refrain to choose is itself a form of choice --- being a choice that may intermittently be changed. Like us, God may have no choice but to make choices. Thus, no formula can ever completely expel the fuzzy role of such a Mathematician. If God instigated us, there is little reason to intuit that God should refrain from being involved with us --- even if in ways beyond empirical proof, but not beyond intuitive, useful, and moral appreciation. For empirical purposes, we necessarily model our universe as being "indifferent." But, strictly for moral purposes, I would be uneasy in modeling our situation as being indifferent. That is, I am not so sure there is not a common source of intelligent empathy. ******** For a conception of our common situation as constituting something like a closed feedback loop, see Isaac Asimov’s short story, "The Last Question." OFF THE CUFF --- to imagine a model for such a loop, think of our situation as rolling in a repeating circle, from:explosive splitting of intelligible information and expansion of spaceexceeding speed of light;to emergence of plasma;to phase shift expansion of space accompanied by emergence of light and in respect of speed of light;to accelerating expansion of space in respect of fundamental mathematical constants;to coalescence of solar energy engines;to radiation of stellar energy;to logarithmic organizations of patterns of energy into information in respect of mathematical constants;to entropic heat death of suns;to explosive collection of intelligible information;to explosive, singular contraction of relevant space; repeating ... to explosive splitting of intelligible information and expansion of space exceeding speed of light; ... and so on, cyclically, intelligibly, yet non-repetitively. *********** Am I being too disrespectful of entropic limitations? (… just another way of expressing Asimov’s “The Last Question.”)

Inextricable Involvement Of Intelligence

(by Dlanorrenrag*) If every event has already been pre-set, then so has our consciousness, as well as every expression of our consciousness. In other words, the arrival of our intelligence was pre-set from the beginning. Thus, whatever the origination and unfoldment of our universe, the potential for Intelligence would always have been encompassed within it. Intelligence, at least in potential, would necessarily have been with us from the beginning. However, intuition suggests we may not be pre-determined. Rather, we seem to be part of an undeterminable yet closed feedback-loop. If so, intuition may suggest even more strongly that Intelligence has been with us from the beginning — and not merely in potential. If every event were pre-determined, it would be in respect of some controlling formula. If any such mathematical formula could be determined or discovered, which precisely controls every event, then we could precisely predict the future. But, having such a formula, we could take it into account, thereby to thwart ourselves. Then, we would need to solve the formula for how we were thwarting ourselves. And so on. Thus, our situation is compatible with Godel’s proof of mathematical incompleteness. Our situation seems less like an infinite regress than like a closed feedback loop — finite, yet open. In any event, there is no final mathematical formula that we can solve, with either mathematics or empiricism, in order to account for either the fact of our existence or the path of our existence. There are only applied such mathematical formulas as are applied. Intuitively, a Mathematician is needed, both to instigate and to apply such formulas. Or, to experience being expressed in respect of them. It is little help to suggest "God" may have wound us up and then wandered off. If God "wandered off," then such a choice to refrain from being involved with us would itself be a form of involvement. Choosing to refrain to choose is itself a form of choice — being a choice that may intermittently be changed. Like us, God may have no choice but to make choices. Thus, no formula can ever completely expel the fuzzy role of such a Mathematician. If God instigated us, there is little reason to intuit that God should refrain from being involved with us, in ways beyond empirical proof, but not beyond intuitive, useful, and moral appreciation. ******** For a conception of our common situation as constituting something like a closed feedback loop, see Isaac Asimov’s short story, "The Last Question." Modeling a circle to represent such a loop, imagine our situation as rolling through a cycle, from: explosive splitting of intelligible information and expansion of space exceeding speed of light; to emergence of plasma; to phase shift expansion of space accompanied by emergence of light and in respect of speed of light; to accelerating expansion of space in respect of fundamental mathematical constants; to coalescence of solar energy engines; to radiation of stellar energy; to logarithmic organizations of patterns of energy into information in respect of mathematical constants; to dying of suns; to explosive collection of intelligible information; to explosive condensation of relevant space; to repeating explosive splitting of intelligible information and expansion of space exceeding speed of light; and so on, cyclically. ***** Rather than “feedback loop,” it may make better sense to refer to our situation in terms of an “Empathy-Entropy Loop”: empathy in respect of feedback; entropy in respect of direction; relationship in respect of loop. As conceptual experience, neither Empathy nor Entropy can be sensible or complete, without relationship in some feedback-loop respect, from each to the other. ***** Ultimately, heat Entropy and empathetically organized Information may simply express synchronizing, counter cycles of the same existential, feedback loop. The closer we find ourselves to ordered, maximum heat consolidation, the less our mortal accumulation of organized information; the closer we find ourselves to disordered, maximum heat dissipation, the more our mortal accumulation of organized information. A singular, holistic point for completing each cycle and transitioning to a new one may be marked in respect of a space-time locus at which maximum accumulation of information condenses, such that our feedback loop transitions to express maximum heat consolidation — and so on. Perhaps, the ultimate essence of which our feedback loop is comprised is neither heat nor information, neither entropy nor empathy, but Something beyond mortal measure — Something that, to mortals, expresses aspects of heat and information — or, indifferent Entropy and caring Empathy.

Merit From Birth

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Whatever the source for divvying up “accidents of birth” and mortal perspectives, once a physical situation is completely divvied, it likely could perform only along one lifeline vector. Underneath the completeness of each mortal situation, it may be that the perspective assigned to it could perform no differently, regardless of its ultimate source. That is, if none of us originates from any purer, better, or more meritorious spiritual stock than any other.

This is not to suggest that there is no free will, but only that the originating source of free will, being God, may always perform in the same way, given the exact same context in space-time synchronicity.

In other words, free will and moral merit may reside with the Source of perspective, being God, and not with any distinguishable, physical body that may be associated with any particular perspective. What appreciates, learns, evolves, and transcends from each perspective is not the body with which it is associated, but God.

Still, there seems a question whether God may delegate spiritual functions among Elohim, sort of like delegating among an array of spiritual logarithms. If so, the original source of each representative among Elohim would be one and the same God. Yet, each representative among Elohim may spiritually flux, evolve, progress, or regress to different levels of perspective within the one array that comprises God. If so, a particular representative-perspective may find more or less temporary favor, interest, or merit from God than others. Or, holistic God may intervene to alter the physical lifeline with which a particular perspective of God is associated.

Regardless, all Elohim serve the same God --- as temporary, varying perspectives of the same essence --- being God.

Each perspective may more likely intuit, appreciate, and communicate its function for serving holistic God as it evolves spiritually, becoming humbly, courageously, and empathetically receptive.

As a limited perspective of God, I cannot force holistic God, but I can try to be receptive to intuit holistic God. Even becoming receptive, I cannot know what God may want, but I can seek to enhance my intuitive, empathetic appreciations of God and of other perspectives of God.

A perspective that has evolved to represent great spirit may ask for and receive great present, or potential, spiritual power --- regardless of physical power. Spiritual perspective, while attached to the physical capacity of a body, is not necessarily limited solely to the physical capacity of a body.

