Nu demult am citit un articol despre creier unde se arată, în urma unor rezultate experimentale (RMN) că creierul este un sistem în echilibru dinamic aflat la limita haosului. Cu cât activitatea cerebrală este mai haotică, cu atât omul este mai genial, aşa că graniţa dintre geniu şi nebunie este într-adevăr foarte subţire. Dar asta ar fi offtopic aici. Mă întrebi despre cunoaşterea emoţională. Ei bine, se întâmplă zi de zi şi sunt sute de exemple. Citeşte o poezie, priveşte un tablou, ascultă muzică. Nu este nevoie de raţiune ca să fi pătruns de mesajul artistic, nu? Sunt senzaţii care provoacă direct anumite emoţii şi trăiri. Cunoaşterea eu o văd în ansamblul ei ca un proces de achiziţie de informaţie din mediu, dar n-o limitez la raţional din cauză că ambele emisfere contribuie atât la decodare cât şi la prelucrarea acestor informaţii. Gândirea logică ordonează şi clasifică, face analogii şi cuantifică informaţiile în funcţie de relevanţa lor. Dar mintea în întreg nu se limitează la gândirea logică, la raţiune. Foarte des avem sentimente declanşate de aceste informaţii, în tot spectrul emotiv posibil, de la simpla mirare până la euforie sau enervare, în funcţie de caracterul informaţiilor primite. Chiar dacă poate perturba actul cunoaşterii uneori, nu cred că e predominant acest comportament. Eu zic că există un echilibru dinamic între cele două emisfere (vezi şi filmuleţul de mai sus, cu Jill B. Taylor) şi că întreaga percepţie conştientă şi subconştientă este alocată ambelor emisfere. Nu funcţionează bine una fără cealaltă. Ce spuneam ieri este că neglijăm adesea partea emoţională dintr-un proces cognitiv şi ne concentrăm exclusiv asupra raţiunii, ceea ce nu este neapărat greşit ci doar incomplet.

La limită, observând evenimente şi fenomene rare, unice, când acestea nu pot fi înscrise în sfera cunoscută, dacă nu am avea sensibilitatea percepţiei emoţionale în faţa noutăţii, raţiunea s-ar afla în mare dificultate. Ei bine, eu susţin că în această zonă a cunoaşterii se înscriu trăirile spirituale care duc la sentimentul religios pentru unii dintre oameni. Şi care eveniment sau fenomen, deşi nu poate fi explicat raţional este perceput ca atare, un adevăr despre lume.

Acest topic a fost editat de Erwin: 12 Jul 2009, 11:32 PM

Daca nimeni nu poate dovedi ca vreo revelatie ar fi adecvarata, de ce ar trebui sa fie crezuti pe cuvant cei care pretind ca ar fi avut asa ceva?

Si de unde stii care dintre divinitatile in care cred diversi oameni este cea adevarata, ca sa-i deosebesti pe falsii credinciosi de cei autentici?

1. Nu contest ideea asta, dimpotriva
2. Adica cei care nu simt divinitatea doar cred ca o simt?
Sau ce vrei sa spui aici?
De unde stii care dintre credinciosi simte cu adevarat divinitatea si care doar crede ca o simte, fara a o simti insa cu adevarat?

Nu inteleg, dezvolta ideea, te rog.

Eu ce sa inteleg prin cuvantul "sfinti"? Nefiind credincios, nu imi este clara semnificatia termenului. Te rog explica-mi ce intelegi tu prin "sfant" in contextul discutiei de fata.

Sau ar putea amandoi sa se insele.

Desigur - unul ar fi chiar nasterea Universului.

Daca exista fenomene pe care nu le putem studia cu metoda de care am pomenit mai sus, ei bine, despre aceste fenomene nu putem spune mai nimic care sa aiba un grad ridicat de certitudine. Din simplul motiv ca astfel de fenomene scapa posibilitatilor noastre de studiu! Iar cei care pretind ca stiu lucruri pe care nu au cum sa le stie se fac vinovati, voluntar sau nu, de minciuna.



De ce este definitia asta mai buna decat cea din dictionar? Parerea mea este ca, daca am folosi-o pe cea propusa de tine, ar trebui sa tragem concluzia ca organismele vii nu au viata. Ceea ce ar fi putin contradictoriu.

Nu am nici o prejudecata de genu'. De altfel, cand am vorbit de un suport pentru informatii, am avut in vedere atat mediul de stocare, cat si traducatorii. Informatie digitala poti stoca si pe bucati de lut sau in configuratii de molecule, asa cum se intampla cu informatia din ADN. Mai complicat e sa sa ai ceva cu care sa si valorifici informatia respectiva. De exemplu, poti stoca o melodie pe o banda magnetica, pe un compact-disk, un hard-disk, memory stick, disc de vinil sau chiar si pe o caramida pe care aloci conventional spatii distincte ce corespund bitilor de informatie (0/1), dar nu te vei putea bucura de melodia respectiva daca tu nu ai un aparat construit intocmai sa traduca pattern-ul respectiv intr-un semnal sonor care sa te gadile la ureche. Aparatu' cu pricina e buba. Deci, de cine e preluata informatia din neuronii unei persoane dupa ce aceasta dispare ? Pentru asta ar trebui sa existe ceva analog creierului. Doar asa ar putea fi valorificat "sufletul".


Sistemul afectiv al unui organism are o sarcina foarte clara, si anume aceea de a-i asigura supravietuirea. El poate fi inteles cel mai bine daca ne gandim la el ca la un sistem hedonic bipolar: placere-neplacere. Placerea a evoluat pentru a intari comportamentele benefice, cele care asigura supravietuirea, dupa cum durerea a evoluat pentru a ne feri de lucrurile si situatiile care ne-ar putea vatama sau diminua sansele de supravietuire. Marul este gustos pentru ca nutrientii sai ne sunt de folos, pe cand un cadavru in descompunere este dezgustator tocmai pentru ca trebuie sa ne ferim de el. Pentru un animal necrofag acelasi cadavru nu este deloc dezgustator, pentru ca el este adaptat sa faca fata microorganismelor ce descompun materia organica. Ei bine, sistemul afectiv nu-i altceva decat un "instructor intern" care ne ghideaza, dinamizeaza. Perspectiva asta cred ca este cea mai rodnica daca vrem sa intelegem la ce-i buna placerea si durerea pe lumea asta. Altfel spus, el aplica etichete valorice obiectelor si fenomelor din mediul cu care interactionam si, dupa caz, faciliteaza accesul cognitiei la acele etichete. Am inceput in felul asta pentru a arata care sunt originile sistemului afectiv, care clar n-a fost proiectat pentru cunoastere. Noi, oamenii, fiind mult mai evoluati, avem si functia imaginatiei, care complica mult lucrurile si care este foarte strans legata de afectivitate. Dincolo de asta, noi am si iesit intr-un fel sau altul din sfera supravietuirii, astfel ca ajungem sa investim emotional (etichetele valorice de care ziceam) si in lucruri care n-au o asa mare relevanta pentru supravietuirea noastra. Asa se intampla in arta, de exemplu. Asadar, eu n-as numi ceea ce spui tu cunoastere emotionala, ci mai mult un soi de activare a acelei etichete valorice ce coresounde unui "obiect" - activare ce genereaza senzatia de placere. Cunoasterea emotionala ce ar fi aici, daca nu usurinta cu care ne-am raporta la acel obiect, usurinta cu care acesta ne-ar invada campul constiintei ? Cum am spus si intr-un post anterior, afectivitatea energizeaza, pentru ca ne motiveaza sa ne focusam pe ceva anume, sa fim atenti la toate detaliile, sa retinem aspectele esentiale, etc. Gratie afectivitatii retinem cu usurinta, gratie ei avem acces la anumite informatii mai usor decat la altele, pe care poate le consideram neinteresante - si asta doar pentru ca un val e dopamina le-a insotit pe unele, iar pe altele nu.


Eu plec de la premisa ca noi suntem de la natura niste fiinte credule (apartine psihologiei evolutioniste), care sunt tentate sa asocieze si sa gaseasca o relatie de cauzalitate oridecate ori au de-a face cu succesiunea a doua evenimente la scurt timp unul dupa altul. Asa ne-a construit natura, asta era tot ce aveam nevoie in mediul in care am evoluat - mediu atat de diferit de cel in care ne ducem astazi existenta. Cu alte cuvinte, suntem, cum bine zicea cineva, "pattern seeking animals", pentru ca suntem gata sa gasim pattern-uri relevante pentru noi chiar si acolo unde ele nu exista (suntem foarte sensibili la chipuri, de exemplu, si asa se face ca unii vad chipul lui Isus sau pe cel al Fecioarei Maria chiar si intr-o scoarta de copac sau intr-un nor). In realitatea cu care se confruntau stramosii nostrii conta mai mult un fals pozitiv decat un fals negativ, in sensul ca nu era o problema daca un sarpe neveninos era considerat veninos (fals pozitiv), dar era o problema daca unul veninos trecea drept unul neveninos (fals negativ), si asa se face ca au persistat si inca persista multe chestii pe care le facem in speranta ca ne sunt de real folos, chiar si atunci cand acestea n-au nici o legatura. "M-am facut bine pentru ca am am spus o formula magica". M-am facut bine dintr-un alt motiv, dar eu le asociez, iar rau oricum nu-mi face. Am vorbit despre aceste lucruri pentru a scoate in evidenta faptul ca avem o minte evoluata intr-un alt mediu decat cel cu care ne confruntam in prezent (civilizatia are putin peste 10 mii de ani), si ca raspundem la anumite situatii asa cum am fost "programati" in Pleistocen (perioada de glorie a antropogenezei). Din punctul asta de vedere, se poate spune ca stiinta este un soi de fenomen cultural si ca metoda stiintifica, cu protocoalele ei, reprezinta un soi de sfidare a acestor tipare ancestrale de care ne foloseam candva. Metoda stiintifica e un produs, un aparat conceptual ce a fost perfectionat de-a lungul timpului si care poate fi insusit doar prin invatare, in caz contrar functionand aceleasi tipare ancestrale. Unde vreau sa ajung cu asta ? Am vrut sa scot in evidenta caracterul cultural al cunoasterii, faptul ca ea nu-i pur si simplu o simpla acumulare de cunostinte, ci presupune insusirea unui anumit tip de riguare, insusirea unui minim de masuri de control, care se opun tendintelor naturale de a cunoaste lumea.

