Govert said:
The true nature of anything has nothing to do with our mathematics.
Why? What about the countless sciences that use mathematics to help figure out the way our world works, use modeling and prediction techniques, use forumlas and other methods that create a greater understanding of our reality? I don't understand why you can look at all that the study of mathematics has done for humanity's understanding of its world and how manyage-old illusions it has helped shatter and how many discoveries in countless fields were due to mathematics, how can you look at all this and say that it has nothing to do with the true nature of anything?
Yes, we can understand technical things, learning and knowing how an engine works.
We used math to design that engine!
But we cannot understand the nature of the universe, the existence and the illusion. Our mind is not the instrument for that.
But what reason do you have to put this limitation on our mind? Wouldn't you need to understand the true nature of the universe AND have a total grasp of all the capabilities of the human mind before you can make that statement?
Yes, we even don't know if there is a reason or a purpose. And if there is, we cannot know it.
We do not know it, but again I must ask, what makes you say CANNOT? Why are you putting a limitation when there is no evidence that such a limitation exists? What evidence or reason do you have to do this?
Our mind is just based on knowledge from the past and tries to make combinations that sound logical. But to understand the existence you have to be one with it.
But I'm not saying that we have to understand everything, just some things. We don't have to understand every facet of a car to know how it works, and know what it can and cannot do. I can use math and some physics to calculate if my car can drag a certain weight without understanding the detailed mechanics of the engine's operation or the chemical composition of the fuel I use to power it. Some things can be understood and practically applied without having to know everything. So understanding the "nature" of my car does not have to mean every last bit of it, it could be as fundemental as understanding the limitation of its capabilities if you have enough data to make this calculation. And it won't just sound logical, it will be logical and true if the data was true. So why can't the same be said for the universe - that there may be data, just enough, to allow us to understand certain things about creation without having to understand every last bit? I can calculate gravitational force of an object of a certain size without having to understand exactly what gravity is, and I can make predictions using such calculations and they WILL be accurate if my calculations are correct. In fact, that's how we landed that rocket on the moon.
The problem is that people want to know, but they will never know, they are running in circles
Wanting to know is not a problem, it is the solution to all problems. Knowlege is the only thing that ever provided any solutions to any problems anyone ever had as far as I'm aware. And one gains knowledge from wanting to know! But when you make assumptions, that means you do not want to know, because you are replacing the desire to gain understanding of objective reality with a "reality" of your own creation and call it "the truth". And when you declare that the human mind cannot do something, without knowing whether this is true or not, you're just creating your own reality. It seems that's what you're doing. So why do you see a problem with wanting to know, but see no problem with making assumptions and declaring that the knowledge will never be found?
you can't even speak of probability, that's a concept of the mind. There ain't no thing like probability. (I can't prove that though).
You can't prove it but you're not even giving any reason for your statement except "because I said so". And yet all evidence shows otherwise! Probability has and continues to be used all the time by everyone every day very effectively and accurately! I throw a ball in the air, I put my hand out and catch it because there is a very high probability that it will fall back down, that gravity won't suddenly turn off, and I quickly calculate its probable trajectory too, there are tons of probabilities involved! I have relied on probability all my life, and so have you and everyone else - it's the reason you haven't yet walked into incomming traffic.
The point is that people who don't chose for STS want to be STO. They want to do good things and become better persons.
That's not what STO is about though, good and better are judgements and subjective. A vital aspect of STO is objectivity.
That's the problem, as STO only is 'good' when a person does it immediately, without thinking about it and even not knowing about it. Otherwise it is based on selfish desires or egocentric behaviour. You cannot know what STO is and the person who does it does not know he does it. I think the c's are more clear about this.
STO is not about impulsive actions, just the opposite - acting based on KNOWLEDGE and careful consideration of what you do and why you do it, what the the results of your actions will be for all involved including yourself. You can know what STO is just as you can know what STS is, in fact knowing both is vital in order to ever choose one or the other consciously. Therefore, STO knows very well that it is STO and that what it does is STO! The C's are clear on that, but somehow you understand it totally backwards from how I understand it, and to me what you said sounds indeed like utter rubbish.
Btw, how can I insert the post I'm replying to?
I'm sorry, the limitations of your mind do not permit you to ever be capable of understanding this. It will take you some time to really realize it though :D
Please remember that it started here with the objective discussion if you can prove with objective facts if there is a separate God or not.
There is nothing objective or factual about declaring that the human mind can NEVER understand something simply because you say so! Your understanding of STO/STS also seems severely distorted at best, and somehow you manage to say that the C's are clear on all that nonsense! This puts into serious doubt everything else that you are "clear" about, osit.
Besides, this section is called 'what's on your mind'. Why are your responses so full of contempt?
What is contemptuous about stating what is true? If what is on your mind is assumptions and ignorance and noise, is it contemptuous for someone to point this out? And if the forum is designed for a different purpose, is it contemptuous to ask someone that comes here with assumptions and noise to go to a forum that is designed for such things instead?