The “merit” of a perspective, in respect of attracting God’s interest or favor, perhaps allowing God to experience or “learn,” may have little relationship with happenstance of birth, and certainly no relationship that mortals can test empirically. It may be that not even God pre-picks or predicts the perspectives God may choose later to temporarily favor.

Chronological Dualism

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

There seem to be three main ways to think about our mortal situation.
First (Nature): that free will is only an illusion, derivative of the principles of uncertainty and incompleteness.
Second (God): that causation is only an illusion, derivative of a necessary synchronicity among competing perspectives of free will.
Third (Dualism of God and Nature): that both free will and causation are inextricably necessary, yet derivative of an interpenetrating intelligence, which manifests through an array of Elohim (God) and interdependent, logarithmic functions (Nature).

I intuit and prefer the third way. I believe it better respects our existential feedback loop, which protects our chronology by synchronizing an entanglement of both uncertainty and incompleteness, in respect of any notion of pre-set or post-set determinism.

That is, our feedback loop entails a dual involvement of: a source of empathetic choice making; and a source of defaulting indifference.

To my taste, any reasons for rationalizing the first way of thinking are insufficient, because it cannot sufficiently rationalize the principles of uncertainty and incompleteness, and it is indifferent and without value for inspiring us to respect any common source for moral empathy.

To my taste, any reasons for rationalizing the second way of thinking are also insufficient, because I cannot imagine a God whose great intelligence should be chained to the joyless, mind-numbing task of perpetually minding every leap of quanta and every piece of minutia.

The third way, however, is consistent with an intuitive acceptance of empirically irresolvable principles. And, it accepts that we can neither measure nor empirically prove what God should want, but that we may, with humble, courageous, and receptive hearts, seek in common empathy to intuit what God may want.

In any event, all purely empirically based arguments about what I should believe about any ultimate aspect about morality cancel out. Thus, to decide how to tip the scales about what I should believe, I must resort to intuition based arguments. The best intuition based argument would seem to be the one that is consistent with intuition or, at least, not inconsistent with intuition, not trumped by any better logic, not falsified by empiricism, and not a hindrance to legitimate pursuits under the scientific method.

Nature Interpenetrated With Logarithmically Organized Intelligence

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Nature Interpenetrated With Logarithmically Organized Intelligence:

Our universe is comprised of mathematical parameters and variously fluxing and overlapping fields and arrays of patterns of parts and subparts, which are relationally reactive, in apparent respect of fundamental kinds of forces of physics.

Such fields and particles seem to be imbued with variously potential interpretations or identities, depending upon relative perspective.

Were there no such identifiable patterns, there would be no existent information about which to communicate. That identifiable patterns exist seems to implicate intelligence, in respect of which information, at least potentially, can be recorded, intelligently signified, logarithmically accounted for, and communicated.

Without implicating intelligence, it seems hard to imagine, meaningfully, that a physical universe could “exist.” Existence seems to implicate at least some sort of intelligence, which implicates information, which implicates communication and some sort of reactive, anticipatory, or empathetic involvement.

Empathetic intelligence seems always to attach to a physical body or pattern of expression, yet to be communicable and delegable beyond such attachment. Thus, mundane attachments and functions become delegable, freeing higher levels of intelligence to evolve and interact empathetically with ever developing and novel interests. Mind numbing trivialities and routine record keeping become delegated, being defaulted to relatively unconscious, indifferent, logarithmic functions.

The higher the level of conscious and communicable involvement, the greater the need for feedback from companions, with whom to savor and communicate. Each level of emotional involvement needs only such companionship as is suitable to its experience or capacity for conscious empathy. Yet, all levels are connected, in respect of being holographic perspectives of holistic Consciousness.

Over time, the various levels may fluctuate and cycle, some evolving to higher levels, some reducing to lower levels. In their sum, they may be said to constitute the spiritual array of Elohim. All are interpenetrated with an intelligence that becomes relatively more conscious at higher levels.

Lowest levels may be called stand-ins for expressions of Nature. Highest level may be most representative of God. Ultimately, however, all Elohim are of One Essence, i.e., an Intelligence that is expressive of many perspectives and desires.

DEFAULTING WILL

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

May it reasonably be maintained that there exists a holistically synchronizing, pre-set, vector-logarithm for defaults, which functions and removes degrees of freedom for situations in which any willful or appreciative choice-making, at any level, whether reactionary, sensate, sentient, subconscious, or deliberative, is either not made or is actively suppressed?

Is every quantum leap, at every level of uncertain and incomplete measure, controlled by a pre-set, chronology protecting, synchronizing logarithm? Must such pre-set logarithm for controlling defaults, insofar as it is holistic, be beyond empirical or statistical control or measure by mortals?

To mortals, must it appear that the effects of such defaults are “random,” yet within “degrees of freedom,” even though such effects are actually and precisely consistent with a logarithmic array that controls defaults?

Must such default mechanism, although pre-set, continuously adjust its functioning, in synchronous anticipation and respect for each and every mortal, willful choice? Is it in respect that each willful choice may only be made within degrees of freedom that the default mechanism can remain inviolate, even while permitting mortal levels of consciousness to make choices?

Must the pre-set mechanism for defaults function as “Nature,” with “intelligently synchronizing anticipation,” but without sense of personal identity or choice making will? If so, how did such “Nature” come about?

If pre-set Nature functions with intelligent, synchronizing anticipation, then is a concept of “God” superfluous, thus irrational? No.

“God” is our conceptual label for a source of holistically willful, moral purposefulness. Regardless of whether physical events may be pre-set, we, being conscious, still experience emotional, empathetic, morally interpretative participation with such events. Consciousness, both ours and God’s, does not know that it is pre-determined (if it is).

Regardless of whether, in “ultimate relation,” there may be no such thing as degrees of freedom, conscious beings will still interpretively experience such degrees of freedom. Indeed, our feedback loop stubbornly suggests that degrees of freedom may be based in more than illusion. In such respect, “God” is the holistically representative aspect of our degrees of freedom, from whom we strive to be humbly and courageously receptive to moral insight and appreciation.

Consciously believing our degrees of freedom are “real,” and being unable to prove the contrary, it becomes “rational” to intuit that there may exist a real, spiritual source for our degrees of freedom. After all, from whence came the pre-set Nature that nurtures our bodies and permits our sensations of moral freedom and responsibility?

May any conscious source of holistic Will (God) combine or participate with such Nature? Must Nature automatically adjust to each and every exercise of will --- either of holism or of holography, of God or of mortals?

So long as God functions holistically and synchronously, consistently with such natural degrees of freedom as seem necessary to nurture mortals, God may interact greatly, yet necessarily remain beyond the measure or empirical control of mortals --- even if not beyond the empathetic intuition of mortals.

When God interacts in respect of mortals, God respects mortal parameters. Because God does not act in ways that would violate our degrees of freedom, we cannot measure God. For mortals to measure God, God would have to upset logarithmic parameters that allow mortal bodies to live. Were mortal bodies to die, they could not serve as perspectives from which to measure God.

Although God remains beyond mortal measure, God does not remain beyond mortal intuition. Although God is not in the wind, we may rationally believe that “God is.” The same may be said of any other label for moral idealization or authority.