Ideea de baza la care vreau sa ajung este ca putem ajunge la adevarata cunoastere doar respectand aceste protocoale stiintifice, doar introducand masuri de control adecvate. Asta-o motivul pentru care avem fel de fel de rigori metodologice in stiinta, asta-i motivul pentru care efectual experimente cu masuri de control minutios puse la punct, s.a.m.d. Restul este orice, numai cunoastere in adevaratul sens al cuvantului nu cred ca este. Invatam sa cunoastem, pentru ca doar asa putem tinde spre certitudini, intuitia putand da gres cand ne e lumea mai draga. Acestea fiind zise, cum putem noi sa cunoastem obiectiv ceva de care nu ne putem agata in nici un fel cu metoda stiintifica (transcendent, D-zeu) ? Dat fiind ceea ce am spus mai sus, e clar ca senzatia accea subiectiva, inaltatoare si cum mai vrem noi s-o nimim, cum ca noi l-am cunoscut pe D-zeu, nu ofera nici un soi de garantie. In concluzie, nu cred ca exista ceva asa, ca o perceptie extrasenzoriala sau subliminala (cunoasterea emotionala de care vorbesti tu) pe care nu ne-o putem explica dar cu ajutorul careia reusit sa cunoastem obiectiv Divinitatea, si asta doar asa, pentru ca ca, din varii motive, asociem acesteia niste trairi incredibil de intense. Trairea intensa nu-i o garantie pentru nimic legat de cunoastere.

Acest topic a fost editat de mothman: 13 Jul 2009, 03:08 AM

Parerea mea este ca unii atei nu stiu sa citeasca...
Ia mai incearca odata:
"VIATA = cauza(sau principiul) care determina organizarea materiei sub forma organismelor, si aparitia si intretinerea fenomenelor biologice (dezvoltare, metabolism, reproducere etc.) pe un anumit interval de timp.

Cum ai reusit sa tragi o concluzie asa de "tare", din moment ce se sugereaza ca principiul/cauza este mereu prezent pe un interval de timp?. Cand dispare, gata si cu organizarea, gata si cu fenomenele...







Si de ce crezi ca nu ar putea sa existe? "Poate" ca exista dar de natura mai subtila decat materia densa cu care esti obisnuit, sa zicem din ceva asemanator cu fotonii. Daca materia densa se poate organiza, de ce nu s-ar intampla acelasi lucru si in universul subtil?..."Precum in cer asa si pe pamant...".

Sau ca unii credinciosi se exprima suficient de ambiguu pentru a lasa loc de interpretari...


Pai nu ai sugerat una ca asta.

Hai sa analizam definitia propusa de tine. Tu vrei sa numim "viata" doar cauza care determina organizarea materiei sub forma de organisme vii - deci "viata" ar fi ceva anterior existentei organismelor vii si exterior lor. Este ca si cum ai spune ca arderea este cauza (sau principiul) care determina aparitia si intretinerea fenomenului de oxidare violenta a substantelor combustibile, si nu oxidarea insasi... Acel ceva care este cauza nu este obligatoriu sa existe pe toata durata existentei fenomenelor biologice despre care vorbesti, este suficient sa le programeze sa aiba loc pentru un interval anume de timp.

Sau, daca ai vrut sa spui altceva, te rog incearca sa reformulezi pentru a fi mai clar.


Mothman nu-ti spune ca nu ar putea sa existe, ci ca daca asa ceva ar exista, nu am avea posibilitatea de a-l cunoaste. Cine spune ca cunoaste lucruri pe care nu are cum sa le cunoasca se inseala pe sine insusi, in cel mai bun caz.

Acest topic a fost editat de abis: 13 Jul 2009, 08:12 AM

Con-spiraţia neurală

Se ştie din manualele de anadihotomie că dacă nu am avea două sfere semisferice în cutia chtoniană am putea să nu dezvoltăm reacţii alchimice între sinapţi. De asemenea, dacă cosmoza nu ar fi una optimală, eliberarea de nanotransmiţători nu ar putea ajunge la rezonanţă în cutia chtoniană ştiut fiind faptul că la rezonanţă pe prima purtătoare, amplificarea în creieri închisă este subunitară. Deci problema unei aspiraţii către conspiraţia neurală ar fi optim reglată de coparticiparea în tandem a celor două sfere semisferice decupate în locutus deasupra glandei pi. Dacă spiraţia ar fi uniformă, atunci conspiraţia ar fi liniară, dar în acest caz particular, avem de fapt o generalizare conjecturală a rotunjimii sferice neatinsă de punct. Centrul de răspândire ar fi deci divizat peste toate locurile geometrice ale circonferinţei iar planeitatea cercului s-ar subscrie unei suprafeţe neevolvate de rază 1 la infinit. Deasupra acestei suprafeţe, privind dinspre cutia chtoniană, am vedea deci spaţiul de curbură al atingerii nelimitată decât într-un singur punct.
Con-spirarea ar fi deci un mecanism de detecţie a tuturor locurilor consecutive geometrice trecute prin acest punct dar care păstrează totuşi nemărginirea originară asupra feţei neevolvate. Dacă se aproximează din proximitate în proximitate multitudinea nenumărabilă de raze concentrice plecând indefinit din centru subscris unui punct medial, am putea aici vorbi de o planeitate conceptuală explicată şi complicată totodată într-o multitudine de linii-punct unghiular deplasate faţă de planeitatea conceptuală. Globalitatea sfericităţii conceptuale ar fi deci numărabilă printr-o succesiune cosecantivă de puncte sărite simultan prin subarcuirea unui arc de cerc care păstrează radialele constante. Spirarea simultană a nanoemiţătorilor face ca distribuţia de procese nanosimultane subarcuite în diferite timpuri, să fie contemporană epocii cuantice care circumscrie toate istoriile cuantice recente şi care păstrează q-tick-ul pe nivele discrete ontologice între două epoci cuantice.


Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 13 Jul 2009, 11:13 AM

Gândurile străine, venirea lor la oameni şi acţiunea lor în ei, nu sunt ceea ce noi am numi un fenomen psihologic, ci un fenomen care aparţine sferei cosmice şi chiar o depăşeşte. În fiecare din ele stă o scânteie care, exilată, captivă în ele, tinde spre eliberarea din exilul ei, lucru ce nu este posibil decât prin om, ca regent instituit de Dumnezeu în planul lui de existenţă.
Pe lângă acest sistem de imagini şi tendinţe care constituie ego-ul nostru, există miriade de alte sisteme de imagini şi tendinţe. Unele dintre ele sunt mai rele sau mai puţin frumoase decât ale noastre, şi alte sunt mai bune sau mai frumoase. Suntem ca spuma reînnoită neîncetat pe oceanul existenţei. Dar deoarece Dumnezeu s-a pus pe El-Însuşi în această spumă, este destinat să devină o mare de stele în momentul cristalizării finale a spiritelor. Micul sistem de imagini trebuie să devină, atunci când contingenţa sa terestră este lăsată în urmă, o stea imortalizată în haloul Divinităţii. Această stea poate fi concepută pe variate niveluri; Numele divine sunt arhetipurile sale; dincolo de stele străluceşte Soarele Sinelui în transcendenţa sa arzândă şi în pacea sa infinită. Omul nu alege; el îşi urmează natura şi vocaţia sa, şi Dumnezeu este cel ce alege.

Think that you are not yet begotten, that you are in the womb, that you are young, that you are old, that you have died, that you are in the world beyond the grave; grasp in your thought all this at once, all times and places, all substances and magnitudes together.

That soul and body form a real duality can be seen from the fact that the body continues to exist unchanged for some time after death. In the special case of those bodies of saints which have remained incorrupt this can be an indefinite length of time. If non-dualistic theories of human nature were right, on the other hand, the moment of death would have to mean an instantaneous dissolution of the body at the same time. It is therefore pointless to maintain that the soul cannot be separable from the body when the body can exist without the soul.

The illusion of temporality can be overcome when we perceive the passage of time as a movement through a fourth dimension. In this dimension there are no distinctions of past, present, and future. One and the same object goes from being future to being present, and from being present to being past, as long as our awareness is confined to the three dimensions of space at any moment in time. However, the object is not changed in itself, as the only real change is owing to the movement of our consciousness. Absolute change is in any case a contradiction, since change always has to be relative to something which does not change.
Suppose an object is at a certain spatial position at time Tl. It can only cease to be in that spatial position at a later time T2 because any denial that it retained its place at Tl would involve a denial of the law of non-contradiction; the combination of space-time data, once made, is immutable. Our perception of an object which we perceive to remain unchanged is always confined to what can be perceived of it in one or another of a sequence of moments, rather as we see something moving past a narrow window. This gives us a mistaken idea of the object's real extension. What we take for its whole bulk at a given time is thus but a tiny section of its real being, which extends along the fourth dimension, over which consciousness travels like a narrow pencil of light. If a moment comes in which this object is destroyed, what is destroyed or ceases to be is only as much of that object as can be contained in a moment. This has no effect on this object in all its other places along the fourth dimension, in which it was known previously. Personal identity is therefore based on a unique structure of place-time combinations, each one of which is itself unique. Not only are we invisible as spiritual beings, by far the greater part of our physical being is also invisible because only an element of it can be visible at any one time.

