RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 27, 2014 at 9:11 am
(This post was last modified: May 27, 2014 at 9:16 am by archangle.)
Maybe be Benny my boy.
like a radio. The "body state" tunes into whatever is out there. Just like the "eye ball" is tuned to most of the energy reaching the surface of the earth. There is so many physics notions that loosely support your notions. I don't know if it's right or not. I will die not knowing.
There is much less science and engineering that supports "nothing" more than humans in this universe. Much less that supports "I am all that is". Again, this could be right ... I don't know.
My philosophy professor told me "You engineers make this so hard!". I said "Ya, because at some point we say let's go out and build it and see who is right." There is not an "Unlimited" number of solutions.
I use your guys posts to point out the problem with just plain philosophizing. It is why "magic" still has a foot hold. If the person stays in philosophy then they can sound quite reasonable if they dress, speak, and write well.
Building and testing leads to not only better questions, but a better sense of reality. Pages of philosophy, like an artist drawling of a house, Very beautiful ... well written ... how are we going to build it again?
Engineering the truth is quite different. we don'ta dress so well, and some of us can't speller a lick. We just build shit and see it if holds up under as many conditions as reasonably possible. If it fails, we learn and build again. Just because wood worked 200 years ago doesn't mean "I HAVE TO" use it today. Bible guys and anti bible guys should think real hard about this.
example: the axioms: engineering the truth .... relating to "awareness"
Is it more reasonable to hold to the belief that the universe probably has more of whatever humans have?
Or
is it more reasonable to assume that humans probably have more of "something" than the Universe has?
like a radio. The "body state" tunes into whatever is out there. Just like the "eye ball" is tuned to most of the energy reaching the surface of the earth. There is so many physics notions that loosely support your notions. I don't know if it's right or not. I will die not knowing.
There is much less science and engineering that supports "nothing" more than humans in this universe. Much less that supports "I am all that is". Again, this could be right ... I don't know.
My philosophy professor told me "You engineers make this so hard!". I said "Ya, because at some point we say let's go out and build it and see who is right." There is not an "Unlimited" number of solutions.
I use your guys posts to point out the problem with just plain philosophizing. It is why "magic" still has a foot hold. If the person stays in philosophy then they can sound quite reasonable if they dress, speak, and write well.
Building and testing leads to not only better questions, but a better sense of reality. Pages of philosophy, like an artist drawling of a house, Very beautiful ... well written ... how are we going to build it again?
Engineering the truth is quite different. we don'ta dress so well, and some of us can't speller a lick. We just build shit and see it if holds up under as many conditions as reasonably possible. If it fails, we learn and build again. Just because wood worked 200 years ago doesn't mean "I HAVE TO" use it today. Bible guys and anti bible guys should think real hard about this.
example: the axioms: engineering the truth .... relating to "awareness"
Is it more reasonable to hold to the belief that the universe probably has more of whatever humans have?
Or
is it more reasonable to assume that humans probably have more of "something" than the Universe has?