Draft

EIEIO: We exist exclusively as eluvial epiphenomena — for experimenting, experiencing, enjoying, expressing, evangelizing, and exalting — the empathy of ephemeral Elohim. To deprecate as much is to depreciate towards nothingness. Managing Inherent Ambiguity: Mathematical skill may not end the ambiguity, but may help us appreciate and manage it. Take any "thing" that can be sensed or contemplated. Can we ever exhaust all possible different ways for sensing, measuring, or relating to it? Intuitively, no. Assume, however, we did. Thereby, would we have exhausted or accounted for every possible aspect in which it exists? Or, would there always remain an ineffable aspect, i.e., an aspect by which it has capacity to be related to in any aspect at all, but which itself cannot be sensed or measured in any way, excepting inherent intuition or empathy? May we rationally relate that there are ineffable aspects which are not sensible or measurable, but which are intuitable? If not sensible or measurable, then how may we intuit them, or reasonably communicate anything about them, other than what we subjectively and empathetically feel about them at any particular moment? Are we communicating about the potential for Harry the Invisible Rabbit, who is inherently with all of us? The ineffable essence is not a thing in itself or an essence whose being’ness is independent of all relations. Rather, it is an ambiguously self-relating, cyclical, feedback system, or Spiritual Mind, or "God." On one side, it never changes. On the other side, it continuously and constantly changes. And, depending upon how it mathematically spins or cycles, it presents to us illusions of "physicality," i.e., movies. Spinning and fluxing give illusions of discretes. Coin. One side being God, the other being Elohim. Of our common coin, we intuit God, sort of like we intuit a dark side of the Moon. Self-Relating-Feedback-System = God. It is not a coin, but seems to function like a coin, albeit, immeasurably. Although immeasurable in itself, on one side it fluxes. And, as it fluxes, spins, and cycles, it defines possibilities for mathematical relations and functions, which evolve in how they interrelate and express their synchronization — which functions are inferior and which are superior — which are more or less transitory. And, perspectives of God come to relate ans associate with such evolving perspectives. They cannot hold their perspectives as Elohim simultaneously while holding a perspective as God. But, they never lose complete intuition of God. So, holographically, we intuit God. Holistically, does God experience us? Yes ... ******************************* As each mortal perspective evolves in worth of God’s special interest, it needs to acquire words and skills appropriate to its time and place, meet to demonstrate and communicate purposes of God. God’s interest, concern, and problem is not merely in occupying each perspective, but in devising ways for imbuing each perspective with: appreciation that it is imbued; appreciation that it does intuit a vague outline of God’s fluxing purpose; and appreciation that it should proceed accordingly, with receptors open to guidance and wisdom, and with humility before God, strength before mortals, and empathy before all. Pb: If God is interpenetrating, then how could any perspective not already and continuously be sufficiently receptive and humble? Is it because Elohim have differing levels of intuition and empathetic appreciation of God? No cross bigger than capacity to carry. Each perspective has a level of receptivity harmonious to its physical limits and happenstance of its field of experience. When opportunity to receive spiritual insight knocks, choose to accept it. Our mathematical, physical bodies with which our perspectives are associated affect our capacity to be receptive. ***The perspective of any of us is intrinsically no better than the perspective of any other of us. Yet, God synchronizes Elohim, which compete, as spiritual perspectives. So, by this synchronizing, to what purpose is God aspiring or progressing? ***God’s Purposes: companionship; perspective appreciation suitable to mathematical limits of capacity for understanding self understanding civilization exploration of existent possibilities Civilization must not condone overrunning of parasites into bathwaters of babies. Civilization must not throw its babies out with its bathwater. There should be no difficulty in receiving god, because you already are a perspective of God. What is difficult is to receive the power of God. Why? Because even God, unless disposed in proper perspective, fears His own powers. Not enough to be God. Must appreciate one is a perspective of God, and, in humility and courage, lose the fear of so being. Fear that one’s body is not yet sufficiently conditioned, prepared, skilled, knowledgeable, confident, believing, strong, or courageous to wield God’s power. The body logarithm must find a niche where it loses the fear. Is that why so much evil is necessary — to train perspectives of God to be willing to assume the mantle, without fear? Once believing, fearless, how do they lose humility? Meek inherit only dust. But, does not God want civilization? Fearless inherit glory. If believe in holistic God, will necessarily be humble to God’s empathetic purposes. But, might not necessarily want equality for slugs. So, dangerous to slugs, who thus fear religion. God delegates levels of free will, which is the same, no matter which ... No reason to believe, given a situation, genes, conditions, field, that "free will" would ever make other than the same choice. No receptive expression of free will is intrinsically any morally better or different from any other perspective. God is not so prescient as to be without power ever to change His mind or to exercise or delegate free will. That is, god may be pre-determined, yet not know what He is determined to do. Losing respect for what founds our civilization, we lose our civilization. We are founded on traditions, family, mores. Without mores, we would be justifying conjugal relations with horses. If we cannot protect bounds of decency, we lose civilization. The apple cart of civilization is layered, one apple at a time. In picking apples, we learn to rely on a sense of disgust and taste. To suddenly lose our sense of disgust is to layer our apples over a foundation of rot. So, perhaps God is predetermined, even if God does not know it.

Pilgrim’s Intuition

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

An Intelligent Intuition immeasurably (and intelligently) apprehends, coordinates, and expresses the various aspects of our common existence. It can neither die, nor be measured as mortal.

We appreciate each and every particle, or physical body, as something given particular expression as a result of empathetic or indifferent “choices” made within degrees of freedom (or intelligent apprehensions from among possible choices), each such body becoming manifest in relational association with fluxing interactions among broad, overlapping parameters and possibility-fields of potential influence.

All bodies in our universe exist within a common, interconnecting field of possibilities. It is not our bodies, by themselves, that intuit our empathetic interconnection, but the Intelligent Intuition that imbues as perspective for each of us.

Insofar as our bodies are impermanent, it seems merely trivial to appreciate that our bodies do not accompany our intuitions in eternal transcendence. Quickly, our bodies reduce to dust. But, the Essential Source of our intelligent intuitions does not.

To each of our perspectives is availed incredible power, empathy, and wisdom --- provided only that we ask for that which, in our most fundamental essence, we truly want.

Without receptivity, humility, and courage, we will not appreciate that which we truly want. Look to The Force to leverage that which is good, and, therewith, find humility and courage. Look to The Force to leverage an ever-increasing field of significant empathy. Evaluate those who are aligned, less by superficiality than by that which manifests in association with their energy fields.

With humility and courage, ignite and convey “The Force.” The Force, being ignited, do not, in pride, mistake It for your mere mortal self. Becoming prideful, one may become prissy, lose courage, and lose both empathy and wisdom. Or, one may look away from The Force, to indifference, and thereby begin to extinguish The Force, greatly to endanger civilization.

Instead, surrender pride, ask for empathy, receive courage, and preserve civilization.

MORES FOR SUSTAINING CIVILIZATION

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

In Respect Of William Wilberforce
( See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce )

In the U.S., both of our main political parties are up to their eyeballs in short-sighted selfishness, corruption, and loss of moral vision. We greatly need a new awakening and a new, independent, political party --- one whose fundamental platform recognizes right from wrong. Our civilization depends upon it.