Since the fourth dimension is as continuous as those of space, all our past momentary selves in both their mental and physical states form a single continuous organism with what we are now. This is why our present psycho-­corporeal state is in dialogue with all we have been before. Not only does our past being directly affect our present state, this continuity means that what we do and choose now must have its effects directly on the meaning of all our previous states. That we can and do alter our own past for good or ill has always been understood in a moral sense, but this means that we do so in a natural sense as well. Otherwise, the religious idea of redemption would be confined to just one part of one's life, with no objective power over the previous life.
When physical life ends, so also must the uprooting process of time, so that there would no longer be any reason for the self to be quantitatively extended. All the apparently separated states of the self should then be capable of conscious intercommunion, quite apart from the ongoing life of the disembodied soul. Even though the soul may subsequently be embodied with a different kind of matter from that of this life, so as to have a "spiritual body," the latter must still be continuous with the body of this life by the mediation of the immortal soul. It is still the identity of the soul which is the cause of the bodily form, whether at a moment or through the fourth dimension.
According to the four-­dimensional conception, the permanently subsistent life and the person who has lived it are one and the same thing. What we call the completed life is the sum total of all the person's being, as a single organism extending from conception to death. To speak of the person as though he or she could live the same life over again is as absurd as to suggest that they could live their life backwards. If there was a discarnate self which could live all over again, its very existence would refute the central idea that the true self is realised in a four-dimensional extension.
The state which follows upon the end of natural life, then, is no longer a kind of linear extension, but a restitution of present mode of being, many times enriched. The supposed memory of the whole past life which some people experience when in mortal danger is therefore not really memory, because it is the life itself which is becoming manifest for a while. Memory becomes irrelevant when the whole life is all present at once since it is necessary only to counter the passage of time while time is passing. It could be said that in heaven, memory is swallowed up in reality.
However, the orthodox teaching is that the Judgement comes after death, but how is this to be understood in the light of what has just been described? If mortal life concludes with an everlasting body, and develops into one with supernatural powers, it may seem that death would be pure gain for everyone.
The objection to this is that the extension of the self in the fourth dimension in its life on earth is not bound to proceed in any particular direction. The very idea of extension necessarily implies direction at the same time. Its "qualitative direction" depends on the will, which in man is at any given time the integral sum of his physical, emotional and intellectual propensities. On the one hand, his will may be directed to God, its First Cause, by aligning itself with Providence, where Providence comprises the revealed will of God, together with the archetypal forms of individuals. In this way, the development of the self will lead to integration with the archetypal Form which it was his or her purpose to realise in this life. The significance of Forms of individuals is that they are man's only points of entry into the realm of eternal realities. Where Plato says that those who have lived well return to their own star, the star in this context corresponds to the individual Form.
On the other hand, these possibilities imply their converse, unfortunately, because of the permanence of the person in the fourth dimension results from the very conditions of existence, and not from its relation to Providence. If the self develops in a direction which is dictated only by natural conditions, and not by its archetypal Form, it will not have the necessary basis for any relation to God. This would result in an immortality which was deprived of the power to realise itself in the realm of the spirit, such that it could not either truly be or cease to be. The will would remain fixed on what is finally revealed to be an impossibility, while it is no longer able to change direction. As long as we are in time, this danger can be ignored, because the temporal condition veils so much from our awareness.
The impossibility of change for the will in the hereafter results from the fact that it is only in this world that the natural life can be accumulated. The cessation of time for the individual, even if it were to be a moment without sequel, would still be quite other than what physical death appears to be. It would mean a summation and integration of innumerable states of being whose relations to one another and to God may have been ignored. The self as a whole is invisible, for the reason already given, from whence comes the possibility of delusion about the self. As death can occupy only a few such moments, its impact on the whole being can only be mental and moral, but not physical. While there is nothing to prevent the continuation of this being outside time, its destiny depends on how much its final summation corresponds to its archetype.

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 13 Jul 2009, 12:25 PM

All things that are determinations of our consciousness have an equal right to be constituents of our identity, but the freedom we have in the way we relate to them must respect the purposes for which they were created. The penalty for this freedom is that human beings alone in nature can represent reality as other than what it must be, and invert the order of priorities between the objective and the subjective. Sin ignores the difference between the self and the not-self, that is, between one's whole being and one of its modalities. The commonest way in which this can happen is where means are made into ends. In this way, pseudo-ends fill the place which should belong to the real ends of life. The ability to misrepresent reality is an inevitable consequence of the ability to represent it, which is essential to man's state of being.
All this is a complete contrast to the common sense way of regarding the self and the world, for which only the ego of the moment is identified with, and everything else is seen as alien. While the ego is much over-valued, it perceives itself at the same time as adrift in an alien world which is indifferent to it, and which will ultimately destroy it. Thus the momentary physical self seems to be all the reality we have, and it prompts us to over-value it as a compensation for the way in which it is seen to be dwarfed by its world. Obviously, this elementary idea of personal identity is not untrue in itself, since it answers to facts which are easily verifiable, but by itself it is so incomplete and one-sided that it can only be a cause of conflict outwardly and despair inwardly. However, it can be transformed when integrated with the higher and invisible self through which identification is possible with all past states of being, and with innumerable other realities of the represented world. In short, the world experienced as within the self is the necessary counterpoise to the natural and commonplace experience of the self as an item contained in the outside world.

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 13 Jul 2009, 12:46 PM

Nu, nu, (desigur ca sa fim on-topic) mai degraba ar parea ca unii ateii se arata interesati ca anumite lucruri sa para ca sunt ambigui cand totul e foarte clar... Dar nu-i nimic, cine sincer doreste sa priceapa, chiar pricepe.



Da, anterior, si exterior nu organismelor, ci materiei.



Analogia este facuta gresit. Arderea este fenomenul obtinut in urma actionarii cauzei care este crearea conditiilor de declansare si intretinere(se observa si de data asta ca crearea conditiilor, cauza, este anterioara fenomenului arderii). Arderea nu are cum sa fie principiu fiind doar fenomenul care se produce.




Cum sa nu, se vede ca ai lucrat la acele "programe" si esti cu totul sigur... Eu am vorbit din ceea ce se observa in realitate, iar in realitate, eu ca fiinta nu simt deloc ca urmez un program strict. Am desigur si o parte de program, dar fac si prea multe lucruri dupa cum ma taie capul, in plus nu pot sa nu realizez ca viata este un lung sir de aplicatii si lectii de invatat. Adica, probabil acesta fiind unul din "interesele" de baza ale acelui principiu care organizeaza neviul in viu.
In fine, oricum te contrazici acceptand de data asta ca poate exista acea cauza anterioara pe care o sugera definitia mea.




N-am stiut ca esti purtatorul lui de cuvant. Dar sa zicem ca ti-a spus el sa intervii pentru dansul si ca, daca vreau, sa dau un raspuns.
Eu zic ca esti prea categoric in ceea ce priveste lipsa posibilitatilor de cunoastere, ceea ce ar insemna ca poti foarte bine sa te inseli pe tine insuti gandind in felul asta. Dar asta ar putea totusi sa fie doar problema ta; nu-i totusi obligatoriu ca mothman sa-ti semene. Exista deja si aparate de tot felul, si experimente facute. Cine vrea sa cunoasca daca este si cum este sau nu este, are de unde se informa, poate chiar direct de la surse.

Imaginaţi-vă un soare strălucitor de vară şi imaginaţi-vă oameni simpli care se uită la el proiectând în el visul lor de dincolo; presupuneţi acum că ar fi posibil să se transporte aceşti oameni în abisul întunecat şi rece al galaxiilor şi nebuloaselor cu tăcerea lor covârşitoare. În acest abis mai toţi şi-ar pierde credinţa, şi aceasta este ceea ce se întâmplă ca rezultat al ştiinţei moderne şi a învăţaţilor ei şi a victimelor popularizării ei.
Ceea ce nu ştiu majoritatea oamenilor – şi dacă ar putea şti, de ce ar fi chemaţi să creadă? – este faptul că cerul albastru, deşi iluzoriu ca o eroare optică nu e mai puţin o reflectare adecvată a cerului îngerilor şi a binecuvântaţilor şi că de aceea înainte de toate, acest miraj albastru, cu nori de argint, are dreptate şi are ultimul cuvânt de spus; a fi uimit de acest fapt înseamnă a admite că noi suntem prin şansă aici pe pământ şi că vedem cerul aşa cum îl vedem, desigur abisul negru al galaxiilor reflectă de-asemenea ceva, dar simbolismul este atunci deplasat şi nu mai este nici o chestiune de cer al îngerilor. Dar aici se observă repede o eroare: aceea de a crede că prin chiar acest fapt al conţinutului său obiectiv „ştiinţa” posedă puterea şi dreptul de a distruge miturile şi religiile şi că asta e un fel de experienţă mai înaltă, care omoară zeii şi credinţele; în realitate este vorba de incapacitatea umană de a înţelege fenomenele neaşteptate sau de a rezolva anumite aparent antinomii care înăbuşe adevărul şi dezumanizează lumea.

