[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl But LG, this seems to be a bit of a self-defined situation. Are these 'false intuitions and hallucinations' so defined because they don't fit into your scientific/logical theory? Or so defined because you were on acid at the time (or other hallucinagen)? Another thing, isn't reality made up of your experiences? I think that by rejecting some experiences in favour of others, you are artificially limiting your reality. You said it yourself, you are being untrue to your real self. I don't know how to help you resolve this dichotomy, except to say that logic doesn't (and shouldn't) solely define existence. But that's just my opinion...

HG, if I have a dream of unreality, am I supposed to accept it as part of my life experience, as reality? I think not. As to acid, it's been over twenty years since those experiences, and my mind worked exactly the same before and after, so there's no grounded difference there. As I said, it's just the way my dna nature is. My wife and I have both been working on this dichotomy for some 37 years. We just choose to agree and disagree in the different areas and subjects. Many people have to agree to disagree, on this mixed up planet of ours. I think the only thing you see in relating to me is that life may be more complex than you have yet realized. You know, the funny thing is, I've written three books and many articles, and many of the logical ideas are from my wife, and many of the intuitive ideas of from my mind. It's just the strangeness of life's actions...

Epistemologically, Ayn Rand would have disagreed with you on this statement; I don't know how to help you resolve this dichotomy, except to say that logic doesn't (and shouldn't) solely define existence. But that's just my opinion... As you say, it's just your opinion... And therein lies the dichotomy...

regards

[harmonygirl]

I guess I'm trying to figure out why you have defined these expereiences as 'unreal'. I know life is complex: My Goddess has a sense of humour! You picked the one author that once made me question my entire belief system (until I realized her fallacy, that is!) it appears we will have to disagree (or at least until I know why these experiences have been deemed illusions to you....)

[HappytheStripper]

"What is life???" ... How many of You "actually" know... the answer to this question???

Time for some "rational" problem solving I think... that reminds me... I saw a thread a few screens ago... um ... "the problem with problems"... which brings me to ask the question again.... "what is the problem with the question of.... 'what is life'???"

In order to gain some perspective... through logical reasoning.... how about we break the question down...

"what is life???" ... then becomes:- "what" .. (is) .. "life" .. nb: Ive taken the... (is) .. and extracted it ... thats because to ask this question of "is" ... would be to bring the "what" into the present moment.... the "what" being "life"... and life IS ... now ...!!!!!!!!!

The word "what" ... may be defined as ... "one" ... "one of several" or "one of many" ... either way... it still begins with "one"... and ... how many of this "one" ... is dependant upon the "what" ....... which in this case is ... "life" ... which as you see below ... is many ...

The word "life" ... may be defined as ... "The property (physics) ... or quality (chemistry) ... that distinguishes living organisms (biology) ... from dead organisms (organic/biology)... and inanimate matter (energy/physics) ... manifested in functions (dna) such as metabolism ... growth ... reproduction (nature) ... and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment (nurture) ... originating from within the organism .... LIFE!

Guess that means its "collective" .... ??? What do you think???

I've been reading the replies to this thread and decided ... for those of you ... whom have posted replies ... including myself ... well we were "All" - "Correct" ... in what we think ... and that life seems to be a collection of many ... which brings me to ask again ... "what is a life exactly???" ... and the answer is therefore " ... "simple" ...

"A" life is initially ... determination ... of the properties defined in the chemical structure ... a bit like the properties we search for in the search for TOE ... each article has its own distinguishing features ... some are alive for only one function ... some are alive for many functions ... some split through growth and reproduction ... and all of this is dependant upon "external stimuli" ... and creation of the many ....

Guess the answer to the question of exactly what a life is ... can and will be answered by many for all the years to come and more ....... all in the end maybe ... answering the questions to "WHAT IS LIFE???" ... be prepared though as the answers will be a bit more complex eh than the question actually asked!!!

The problem with problems is .... one question ... may be answered ... by many ... and challenged ... by many .... until such time a general concensus is formed (Unity)

(that of course depends on how many times the question is asked ... and those who listen for the answer)

[mkirkpatrick]

What is life?It is this!
L Light
I Intelligent
F Frequency
E Evolving
From a point,to a bud,to a flower,to a point,to all points,to ubiquity,and
entering the cold dark flame?



kind regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl I guess I'm trying to figure out why you have defined these expereiences as 'unreal'. I know life is complex: My Goddess has a sense of humour! You picked the one author that once made me question my entire belief system (until I realized her fallacy, that is!) it appears we will have to disagree (or at least until I know why these experiences have been deemed illusions to you....)

HG, let me just give a bit of an explanation, that may help you, but probably will help me more. Through my life I've always tried to sort out why different people think differently. I have really only today discovered the answer to this life long quest. Going over a few hundred pages of my notes, I noticed the fact of quite a few seeming contradictions in my own self-thoughts. One note stated "my left brain is an atheist, my right brain is not." Another stated "the left brain is logic, th right brain is intuition." Another made a statement about philosophy, i.e., the history of contradictions and arguments... With all the other notes, especially those about visionary intuitive imagination about the future, I realized, in a flash, that not only my mind, but possibly many others functioned on more than one logic system, or one truth system, or one intuitive system. After thinking it through and re-reveiwing some other notes, I came to the conclusion that, at least to me, that I possess two major logic views, one from my left brain and one from my right brain. Now, maybe you think I'm crazy, but I assure you I'm not. This is just the by-product of forty years non-stop research and writing. I still function fine as a human being, with my family and most others.