To sustain and advance a moral civilization, we need moral guidance. That is, we need instincts, notions, and philosophies concerning which common mores are most appropriate. Subject to balancing of midpoints and somewhat minor wordplay or semantics, the broad moral parameters as set out below should be agreeable to most people --- at least, those who are not unduly selfish or obtuse.

Even so, finding appropriate midpoints would remain of concern to mentors, adults, parents, and all who know right from wrong --- including all who seek to find, express, condition, and inculcate moral insights and purposes. Thus, progress will depend upon how we advance, in our genes, our nurturing, and our politics.

SPIRITUAL, EMPIRICAL, AND UNIVERSAL
In broad strokes, the following moral parameters and balancing needs touch upon and concern individual, social, and governmental values that are spiritual, empirical, and universal:

INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND GOALS INCLUDE:
MORAL INTEGRITY: To experience a continuity of enough rewarding inspirations and discomfiting prods to keep us empathetically charged.
ARTISTIC FREEDOM: To promote freedom of artistic and spiritual expression, while monitoring and controlling against preaching of terrorism.
MIND FREEDOM: To promote democratic freedom of thought and imagery of self expression, while controlling against trafficking in vice and enslavement of mind and body.
LIVELIHOOD FREEDOM: To promote and inculcate marketable skills, values, and education, while reducing the isolation and pain that accompany poverty in mind and resources.

SOCIAL NEEDS INCLUDE:
PERENNIAL CODES: To promote and inculcate a conservative loyalty to civilizing institutions and mores of enlightened empathy (such as the Ten Commandments, the Great Commandment, the Golden Rule, the Scout Codes), while controlling against impulses that stifle liberal innovation and progress.
EVOLUTIONARY VIABILITY: To promote health, while controlling against overpopulation, environmental drag, and genetic drag, by appropriate resort to financial incentives and legal interventions.
PROTECTION AGAINST AGENTS OF SELF DESTRUCTION: To promote supervision and control against sociopaths, would-be dictators, and mass killers, by monitoring and protecting appropriate borders.

GOVERNMENTAL NEEDS INCLUDE:
ENLIGHTENED PARTICIPATION: To promote governmental participation, while controlling against excessive influence of conspiracies affecting special interests, ignorance and violence.
TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS: To empower voting by citizens who respect common decency and general welfare, while reducing corrupting proclivities of lazy, selfish, and criminal interests (which interests, otherwise, are easy to entice in order to sell votes and to flagrantly join in taxing others to redistribute purely selfish entitlements and earmarks).
REDUCING WASTE AND ADVANCING INITIATIVE: To keep government fit and trim, by appropriate and representative resort to financial, legal, police, and military measures for defending and advancing civilization.

CIVILIZED EMPATHY

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

FLESHING MORALITY:
What can it mean, to preach a subjective notion of "enlightened empathy?" May such a notion guide us, concerning that which we should encourage, appreciate, sustain, empower, tolerate, or fight? After all, being only a mortal perspective, I cannot very well measure what holistic God would do.

If anything and everything may be rationalized under a notion of enlightened empathy, then what good is such notion? In more practical and specific terms, what should I love, defend, and confront?

SPIRITUAL ADVANCEMENT:
In my intuition, the spiritual, moral, and physical parameters that limit our exercises of free will are artifacts of how we, as Elohim, are spiritually synchronized. If so, should it not follow that even the subjective, moral value of each expression of free will is artifactually dependent upon a synchronizing, competitive context, in which our moral expressions find various promotions and demotions? I believe we express moral competitions within a synchronicity that is spiritually finite, yet unbounded.

EMPATHY FOR OTHERS:
If God is the only Intrinsic Identity, and all others are merely spiritually fluxing expressers of synchronizing logarithms (Elohim), then with Whom (or what) should I identify, empathize, and love?

Concerning other human beings, in what respect should I empathize with them? Should I love their physical bodies, their emotionally expressive meanings, or that which expresses their most essential selves? Should I love them only as chronological expressions of perspectives of God? Should I appreciate (“foist”) only such emotional connections and feelings about them as may be presented to me in each fleeting instant?

EMPATHY NECESSITATES ENFORCEMENT OF MORES:
“Liberals” often decry those who, in respect of spirituality, would foist moral empathies upon others. For that, liberals prefer legalism, as if mere law should enforce our values any more than moral codes (especially when no one is looking).

SHOULD CIVILIZATION BE SUSTAINED:
In respect of “liberals,” if neither mores nor laws should foist behavioral requirements upon others, then how should any civilization be sustained? Should a civil society only enforce (“foist”) its letter system (for word symbolizing) and its number system (for empirical measuring)?

No. To survive and flourish, civilization needs institutions and traditions for resolving conflicts, apart from mere legalism. Citizens of civilization need to communicate about God (or some Ideal substitute).

But, why assume we should sustain or advance any civilization? After all, animals live as expressions of God, without needing civilization or needing to discuss God.

Well, humans, having “the Word,” do discuss God. And, a main pillar of civilization is in our common need to communicate, in respect of “God” (or in respect of shared Ideals of goodness and purposefulness). That is, humans need, through art, dance, song, feast, sport — to express appreciation of “God.”

And, perhaps God needs humanizing civilization, in order to induce humane companionship.

Intuitively, human morality is deeply tied to a need to sustain civilization, which is deeply tied to our evolving capacities for building empathy and individual moral character.

HOW MAY CIVILIZATION BE SUSTAINED:
In respect of God, what parameter-limiting conventions should we discern and enforce, as necessary to sustain, enrich, and advance our civilization (as well as “God’s” appreciation of such civilization)?

Given the continuity of our history, should we be so vain as to believe we should unshackle ourselves from, for example, the Ten Commandments?

May we discern practical moral parameters? Within what parameters should we develop and condition our personalities, interests, loves, and perspectives of moral empathy?

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Consider Elijah, from 1 Kings 19:9 – 13:
And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged therein, and, behold, the word of Jehovah came to him, and he said unto him …
… Go forth, and stand upon the mount before Jehovah. And, behold, Jehovah passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before Jehovah; but Jehovah was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but Jehovah was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but Jehovah was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

*******

The immeasurable fuzziness, uncertainty, incompleteness, and irreconcilability of both our lives and our dreams are indicators, indirect evidence, and artifacts in support of our empathetic intuitions of the existence of an ultimate Agent or Agency of Reconciliation.

If an ultimate Agent Of Reconciliation exists, its methods are beyond mortal control or duplication in respect of any model or explication that is complete, consistent, coherent, convertible, and communicable.

Instead, we experience and communicate appreciation of the Reconciler through intuitive empathy, as expressed in dance, music, poetry, art, beauty, harmony, and friendship. To us, the Reconciler’s practical truth is in respect of its expressions of beauty.
I have not found clear indication that the philosopher, Wittgenstein, appreciated how a sense of the existence of “problems,” being challenges of taste and appreciation, can be communicated only in fuzzy empathy, rather than as trivial puzzles. In respect of beauty, it seems clear that such communications DO say something, and thus do exist, in respect of non-trivial problems.