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 13 Jul 2009, 12:54 PM

Physics used to teach us that space is a kind of absolute container, separate from the flow of time. In this classical or Newtonian conception, objects traveled through or remained stationary in space, which itself was not subject to change or to internal variations. The three dimensions of space were the same, always and everywhere. Galileo's observation of the moons of Jupiter would eventually lead to the fundamental assertion, so damaging to the prevailing Christian or traditional cosmology of the time, that in fact the laws down here on earth and the laws up there in the heavens are the very same. Our "space" as we experience it on earth, according to its inviolable coordinates of width, height, and depth, or the famous x, y, and z of the Cartesian coordinate system exists uniformly throughout the universe and is governed by the same rules. With the dismissal of the ether (the fifth element the celestial spheres were thought to be made of) and the adoption of an atomist theory, the physical vision of the universe was one of billiard balls colliding in a uniform and static vacuum, with things like electromagnetism and thermal energy thrown into the mix.
In this conception, time was a measure and nothing more, and was itself assumed to be constant and unchanging. One used time in frequency and velocity values, but time itself had nothing essentially to do with the nature of space and certainly nothing to do with physical objects themselves. The great paradigm shift in physics came with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which was later to be expanded upon in his general theory of relativity. In addition to showing that there is no absolute frame of reference for physical measurements, the theory also demonstrated mathematically that what we ordinarily think of as space and time are actually intertwining realities – or two aspects of the same reality. How we move through space changes how we move through time, at least depending on the point of observation. If I travel from Earth for a period of time near the speed of light and then return, a much longer period of time will have elapsed from Earth's frame of reference than will have elapsed from my own frame of reference, in some sort of space vehicle for example. Time also changes depending on how close I am to a strong gravitational field. A clock in orbit high above the earth, for example, will run slightly slower than an identical clock on the surface of the earth.
Now, many books have been written in the last few decades claiming that the teachings of Eastern religions such as Buddhism and the finding of modern physics, specifically quantum mechanics and relativity theory, are really the same, and much is made of the spiritual significance of this new physics.2 Though it is a topic for another forum, I believe that the perceived intersection of physics and mysticism or religion results from a sublimation of certain hypothetical assumptions of physical data on the one hand, and a denaturing of the spiritual doctrines on the other. That is to say, certain interpretations of the physical data, such as the idea that the observer influences the state vector collapse, and the notion of multiple universes arising out of the actualization of the wave function of particles, are nothing more than philosophical struggles on the part of physicists and laymen to come to grips with the data. They are not demanded by the data themselves, which is why many physicists who agree on the same data have sometimes wildly different models for accounting for those data.3 On the religious side, one comes across pat explanations of spiritual doctrines taken out of their traditional context, and Buddhism is reduced to a group of clever insights about our mind and the nature of the world.
Thus I want to be careful of including the findings of physics in a paper on the experience of time and non-time at a conference on Ibn al-'Arabī. I may joyously proclaim that Ibn al-'Arabī told us in the thirteenth century what physicists claim to have discovered only a few decades ago, but what happens when the scientists change their minds? After all, despite what the popular literature and movies tell us, there are enormous lacunae in physics, and for all we know the spatio-temporal conception ushered in by Einstein may one day itself be overturned by something as radically different. To give you some examples, quantum mechanics works for very small things, and relativity works for very big things, but at a certain point in between, for medium sized things, the theories become incompatible. This was the problem with Newtonian or classical physics: for many purposes the theory worked just fine, but physicists were puzzled because it did not work for all observed phenomena. Thus Newtonian equations will correctly predict how a baseball will travel through space, but it took relativity to correctly account for the orbit of the planet Mercury. Our present idea of gravity and the mass of the universe should have the universe flying apart, but since it does not actually do so, physicists posit dark matter, which accounts for 98 percent of the mass of the universe. The problem is since we cannot see or measure this dark matter, we do not know what it is, or really if it is there.
So why start a discussion of time at an Ibn 'Arabī Society gathering with physics? Firstly, despite the fact that classical physics is part of history as far as scientists are concerned, its world view still dominates the consciousness of the age. It is what is most typically taught in high school textbooks, and its assumptions are built into popular language about the subject. The next time you hear someone say "fundamental building blocks of matter" know that such a notion is completely classical in its origin. All our notions of mass, force, and energy are usually classical conceptions, that is to say conceptions beginning from the bifurcation of the world into measurable and subjective knowledge by Descartes, then Galileo's uniformity of the universal laws, and finally Newton's brilliant synthesis. Moreover, these ideas, together with the advent of the heliocentric model, was a major force, perhaps the most important force, in sidelining Christianity in the Western world. First the Church abdicated its claim to having knowledge of the natural world, and while it spent the next few centuries in the domain of moral and spiritual questions, scientists gradually reduced the world to physical bits, reduced man to a hyper developed animal, reduced animals to complex arrangements of atoms, and reduced consciousness to complex patterns of synaptic activity in the brain. Meanwhile the philosophers and pseudo-philosophers of scientism were busy trying to convince themselves and everyone else that truth was provided only by quantitative measurement. The rest was quality, which fell on the side of subjective feeling, and as we all were supposed to know, feelings are really just complex instincts, which somehow result from the structure of the brain, resulting from the structure of DNA, resulting from the happenstance arrangement of atoms.
Relativity theory and quantum mechanics overturned classical mechanics, which had itself overturned Christian cosmology. The paradigm shift ushered in by such figures as Einstein, Max Planck, and Neils Bohr is important because it destroyed the destroyer. Heliocentrism was erased, because from the point of view of relativity it is nonsense to say that the earth "goes round" the sun, as it is to say that the sun goes round the earth, because there is no fixed frame of reference to say which is going around which. The sun's gravitational field is stronger than the earth's, but the earth does pull on the sun, and because there is no absolute frame of reference anymore, then certainly it is correct to say the sun goes around the earth. Geocentrism actually comes out slightly ahead, since it at least corresponds to our experience from our frame of reference. From the point of view of science, however, we have lost both geocentrism and heliocentrism.
As for universal laws, we find that things do not behave the same everywhere. For example a clock seems to run at a different speed high above the earth. Light does not always travel in a straight line, but seems to bend from different points of reference, because space itself seems to bend and take on all sorts of shapes depending on the objects in it.
Then we discover that atoms are not mere little balls. Rather, it seems the only way we can properly describe what seems to be happening on very small scales is through various kinds of mathematical form, very unlike a little ball. The only reason scientists talk about wave-particle duality is because the measurements they get look sometimes like a particle, sometimes like a wave, but they never have nor ever will see what causes those measurements. The relationships between the "atoms" is mathematically incredibly complex and is more like threads in a tapestry than balls flying through space, but of course they are neither. The problem is further complicated by Bell's theorem, which shows entities like electrons to be connected, as far as we can tell, instantaneously even at distances too great for a light-speed communication to take place. This is important because relativity theory states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Thus the momentousness of heliocentrism, atomist theory, uniformity of spatial laws and time was shown to be not so momentous after all, but this is lost on popular thinking. Einstein certainly earned his own fame but did not manage to steal all of Newton's thunder. The most usual understanding of the natural world is still a classical one.
But I already cautioned myself about too great an enthusiasm for what the new physics teaches. Indeed it may be that the current paradigm is overturned, but it seems well-nigh impossible that any such a revolution will bring us closer to the classical conception that destroyed traditional cosmology in the West. We have already pushed the limits of what we can actually observe with our own senses, which is to say anything else we observe will be the effects of experiments together with the mathematical models based on the data of those experiments. Physicists' eyes are not more powerful than our own; their insight comes through the mathematical form they derive from the data. Such mathematical models are the very stuff of physical theory.
The significance of this is not that it elevates one theoretical model above another, but that it throws into sharp focus the fact that any model of what happens beyond the perceptible world is as good as any other from the point of view of science, so long as it correctly predicts the data. The problem with superstring theory, hidden variable theory, many-universe theory, is that they are all mathematical models based upon the exact same body of data, and they all predict the data equally well. These models are sometimes so wildly different that any pretense to some one great scientific conception of the universe must be seen as philosophical hubris. The precision of the data themselves and the success of the accompanying mathematics in predicting the behavior of the physical world on small and large scales – indeed the most successful scientific theory to date – paradoxically serves to undercut the assumption that the only real knowledge we can have of things is through scientific measurement. What we are measuring are things we can never perceive without a measurement. Classical mechanics usually dealt with ordinary scale objects. If the real knowledge we have of a baseball is the measurements we can make of it, we are still left with an object that at least corresponds to an object we actually experience, even if that experience is merely subjective or even meaningless from the point of view of science. An electron is an entity no one has, can, or ever will experience. Even if we never perceive a unicorn in fact, we could in principle.
The key reversal at play is the following: we measure quantum entities, but our knowledge of them is mediated completely by our ordinary experience of the world, by our pointer-readings, as Wittgenstein once remarked. I said that the new physics paradoxically undercuts classical bifurcation because it leaves us with the troubling proposition that our true scientific knowledge depends for its very survival upon the offices of our subjective, non-scientific experience. Actually, this was the case in classical mechanics as well, but the fact that quantum entities are wholly unlike ordinary entities makes the rigid bifurcation into a subjective world of quality and an objective world of quantity all the more absurd.4
The situation we are left with is this. The revolution of classical mechanics suffered a counter-revolution, the new physics, which neutralized the sting delivered by the heliocentric model, uniform space and time, and the classical atomist theory. Though this counter-revolution did not put traditional cosmology back in its place, it robbed the scientist of his ability to make absolute statements about what we can know. A man might be lulled into a kind of complacency about the baseball; perhaps the knowledge provided by scientific measurement is more true and reliable than his mere experience of the thing. This may not hold up to philosophical scrutiny, but overlap between the measured baseball and a baseball as one sees it gives the whole affair an air of respectability. But when the scientist tells us that true knowledge is measuring things that we cannot see, and that the scientist cannot see either, it begins to sound too strange to be believed. And of course, it is.
So unlike many of the popular ideas linking the new physics to traditional metaphysics, my assertion here is simply that science has exposed the fallacy of Cartesian bifurcation and the alleged supremacy of quantitative knowledge. Science has turned on itself, or more correctly, the data has betrayed philosophical scientism and exposed its limitations. We have quite literally come back to our senses.
If we actually pay attention to the difference between quantitative data and physical theory, we see that science has altogether lost the destructive power to make us denigrate our senses and the ideas we form from sensory experience. We know that what the scientist says about time is a model based on observations of the world, and that any number of such models possess equal validity, and all of them are subservient to the real experience of the human subject. Choosing one model above another is not a scientific decision, but a philosophical one.
Time, like space, is one of the most concrete aspects of our experience of the world. It is not an abstract entity such as an electron, but a reality so close and intimate that we stumble in defining it owing to its sheer obviousness. It is a mystery that baffles due to its clarity, not its obscurity. If a physicist says that time is not what we think but is actually this or that, we can agree in part and acknowledge that the reality may have aspects of which we are not aware. However, we always possess the powerful rejoinder that no matter what the data or theory, it has been formed on the basis of the physicist's ordinary human experience of time and observations taking place within that experience. Logically, it is impossible to negate the qualitative time of our own experience without undercutting the basis of the quantitative time derived through measurement, since no observation is possible without ordinary time and ordinary space. "Reification" is the problem we get when we put our theories of quantitative time above qualitative time in our hierarchy of knowledge. I may give a mathematical description of time utilizing perhaps a symbolic or allegorical use of geometric shapes, but then become trapped in my own provisional model. Even the word "linear" in linear time is a model. We make an analogy of some property of our experience of time to the properties of a physical line in space, i.e., being continuous and existing in two directions. But time is not a line, a line is a line. Having used the image of a line to enable us to talk about time in a scientifically useful way, we get trapped by an image which has taken on a life of its own, so to speak. Then anything other than linear time begins to seem absurd, a violation of time the way a loop is a violation of a line.
The Cartesian bifurcation which elevates quantitative measurement and theory while denigrating the real experience of qualities is ultimately absurd, because no model can repudiate the model-maker and continue to remain meaningful. It would mean that the model-maker's knowledge of what he is making a model of is dependent upon the knowledge provided by that very model itself. A bifurcationist physicist discerns a mathematical form in the data of the world, then says that this mathematical form is more true than the very perception he used to discern that mathematical form. If by this he meant that the world manifests laws present in the Intellect or Great Spirit, we could agree, since we perceive those laws by virtue of participating in that same intellect. But that is not an idea the philosophers of scientism would be willing to entertain.

