I agree with this point. However, to move the argument forward, I think we all hit a wall. In all presentations about theism, determinism and the antithesis; we come to an “uncertainty” principle. We all reach this chasm in which the final proof is absent. I have heard you say before Sapientia “I don’t have to prove the antithesis”. I think you do – and – if you can’t “things” are uncertain. That is what we are left with – I call it the uncertainty principle. I wrote this in another thread:
— Thinker

I don't have to prove the antithesis unless that's my position. And yes, most things are uncertain. — Sapientia

A very convenient position. Not explaining the criteria for your position is also very convenient. So, how do you make decisions? As I recall, you don't like talking about emotions. I wonder why?

God does not need us – quite the contrary – we need God. Or perhaps I should say we desire God.
— Thinker

Speak for yourself. — Sapientia

I do speak for myself and I project to others - does that seem unreasonable to you? I hear you do that all the time - we all do - That is the only card we have to play.

We are almost nothing to God – a speck of dust.
— Thinker

No, we're real. Even a speck of dust is real. That's more than can knowingly be said about God. God is almost nothing to me besides being an interesting talking point, a subject of enquiry into human psychology, and that sort of thing. God is not a crutch for me. — Sapientia

You either missed my point or chose to ignore it. To argue whether or not we are real is absurd. Why you go there, I suspect, is to avoid my point. My point is that we are not very significant - I did not say insignificant - quite the contrary. God provided us with an "equation for life" - as I previously denoted. This is how I see the available evidence which is reasonable to my mind. You counter that the universe is not organized and that a nice planet, consciousness & love is just luck. Ok, I hear you and I cannot gainsay your logic (simple as it is) – but – when I hear you say – “God is not a crutch for me.” I hear an emotion. You don’t want crutches. There is something else afoot here. You don’t like to talk about your emotions – but – you reveal them.

If our sun blows up – I doubt we will be missed. What is our consequence in the scheme of things?
— Thinker

Many theists would find the notion that God is destructible to be absurd, but there is reason to believe that God would die along with us. Some have said that he's already dead. In actually living my life, seizing the day is more important to me than the grand scheme of things. My concern is thisworldliness, rather than otherworldliness. — Sapientia

You completely changed what I said. I was clear – God is blowing up large parts of the universe as we speak. Talking about whether God is dead was nowhere in my conversation. I don’t know if God can die, reincarnate – be born or whatever. It is not my area of expertise. What I said is God is blowing up large parts of the universe as we speak – because – “It” is a mad scientist – pyromaniac. That means is that a part of the universe is being destroyed with better planets and beings than us. If we are the most intelligent beings in the universe – then I agree with you – God does not exist!

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. — Sapientia

I agree with this point. However, to move the argument forward, I think we all hit a wall. In all presentations about theism, determinism and the antithesis; we come to an “uncertainty” principle. We all reach this chasm in which the final proof is absent. I have heard you say before Sapientia “I don’t have to prove the antithesis”. I think you do – and – if you can’t “things” are uncertain. That is what we are left with – I call it the uncertainty principle. I wrote this in another thread:

Spirituality is an experience and can happen anywhere or time – to anyone. Anytime someone tells you they have talked to God – escape quietly – less they attack you with their delusional righteousness. God does not need us – quite the contrary – we need God. Or perhaps I should say we desire God. We are almost nothing to God – a speck of dust. If our sun blows up – I doubt we will be missed. What is our consequence in the scheme of things? There are probably billions of other beings much more advanced than us. Do you think we are one of God’s favorites? People wish for heaven because they are not satisfied how they have lived this life. Heaven is here – now – don’t miss the boat. I don’t know much about God – what ethics and morals “It” has – I cannot say – other than to say I like the laws of physics. I know the ethics and morals of man – it is not always very pretty – many times sad.

I am a theist but not in a traditional sense. I think most all bible and most religions are bogus. Buddhism being somewhat of an exception for me. If you talk to me about burning bushes - parting seas - walking on water - curing the blind – I don’t buy it. I think most bibles have “some” wisdom – but none of them is the word of God. In fact I do not think God talks directly to man – ever. I do not think we are very significant to God. No more than an ameba is significant to me – probably less.

What I see is an infinite universe – never stops. Actually I don’t see it – I just imagine it is infinite – and – I am not quite sure what infinite means. What I know is the universe is big. Like the number just keeps doubling and never stops. What I know is that I am trapped on little speck of dust called Earth. I don’t think the Earth means very much to God. There must be trillions upon trillions – bazillions other planets – better than the Earth. Why not if the universe is truly infinite?