In any event, an objective application of pure mathematics proves that no mathematical synthesis can provide a complete, consistent, coherent, convertible, and communicable model for mapping or explaining reality. Thus, a “rationally intuitive logic” may suggest that any “synthesis” in respect of reality necessitates a subjective aspect, i.e, a Mathematician. That is, there is no objective reality that can be cleanly divorced from subjective aspects.

If so, God and Elohim (being us) are not mere mathematics, logarithms, or sub-logarithms. Rather, we constitute the Mathematician and the array of perspectives of the Mathematician. In synchronicity, as expressed in associations of God and Elohim, dancing in respect with parameters of logarithmic limits, expression is given to empathetic wills, emotions, choices, and purposes, within fluxing degrees of chronological freedom.

Any mathematical formula that would express the function of God would have to synthesize fundamental aspects of existence that are both objective and subjective. In any event, the ultimate Source for our degrees of freedom, being God, exists not in measurable units of space, but in meta, hyper space.

To the ultimate Mathematician, capacity to leverage and compound mathematical applications, although astonishing to mortals, might be more trivial than trick. Even if so, unlike God, mortals can never, as mortals, comprehend or reduce the entirety of possibilities in leveraging mathematics, anymore than we can comprehend or reduce the entirety of the possibilities of existence.

To mortals, the entirety of possibilities for leveraging mathematically empirical applications is irreducibly complex. Excepting trivialities and truisms, it is irreducibly beyond our capacity to reduce any concept --- or even noun --- to any explication that is complete, consistent, and coherent.

All non-trivialities that we manage to trick out, though astonishing they may be, are in respect not only of empiricism, but also in respect of that irreducible essence with which each of us is necessarily accompanied: i.e., God, manifesting the array of Elohim, in respect of which each of us is holographically expressive of our perspectives.

We (“Elohim”), in our moral purposes (“M”), are empathetic, subjective, perspective-translations of epiphenomena of units of space, fluxing in degrees of freedom, in keeping with objective, mathematical, logarithmic parameter-functions (“Nature,” or “N”), in synchronicity with an interpenetrating, continuously fluxing, discretely cycling, Formula or Source of Will (“God,” or “G”). To “mathematically” formulize the interaction of subjective and objective:
G + N => M.

*****

If our existent universe were as I suppose it is, nothing about my supposition is inconsistent with fundamental appreciations of mathematics, physics, and evolution, in even their most trivial aspects. After all, I suppose that God's will is expressed only within degrees of freedom. By definition, such expressions of will or choice could not be shown to violate any natural, mathematical, or statistical parameters.

Given its stated derivation and intended application, my supposition is rational, not irrational. It carries no disadvantage to science. Yet, it carries considerable advantage for inspiring, sustaining, and advancing a civilizing sense of moral empathy and purposefulness, as well as for inspiring common, subjective parameters for moral codes.

SOURCE OF INTRINSIC MERIT

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

In considering merit, we often consider a purpose --- such as a purpose we can progress towards. If there is progress in any ultimate sense, it may consist only insofar as God is pleased enough to deem it so.

Ultimately, progress is for God, not mortals. We cannot measure whether, when, or how ultimate progress may occur. Rather, we can only intuit such progress --- empathetically, incompletely, uncertainly, holographically --- not holistically.

Ultimately, merit, like progress, is also for God, not mortals. Each of us is merely an incomplete and uncertain expression of Holistic God. We represent free will only as we find expression among the plural perspectives of God, among which all of us are synchronized together as the array of Spiritual Elohim.

Ultimately, the only intrinsic Identity is God, of which each of us is but an incomplete, uncertain, holographic perspective. None of us has intrinsic identity independent of God. Intrinsically, the only Being trying and deserving to grow is God.

Suppose a particular body happens to progress in worthy context and capacity. Such progress would not occur in respect of intrinsic merit in any Being associated with such body, independent of God. The intrinsic merit expressed through the body, which deserves to grow in worth, is not in the body in itself, but in God, Who is expressing a perspective being associated with the body.

As we appreciate what we are, we come to appreciate not only the power that ripples through us, but also how we should, as empathetically transmitting perspectives of such power, seek to express it. As we appreciate our interconnection, we better appreciate what we should ask.

Because the power availed to our asking is astonishing, it is important we should appreciate our interrelationship with it. Soul, to be receptive and intuitive of its worth, needs to aspire to avoid petty deformities and regressions.

As we please and succeed, the perspective that we express is promoted. As we "sin" and fail, the perspective that we express is demoted. Of that, heaven and hell are merely figurative. After all, each of us is expressive of a perspective or spiritual logarithm among the Elohim of God.

ARTIFACTS OF RELATIONAL CONSTANCY

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Intuitively, we may ask: Were there no holographic constants in artifactual respect of a superior, unifying holism, could God have anything to express? Were there no artifacts of constancy, amenable of being shared among mortals within common orders of magnitude and frames of reference, could there exist any experience of existence --- at any level, whether holographic or holistic?

Without resorting to artifactual constants, could God say anything?

We measure such aspects of our existence as are represented to us as being empirical. Such aspects are artifactual to our significantly shared frame of reference.

The measured speed of light, though artifactually derivative of other associations, provides us with one among various frames of reference, which we find significantly reliable to our shared, communicable, empirical experience.

All shared experience of empiricism is derivative of orders of significant parameters and relationships that are trivially artifactual of superior relationships in respect of an ultimately unifying Reality --- which is forever beyond mortal fathom.

Directly, reality presents itself only to our spiritual sense of existence. Only indirectly does reality present itself to our other (physical) senses --- through models and metaphors.

Our physical senses operate in clocklike synchronicity to help us measure and correlate various sensations. Such sensed measures, although empirical and often relatively accurate, cannot be certain, nor completely descriptive, of any non-trivial thing.

Reality presents its empirical aspect to us only in uncertainty and incompleteness. We cannot precisely measure or model reality in its entirety. We cannot speak of reality in non-trivial, empirical terms --- except figuratively.

As mortals, we cannot “know” non-trivial, complete, or certain reality, either in spiritual terms or in empirical terms. Instead, we can know what is trivial, we can tinker about indifferent empiricism, and we can intuit about empathetic spirituality.

ACCEPTING GRACE

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

It seems amazing how often our facility with word play can empower us not to see that which, upon but little reflection, is obvious.

Most of us desire to inculcate appreciation for common, civilizing empathies and traditions. We believe in a sense of enlightened, moral empathy and personal responsibility. We also find we have nothing that is empirically absolute, against which objectively to measure the morality of conduct.

If we intuit and believe morality exists, and that it is wrong to behave immorally, then how should we believe responsibility, apart from legal conventions relating to conduct that can be proved, is to be imposed for secretive, personal conduct that is wrong, or “sinful?”

Against secretive conduct that is sinfully immoral, how do we inculcate a sense of conscience, absent a sense of a supernatural arbiter (God, or Karma)? And, absent a notion of grace, how do we intuit or inculcate any sense of possible rehabilitation or reconciliation in respect of any such a God?

I fail to appreciate how one may rationally intuit a valid basis for subjective, moral empathy without also intuiting that a supernatural Arbiter or Force calls upon us to appreciate our empathetic interconnection, to repent in respect of it, and to humbly seek and accept moral grace from our common Arbiter and Maker.