Let me now leave off the space-time continuum of physics and come to the soul's qualitative and lived experience of these realities we call space and time. Space and time appear to us to be two modes of extension, or in simpler terms two ways in which things are spread out in relationship to each other. Spatially things are here and there, and temporally things are before and after. In another essay I discussed at length this notion of space and time as extension, and I do not wish to duplicate that discussion here.5 My purpose here is to establish a link between space and time that is not at all based on relativity theory, but arises from our living experience. Although in the classical conception which so often dominates our minds space and time are seen as two separate and unlike things, the truth is that time is impossible without space, and space is impossible without time. I do not make this assertion from the point of view of physical science, but from within the world of the metaphysics of Ibn al-'Arabī and similar metaphysical systems.
Let us first ask what the world would be like if there were only space, but no time. The first thing that we would notice is that change would become impossible. Think of a group of objects existing in space, and then think of them existing in a different arrangement. In order for them to go from the first arrangement to the second one, something has to happen. They have to at the very least traverse the distances necessary to arrive at the second arrangement, but how can they do that if there is only space and no time? Something has to ontologically link the two arrangements. Even if somehow they do not traverse the distance in between, the objects are still the same objects, and the only thing allowing us to call them the same objects in the two different arrangements is a reality that allows the objects to change but retain some kind of continuity. This connecting dimension is time.

Let us then ask what the world would be like if there were time but no space. Since there would be no spatial extension to observe, we would somehow have to measure time with our subjective experience in the absence of height, width, and depth. How would we know that there even was a course of time? Feelings have no dimension perhaps, but what about the rest of the soul? The images in our imagination, never mind the objects of the objective world, all have spatial extension, so we would have to disallow them in a world without space. That is to say, time implies a kind of inward space in the soul – a different kind of space to be sure – that makes it meaningful to speak of before and after, a referent that is constant in the face of change.
Let us as an exercise try to erase the words "space" and "time" from our minds and come back at the question. We notice that in life there are things that change and things that stay the same, and often the very same things seem to change and stay the same but in different respects. The baseball is the same baseball, both in the hand of the pitcher and in the glove of the catcher, but it is not wholly the same because some things about it are different, such as its location and its relationship to the things around it. We can talk about things that are constant and changing, or static and dynamic. (In Arabic the relevant terms are qārr and ghayr al-qārr.)
But I do not wish to encumber myself from the beginning with technical language. For now I simply have the "constant" and the "changing". I, too, am constant and changing. I am the same person but I am always becoming this or that, experiencing all sorts of colors and sounds and shapes in addition to my emotions, and yet the constant identity abides. In the statement, "I was sad, then I found my true love, and then I was happy," the then does not split the I into parts. It does not erase the identity.
Such paradoxes of the many in the one, and the one in the many, really form the basis of Ibn al-'Arabī's metaphysics, and make a good point of departure for an analysis of time and non-time. At the highest level, the mystery of the many and the one is the identity between the Ultimate Reality and the many things we usually think of as being real in and of themselves. The ontological status of things in relation to the ultimate reality is a question for metaphysics, but the mystery of the many and one also plays out in cosmology, meaning the study of the world in which the puzzles of constancy and change arise.
At the highest level of Akbarian thought, the manyness of the divine qualities is resolved in the unity of the supreme Self. This is not a unity of "before" and "after", where I might say that all qualities are happening right now; nor is it a unity of "here" and "there", where I might say that all qualities are in one place. Rather it is a unity of being, of identity. The Creator is not another being than the Just or the All-Merciful. They are unified in what they truly are, and mysteriously the world's illusory reality disappears in the face of this essential unity.
Now, Akbarians do not throw away manyness, but put it in its place, and from our point of view in the world the many divine qualities and their relationships to one another are of the greatest significance. The manyness of the qualities is unreal only for the supreme Self, but for us this manyness is as real as we are, so to speak. In fact, we depend on this manyness for whatever illusory reality we possess, because it is by virtue of the divine names and qualities and their relationships that the world comes to be. How, then, does this one in the many, many in the one, play out in the world?
There is no shortage of ideas that Ibn al-'Arabī and his school use to describe how the divine qualities give rise to the world. Some of the most important are emanation (fayd), self-disclosure (tajallī), identification (ta'ayyun). For this talk I want to use the symbolism of light, and the divine name "Light" or al-Nūr. Mystics and philosophers have often started with light, and its symbolism is so powerful because light is both what we see and what we see by. Light is both a means and an end. If we apply the symbolism of light to all knowledge, light is both what we know and how we know. It is, moreover, a symbol that Ibn al-'Arabī and his school often used as a metaphysical basis, the same way they could use the concepts of mercy and existence.
The Quran says, God is the Light of the heavens and the earth (24:35). The heavens and the earth are the realm of the constant and the changing, so let us say that God is the light of the constant and the changing, making God what we know the constant and the changing by. This leaves us to ask what the constant and the changing are. Each and every thing is, ultimately, a manifestation of a name of God. God knows His endless names, and this knowledge is the realm of the immutable identities, the al-a'yan al-thabitah. Each immutable identity is a special way in which God knows God, but God's knowledge of Himself is neither before and after nor here or there. It introduces neither distance nor duration between His names.
But if the identities are essences or forms in the knowledge of God that are separated neither by distances nor durations, how do we get to the situation where these identities, when they are in the world, do get separated by distance and duration? In God's knowledge the identities are immutable, but in the world they are what we are calling constant and changing. They are here and there, and they are before and after. The baseball is here, not over there. Or, the baseball is here now, but it was not here earlier. This does not happen in God's knowledge. The immutable identities are different but not apart. There is an immutable identity for the pitcher and an immutable identity for the catcher, but they exist eternally in God's act of knowing, fused but not confused, to borrow Meister Eckhart's language.
Akbarian cosmogenesis is a two-tiered emanation, or self-disclosure which first gives rise to the immutable identities in God's knowledge, and then externalizes or existentiates them in the world. There is a way in which these two identities, one manifest and the other unmanifest, are two different things, and another way in which they are simply the same thing viewed from two different points of view. When God's light illuminates the immutable identities – which we can reword and say when God as the Light meets with God as the Knower – the result is the world. In a sense the immutable identities are dark, because as independent beings they are nothing. They are only God's knowledge of Himself. The divine light is a gift that illuminates the identities and gives them their own reality. This light allows there to be something "other than God", this phrase "other than God" being Ibn al-'Arabī's definition of the world, because by being illuminated the identities can see each other, and see themselves, and by "see" I mean "know".
Now, in the world this light by which we are illuminated to each other is none other than the very realities of duration and distance. What we give the name "space" is a state of affairs where the forms of things exist in a kind of relationality to each other, separated and yet existing in the same domain and thus connected in a kind of continuum. What we give the name "time" is a state of affairs where forms exist in a different kind of relationality, where even a single given thing is able to be separated from its previous state and yet still be connected to those states by virtue of its being a single thing. Thus its states also exist in a kind of continuum. God's light in static mode is space, and His light in dynamic mode is time. The identities themselves are not space and time, for the identities are pure forms in the knowledge of God, but when God casts His light upon them they enter into the dance of spatial and temporal interaction we call the world. This light enables the realities of sound, color, shape, smell, feeling, number, mass, and energy to connect and manifest the forms. Light is the vessel, both in static and dynamic mode, upon which the identities journey in between the plenary darkness of God's knowledge on the one hand and the uninhabitable darkness of pure nothingness on the other.
This is one possible understanding of the divine saying where God says, "Do not curse time, for I am time." By cursing time, we are in reality cursing the light of God, which is identical with Himself. It is by God giving of Himself, of His light, that our existence as beings going through changing states is even possible. But it then follows that one could also say that God is space. Islamic metaphysics does not have, to my knowledge, a classification of space as it does of time. As I am sure will be widely discussed in this conference, there is a distinction made between sarmad, dahr, and zamān, or eternity, sempiternity, and ordinary time. But if what I am saying about the divine light is true, is it not equally true to say that God is space?
In the bodily world the divine light shines in a certain mode, far short of all the possibilities of divine illumination. The light is relatively dim, and though I see myself and others, I cannot see much, and the wholeness and connectedness of things is largely hidden in a darkness that is yet to be illuminated. The possibilities of this world are basically limited, at least in our ordinary experience, to the usual dimensions of space and time. Akbarian metaphysics teaches that the imaginational world, the world ontologically superior to the world of bodies, is more illuminated. In that world, the rules governing the constant and the changing, or distance and duration, are not the same. Remember that the imaginational world, like the world of bodies, is still a world of extension, which is to say that it is a world of manifested forms – of shapes, colors, duration, changing states. But because it is so luminous, the possibilities for the interaction of the constant and the changing are much greater. The forms in the imaginational world are indeed not limited by bodily space and time, though there is an imaginational space and an imaginational time. Recall the saying that the bodily world in relation to the imaginational world is like a ring tossed into a vast wilderness. Rūmī declares that there is a window between hearts, meaning that we are connected to each other at the level of our souls, both across space and across time. True believers can have dreams foretelling the future, and great saints can meet in spirit if not in body. These wonders do not take place by virtue of bodily existence, but by virtue of the imaginational world, the world of souls.
Not only do the conditions of space and time change from bodily to imaginational existence, but they change from this world to the next, from the dunyā to the ākhirah. This is what Dāwūd al-Qaysarī means when he says that there are some divine names whose governance of the world lasts for a certain duration. That is to say, there is a certain way in which the divine light manifests the forms in our ordinary earthly life, but at the end of the world the cycle of that kind of light, of that particular divine name, will come to a close. The hereafter will then be governed by another divine name, another kind of divine light. That which is impossible here will be possible there because the divine light will illuminate ever more possibilities for the interplay of forms and identities. Space itself will be greater and more infinite, time itself will be infused with greater barakah and potential for realizing the self-disclosures of God.
Thus far I have been discussing the ontological status of time together with space, because I think the two are inseparable insofar as they are two modes of the divine light as far as worldly existence is concerned. But what does the reality of time mean for the spiritual journey of the soul?
If we take Ibn al-'Arabī's metaphysics and cosmology to their logical conclusion, I believe we can say the following. God created us as a freely given gift, simply so that we who were not could be, that we who were nothing could be living beings. But at the same time God experiences all of our pains and our joys, our stupidity and our wisdom, our fear and our courage with us in a mysterious way. Recall the hadīth where God says, "I was sick, and you did not visit Me," (Muslim 4661) and the Quranic verse "Those who hurt God and His Messenger …" (33:57). Yet for God there is no pain, stupidity, or fear, because God is not confined to the moment of suffering. He knows the whole life. God does not move down the line with us as we do, although He lives what we live. God could never suffer as we suffer because for God there is no despair, no hopelessness. Hopelessness is the most human of sufferings.
For God, the pain is like the pain of separation we feel at the very moment we are running to meet our beloved. We are in fact separated, and the effect of running and the distance between us is a kind of suffering, but that suffering is totally redeemed by the hope we have, the certitude, that we have in the meeting with our beloved. The pain that God experiences with us is like the pain we experience while running to our beloved. It is not really a pain at all; it is a part of the fullness of the moment. God sees in our life, when we cannot, the abundance and perfection of our destiny in a way so perfectly complete that the so-called suffering is ever blessed and redeemed in the final reunion. We are not God, though, and so for us the experience of pain is not the same, but it is what it must be for a being God created for joy. When we become more like God, we suffer more in the way God "suffers", so to speak. We gradually experience and taste how death is just a flavor of life.
In us, God is always running to the beloved, He lives the separation in the total light of (re)union, death in the light of life, pain in the light of total bliss. We may think that we are just stamping our feet, out of breath, running to a horizon that never seems to come closer, but we are growing still.
To turn a nothing into a something like God is going to have to hurt sometimes, ripping open nothingness and pulling out a god-like being strand by strand, sinew by sinew, love by love, pain by pain, stupidity by stupidity … into bliss, wisdom, wholeness, and ever greater life.
Think of a pebble in the shoe of the running lover. If that lover had placed all his hope in a perfect shoe, a perfect foot to go in that perfect shoe with a perfect sock, all to create a perfect fit. If he longed for it and made it his great hope, a pebble in his shoe while he was running would crush him, reduce him to anger, despair, agony, humiliation.
But what does a true lover care about a pebble in his shoe? Does he even feel it? Would he care? Perhaps it would make for an even fonder memory of the reunion.
The Quran promises that "… in Paradise the believers shall neither fear nor grieve" (2:62), meaning that the light of God will so illuminate us that we shall see the beauty of all things past and of what may come. It is in the darkness and opacity of the past, the inability to grasp the greater harmony of what happens to us, that causes the pain of grief. In grief, we suffer from the past. In fear, we suffer from the future. When God's light shows us the way, we suffer from neither. The Quran does not deny the passage of time in Paradise, only the difficulties we experience on account of it in this world. Our memory is illuminated and causes us no more trouble, and our imagination, that faculty capable of reaching out to the future, can conceive of no cause for despair or hopelessness. The ignorance built into the darkness of the world simply cannot exist in the full light of God in Paradise. It is thus that the soul transcends time, not by leaving it but by conquering it.
Our destiny in this world is both static and dynamic, which is to say that we are a harmony of parts and of experiences, of aspects and states. We can understand easily that beauty in the spatial sense is the presence of unity in multiplicity, which is to say, of harmony in all its forms. Music is the classic example of dynamic harmony, of a harmony that not only exists statically in a chord for example, but also dynamically, in a progression of counterpoint and in the movements of a melody.
If the soul can conquer time and live in it in Paradise, what about here in this world? What enables us to wake up to the harmony of our destiny in this world and the next? Surely we must acknowledge that an awakening is called for, because we do grieve and fear, groping about in the dark while falling prey to unhappiness and despair. How can we become like God and experience reunion in separation? The Sufis indeed speak of taking on the divine qualities (al-ittisāf bi-sifātillāh), and this is done through the remembrance of God, the dhikr, in all its forms. It is through the dhikr that the light of God shines brighter and brighter upon the soul, transforming and purifying it. A Sufi shaykh has said that when the traveler looks back upon his life, he will see that dhikr as a kind of golden chain passing through all its states and experiences. This means that through the remembrance, practiced faithfully, the Sufi overcomes the vicissitudes of time.
And this brings us finally to the dimension of non-time, which from man's point of view, both in the spiritual life and in the hereafter, is the spirit, or the heart, or the intellect. The heart or spirit or intellect is the point in man where the divine light resides and can shine down into the soul. It is the mysterious divine spark, both created and uncreated, or as some would say, neither. The spiritual life is the wedding of the soul to the spirit, not the elimination of the soul. Remember that by virtue of being made in the image of God we all possess an intrinsic dimension of light ourselves. The illumination we receive is truly just an aspect of our own nature, as Ibn al-'Arabī says so clearly in the Fusūs. In the spiritual life, in the remembrance of God, the spirit or heart acts upon the soul, illuminating it, transforming it, untying its knots, turning it clear where it was once opaque. From the point of view of time, progress is made in tying together our temporal selves with our non-temporal selves so that the former can be transfigured by the latter. When the non-time or eternity of the spirit enters fully into the soul, the Sufi becomes ibn al-waqt, newly born in each moment. Wa Allāhu a'lam.

