Karl

We should all get together and throw the leaflets into Downing Street. It's junk mail as far as I'm concerned and needs returning from whence it came. This Government are really arrogant bastards and that might well come across. I was thinking of the blitz spirit. That at the beginning people were shocked and frightened, but after a few months of living with the fear they began to harden to it. Fear is a future condition, once you get used to it then it becomes resentment and resistance. The Remain campaign must be careful they do not continue to be pulled by operation fear into matching the rhetoric. They must switch to a blitz mentality which hardens people and gives them hope in respect of Leaving. Cameron's recent revelation about his Fathers tax affairs, his refusal to answer, coming on top of his rhetoric about transparency and fairness will seriously undermine his credibility. Add in the steel situation, the increase in migrants, the Greek situation which is developing, a European economic down turn and it starts to topple over in people's minds.

There are no borders because borders suggest a beyond. If beyond is where there is nothing then there can be no beyond, there is only the universe, it is the same as life. While we are here we are conscious of it, when we are dead so is consciousness. Just like that there is no beyond. The flame goes out. The universe is finite but unbounded. There is only causality, so, what we imagine as an edge isnt likely to be anything close. Are there more, will there be more ? Who can say, but we are already and we can't get our heads around the opportunity we have.

Popcorn making ?

Brian said a field was something in which there are points with values. Values are something and not zero. This surely implies a flow as there are values ? Every is implies an ought. I'm not saying I understand in any sense I'm just cycling through the logic. If there was a field surely we could detect it ?

Certainly constant change which is causality. Every action and reaction. I would suggest the removal of mystery and then see no duality. There is only manifest. No duality is possible. You have never come across anything that is something and something else as well. A is A. Begin there. Any mystery is solved immediately by an axiomatic IS. A mystery is generally something that cannot be known, but with existence we already have the known, so no mystery is possible. I mean, there it is, bold as brass, it isn't hiding and its origin is the universe which we have already talked about. Exactly, a functioning brain/body must be logically prior to consciousness. Existence must exist prior to consciousness. These questions boil down to 'was I created?' Which has been answered by your parents. Was the universe created? No. It could not have been created because it is the universe and any creating is on the level of causality within the bounds of the universe. Can consciousness exist seperate to the body ? No because existence implies identity and identity consciousness, therefore there cannot be a no identified consciousness because it woukd contradict existence. When I die where do I go ? Nowhere. The end. The body dies and there is no place a consciousness can go, it's like run down clockwork or a depleted cell.

Maybe I'm ahead of Hawking at this point. The universe wasn't created, the universe IS in whatever form it is and has always. This is a proper mind bender, but there was never a time when.....because all time is in the universe. There was no start, because causality has been always. Now, if there was a Big Bang within the universe it is certainly very possible, but nothing came before the universe because there was nothing but the universe. See the problem here ? As soon as you say it begins, started, or any other thing, then it had to begin within something. What was the thing in which the singularity appeared ? The universe. Was the singularity the universe ? That's possible, but the universe is whatever question you can think to ask of it.

Ooohhhhhhh

I would have to agree with you. Wherever I lay my trail, that's my home. A snail is a singularity. Could it be the centre of the universe ? Worship the snail. The God like shelled divination with its horns of bliss sat on the cabbages of joy. Praise be the snail who's familiar shape adorns the ancient Celtic arts.

Origin of man = boy=Rats, snails and puppy dogs tails. That's it we solved it. Next, the origin of snails. Follow the trail.

Rats and snails and puppy dog tails ?

Cells are made from atoms. I don't know what atoms are except that they are particles held together with energy. When that energy is released it is huge. They continually discover new particles but we don't know what those particles are comprised of. The same atoms are in living and inanimate things. There is no soul in a boulder.

I asked this of Brian and he back heeled it, so I will try again. A field IS something, it isn't nothing. What's also very clear to me is that a field (how so ever that is defined and Brian wouldn't attempt it- even though it seems to me he is in the best position to do so) has to be emitted by something. Within the universe we do have causality, so we can logically infer that something does not come from nothing. It's also evident that a field needs a substrate, in other words something over which it has an effect. Now, putting that aside. If what you say is true. Then, how do you explain its injection into the body. I mean we know cells a living right at the beginning of gestation. Sperm are cells as are human eggs. So do you equally believe these are conscious entities deriving their soul from this field. How is it that, until a baby becomes almost full grown in the womb, it is not yet conscious. If it lacks a vital organ it might be still born so how do you account for that ?

Part of that follows and part does not. The soul is bound in a particular location and you identified how and where in your second from last sentence. Thus when we are born we are not our parents soul and if we have children then our souls won't be their souls either. Yet neither our selves, parents or children are possible without a succession of births. They require causality. A living child does not appear in a field, it has to be born. Two parents must mate, they must take part in the process of creation.

Yes. The universe is the universe. It is finite but unbound. It can shrink and expand in relation to those things it contains within its universality. However everything is relative, so no laws are broken.