Not only had I discovered two logic systems, but also two independent truth systems that I regularly use separately. Now, some may call it bi-polar but to spoil that there's also a third independent system of intuitive imagination I also use, almost continuously, as I am an economic futurologist or universal systemologist. So, within my one person, I contain three totally independent thought concepts, that I use three totally independent logics, truths and intuitions on. I have the odd ability to summon intuition at will to work in any of these three areas of thought... What I realized is that all history is made up of this same seeming confusion. Think about it. Most writers are right brained. It's just the competition of the marketplace. They write better. Therefore most information through the ages, when talking about left brained matters is often mis-represented, as most right brained people don't thoroughly understand left brained people, and they usually write this information. You answered this yourself about Ayn Rand, as she is, or at least comes across as, left brained, and you pass her off as incorrect thinking, when in fact it's just different than yours. All three of the minds mentioned have their truths, it's just the ground base is totally different, thus making the content seem totally off-base to the opposing grounds of being, i.e., logic, intuition, and imaginal.

At this point my computer crashed and only saved the above, so I'll try to stumble along. I think our differences may have triggered something very important to philosophy and psychology. By realizing one mind can quite comfortably multi-task three logics, three intuition systems and three imaginal systems, or as I see them three independent concepts, it should be easy to see that differences being handled in one person's mind must be possible of being handled by anyone's mind. Maybe such an example could help stop some of the argueing and dis-agreements, and start to solve some of the real world's serious problems... I think if we realize that it is normal for one mind to hold opposing logics, truths, intuitions and imaginations, etc., that it is to be expected that many other minds hold opposing views that are just as true as ours, only with different grounds of being. The fact is there are more than one, even universal, truth system, logic system and imaginal system. Now, most know this, but why is it so hard to communicate sucessfully about it? Do we think it insane or something? I don't know. I'd like to...

regards

p.s.
I dis-regard what is synthesized less important to my main work, which is future economic models. This is a crude answer to why I dis-regard the experiences you speak of, but I just simply haven't the time to entertain ideas that are not as important to me. There's no way for me to put it, to sound right to your mind, as we are of opposite sides of the mind. I don't think I could ever make sense to the right side of the mind, no more than I feel you could make real logical sense to me. It's just the way it is, and I'm not going to even try any more, as now I know my own two sides often are far from agreement, and this is normal. At least, now I know it is a requirement of human process, and there's nothing I want to do about it, to change it. Now that I know it better, I like it...

[harmonygirl]

Interesting theory. It answers my long-asked question, when you talk to your self, who answers? I'm afraid I don't quite understand the 3rd system, but I see where you are going. I agree we have multiple independent systems of truth and knowing. Perhaps this arises as a result of the freedom we have from instinct, which some call intellect. I also think that is because our reality is to some extent false (and we intuitively know it). When I got back from backpacking in Africa, I knew this in a visceral way. I think you're right about the psychology aspect, but it could be an extrapolation of Freud, don't you think?

[chazzysaw]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Why not? What is your criteria?

There are many opinions on what consitute life.I might as well add my 2 cents.If something exist does not make it alive.Existing is not always living. My couch for example has no life. It's a bunch of atoms forming molecules forming matter. It does not reproduce, it does not move without assistance and it does not ingest anything inorder to survive.I would say the atoms and the molecules are not alive but active.Living matter has to ingest somthing one way or another in order to sustain life. An instinctive reaction urges the life form that it has to ingest, whether it's some type of plasma,cannibalism,absorption,or what ever it has to do to eat.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by chazzysaw There are many opinions on what consitute life.I might as well add my 2 cents.If something exist does not make it alive.Existing is not always living. My couch for example has no life. It's a bunch of atoms forming molecules forming matter. It does not reproduce, it does not move without assistance and it does not ingest anything inorder to survive.I would say the atoms and the molecules are not alive but active.Living matter has to ingest somthing one way or another in order to sustain life. An instinctive reaction urges the life form that it has to ingest, whether it's some type of plasma,cannibalism,absorption,or what ever it has to do to eat.

The
reason your sofa seems unalive is I feel because the general acceptance of
what is living is totally wrong,life is eternal,in reality,there is no need to ingest,or reproduce!What we see,or think to be life?is in effect a mere shadow of the real thing!We only ever see an outer manifestation and never
the inner reality.
kind regards michael.

[chazzysaw]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick The reason your sofa seems unalive is I feel because the general acceptance of what is living is totally wrong,life is eternal,in reality,there is no need to ingest,or reproduce!What we see,or think to be life?is in effect a mere shadow of the real thing!We only ever see an outer manifestation and never the inner reality. kind regards michael.

I guess I better start feeding it.(joke).No really I understand what you are saying. I give this matter much thought and others I have discuss this with, tend to agree with you.One associate of mine stated life can be a very broad subject. He feels, like you, everything can be considered alive. So my question is when a person dies, they are still alive, even though the only activity coming from the body is decomposing? If you pull a plant out of the ground away from it's nourishment it will wither and die. Not cease to exist but no longer have life. I understand if we break life down to the molecular or even the spiritual (inner reality or energy) levels then you are right, everything lives. But speaking and looking at things practical and on the surface, what really lives? Only those things that do what is necessary inorder to maintain it's awearness of it's existance which is living. If we are the shadow of true reality then no matter lives, we're just a reflection.

[baudrunner]

Private language religion? I've always prided myself in not being institutionalised that way, regardless of my beliefs. Religion is for those who have no knowledge, yet who are hopeful.

Your enthusiasm for my response merits a reply.

Okay, I made a mistake when I wrote "Life evolved out of a virtual nothing that must always have had the life force in it", obviously nothing cannot have had anything in it ever let alone always.

There is no scientific evidence for creation other than creation itself, let alone the cause of it. I will however challenge anyone else to come up with an explanation for existence, whether scientifically substantial or not. What can be more logical or rational than the one which I have provided in my anthropocentric Universe theory? Consciousness is a predisposition to the premonition that was created by and which created it. It obviously makes sense to you, so why not just accept it?