Si cu ce ne ajuta definitia asta? Nu este clar daca exista ceva anterior sau exterior materiei. O definitie ar trebui sa ne faca sa ne gandim la acelasi lucru atunci cand folosim un cuvant, pe cand definitia ta nu face decat sa creeze probleme, nu sa rezolve ceva. Daca viata este anterioara si exterioara materiei, este implicit exterioara si organismelor, care sunt alcatuite din materie... Deci organismele vii nu au viata.

Si viata este fenomenul obtinut in urma actionarii cauzei care este aparitia conditiilor de declansare si intretinere... Viata nu are cum sa fie principiu, ci este chiar suma proceselor de metabolism, multiplicare, evolutie etc.

E absolut nerelevant daca simtim sau nu ca urmam un program strict, un program lejer sau niciunul... Realitatea poate fi diferita de ceea ce simte unul sau altul, si doar simtirea nu ne ajuta sa aflam prea multe.

Atunci cand faci un rationament de genul "presupunand X rezulta Y" nu inseamna ca accepti ca X ar fi neaparat adevarat... La scoala, la matematica, n-ai facut niciodata demonstratii pe schema asta?

Tu vrei sa numesi "viata" exact cauza fenomenului pe care mai toti oamenii il numesc "viata". Este normal sa apara confuzii, daca folosesti termenii in alt sens decat in cel inteles de toata lumea.

Eu zic ca nu sunt prea categoric si ca nu ma insel.

Daca exista aparate si experimente care confirma ceva, atunci acel ceva nu face parte din categoria lucrurilor despre care vorbea mothman.

------------
Nu este clar daca exista ceva anterior sau exterior materiei.
-----------
anterior/exterior... hmmm.. amice materia e ceea ce se vede pe pereţii unei eprubete când o substanţă suprasaturată se precipită... sau dacă preferi altă imagine: praful care joacă în razele de lumină...

MATERIA ESTE CEA MAI FRAGMENTATĂ EXISTENŢĂ...
Materia nu este altceva decât limita extremă sau punctul de precipitare în procesul manifestării

ce ştim? ştim că ne căcăm pe noi şi vrem să părem deontologi cu hârtia-n mână după ce ne-am căcat pe noi...

----------
Si viata este fenomenul obtinut in urma actionarii cauzei care este aparitia conditiilor de declansare si intretinere... Viata nu are cum sa fie principiu, ci este chiar suma proceselor de metabolism, multiplicare, evolutie etc.
...
Tu vrei sa numesi "viata" exact cauza fenomenului pe care mai toti oamenii il numesc "viata". Este normal sa apara confuzii, daca folosesti termenii in alt sens decat in cel inteles de toata lumea.
-----------
şi tu faci aceleaşi greşeli în a folosi termenii... te referi la viaţa biologică... asta-i Viaţa?


You can be stupid only without God

Acest topic a fost editat de andra_v: 14 Jul 2009, 04:34 PM

Nu ar fi singurul lucru neclar de pe lume, ceea ce la urma urmei nu este un pacat. A incerca sa scoti complet din discutie toate lucrurile neclare(in sensul ca nu ai nici o putere in determinarea lor), cum ar fi de exemplu viata, este o mare ipocrizie a celor care au pretentia ca iubesc adevarul si rationamentele logice.
Ajuta prin ideea acceptarii neclaritatilor. Mintea nu se blocheaza pe niste efecte observate cum se intampla in definitia "clasica".



Desigur, de aceea nu-s de acord cu definitia adusa de tine.



Am zis anterioara si exterioara materiei care nu formeaza inca organismul si nu organismelor(concentreaza-te, nu-i chiar asa de greu). De exemplu ceea ce este azi un pom batran de zece ani, nu era nimic din punct de vede material acum unsprezece ani. Se afla poate doar in stare potentiala intr-un muguras al altui pom.



In fine, se vede ca doresti sa insisti sa o vezi ca pe un efect(supa organica+...) punctul de vedere pur materialist.
Eu o vad ca si cauza care duce la organizarea materiei.



Fraza obisnuita cand cineva nu stie ce sa mai spuna... Si pana la urma tu pe ce baza tragi concluzii? Irelevant, nu-i asa?



Desigur, nesimtirea poate mult mai multe decat simtirea.



Nu te speria, suntem mai multi decat crezi, chiar daca dictatura ateisto-comunista isi mai face inca simtite efectele.



Ce sa mai spui si tu dupa ce ti-a iesit porumbelul...