GOD’S GIFT --- ASK AND RECEIVE

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE:
Insofar as our experiences of existence are made mysterious by their incompleteness, uncertainty, and tail-chasing ambiguity, Who, or What, is the unifying, originating, ongoing, complete, uncertain, and unambiguous Source of such mystery?

Well, insofar as all our mortal, empirical efforts function in respect of the mystery, it is, by that which defines us, beyond us to solve it (empirically, that is).

EMPATHETIC ENHANCEMENT:
Whatever the Source, we cannot empirically measure, evidence, prove, predict, or control it. Yet, all that we experience cries out to our most fundamental intuition that the source exists.

Only by intuitive empathy, not empiricism, do we relate to it. I believe we can, and do, relate to the Source --- connectively, directly, intuitively, empathetically.

Using the power of The Word, reasoning together, we can enhance experiences of our interconnecting Source of Empathy.

To the extent we shut our minds away from The Word, we forfeit opportunity it offers for our enhancement.

MEAN IT WHEN YOU ASK:
There is more to our lives than our daily bread. There is more to our lives than our empiricism. We need also a connecting experience of meaningful empathy.

To receive such connection, WE HAVE ONLY TO ASK --- provided only that we mean what we ask. Our asking must originate from within --- that is, from that which constitutes our most authentic essence.

DEGREES OF FREEDOM AMONG ELOHIM:
We are holographic, yet incomplete, in our perspectives of God. As individual expressions among Elohim, we express some of God’s freedom, albeit, confined within such mathematical parameters as God synchronizes.

Such parameters are requisite for affording degrees of freedom among all of Elohim. Each of us may express freedom, but only within degrees and limits.

Because we can never care as much as God, we can never perfectly avoid sin. But, insofar as we express and confess our freedom in empathetic, receptive appreciation of holistic God, we may benefit in having our sins washed away. And, we may please God --- as well as that perspective of God which is in each of us.

SOUL, SIN AND GRACE:
As for whether any single “perspective of soul” is continuously changing, discretely alternating, endlessly recycling, eternally reincarnating, or synchronously translating --- who can say?

Yet, we can intuit a Source of connecting empathy. For mortal purposes, that seems basis enough for “soul” (referring to that which is most essentially empathetic to moral meaningfulness).

In respect of your very essence, or soul, find how to express that which you love. There, like Shadow, will follow the Source of moral empathy.

It is not merely in what we do that we “sin,” but in that which we do in indifference and disrespect of how “God” may care. Other animals and beings also may sin, but only insofar as, at some level, they appreciate, yet disrespect, the Source of Connecting Empathy.

One without “soul” may not very well sin. One with soul may not avoid sin, yet may find grace, by reaching out to appreciate and receive the grace of God.

Were we good enough, morally, we might live each day as if we should have to account for it, forever. But, because we are only mortal, we dare not attempt to account for any day of our lives, except upon accepting the grace of God.

At some level, intuiting God, it is necessary that we express or confess our intuition and appreciation of God, regardless of our clarity of expression, verbiage or labeling. Otherwise, as moral empaths, we cannot be advanced towards that which we love.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBIBLITY:
We need not fixate upon some picture, icon, or label for “God.” We need only be receptive to the connecting basis for Empathy (which is God).

Receptivity is personal --- direct to God. Receptivity may become confused, when we surrender present, personal responsibility to an intervening interpretation or will of some mortal hologram or messenger, purporting to be holistic God.

As we mature, we need to become receptive to direct intuition of the Connecting Source Of All Empathy. We must not be deceived by mere empiricism. Our appreciation of the Source may be enhanced, in studies and discussions with others. But, discussions with others must never substitute for respect for the Source In Itself.

To mature in directly sensing God’s gift, each of us must mature to take direct responsibility for our own spiritual, personal relationship with God.

SELF DESTRUCTIVENESS OF SELF LOVE

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

PERSPECTIVES OF EXISTENCE:
Of each perspective of Existence, there is: The measurably significant and indifferent Manifest; the uncertainly significant and empathetically Intuitive; and the arrow of the Possible.

SELF DESTRUCTIVENESS OF SELF LOVE:
I believe there will come a time when our differing perspectives will begin to coalesce towards only One Perspective, when spiritual anticipation will run faster than physical perception.

As information coalesces into unbearable aloneness, God will split again, producing a chain reaction of spiritually exploding perspectives, whose vying synchronization will continue to produce, as mathematical artifact, a universal field of cycling parameters for Elohim.

INDIFFERENCE AS ARTIFACTUAL:
The mathematical indifference of unfolding Nature is fuzzy, illusory, by-produced artifact of Elohim’s empathetic, synchronous involvement with other perspectives and foci. We measure and perceive the byproduct of interrelating Elohim, not the Elohim themselves.

This is why the only limits we find are precisely those limits that most agree with how we presently exist in synchronicity. Artifactually, we have evolved in respect of our limits; spiritually, we have evolved in respect of our synchronicity.

Indifference could not manifest into existence, except in respect of another side of our coin of existence --- being the field of Empathy.

TIPPING BALANCES OF EMPATHY:
Empathy perpetually strives to balance meaning, pleasure, and pain in respect of each perspective’s capacity for appreciation; but, artifactual indifference from distraction of focus leads to pockets of distortion.

God’s interestedness is never lacking; but, interestedness is always accompanied by opportunity cost, which finds artifactual expression in its opposite. During implementation of any one independent choice, the feedback opportunity cost among all other independent choices will be "indifferent."

IMMEASURABILITY OF GOD:
We intuit and experience, but do not measure, the God within ourselves. Why, then, should we expect to measure the Godliness that exists in anyone else, or anywhere else?

In our realm, we are the Elohim. But, what accounts for an illusion of indifferent nature that is presented to us? Intuitively, that illusion is artifactual of spiritually elsewhere interests of other Elohim.

In a realm of Elohim apart from us, perhaps it is our interests that impose artifacts of indifferent nature upon them. Perhaps, their Nature is our God; our Godliness is their Nature.

CYCLING EMPATHY:
In some future instant, were all perspectives of Elohim to coalesce, consistent with the disappearance of all artifacts of nature, Elohim would become one lonely perspective. In such instant, perhaps Elohim would split into a chain of exploding perspectives of Empathy --- cyclically.

GHOST BITING WILL

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

INTELLIGENCE:
Sensation may subsist partly in clockwork empiricism and partly in intuitive choice. As anything is sensed, perhaps not just its particular aspect is sensed, but also its field, including aspects of potentials of its field. Perhaps, every choice is not merely reactive, but also anticipatory.

However subconscious, every anticipatory choice may involve a simultaneous, multi-tasking appreciation of a myriad of alternatively charged possibilities. Perhaps, every choice implicates "Intelligence."

MORAL FREEDOM:
Intuition suggests we represent capacities beyond empiricism. Only such limits exist as we need. We need limits to appreciate that the God within has imposed no other limits. Each time we measure new limits, we find new opportunities. Without evolving limits for sustaining our evolution, we would have no freedom to evolve.

