Hi Wordsmith ,
You ask :
" And absolute determinism isn't biased ? "


" Absolute determinism " ? What's that ?

Absolute _ Scientific _ determinism is absurd .

Absolute _ Material _ determinism is how pure nature is
when it's free from the biases of the mind .

Yes , I am calling it the one and only unbiased reality .

Hi Bill Vajk ,
Speaking of absolute _ Material _ determinism ,
And once again confusing it with
absolute _ Scientific _ determinism , You say :

" Those who claim it rational
forget that at times the universe is irrational . "


Pure nature is mindless . Neither rational nor irrational .

All notions of order and randomness are pure fabrications .

In article ,
says...


Hi Bill Vajk ,
Speaking of absolute _ Material _ determinism ,
And once again confusing it with
absolute _ Scientific _ determinism , You say :

" Those who claim it rational
forget that at times the universe is irrational . "


Pure nature is mindless . Neither rational nor irrational .

All notions of order and randomness are pure fabrications .

That self-negating assertion is problematic, IMHO.
It is at best a paradoxical statement, at worst it's "meaningless"
according to its own definition.

The question... is how can you make such an assertion with any
conviction? Isn't your fabricating (subjective) perspective only capable
of probability assessments? How do you make the leap into describing
attributes of reality in absolute and objective terms?

Pure nature is likely to be mindless....=
Meaning is most likely local

Hi Humanist ,
Regarding my assertion that pure nature is mindless ,
You ask :
" How can you make such an assertion with any conviction ? "


The same way anyone anywhere makes any assertion .
No one has perfect knowledge , obviously .

You ask :
" Isn't your fabricated ( subjective ) perspective
only capable of probability assessments ? "


Yes , Of course .
Pure nature , mindless as it is ,
is the only source of unbiased objectivity .

You ask :
" How do you make the leap into describing
attributes of reality in absolute and objective terms ? "


What makes you think that I'm " Describing Reality " ?

I'm describing what reality isn't .
Reality isn't any mental notion .
Reality isn't any notion of order or randomness .
All such notions are biased and artificial .

Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Wordsmith ,
You ask :
" And absolute determinism isn't biased ? "


" Absolute determinism " ? What's that ?

Absolute _ Scientific _ determinism is absurd .

Absolute _ Material _ determinism is how pure nature is
when it's free from the biases of the mind .

Yes , I am calling it the one and only unbiased reality .

One gives it bias by the mere designation. Bias is unavoidable because
language is unavoidable.

W

In article ,
says...


Hi Humanist ,
Regarding my assertion that pure nature is mindless ,
You ask :
" How can you make such an assertion with any conviction ? "


The same way anyone anywhere makes any assertion .
No one has perfect knowledge , obviously .

You ask :
" Isn't your fabricated ( subjective ) perspective
only capable of probability assessments ? "


Yes , Of course .
Pure nature , mindless as it is ,
is the only source of unbiased objectivity .

You ask :
" How do you make the leap into describing
attributes of reality in absolute and objective terms ? "


What makes you think that I'm " Describing Reality " ?

I'm describing what reality isn't .
Reality isn't any mental notion .
Reality isn't any notion of order or randomness .
All such notions are biased and artificial .

Hi Jeff,

Whereas you normally write with piercing clarity
On this topic we've had consistent difficulty communicating

But here goes:

Whether the attribute is expressed in positive or negative terms doesn't
change the fact that you're qualifying reality. You're asserting that
"artificial" notions have no relation whatsoever with reality in absolute
terms despite your apparent claims to the contrary. Essentially, you're
asserting that notions don't exist.

But if we pick the other side of the paradox (concocted notions must have
an origin how do you explain the manifestation of notions in sentient
beings such as ourselves? What kind of godly power do we have that we
could create patterns where there are none, or that we could produce
emergent "order" where there is undefined/nondescript?

The consequence of a mindless universe scenario isn't "absolute
meaninglessness" but rather that meaning(sentient observation) is
relative.
IMHO "Meaning" are relations we extract out of complexity, later
selectively applied to symbols and tokens. The resulting imperfect and
artificial notions/language necessarily fall short of grasping/describing
the complete (complex) picture, but at some point the very manifestation
of such "relative" meaning implies a relation of some kind with the
"mindless pure nature" or "God almighty", whichever you prefer.

Hmm It occured to me that your definition of "pure nature" seems the
same as Keynes definition of prime mover (definition of God which seemed
unorthodox to me). "objective truth of reality"/ The only difference
seems to be the value you assign to it,reverence or lack thereof. You
don't respect your dumb "worthless" pure nature(god), Keynes respects
his omnipotent(=the sum of all action) omniscient(=objective truth)
totality(=god). Sorry about that digression but it caught my interest.