De data asta vorbeam cu tine, nu cu mothman. Nu ca te-ar fi interesat, ci ca sa stii numai ca lumea nu se oreste in loc numai ca doresti tu.

Eu ziceam că nu toate, asta înseamnă că unele ar putea fi dovedite ca adevărate. Nu trebuie crezuţi pe cuvât. Cuvintele sunt relative. Ideea este că nu putem exclude cu desăvârşire faptul că ar putea avea dreptate pe motiv că nu avem noi motive să-i credem sau că nu acceptăm dovezile lor, din punctul lor de vedere. Încerc să privesc obiectiv lucrurile, din exteriorul a ceea ce numim curentul general al ştiinţei. Ei între ei se recunosc şi consideră acele credinţe adevărate.


În cazul general nu contează diferenţa dintre diferite divinităţi. Am zis că prin comportamentul lor se diferenţiază. Falşii credincioşi îi imită pe cei autentici, dar nu reuşesc să facă asta mereu, aşa că adesea sunt văzuţi făcând lucruri contrare perceptelor credinţei lor.

Tot observându-le comportamentul.


nu mă uit în dicţionare, s-ar putea să greşesc, dar un "sfânt" este acela căruia comunitatea religioasă îi recunoaşte calităţi deosebite în susţinerea, propovăduirea religiei respective, apropierea faţă de divinitate, iluminarea, facerea de minuni etc.


Tocmai aici este cheia raţionamentului de mai sus: faptul că metoda ştiinţifică presupune un grad ridicat de certitudine, rigoarea matematică (fie ea şi statistică) şi reproductibilitatea fenomenelor studiate pentru a fi verificate exclude din start evenimentele/fenomenele care au loc în realitatea obiectivă ce nu se înscriu în categoriile ştiinţifice dar mintea umană le percepe. Gradul de certitudine în cunoaştere, raportat la totalitatea evenimentelor şi fenomenelor din univers se poate reprezenta grafic ca un clopot al lui Gauss. Unde gradul de certitudine este maxim avem ceea ce îndeobşte studiem cu ajutorul simţurilor în mod nemijlocit, cu aparatură sau cu ajutorul teoriilor ştiinţifice (teoretic, conceptual). Există evenimente şi fenomene care scapă analizei de acest gen, gradul de certitudine este mai mic dar nenul. La acestea făceam referire, nu la cele aflate la baza clopotului unde gradul de certitudine tinde asimptotic la zero. Eu zic că omul le vede şi pe acestea, sunt acolo, adevăruri obiective, le simte deşi nu le poate clasifica raţional. Normal că atunci când gradul de certitudine este zero, orice afirmaţie ar fi minciună, dar întâmplător sau prin studiu intens ar putea fi descoperit un adevăr acolo.

Strawman, nu despre asta era vorba.

Pana una-alta definitia pe care ai adus-o tu nu lamureste nimic si nu ai aratat de ce este mai buna decat cea "clasica", mentionata in dictionare si cu care mai toata lumea lucreaza. Nu ajuta deloc la "acceptarea neclaritatilor" ci, dimpotriva, sporeste confuzia: confunda cauza cu efectul.
Insistand sa numesti "viata" ceea ce genereaza viata nu faci altceva decat sa presupui, total neargumentat, ca viata ar exista in afara vietii...

Asa, si? Pomul de astazi este viu; conform definitiei mele (si a dictionarelor), are viata proprie. Conform definitiei tale are sau nu? Mugurasul de acum 11 ani facea parte la randul lui dintr-un organism viu...

Si de ce ar trebui sa o vad si eu la fel? Presupunand ca teoria abiogenezei este corecta, conform definitiei tale ar trebui sa tragem concluzia ca materia nevie are viata.

Pe baza rationamentelor si a cercetarii.

Daca pot fi dovedite adevarate, ies din sfera lucrurilor care nu se pot cerceta si se pot supune cercetarii riguroase despre care am vorbit mai devreme.

Treaba lor - de ce altii ar trebui sa le considere si ei la fel?

Toti credinciosii fac lucruri contrare perceptelor credintei lor. Absolut toti.
Sa nu mai spun ca perceptele oricarei credinte sunt suficient de ambigue incat sa permita interpretari diverse - vezi de ex. cate ramuri au crestinismul ori islamul.

Dar daca unui om o anumita comunitate ii recunoaste unele calitati nu inseamna automat ca le si are...

Ar putea fi descoperit... sau nu. Atat timp cat nu ai o metoda riguroasa de a cerceta daca ceea ce ai descoperit este un adevar, nu poti avea certitudini in privinta asta. Iar a prezenta un lucru incert drept o certidudine, este o amagire.

amice de ce ai simţit nevoia să pui pozele alea la afirmaţia: „dictatura ateisto-comunista isi mai face inca simtite efectele”?

ăsta e argumentul unui om cu ceva minte în cap? huh.. mi-e scârbă...

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 13 Jul 2009, 04:57 PM

La afirmatia aia a uitat insa sa puna pozele lui Basescu participand la toate "intronizarile" si sarutand icoanele in dreapta si in stanga. Deh, au si unii ateii pacatele lor atunci cand vine vorba de cei pe care ii aduleaza !

Da, stiu, vechea poveste cu cel care striga "Hotul!!!".



Asta ai dori tu sa se creada, ca materia este cauza si efectul viata, ca si cum, inafara de organismele vii, ai mai vedea in lume si case care se cladesc singure, si vorba aceea, sunt cu mult mai simplu de facut decat orice constructie a unei fiinte... E suficient ca sa-si dea cineva seama ca esenta unui organism nu sta in materia din care este facut.



Aici numai tu stii ce ai vrut sa spui...



Pai tocmai spuneam ca viata pomului de azi exista deja in stare potentiala inca inainte sa se nasca ca entitate separata de alt pom.



Pai nu trebuie daca gasesti argumente pro aparitie organizare de nivel deosebit de complex, cand marea majoritate a materiei se complace la niveluri de organizare reduse sau nule...



Am inteles, tu sustii teoria abiogenezei... Dar ce spuneam eu nu are legatura cu ea si nici cu cea a biogenezei.


PS In legatura cu fetele bisericesti pe care iti tot place sa le admiri (sunt cumva din colectia ta de poze?), este un proverb care spune sa te faci un pic frate cu dracu' ca sa nu te ineci in lac. Numai ca totul se plateste pe lumea asta, si oricat ti-ai dori, eu nu-mi permit sa emit judecati asupra lor... Din fericire exista multi care nu au cautat sa se salveze "de la inec" in felul asta, iar Dumnezeu a avut grija sa nu moara (toti) martirizati si nestiuti de nimeni, asa incat contrabalanseaza puternic sentimentul de oroare pe care doresti sa-l generezi.

Nu ar trebui, dar pot face asta, pentru a conceptualiza din punct de vedere filozofic poziţia lor în cadrul civilizaţiei şi cunoaşterii umane.

De unde ştim noi că tot edificiul bazat pe metoda ştiinţifică, din moment ce nu poate explica o serie de fenomene din lumea reală şi chiar atunci când le explică, este limitat la precizia sau puterea instrumentelelor cu care prelungim simţurile ca să dovedim aplicabilitatea teoriilor în practică, este incontestabil singura "cale" de cunoaştere a adevărului? Eu unul nu pot nega că dincolo de ceea ce putem cunoaşte, universul observabil, realitatea obiectivă este mai cuprinzătoare. Dar sunt împotriva ideii că acele fenomene transcend lumea aşa cum o cunoaştem noi. Cred că avem o bună aproximare a realităţii şi că ceea ce acum scapă ar putea fi cunoscut într-un viitor mai mult sau mai puţin îndepărtat.

Universul nu se limitează la cel observabil. Dar graniţa asta este imaginară, subiectivă. Informaţiile circulă fără să ţină seama dacă noi le putem decoda sau nu, sau să le găsim o logică, o lege sau o utilitate. Şi eu zic că este posibil ca oamenii să le perceapă şi să le înţeleagă chiar dacă par iraţionale, fără relevanţă. Nu pot fi toate minciuni.

Eu nu doresc nimic in privinta asta.
In afara de a nu atribui unui cuvant sensuri pe care nu le are.

Argumentul asta a fost disecat pe topicul de aici si nu are niciun rost sa dublam discutia. Daca vrei sa te lamuresti de ce comparatia ta este gresita, citeste acolo. Numai ca ai ceva pagini de citit...


Ti-am aratat la ce ajungi folosind definitia ta. Nu-i asa ca n-are niciun sens?

Asa si exista in stare potentiala si un copil care sa ne mostenteasca pe noi doi, inca de acum. Insa nu exista nicio garantie ca urmasii mei si ai tai se vor cunoaste si placea vreodata...
Viata exista, daca o iei asa, in stare potentiala oriunde in univers. Numai ca asta nu este cu adevarat viata. Noi nu vorbeam despre potentialitatea vietii, ci despre viata efectiva.

Pe topicul pe care ti l-am indicat mai sus in acest post este explicata si aceasta chestiune. Pe scurt: intr-un sistem in care entropia scade este posibil ca local, in unele zone ale sistemului, sa creasca, fara a perturba prin aceasta scaderea generala.

In orice caz, problematica pe care o abordezi a mai fost tratata pe forum, vezi aici. Nu mi se pare ca merita sa insistam prea mult in aceasta directie pe topicul de fata, in afara de cazul in care insisti...

Eu nu am spus ca sustin vreo teorie. In momentul in care voi considera ca am motive sa sustin vreuna, te voi anunta.

Asa fac crestinii?

Bineinteles, nici nu am contestat lucrul asta. Este exact motivul pentru care ii stimez si ii admir pe cei care au refuzat compromisul cu "diavolul rosu". Cei mai multi dintre ei au fost greco-catolici.

Acest topic a fost editat de abis: 13 Jul 2009, 09:25 PM

Pentru ca celelalte cai despre care s-a vorbit nu iti furnizeaza o metodologie de verificare, si nu poti stii in ce masura rezultatele pe care le obtii utilizand caile respective sunt corecte sau nu.

Nimeni nu te contrazice.

Din nou, nimeni nu te contrazice.

Insa ceea ce nu poti observa si cerceta nu poti nici formaliza. Nu poti emite teorii cu pretentii de adevar asupra a ceea ce nu observi/cunosti/verifici.