I am not for sure – but – I speculate that God is a mad scientist. “It” has as many experiments going as there grains of sand. No, make that all of the electrons on this planet. And this planet is represented as just one of those electrons. How big/important does that make us? Not very. When a big star goes supernova – it can destroy an entire galaxy. There may be a trillion planets in that galaxy better than the Earth – and – they may be inhabited with beings much more advanced than us. I think probability statistics supports some facsimile of this thesis. Better planets and beings are being destroyed every day. Remember I said God was a mad scientist. I might have to change that to pyromaniac.

My point is that we are not very significant in the universe and to God. However, we have a very nice planet – it might be second or third rate – but – still very nice. Nice air – nice sun – nice water – plants – animals – trees – I don’t like all the bugs. What can you do – you take what you get. You know what else I like about this planet? My consciousness – I am not so sure about yours – but mine is the best. I also have love – the greatest of emotions.

So when I add up all these things – I feel very lucky – too lucky. I was born and raised in New York and I don’t believe in luck. Nobody gives you anything for nothing. The story is just too good to be true. I am a skeptic and I want an explanation for the overwhelming good fortune. I have heard the atheist explanation for the ways things are, ad nauseam, and it sounds hollow. I hear religious explanations and it makes me want to puke. So, what’s a guy to do?

I cannot get a satisfactory answer from reason or superstition. So I take a little of both and add a third element – emotion. I see organization and balance (a kind of equation) in my world and I ask – how did this happen? This is the reason part. Then I ask – how does this “equation” get set in motion and maintained? I ask myself – “Is God possible?” This is the superstition part. Then I use the third element – emotion – I ask – what works best with my emotions? My answer is God did it all. I don’t know how, why, where or when. God does not talk to me or anyone else. Religion is a con. However, I hear, see, feel, taste and touch the “equation” that God set in motion – every moment. I cannot prove it – but I can feel it. Atheists cannot disprove it. I cannot disprove atheism – in fact I don’t want to. I listen to Jiminy Cricket – “Let your conscience be your guide”.

I realize it is just a premise – but it is a good working hypothesis for me. I like it better than the atheist position because that is emotionally hollow. I am full of emotion and I don’t want to feel stranded. Atheism is just another premise. Choose your poison.

You wrote:

Sign language is a type of written language.

Gestures are not marks. — creativesoul

"Seeing self-contemplation" is a tricky way to talk. Self-contemplation happens in more than one way, and does so quite differently, depending of course, upon the complexity of agent involved the process of introspection. It is important to note here that self-contemplation cannot get exceed the scope of knowledge afforded to the creature by virtue of the complexity of it's thought/belief system. Self-conception - as we know it - requires written language, for it is an integral part of having a worldview. — creativesoul

I would think a person interested in language development and meaning – you would know a lot about Koko. Koko demonstrates self-reflection and feelings. She makes art, asks questions and uses a computer and telephone in elemental ways. Hand signs are like writing on the beach before a wave comes in and washes it away. Koko is the first animal we have ever really talked to – that is extraordinary just in itself.

I don’t know where you wish to go in this thread. I have presented a few worthy ideas, as have others, which you either ignore or dismiss. You do have a fine mind, but there is something suspect about your agenda. I don’t have the time or inclination to find out what it is – best of luck to you.

I identify with the darthbarracuda school of philosophy, I think - maybe.
— Thinker

No, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO — darthbarracuda

Only on Tuesday - is today Tuesday?

darthbarracuda — darthbarracuda

I identify with the darthbarracuda school of philosophy, I think - maybe.

Creatures without written language are always in the moment, and never thinking about being so. Such creatures are more than capable of attributing meaning to 'objects' of sensory perception by virtue of drawing mental correlations between them and/or themselves(their own state of mind). — creativesoul

I think you may be right that written language is indicative of state of mind. I define state of mind as the ability to contemplate one’s own thoughts. Here is an interesting look at Koko. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNuZ4OE6vCk
A remarkable being. Sign language is a type of written language. How far back can we go in the animal kingdom and see self contemplation?

We are endowed with this powerful thinking tool that can contemplate almost anything, chaos being one of them. So, the issue of whether the concept of order is innate or acquired is moot because we can imagine the antithesis of order. — TheMadFool

This is a very fine thought.