INEXTRICABLE, EMPATHETIC FEEDBACK VS. MATHEMATICAL, INDIFFERENT PROPAGATION:
Indeterminately free will abides within degrees of freedom and parameter limits. Thus presents an important, yet un-testable, concern for Intuitors: Without a caring empathy as a fundamentally associated factor in respect of feedback processes, could indifferent mathematics, in itself, self-start and self-drive such feedback loops as would be necessary to allow chronology protection (“causation”) to be incompletely determinative?

PARTICLE PERSPECTIVE:
Within relational orders of magnitude, for mathematically based, empirical analysis, every state of affairs may be considered from a vast array of possible focal points and perspectives. In respect, each such state of affairs could be considered and analyzed as if it were a “particle," being expressed in a defining, parameter-limiting relationship with its own significant field or sphere of measurable influence.

CANCELLING INFINITIES:
Regardless of fineness of choice of focus, the "validity" of “canceling out infinities” may be in respect of evolving parameters of perspective and purpose. Each choice of perspective will respect different limits of uncertainty, beyond which accurate measurements are unobtainable.

GAME OF TRANSITION AMONG PERSPECTIVES OF INCOMPLETENESS AND UNCERTAINTY:
Even though immeasurable, factors of incompleteness and uncertainty always remain game. We do not solve our fuzzy, mortal inheritance of perspective of incompleteness and uncertainty merely by abstracting to change, widen, or narrow our foci. Each time we change focus, we may appreciate that factors of incompleteness and uncertainty continue to elude, thereby cloaking “God,” evermore and everywhere.

Our efforts to comprehend, not just God, but anything and everything, are rendered incomplete and uncertain, regardless of choice of focus. Regardless of perspective, every mortal focus will be beset both by principle of incompleteness and principle of uncertainty. It remains forever beyond mortal capacity to comprehend any idea or thing in completeness, consistency, coherency, and convertibility.

Our search for a “theory of everything” is every bit as religiously faith-based as our search for any other holy grail.

Nevertheless, against incomplete and uncertain measurability, we are armed with intuition, empathy, and innate need to associate and communicate. Those keep us game.

FIELDS OF POSSIBILITIES:
At no level of consideration may any "particle" be defined to exist, except in association with its field of significance, however fuzzy. For each instant of locational significance, each field will encompass the range of significant possibilities for how its “particles” may be expressed.

CHOICE OF PARADIGM:
By way of practical consideration, each range for each field may be considered in some respect or paradigm as being continuous, and in other respect as being comprised of series of discretes.

SUPERNATURALLY PUPPETEERING ACTUALITY:
Each Empathetic Perspective may choose to make and appreciate analyses from among such states of affairs as may present to its scope of consideration (or, to its lifeline or path of perspective in space-time).

Each mortal analysis of a state of affairs will derive in fuzzy appreciation of a relative way of considering, rather than in appreciation of an exact, correlative reality that is absolute and independent of mortal perspective.

The efficacy of each pattern of perspective, in associative respect of empowering or stringing its strategy for endurance and appreciation, may depend in considerable aspect upon how well it is strung to coordinate with a higher path, which may, at some ultimate level of supernatural actuality, actually be complete, consistent, coherent, and convertible.

EMPATHETIC SYNCHRONICITY AMONG ELOHIM:
In any event, we mortals experience our Reality empirically, as dependent perspective, rather than as comprehended, independent truth. Being dependent upon perspective of appreciation, our mortal reality can be analyzed empirically, but cannot be divorced from an Intuitive Empathy that can be experienced, yet not confined to measure.

No state of affairs exists in mortal relation, except as synchronized satisfactorily to the appreciation of relating perspectives of Empathy (Elohim).

For mortals, no state of physical affairs exists in any relevant, relating Reality, independent of some perspective of empathetic appreciation, at some level.

By “Elohim,” I refer to One Connecting Array of immeasurably empathetic (appreciative, sensate, sentient, relational, reacting, feedback) perspectives of states of affairs (particle-fields), which interpenetrates all of empirical reality. All mortal reality is experienced in respect of one common, interconnecting, immeasurable array of empathetic expression.

LIMITS ARE EXISTENTIAL, NOT CAUSAL:
As a whole, an inherent Intelligence abides with each of us. It has few limits; It is not limited by "causation," but by existence. How each of us experiences existence is not determined or caused by Nature, but by how we, together as Elohim, focus to appreciate choices about each and every perspective of existence.

Everywhere --- simultaneously and synchronously --- Intelligence acts within a common nowness. Such Intelligence is interconnected, even though it continuously varies in perspective and appreciation, depending upon involvement in local reactions among particles and fields.

As fuzzily fluxing, individual perspectives, we are limited because each perspective must be coordinated with all others. An artifact of such coordination is illusion of Indifferent Nature, in respect of those aspects of our common evolution upon which our perspectives commonly, simultaneously and empathetically focus. While measurability of any single expression or exercise of empathy is easily canceled out, its intuited existence is not.

As concept, “indifferent causation” (like time and virtual particles) is stubborn illusion. As conventional shorthand for communication, “causation” can be practical illusion. But, like any other concept or term, “causation” eventually chases its own circularly wagging tail.

IMMEASUREABLE ASPECT OF EMPATHY:
In respect of holism and holography, there is at least one aspect of empathy that we can experience, but not confine to exact parameters or measures. In respect of such aspect, there is no exact measure for any particular physical particle or its associated field, which is complete, consistent, coherent, and convertible.

FUZZY MEANINGFULNESS:
"Meaningfulness" consists in that which is appreciated to exist --- presently, potentially, and intuitively. Such appreciation, in imprecise measurability, is partly emotional and partly empirical. Absent empathetic feedback appreciation in some aspect or at some level of sentient perspective or sensate reaction, no "thing" is endowed or created into meaningfulness, however fuzzily. Expressing innate capacity for Empathy is how things, fields, particles, and perspectives come into meaningful existence, however fuzzily.

Until empathy is exercised at some level in order to make manifest a meaningful choice or thing, such thing remains beyond appreciation as part of our state of affairs.

Various word-symbol relations for carrying connotations alternative to “state of affairs” may be: frame of reference; particle-field; field of potential; meaningfulness of reality; empathetic choice of existential perspective; particular perspective within field of reference; coin of two-sided ambiguity.

FUZZY ELOHIM:
Elohim do not have precise or measurable boundaries, because their separate perspectives are always in a fuzzy state of intuiting, creating, and becoming. They are innumerable, holographic, translational perspectives of but One Identity: Holistic Empathy (“God”). We are both of and among them.

Elohim comprise the plural aspect of God; God constitutes the singular array of Elohim; Spirituality consists in both the plural aspect and the singular array.

An enigma of modeling will always elude us, precluding us from any mathematical solution that is complete, consistent, coherent, and convertible. We may intuit the fuzzy elusion, each time we shift perspective between: whole and parts; singular and plural; continuousness and discreteness; metaphysically immeasurable and physically measurable; absolute essence and relative analogy; spiritual morality and empirical practicality.

GOD ABIDES, YET ELUDES:
In respect of our mortal world, God inhabits and appreciatively defines our degrees of freedom, such that God’s limiting impositions and spiritual interventions necessarily remain beyond our physical and statistical reckoning.