The universe was not born. The universe is the universe. It always was and always will be, only its form will change, but it will always be the universe. To say there was no-thing is to say existence doesn't exist. Then you are in the didactic conundrum-from a humans perspective- what came first existence or consciousness. If the universe is nothing then consciousness is the universe, but if consciousness is the universe and there is nothing, then there is no consciousness either. Therefore existence is prior to consciousness in the way a chicken is prior to an egg. Aww man, I've just read that back and it's a syllogistic master piece :-)

The universe wasnt created, so the inherent creativity of the universe means that the conclusion can only be that the soul is a self creation as the universe is. We can trace causality back only so far before we come across the inherent creativity embodied within the universe. Take and fundamental and it is axiomatic. We can experience the effects of gravity, but we can't find gravity itself no matter how we probe into matter. There are fudamentals of the universe that can't be explained, consciousness/life is one of those fundamentals. How did a force like gravity appear in the Earth. Did the planet form and then a big hand sprinkled gravity within it. Is gravity itself unique to the Earth or is only Earth and its particular gravity unique in the universe. (I'm leaving aside all Brian's scientific arguments here and just using the ideas as philosophical metaphors-'cos I just know he will be along soon to correct me on the science ;-)). If our planet is destroyed, then all the little bits of planet will have their own gravity. The hand did not reach back down and distribute that force, yet the small bits don't have the same gravity as the Earth once had-you will say 'but that's obvious' but then fail to apply that observation to life. Each cell has life, yet one cell does not contain the consciousness of the whole until the cells complete the life form. Can we define the life within each cell and discover it's means ? No, we can only determine its causality, but the life force is nowhere. We can see chemicals and interactions, even atomic level stuff, but in the final analysis no life can be found, just as no gravity can be found. This isn't a fully formed theory of course, it's just what I observe and try to make sense of. For all I know there is a big hand which sprinkles form, forces, nature and life on things :-) but I have yet to be convinced of that.

If you mean consciousness/life then it was inherent in the fabric of the universe, it only needed the right components to come together in order for it to become manifest within those components. The universe IS and so it is creation in and of itself because it has structure. It isn't random, but contains causality which is alo an ordered pattern of structure and in a particular order of precedence which implies a direction and hence it must always 'progress' in a very broad sense of the word. Life is not ever lasting. Unlike a rock which becomes dust over time, life-not the body-eventually perishes. Life is therefore transitory for each entity and it must struggle to maintain itself by action. It's as though it is the creativity of the universe, it's order, causality and implied direction rolled into one fragile bubble that must fight to prevent its demise primarily because it is the product of that fragility. Life has to work at being alive because it is alive. In that extent it is similar to the universe because it is product of the universe, it is effectively its own creation, its own force. The soul didn't come from anywhere, it created itself. It is its own spark, if the conditions are right. Self generating self. We are a product of ourselves without need for anything more. Each soul has specific, individual identity and unique to itself and its material make up. That means we are like a candle. Once the wax is used up, the light goes out, there will never be that same exact candle ever again. Each new candle is a unique event, self contained, self generating, but limited by the fact that to be life it must face extinction.

In objectivist philosophy creativity is built from direct experiences of reality, thereby creating concepts. These concepts are integrated to form new concepts and inductive leaps. This provides man with the potential of creating new solutions to problems. Yet he still needs the perceptions and abstract concepts they form in his mind in order to do this work. The reason is reason. Man must live long range-he has no choice about it if he wishes to survive he must plan into the future. Choice gives him an immense number of options and these include innovation. The same thing applies to art, which is the concretised conceptual abstraction of an individual made into a perceptual representation. This is why art is affecting. If the viewer shares similar values and abstractions with the artist they will come to feel the art means something to them. They agree with the artist that this is how life is for them. If they do not agree it will leave them cold.

In terms of the historical biological context do you mean ? I have to say, I have little interest how we came to be, but I can't say that it isn't important-maybe something useful can come from an investigation, a medical benefit, or something innovative.

I noticed last night, that after Cameron 'had a word' with the Chinese Ambassador, that we have a furore over some Chinese tariffs on British special steels. Putting 2+2 together I can already see this is a EU remain setup. Let's see if I'm correct. Money on it that there will be a boosting of anger over potential losses of jobs at the special steels plant and a lack of movement from the Chinese to rectify the matter. Then, Cameron will get together with our EU partners and use their combined strength to force a compromise. Then he will appear on TV blowing hard about how important it is to stay in because we can negotiate much better as a block. "Good for British business, good for British jobs and Good for Britain". As this is a dated forum. I will be able to confirm my suspicions in a couple of weeks.

Winners will be advised by post after the close of competition. Should you be a winner you may elect to keep your name secret or for your win to be publicised. In the case of a tie, the competition will be decided by the slogan competition "I like Dao bums because......

What about if you use every quality pertaining to the character of Hitler, but don't explicitly mention Hitler, does that count ?

It did for me. Got all sorts of injuries. I did everything correctly even to the point of varying the surface. All the warm ups, stretches and cool downs. Right hydration etc. Still got injuries so I stopped and after a year I no longer had the pains. My understanding, from what I have read on the subject, is that we are built for short sprints of a few minutes duration only. That is interesting because it ties in with modern research that says a few sessions at maximum effort over the course of a week improves health. I loved running at the time I was doing it and happily did 20 miles on fell, road and riverbank.

Correct, but that's I cake and flour argument. Like all aircraft have wings as opposed to all aircraft fly. I make it that way because I know where you are going to go and I'm going to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about aircraft wings not being a flies wing or a birds. In the end you will come to see it, or you will find some other equivocation. Im trying to save my writing finger from punishment. So, if you can keep in mind context and please don't stray too far off the path then I'm happy with men being the only animal that form concepts. If you start giving those arguments from equivocation then I shall not reply-and leave you to figure out where your logical fallacy by my silence. I will rejoin when you get back on track.

That has the faculty of reason you mean. Go for it.