Glad - satisfied sounds mild - you should be ecstatic - the benefits would be more. You should be screaming from the rooftop - I am lucky. We would all laugh at you - but - you would be happier.
— Thinker

I find that naive for a few reasons. There isn't an on-and-off switch, and there are other important things besides happiness. I'd rather be a little less happy than be a gullible, crazy fool that's the butt of everyone's jokes. — Sapientia

I think you take me a little too literally about "screaming from the rooftop". That was a joke. However, the engineering your attitude in life to maximize happiness and productivity is not a joke. Each individual is free to design their own attitude towards their life. All I am saying is that some attitudes are more beneficial than others. Attitude is everything.


Attitude

By Charles Swindall

The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company…a church…a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We can not change our past…we can not change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We can not change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you…we are in charge of our Attitudes!

It's not that difficult to understand. When one says "Well put, for simplicity's sake" it need be neither a compliment nor a put down. You see, both of those require a focus upon the author, whereas "Well put, for simplicity's sake" focused upon the content of the expression. — creativesoul

Thank you for being generous with your ideas and praise – well done.

That doesn't follow from what was written. — creativesoul

Thank you for your abundant objection and explanation.

It seems that your notion of cognition is not equivalent to my notion of thought/belief. On my view, not all stimulus/response situations involve thought/belief. Detection alone is insufficient for drawing mental correlations between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or one's own state of mind. All such mental correlations constitute thought/belief formation. Simple cell organisms have no state of mind, for they do not have the complexity that seems obviously necessary for it. — creativesoul

My notion of cognition can be viewed in a “line of continuation”. We started as single cell organisms. We progressed to where we are now. Somewhere in this continuum we developed the ability to think – cognize. Did cognition and ability to hold meaning – what you call thought/belief – develop simultaneously? I do not know – all is speculation. If we look at dinosaur predators and ask – did they have thought/belief? It seems so because they looked at another animal and saw food. Food is meaningful. Did they have state of mind? I doubt it. My question is whether or not there is a fulcrum between thought and belief in the “line of continuation”? I think it is worthy of speculation to a certain degree – and – I think we have reached that degree. There is another fulcrum in the “line of continuation” for the question of state of mind. When did beings start to think about their own thoughts?
.

You religious folks always give me a cult vibe. — Terrapin Station

I am a cult of one. I think of myself as spiritual and anti-religion.

Rather than "grateful," I should just be "joyful." — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am suspicious of you TheWillowOfDarkness - your name says a lot. Stay away from nothingness thoughts. Yes, be joyful and then after you reach joyfulness - be grateful.

On topic too. — Srap Tasmaner

That's the way I look at it.

Gratitude outside causality, that is gratitude to no-one, is meaningless. It just the nihilistic neurosis-- that world and ourselves are meaningless in themselves, such that we would have to think nothing for allowing us to exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You really miss the point - it is gratitude to everything - you - choose to be grateful for. You don't need a cause to be grateful. Be grateful there is no cause.

I don't believe in luck though. — Terrapin Station

I personally define luck when opportunity meets preparation.

Lucky/thankful not really. Glad/satisfied, yes. — Terrapin Station

Glad - satisfied sounds mild - you should be ecstatic - the benefits would be more. You should be screaming from the rooftop - I am lucky. We would all laugh at you - but - you would be happier.

I personally define luck when opportunity meets preparation. I must also say as a theist – I hate most organized religion. I think it is the scourge of mankind – particularly – Islam. Any kind of servile obligation is stupid. I think we should have more atheists because they think for themselves. Just be grateful – make things better for us all.

Do you feel a servile obligation towards the socks on your feet?

Is remarking that life is good not enough?

What's the purpose behind making a gesture of gratitude toward a thing which cannot perceive it?

It seems nonsensical... — VagabondSpectre

I would say you miss the point. I don't think about my socks or the sun and moon very much. Being grateful of your consciousness and love in your life is beneficial in itself. The more gratefulness you can generate in all dimensions improves the quality of your life – and the world. Want to be more happy – be more grateful – simple as that.

"Luck" really only make sense if you are talking about causality, in the significance of how someone exists in one position rather than another, by circumstance and themselves, such they one way rather than another (e.g. a rich person is who "lucky" to be born into wealth, person belonging to a plentiful environment, etc.). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Be careful not to restrict your gratitude - it will not hurt you. Rather, the more you have, the better off you are. I would call lack of gratitude the atheists neurosis.