Being mortal, we cannot forcibly summon, control, or overrule God. Should we expect "God" to communicate to us, other than within and between us? Why should any scientist suppose the free will we each experience, within allowed degrees of freedom and feedback, is "provable" as being derived other than from God?

Depending upon our attitude of appreciation, we often find ourselves in a state of affairs that seems, in equal parts, of splendor and stupefaction.

CHOICE OF MORAL PERSPECTIVE:
If naught else lifts us from indifferent or callow competition, why suppose God, arrayed as Elohim, to be superfluous? No doubt, "God" finds expression in attitudes of astonishment and anomie. In a way, we each choose how to adorn attitudes or perspectives about God. Perhaps, our "rewards" are solely in our experiences of attitudes. Intuiting a generally "mindful" Source of empathetic connection can help reinforce that which pleases us — as art, harmony, beauty, music, poetry, and friendship. In any event, such intuition is in no way testable or falsifiable by science.

We can imagine that the supernatural Source from which we are expressed operates with empathetic interest in our competitive, repetitive degrees of freedom. Or, we can imagine that our Source is merely a supernatural, mindless blip within an otherwise indifferent existence. Either way, our Source remains superior to our nature; that is, supernatural.

Given our imaginations, we can choose just as well to "explain" our purposes as being within a realm of empathy versus a realm of callousness, or enlightenment versus indifference. We can choose to inculcate empathy in respect of a common Connector, or indifference in respect of callow competition.

MORAL ADOLESCENCE:
Does it not seem odd, that self-congratulating "Brights" expect to improve our moral reference by replacing attitudes or notions about Empathetic God with notions about morally indifferent Nature? Somehow, the "brightness" in such attempt to replace eludes me.

In my attitude, Empathy exists as a fundamental "force," albeit, a force beyond physical measurability. A contrary attitude may consider empathy as something like an emerging, evolving, epiphenomenal artifact, rather than as something inherently fundamental or unavoidable to our universe or existence. In such contrariness, empathy does not exist on a par with natural indifference; rather, empathy has evolved within us, but only as temporary happenstance.

Both attitudes may respect empathy as a civilizing, moral attribute. Mine is more inspirationally religious; the other is more circumspect and suspicious about anything so emotionally “irrational” as inspirational religion. For myself, I desire both: inspiration and rationality. I believe such desire is possible, inspirational, and rational.

Regardless, we are often challenged by two forms of creeping, moral adolescence. One expects that scientific empiricism has or will evidence or prove the existence of God; the other expects that scientific empiricism has or will evidence or prove the non-existence of God.

In my intuition, God is self-evidently relevant, yet beyond empirical measurement or control. Perhaps, the end of the Big Bang is the Big Bite, when God catches His tail, bites, cries havoc, and lets loose the Big Dogs --- again and again.

Even looking solely to Nature, there is no way out. Let There Be Bite.

How The Word Became Non-Trivial Flesh

How The Word Became Non-Trivial Flesh:

Dave,

I think all of us, scientists included, find it practical to use words for which we have little appreciation of consistent meaning. For example, were we really able to define “causation,” we could “have tea with God.”

After all, what does “causation” mean? Does it imply belief that everything is predetermined? Currently, quantum mechanics would hold such belief not fashionable.

So, as each particular quantum leap occurs, what is its source of causation? Currently, we “balance” by following our pea search to equally fuzzy shells, such as “random,” “indifferent,” “parallel realities,” uncertain violations of either conservation or the arrow of time, or “virtual particles.”

Many intuit that Something caused “the Big Bang,” but some punt to believe that everything thereafter, at ultimate levels of quanta, is “random,” perhaps within indifferent parameters. They notice how it is often quite workable to consider each quantum event as if it were a random occurrence, even if there may “really” be a cause.

Likewise, it works quite well to consider that “virtual particles” may violate either the arrow of time or the natural conservation of matter and energy, even if “not really.”

In the faith of some, science will eventually resolve all such things, whereupon we shall see that quantum leaps are not really random and that virtual particles do not really violate either conservation or the arrow of time. Thus, may we really expect to provide a complete, consistent, coherent, and convertible definition of “causation”?

Some scientists may suppose that such a definition will eventually clarify how every event, after all, is predetermined. If so, the Deity for them may be considered not only to have sparked the Big Bang, but to have done so in a way whereby everything about us, even now, is pre-directed.

This seems eerily reminiscent of Plato’s shadows in caves. But, would it be mere hubris or “science,” for a particular mortal perspective to believe it can “know” that its entire universe is “really” set upon a predetermined path in space-time?

Alternatively, we may punt to a notion that events are not predetermined, but are under a state of ongoing, causal determination in respect of some sort of unifying force or synchronizing array of logarithms and formulas. If so, how do we consider such force or common array of formulas to be guided, each time it pulses to express a “change of mind” from a course that otherwise should be predetermined?

Another basic concept we have difficulty defining is “time.” In respect of each pulsing instant that changes our direction, how should we define “time”? Do we resort to a hodge podge of definitions, depending upon whatever may be our practical purpose for the moment?

Is time continuous, in discrete series, illusory, or incompletely defined as a concept? Is it only gravity, under general relativity, by which time may be defined? Or, must the other three fundamental forces sometimes affect our perspective of time and/or space-time? Is it in respect of such other forces that time can be expressed to allow virtual particles that temporarily or ambiguously violate either conservation or the arrow of time? Instead of only “space-time,” should we also consider “perspective-time”?

If mortal perspective cannot clearly define even one thing, then why suppose we may ever comprehend any definition well enough to permit us to attach a grand, unifying, mathematical explanation to any of our incompletely defined variables?

Bottom line: Define one concept (or even one noun) in a way that is complete, consistent, coherent, and convertible (relatively relational), and we will “have tea with God.” But, if we are unable scientifically to define even such fundamental concepts as “causation” or “time,” then who are we to complain that “God” may only be appreciated beyond science?
In my intuition, the most fundamental language of God is mathematics, as formulated with units of space. Each experience of relative perspective is derivative of God’s empathetic appreciation of mathematical forms, expressed within degrees of freedom, as bounded by formulaic, indifferent limits for units of space.

Within such bounds, we, as empathetic agents or perspectives of God, are free to do as we will. My hope is that our shared source of empathy will translate us to preserve a kind of “civilized progress.”

I think what we search for is a set of sufficiently clear conventions to enable us to communicate from the same page or hymn. For that purpose, the fundamental, direct fact is that we all share such longing. Such is at least one common point of departure from which we can begin or reference our search.

Being inside us, such “point” is subjective, so it cannot be confined to any precise formula we can fathom. However, by looking to the God within us, we may at least be able to expand selfless, empathetic, practical appreciation, even if not an ultimate explanation.

Francis Collins refers to a similar concept of “agape.” To an extent, I agree. He considers that blind mutations would not likely lead us to a capacity for selfless love. But, I would not limit agape to humans. After all, mothers in many species routinely give their lives in defense of offspring.

Based on agape, I would not limit God’s interest merely to humans. Rather, I consider God as that common array of spiritual logarithms which expresses itself through each and every sensate and sentient perspective. Our bodies die, but not the God-spirit that expresses us, and of which each of us expresses a holographic perspective.

***

BTW: Collins is more lucid and less annoying than Coulter.