(please note that I'm just screwing around here on the internet - I don't
take myself very seriously and don't intend to offend

Hi Wordsmith ,
You say :
" One gives it bias by the mere designation . "


If everything is biased then nothing is biased .

But everything is not biased ,
pure nature , devoid of artificial notions has no biases .

Hi there Mr. Humanist ,
You say :
" Please note that I'm just screwing around
here on the internet - I don't take myself very seriously
and don't intend to offend . "


I too am just wasting time . It's the story of my life .
I just enjoy playing with the keyboard :
http://www.PicDiary.COM/misc/piano.jpg

You say :
" Hmm ... It occurred to me that your definition of
' pure nature ' seems the same as Keynes definition of
prime mover , and ' objective truth of reality ' .
( A definition of God which seemed unorthodox to me . )
The only difference seems to be the value you assign to it ,
reverence or lack thereof .
You don't respect your dumb ' worthless '
pure nature ( god ) ... "


Pure nature is a " Worthless God " ? I never said that .

" Mindless Nature " is the absolute antitheses of any god .

In fact it's a proof that absolutely no gods exist .
( Or daemons for that matter . )

, ,
/( )`
\ \__ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
____( (_ / \______
,' ,----' | \
`--{__________) \/

( Drawn by )

You say :
" Keynes respects his omnipotent ( = the sum of all action )
omniscient ( = objective truth ) totality ( = god ) .
Sorry about that digression but it caught my interest . "


Thanks for that cogent synopsis , I appreciate it .
I'm sure that pseudo gods exist ,
Maybe that's what Keynes is talking about .

But if he thinks infinite nature is genuinely sentient ,
Then I must disagree . No computer has infinite precision .

Re my " Mindless nature " notion , You note :
" On this topic
we've had consistent difficulty communicating . "


That's par for the course . Isn't it ?
Usenet is just one endless word game .

You say :
" Whether the attribute is expressed
in positive or negative terms doesn't change the fact that
you're qualifying reality . "


No I'm not . That'd be impossible to do .
All I'm doing is saying , with solid conviction ,
What pure nature is not , i.e. :
Infinite nature is _ Never _ intrinsically random .

You say :
" You're asserting that ' Artificial ' notions have
no relation whatsoever with reality ...
Essentially , you're asserting that notions don't exist . "


I said that all notions are biased . Artificial .
And I said that genuine free will does not exist .

I did not say " All notions are absolutely incorrect . "
Nor did I say " No notions exist . "

You ask :
" But if we pick the other side of the paradox .
( i.e. That concocted notions must have an origin . )
How do you explain the manifestation of
notions in sentient beings such as ourselves ? "


Just like virtually everything else in the universe ,
We consume energy . And we do it communally .

But what's so special about that ?
The temperature ? Big deal .

But , Being the complete fools that we are :
We think that we're genuine gods ...
With genuine free will .

You ask :
" What kind of godly power do we have that
we could create patterns where there are none ,
or that we could produce emergent ' order '
where there is undefined / nondescript ? "


We have to think , Otherwise we couldn't consume as we do .

But that doesn't make us genuine gods
Because we're still part of nature's static timescape .

Consider the universe's apparent progression :
Form the infinite heat of the big bang
To the infinite cold of the big freeze .

We seem to be moving through a _ Heatscape _ too .
( For more on " The Big Freeze " see :
)

You say :
" The consequence of a mindless universe scenario
isn't " absolute meaninglessness "
but rather that meaning
( sentient observation ) is relative . "


Pure nature , of which we are a part ,
is perfectly meaningless .

There is no genuine meaning ... All meaning is biased .
Artificial . Fabricated . Fake .

You write :
" IMHO ' Meanings ' are
relations we extract out of complexity ,
later selectively applied to symbols and tokens . "


That's right . They're pseudo truths . Fabrications .

You say :
" The resulting imperfect and artificial
notions / language necessarily fall short of
grasping / describing
the complete ( [ infinitely ] complex ) picture ,
but at some point
the very manifestation of such ' relative ' meaning
implies a relation of some kind
with the ' mindless pure nature '
or ' God almighty ' , whichever you prefer . "


Is our pseudo meaning " Related " to infinite nature ?

Yes , But it's an infinitely tiny piece of it .

Hi Humanist ,
you said : " you're qualifying reality "


Oops , That's true . I am .

I thought you said that I was _ Quantifying _ reality .

Jeff Relf wrote:

In fact it's a proof that absolutely no gods exist .
( Or daemons for that matter . )



Sure they do, but they're so lazy they never ever do anything.