Nu vad motivul pentru care excluzi aceasta posibilitate. Bine, nu neaparat minciuni in sensul clasic (denaturare sau ascundere voita a adevarului), ci pur si simplu greseli.

Erwin, stii cum iti poti imagina diferenta dintre stiinta si alte posibile cai ? Stiinta parca ar inalta o movila adaugand permanent, mai intai mai mult saci, apoi mai mult saculeti. Stii tu, intr-un mod oarecum fractal. Pe cand alte cai pot construi ceva similar unor trambuline sau catapulte.

Cat timp te afli pe movila inca nu esti atat de sus cat poti ajunge cand esti propulsat, dar esti permanent pe o pozitie fixa. In schimb, aruncat de o catapulta ajungi la mai mare inaltime fara a o putea pastra sau transmite celorlalti, dar poti ajuge mai sus.

Movila mai poate avea o problema, ca sacii si saculetii aia pot ajunge sa formeze o platforma inclinata, de inclinarea careia poti sa nu fii contient. Si partea mai inaltata e mai nesigura, pe cand partea cealalta iti poate parea in mod gresit mai inalta. Probleme au si trambulinele, ca in viteza in care treci prin inaltimi e aproape imposibil sa vezi lucrurile ca de pe o movila, si nu poti aduce sau produce dovezi ale inaltimilor atinse. Si cum poti oare arata ce ai simtit in clipele acelea ?

Oricum, desi metodele pot fi combinate, majoritatea constructorilor de movile si a utilizatorilor de trambuline par sa se respinga.


Cine sunt atunci in toata povestea asta subiectii acestui subiect ... Ateii? Pai, in general, cei ce cred in saci !

Daca ar fi asa cum spune "definitia" ar insemna ca daca am lua un om care a murit fiindca a avut ficatul bolnav (sau inima ori creierul) si i-am inlocui ficatul (sau inima ori creierul), am putea sa-l "re-pornim" la viata.... am putea sa repornim procesele biologice, chimice, fizice, mecanice...... ca pe o masina reconditionata, la care i-am schimbat motorul)
Daca viata nu ar avea esenta divina ar insemna ca si noi oamenii am putea da viata unor trupuri umane fara viata. Dar pana acum omul, pe principiul "viata este o sinteza a proceselor biologice, fizice, chimice, mecanice" nu a reusit sa creeze decat masinarii. Nicidecum fiinte vii. Pentru ca stiinta incearca sa ignore ceea ce nu poate fi ignorat: esenta divina a vietii.

Adevarul este adevar prin el insusi, nu e determinat de faptul ca tu crezi sau nu. ori de faptul ca poate fi demonstrat sau nu. El exista anterior celor care cred sau nu cred si indiferent daca poate fi demonstrat.
Tu nu poti crede un adevar nedemonstrat cu exactitate, dar asta nu influenteaza cu nimic existenta acelui adevar.
In viata sunt lucruri pe care nu o sa le poti niciodata demonstra. Si atunci ce faci? Nu le crezi desi ele au fost reale? ok ai dreptul sa nu le crezi
Dar asta nu inseamna ca stiinta este incontestabil singura "cale" de cunoaştere a adevărului.
Si prin "alte cai" se poate cunoaste adevarul, chiar daca nu poate fi el demonstrat.
Tu, abis, poti sa afli o informatie adevarata, dar nu ai nici un motiv sa o crezi. Desi nu poate fi demonstrata, dar asta nu o face mai putin adevarata.
Ai o problema cu perceptia subtilitatilor reale. Tu, abis, consideri realitate doar ceea ce poate fi demonstrat (cel putin asa rezulta din ceea ce sustii mai sus). Asta denota o limitare in gandire.

Nu inteleg cum rezulta din definitia din dictionar (viata=sinteza a proceselor biologice, fizice, chimice, mecanice care caracterizeaza organismele) ca am putea noi sa repornim la viata o fiinta care a murit. Pur si simplu nu reiese de nicaieri o atare concluzie.

Din nou, nu inteleg cum ai tras o asemenea concluzie. Probabil ca atunci cand vom avea tehnologia necesara, o vom putea face; sau poate ca nu vom reusi, nu avem de unde sa stim acest lucru acum.

De acord, adevarul este unul, indiferent daca il credem sau nu.

Bineinteles.
Dar daca tu crezi ca-i adevarat un lucru nedemonstrat cu exactitate, de unde stii ca nu te inseli?

Ce sa fac altceva decat sa le iau ca atare, ca lucruri care nu se pot demonstra si despre care nu putem fi siguri?

Nu. Eu consider ca este posibil sa fie reale si lucruri care nu pot fi demonstrate, insa nu avem de unde sa stim care sunt acelea.

Daca spun ca "daca nu putem demonstra X nu putem fi siguri in privinta lui X" sunt limitat in gandire?

Nu-mi dau seama la ce anume fenomene te referi. Poti da cateva exemple ? De altfel, ce evenimente/fenomene ar fi alea care nu s-ar manifesta sub nici o forma in realitatea obiectiva ? Din ce spui tu aici trag concluzia ca noi, oamenii, avem un soi de al 6-lea simt cu care descoperim niste chestii, dar pe care nu le putem studia si asupra carora nu avem nici certitudini. Asta spui ?


Problema mortii si deci a incetarii functionarii organismului este, intai de toate, o problema a degradarii materiei organice. Cand functiile vitale inceteaza, incepe degradarea tesuturilor, celulelor, etc. Neuronii incep sa moara daca nu mai primesc oxigen timp de cateva minute, asa ca treaba nu-i chiar atat de simpla. Dar da, presupunand prin absurd ca o persoana a murit si ca tesuturile sale ar ramane intacte, neatinse de procesul de descompunere care incepe imediat ce o persoana a murit, aceasta ar putea fi readusa la viata. Prin 2005 s-a facut un experiment foarte interesant. Niste caini au fost introdusi in moarte clinica prin golirea sistemului circulator de sange si introducerea unei solutii saline de o temperatura scazuta, iar dupa 3 ore in care au fost practic morti dar cu tesuturile conservate intr-o masura semnificativa, au fost readusi la viata prin reintroducerea sangelui in sistemul circulator si printr-un soc electric care sa le reporneasca inima. Acelasi lucru s-ar putea face si pe oameni intr-un viitor apropiat, iar chestia asta ar oferi un avantaj medical enorm atunci cand altceva esueaza, pentru ca nu face altceva decat sa conserve organismul, sa-l fereasca de descompunere pana cand se va putea interveni in forta. Poate ti se pare straniu, dar definitia mortii s-a tot schimbat de-a lungul timpului pe masura ce speranta de viata s-a dublat si tehnologia a reusit sa ne mentina artificial in viata. Nu exista o linie de demarcatie clara intre viata si moarte, iar daca vrei sa intelegi aspectul asta, gandeste-te ca moartea propriu-zisa nu-i altceva decat atingerea acelui prag dincolo de care resuscitarea devine imposibila din cauza degradarii. Daca se intervine rapid cu diferite sisteme artificiale care preiau din functii, mentinem in viata, iar daca nu reusim, depasim o limita dincolo de care procesul devine ireversibil.

Ce parere aveti despre atei?
Atei - cred ca Dumnezeu nu exista; sau nu cred in Dumnezeu, chiar daca exista?
Trebuie ateul sa demonstreze afirmatiile sale? Are posibilitatea sa o faca?
----------
asta era tema topicului şi la ce tâmpenii aţi ajuns voi cu discuţia...

Acest topic a fost editat de andra_v: 14 Jul 2009, 04:46 PM

Teoretic se poate, daca reusesti sa conservi toate celelalte organe, in special creierul si sistemul nervos. La biologie, anatomie mai exact, prin clasa a VIII-a cred, am invatat ca in cazul mortii, creierul sufera procese chimice ireversibile daca inceteaza alimentarea cu oxigen. Prin urmare motivul pentru care nu pot resuscita un mort daca ii schimbi ficatul paradit este pentru ca sistemul nervos central, adica ala responsabil cu coordonarea tuturor proceselor din organism este defectat ca urmare a mortii. Practic ar trebui sa inlocuiesti si creierul si sistemul nervos daca vrei sa repornesti omul respectiv.
Dar transplanturi exista, iar progresele in domeniul transplanturilor este remarcabil.


Iti dai seama ca este un nonsens ce spui? Cum adica sa dai viata unor trupuri umane fara viata? Resuscitarea este posibila si se intampla. Daca te referi la readucerea la viata a unor oameni morti de cateva secunde se poate si se intampla foarte des.
Si nu are nicio legatura cu vreo presupusa "esenta divina". Nu ai nevoie de conceptul de "esenta divina a vietii" ca sa explici viata. Binenteles, nu ai nevoie de acest concept daca nu esti ignorant si "limitat in gandire" ca sa te citez.


Esti in eroare. Omul creaza fiinte vii de milioane de ani. Nici macar nu e greu. Masculul isi baga organul in femela si daca totul e in ordine, in noua luni iese viata prin acelasi loc prin care a intrat organul.

Cred ca vroia sa spuna cu totul altceva. Depinde foarte mult in ce organ isi baga organul.

Revenind la oile noastre (R., nu te ambala, e doar o figura de stil!), sa urmarim un scurt film (este si Romania pomenita, dar nu ca exemplu pozitiv):


Imagine If All Atheists Left America

Cred ca este o gresala, doar 0,1 % romani ateisti? adica din 20 milioane=20.000 de ateisti ????? Oricum filmul are ceva adevar in mesajul respectiv, totusi sunt si oameni credinciosi printre intelectuali, sa nu uitam ca religiozitatea nu ia impiedicat pe mari oameni de stiinta sa faca descoperirile respective. Eu cred ca atata vreme cat nu respecti dogma, poti sa ai o gandire libera, chiar daca nu esti un ateist convins, important este sa nu fi fortat sa crezi in religia tarii in care te nasti si traiesti.

La ultimul recensamant s-au declarat atei 8.524 de persoane (0,03% dintre cei care au raspuns) si "fara religie" 12.825 (0,05%). In total, 0,08%. Poti aproxima cu 0,1%