The unmoved mover

[Hume]

When you can explain what he meant, I'll be happy to read your post about it, Ms. Hume.

back to being a jerkoff

You are seriously mentally ill. Not joking.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

back to being a jerkoff

You are seriously mentally ill. Not joking.

You had a choice, Ms. Hume, explain yourself or go back to being a teenage girl. Everyone can now see your choice.

 

[Hume]

You had a choice, Ms. Hume, explain yourself or go back to being a teenage girl. Everyone can now see your choice.

You are seriously mentally ill and possessed by evil. You are sick sick sick

Bye

 

[Daylight63]

Sorry, not understanding your question.

What does it mean for something to be the "principle of intelligence" in the universe? Does it mean the universe itself has intelligence? Does it mean there is an entity/concept separable from the universe that is "intelligent"?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You are seriously mentally ill and possessed by evil. You are sick sick sick

Bye

There's always that possibility, Ms. Hume. Why do you think I'm mentally ill and possessed by evil?

 

[Hume]

What does it mean for something to be the "principle of intelligence" in the universe? Does it mean the universe itself has intelligence? Does it mean there is an entity/concept separable from the universe that is "intelligent"?

I see, good.

So Aristotle's term for intelligence is 'nous.' This means intelligence is a property of the universe. Thus, God is nous. But God only exists as complement to the physical universe and is not a separate entity.

 

[Daylight63]

I see, good.

So Aristotle's term for intelligence is 'nous.' This means intelligence is a property of the universe. Thus, God is nous. But God only exists as complement to the physical universe and is not a separate entity.

Thanks!

How does one know that the universe is intelligent, though? What aspects of the universe would we call an "intelligence" (or is it because the universe ultimately "makes sense" to some greater or lesser extent?)

This is very interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Hume]

Thanks!

How does one know that the universe is intelligent, though? What aspects of the universe would we call an "intelligence" (or is it because the universe ultimately "makes sense" to some greater or lesser extent?)

This is very interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

All parts of the universe are imbued with intelligence. Nature itself is an intelligent system.

 

[Hume]

Thanks!

How does one know that the universe is intelligent, though? What aspects of the universe would we call an "intelligence" (or is it because the universe ultimately "makes sense" to some greater or lesser extent?)

This is very interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

So Aristotle defines God as 'thought thinking thought.' Or, nous.

 

[Yakuda]

No. The Prime Mover is not the cause of the universe.

Prove it you piece of garbage

 

[Hume]

Prove it you piece of garbage

You have no idea who Aristotle is. You are profoundly stupid.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Prove it you piece of garbage

^^^
Not a Christian.

 

[Yakuda]

You have no idea who Aristotle is. You are profoundly stupid.

Prove it you piece of crap

 

[Cypress]

Which brings us back around to the original question: if it is a "fundamental nature of reality" can it make a "CHOICE"? Can it choose to do something or NOT do something else?

If it is little more than a law of nature that the universe must be created by this "fundamental feature" then how does it "choose" to create or not.

There is a lot of talk about "intelligence" in this mover. As such it seems reasonable to ask if it is an intelligence that has a will.




I am still struggling to understand what that actually means. Whence does the "creative energy" come? Is it measurable? Or is it beyond the physical realm? How does one find this creative energy? It seems all to easy to simply imagine it and then say that. It is a bit more complex I think to actually explain what it means.



Are these things real things? Is Qi real? I know the Feng Shui folks deal in harnessing it. Or so I am told. But I have never seen it measured or characterized. Just spoken about.

Not that all things need to be "measurable". But if one posits something to be a real thing then surely there must be some way for someone who has never heard of Qi to stumble upon the concept independently.



That too has many implications that are difficult to nail down. And right now, per this discussion, it feels that it spans the range from the "thought thinking thought" concept all the way to the personal God of Christianity. That's almost as broad a classification of possibilities as the universe itself.



Same question applies to this as to Qi.



So how do we know these things exist? If we are limited physical beings then we have to find them somehow. Otherwise it becomes impossible to draw a distinction between a real thing and an imaginary thing.



I have not read the Daodejing, but I've read the Bible. the Bible is a great resource of teachings to lead a "good life", but it is nothing more than someone telling me there is a being in heaven who cares for me and created the world.

You seem to have the perspective of a strict physical materialist.

From the perspective of a religionist you can't see, measure, or scientifically prove the Tao, Li, or Brahman anymore than you can 'see', physically measure, or scientifically prove freedom or justice.

 

[Cypress]

If by pure thinking Aristotle meant pure logic, then I agree. God is logical.

I think there is more to it than that, but I am not an expert on Aristotle's Physics, and in some respects the ancient Greek way of thinking can be hard for a 21st century sensibility to grasp. I doubt even scholars of antiquity are in universal agreement about what Aristotle meant.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think there is more to it than that, but I am not an expert on Aristotle's Physics, and in some respects the ancient Greek way of thinking can be hard for a 21st century sensibility to grasp. I doubt even scholars of antiquity are in universal agreement about what Aristotle meant.

Aristotle and other old masters, both East and West, are from a world most people on JPP wouldn't thrive, if not fail to survive. While their insights are profound, they are not always accurate. There are basic truths in the world and basic truths about human beings, but there's a big difference between the human view of the world 2300 years ago and today.

Learning the basics as documented by masters like Aristotle, Sun Tzu, Aesop and Confucious provides a sound foundation for learning, but it's a starting point. A steppingstone to learning about the past 2000 years of human progress.

 

[Cypress]

Aristotle and other old masters, both East and West, are from a world most people on JPP wouldn't thrive, if not fail to survive. While their insights are profound, they are not always accurate. There are basic truths in the world and basic truths about human beings, but there's a big difference between the human view of the world 2300 years ago and today.

Learning the basics as documented by masters like Aristotle, Sun Tzu, Aesop and Confucious provides a sound foundation for learning, but it's a starting point. A steppingstone to learning about the past 2000 years of human progress.

Agreed.

Aristotle is to be admired for arguably being the first "scientist" in the western tradition, but his major ideas about physics were completely wrong - as Galileo was able to demonstrate. Aristotle can't be blamed for that, those were early days. And the important thing is to start asking intelligent questions, which is what he did.

 

[Hume]

Prove it you piece of crap

You have no idea what "prime mover" means. It is obvious

 

[Hume]

I doubt even scholars of antiquity are in universal agreement about what Aristotle meant.

The best philosophy is that way.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Agreed.

Aristotle is to be admired for arguably being the first "scientist" in the western tradition, but his major ideas about physics were completely wrong - as Galileo was able to demonstrate. Aristotle can't be blamed for that, those were early days. And the important thing is to start asking intelligent questions, which is what he did.

A lot of Freud's theories were proved wrong, but the fact he brought the idea of psychoanalysis into the mainstream broke the ice for further research and into different branches as explored by B.F. Skinner, Abraham Maslo and Rollo May.