If you want a more direct answer than this you've got to define "luck". — VagabondSpectre

I define "lucky" as fortunate, fortuitous, favourable, auspicious, advantageous, propitious, opportune.

My point, overall, is that we are inordinately lucky. I think any honest person – atheist or theist – has to admit our circumstance is fortunate – overwhelmingly so. I also think most atheists resist any sense of gratitude or thankfulness because they fear any servile-ness or obligation. I think atheists should thank the universe for doing a good job – even by accident. This is a weakness in atheist thinking. If you deny gratefulness, you limit your compassion and empathy. Being ungrateful restricts your appreciation for everything. Most Buddhist atheists do not have this problem. Most non-spiritual atheists do suffer from this dilemma. However, I think it is fixable, and one can still be atheist and not Buddhist.

You do realize that my answer takes us right back through the entire universal history of causation to the big bang right? — VagabondSpectre

Not quite - I am not asking a question of causation - I think cause or no cause is irrelevant. In fact I don't want us to consider causation - just circumstance. Are we lucky to exist?

Do you thank the socks on your feet? Do you thank the air that you breathe or the water that you drink?

Do you thank the gravity of the earth and the earth's distance from the sun?

If not why not? — VagabondSpectre

Yes I am thankful for these things.

I think your answers were great - and - I would say truthful. Do you think that you are fortunate to have all these things? Lucky?

As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? What?

Good one. — Srap Tasmaner

What is good about it?

If there's something specific you don't get, ask me. — Srap Tasmaner

As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? What?

I am not sure if that is a compliment – put down – or both?

Neither. — creativesoul

I don’t think I can take this comment at face value because it leaves me guessing at what you mean. Your previous comment – “well put” – leads me to understand complimentary approval. I am still not sure what you meant by – “for simplicity's sake...” Did you mean a simplistic explanation - or something else – I honestly don’t know? If simplistic, I would infer – put down. If in fact you do mean “neither” - now – please explain what that means. Then correlate what you mean by neither with your original comment. We are talking about language and meaning – right? Please clarify.

Do you think my explanation of the origin of meaning – cognition – language is cogent?

Yup. — creativesoul

I take yup to mean affirmative – my thoughts are cogent - then I would reference back to your original comment – well put.

Could you add some subtlety to my scenario?

Yup. — creativesoul

Yup again – ok – are we playing cat and mouse? If you have something to add – please do.

Do you have an alternate theory of how meaning arrived – cognition and language?

Nope. — creativesoul

I am getting the feeling your one word comments are dismissive of our interaction. If talking about the origin of cognition, meaning and language is not pertinent to - Is Meaning Prior To Language? – I am at a loss. You are new to this forum, but not to philosophy. I have read all your comments in this thread and you do not come across as warm and gentle. More like a cross between a philosophy professor and a tyrannosaurus rex. I am not trying to put you on the defensive – I feel I could learn a lot from you. However, respect has to go both ways.

Perhaps cognition should come before meaning – we must have had cognitive power first before we could derive associative meaning.

Perhaps they arise simultaneously. — creativesoul

This is the first comment where I feel you genuinely interact with me. You may be right that cognition and meaning are simultaneous. However, if we go back way before the first Homo sapiens – back to the beginning – and ask the same questions about cognition and meaning. The first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates, evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch (65.5-55.8 million years ago) at the beginning of the Cenozoic Era. Did they have cognition of their senses? Yes, but I am not so sure they had meaning. If we look at simple cell organisms today - we can see they will respond to stimuli – they have a rudimentary cognition, but I don’t think they have meaning. So, I think cognition comes first – then meaning somewhere down the line.

I do not think that that question leads to greater understanding. Better to focus attention upon what cognition requires. What is the bare minimum criterion? What must be the case in order for cognition to happen? Does that include things that require other things? What is included within the set of necessary existential preconditions? — creativesoul

I think these are good comments. Perhaps we can do both – understand what cognition requires and how we acquired it. I think it is safe to assume that cognition needs a neural network – a brain. The following is from Wikipedia:

“The vast majority of existing animals are bilaterians, meaning animals with left and right sides that are approximate mirror images of each other. All bilateria are thought to have descended from a common wormlike ancestor that appeared in the Ediacaran period, 550–600 million years ago.”


We, as bilaterians, are descendent from a wormlike ancestor. Something I find very comforting. Somewhere in our lineage our ancestor’s developed a brain with a neural network sufficient to cognize sensory stimulation. This is the beginning of our ability to think. Over time the neural network got more and more complex to derive meaning from complex stimulation.

The above is steeped in language use that leaves me guessing. What is the word "that" referring to in the following?

"The actual is what we humans experience because that is what acts upon us, and what we act upon, as actual beings ourselves."



Of course objections may always be made on terminological grounds; that is due to the imprecision of language.

Language is certainly sometimes imprecise and can have many different results, that being but one. — creativesoul

I think John explained the difference between real and actual very well. For example - the universe is real, but my perception of it may be a little different from what it actually is. In my example that would be the universe. I get his meaning quite clearly.

Modes of being

I think we have multiple modes of being. We always have a present mode of being. The present mode is global in scope -although, we may not always be aware of the present. In the same regard, we have a past and future mode of being. Another global mode is our concept of our self. Like – I am a man – a democrat – a good person – happy – carpenter – and so on.

We have many temporary modes of being. We have a spiritual mode – sexual mode – eating mode – philosophical mode – and on and on. Modes of activity like eating or sex - exists in a global mode – past, present or future. Many modes can be combined and shifted about. We are in the present when we think of the past or future. We also have a conceptual mode of ideas, stories and/or mental projections. In this conceptual mode we may cogitate about philosophical ideas or tell stories or project ourselves as a hero or villain.

We also have an eternal mode. We visualize going to heaven or hell. Or going nowhere into nothingness after we die. There is also a still mind mode – just pure awareness. We have a parenting mode – sibling mode – family mode – work mode – relaxing mode – exercise mode – authentic mode – deceptive mode – we have many many modes.

All of our modes combine and commingle. However there is one mode that is supreme – the present. We are prisoners of the present from the moment of conception to our last breathe. We never leave the present. The present is our mode of being. Everything else is an addendum.

Well put for simplicity's sake... — creativesoul

I am not sure if that is a compliment – put down – or both? Do you think my explanation of the origin of meaning – cognition – language is cogent? Could you add some subtlety to my scenario? Do you have an alternate theory of how meaning arrived – cognition and language? Perhaps cognition should come before meaning – we must have had cognitive power first before we could derive associative meaning. How did we acquire cognition? I would like to hear what you think.

Thinking about it – cognition was first. The mosquito stung the first man. He cognized the sensation……

I gave you some suggested examples in that very post. There might be no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. There might be no explanation for why the fundamental features of the world are the way they are. — Michael

the real problem is that it attempts to take us beyond what we can know. — Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

I think it is true for most of us – that we have no way to know answers for certain questions. That is our lot. Do we not ask the questions? Most people don’t, but some of us do. Most people rely on other people’s answers. However, there are people who claim to receive direct communication with the divine or devil. Do we believe them – I don’t. I personally am waiting for an infinitely advance alien to beam me up and take me away to paradise. I am sure it is going to happen soon.

In the mean time I muddle around and play with what I have. Natural organization seems real to me. Life on this planet seems very fortunate. Consciousness is a real blessing. Love is a gift to me. I don’t know why I have these “things”. But I speculate and I am thankful. I think I am lucky. As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? If you are not thankful – that seems sad.

No problem.

Poetry doesn't have a goal.
— Noble Dust

I think you are way off base here. Please reconsider this statement. — Thinker

Poetry speaks to heart of everything - it moves - bends - breaks us.

Not "doing so", but wanting to do so. If we were able to we would, but we are not; so why should we want what we can't possibly have? That said, I think that in another way, every authentic work of art is an attempt to "answer" that question, or to speak to the question, at least. Why should we hope for a 'dry' analytical or discursive answer to the question, though. Would that not be to dishonour the question by trivializing it? — John

Very good point.

I have made some things that I kind of squirm at today - but I suffer through it.

The artist doesn't change — Thinker

I meant the art doesn't change.

You argued that the artist doesn't change in relation to a work; I'm arguing the opposite and giving Baldessari as an example. — Noble Dust

Not quite - I think the artist's original work does not change - all artists evolve.

I feel like I've dragged the discussion off-post. I'll let you guys have at it — T Clark

Quite the contrary - I hope you see the artistic Newton.

Ok, but even then, an artists perception of one of their works can change. John Baldessari burned all of his early work. — Noble Dust

Ok, so - he wanted to add an addendum to his work - seems a little self destructive to me.