LNT-5265F
August 13th, 2008, 02:12 PM
Chapter 2
David: So I guess that brings us back to the topic from before, when we discussed "if we collectively believe it, or indeed WILL it, will it suddenly exist?"
Andrew: Exactly; and how many of the collective have to believe in something before it becomes existent? Is there a set number, or does it vary by the mindset of the individuals in the collective in that we make our own universe collectively, and the larger we see that universe to be, the more it would take to make actual changes to that universe simply by belief alone? And it was 5am, so i cant remember if i said all that last time.
David: You Didn't. But I agree and would hypothesis that perhaps there is a difference i the "number" necessary, and could that number change based on strength of the will? Are there degrees of will power?
Andrew: Good question, but consider that in most scenarios, we arent willing something to happen , we're believing completely that something DID or IS happening; which would seem to be the highest possible will of the human mind. If we were to will something to happen, we would have to collectively, and consciously, attempt to make it so - and that doesnt often happen.David: In that case there must be something like a percentage of votes, because your theory necesitates a true Democracy where every individual vote counts. Andrew: Yes, I would think it would work similarly to a Democracy. Except, the human mind is a little more fragile. For instance, take someone who's been heavily traumatized. Let's say their family was raped and murdered infront of their eyes. When they go to the police, they're sat in an interrogation room. Now, let's say the cops ask her what happened; she responds shakily with what she can remember - heavy trauma blurrs memory - but the police in the room know the rapist, and defend him as a good person. So the officers tell her that she ccouldn't have seen that. They tell her that man was in the office the whole day, and that she must have seen something else - it must have been that black neighbor of theirs.'
David: To interject, I find it incredibly sad and pathetic that it happens, but you are very much correct in your assumption that the crime - in one scenario - would result in the officers being racist pigs. Please, continue...
Andrew: Lol. They keep repeating this, causing her to start screaming, "why are you doing this to me?," Eventually, she breaks down. Well a few years later, guess who's on trial for rape and murder?
David: What you have just described is the definition of resocialization, and I agree with what you are saying. It goes back to what I was saying yesterday about lieing until you can't remember the truth.
Chapter 3
Andrew: There was something i was gonna mention to you earlier, but it's gone now. I wonder if i still have the window open. I just exited the window a second ago. i remembered who it was just after exiting the window but i think it was along the lines of human beings not being mentally capable - as a singular - to define God. To clarify, no one person is capable of understanding God.
David: Agreed.
Andrew: So, then, a collective mindset will not be likely in this stage of evolution.
David: ...to do shit. Yah, I think I see where you're going with this. That's actually something I've thought about. Howevever that also goes under the basis that there is a "God" at all. Therefore I submit a change to the hypothesis in that no one person has the capabilities to define existance. My arguement being that "God" is relative.
Andrew: i agree
David: Everyone defines god differently, whether they go are affiliated with a "Church" or not.
Andrew: I am starting to believe in my reality that God is the record keeper of the library (just using the reference to convey understanding).[library of babel - Borges]
David: So you are saying that you believe in "God," as god - he who is universe.
Andrew: Yes, only my own brand of it, in that i don't believe that for any reason it would involve itself and i believe the collective mind power of human kind could have the potential today to be god. But as each day dawns, that potential goes down.
David: Why does that potential go down? What event or condition causes or caused this potential to fluctuate at all?
Andrew: The growth of the human universe. Our mental universe, collectively, is growing. As it gets larger, we have lessened control because it takes more collective will-power to change any one thing. We start to accept that we're not the highest sentient beings, and we cause a higher sentient being to come into existence. That being now has more power than us, so we lose a small portion of our ability of change.
David: So, you're saying evolution is creating "God." How ironic.
Andrew: i like it though. I wouldn't have thought to put it that way for a few more lines, but yeah. Basically, that's what im saying.
David: I like it, but there was one line I questioned. You said, "...as it gets larger, we have lessened control because it takes more collective will-power to change any one thing." I notice that you are speaking in universal terms through out, except in this line. Universally... wait... this actually leads me to ask this question; Have we met the threshold of what would amount to anything universally, because if we have, then i would describe said threshold as incredibly low. I was actually going to say we haven't, but instead of assuming i decided to question it.
Andrew: No, i dont think we've reached the threshold. What i mean to say, is that our relative universe - as humans - is only so large. As it grows, because we make it grow collectively, we lose power over it. Once it encompasses something greater than us - or it's out of our collective power to change major events in it - we lose control. No, i don't think we're near the threshold. The idea is that it will happen. Collectively, we have to accept that something is greater than us, or our universe will grow until we nolonger have control. Then we will have lost our "god right" by outgrowing our cage, so to speak.
David: Something greater than us as in the next level of sentients, plural, or of that universal "one," we as defined as "God."
Andrew: It could be either. It's just something to continue the expansion. I'm saying that potentially, if we all had the same view on a species or a god, it would create that species or god and enable the continuation of the universe, but without it, eventually everything will stay the same, in our relative universe. However, this leaves the question, did that being exist as greater than us before we accepted it as so?David: yes! I was about to ask that very question.
Andrew: Well, we create the next level of evolution, whether it be god or another level of sentient being, by accepting that it exists within our universe collectively--not THE universe, but OUR universe, relatively. It's the same question i have with the "God" (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. definitions) -- did He exist before we thought of Him if He does exist?
David: First off, I would like to coin the terms "Total Relative Universe," and "Collective Relative Universe." With them, I ask you this,if that being now existing in the Collective Relative Universe (CRU), is now in existance in the Total Relative Universe (TRU)?
Andrew: Indeed I ask the same question backwards. Before the being exists in the CRU, does it exist in the TRU? Honestly i really dont know, because for that to be answered, we'd have to switch realities with that other being, and the moment that we accept that it has been there, could we not be creating the fact that it was? we're assuming time is linear, and yet both of us have previously discussed haing a hard time believing that it is.David: It leads me to think that perhaps we are not CAPABLE of thinking in anything but linear time. However, if that is the case than it proves that atleast our CRU is indeed running in linear time.
Andrew: Yes, but having realized that time may not be linear, does this not prove that we are capable of at least envisioning that time isn't linear?
David: Perhaps, but can we invision non-linear time? Or is it purely an idea based on there being a possiblitie in our minds for more than one of anything - whether there is or not
Andrew: Interesting. I like the idea that every choice we make is of our own, but since there are multiple CRU's with every choice, there are infinite ti***ines. However, this brings back the question of IRR versus CRU. Are there multiple relative universes per individual? I personally cannot envision that, which makes me think it is not so. Our CRU changes, but it cannot exist on multiple levels at the same time as far as i can see.
David: However, I ask you this - are those infinite time lines part of the TTR? Also, I think that we can't understand them because we are not like the next level of sentience... like we were discussing before.
Andrew: Indeed. Can we make ourselves the next level of sentience by believing in our own superiority to everything?
David: If we don't start thinking of the possiblity of superior beings, then we dont grow and your whole theory is busted from earlier.
David: So I guess that brings us back to the topic from before, when we discussed "if we collectively believe it, or indeed WILL it, will it suddenly exist?"
Andrew: Exactly; and how many of the collective have to believe in something before it becomes existent? Is there a set number, or does it vary by the mindset of the individuals in the collective in that we make our own universe collectively, and the larger we see that universe to be, the more it would take to make actual changes to that universe simply by belief alone? And it was 5am, so i cant remember if i said all that last time.
David: You Didn't. But I agree and would hypothesis that perhaps there is a difference i the "number" necessary, and could that number change based on strength of the will? Are there degrees of will power?
Andrew: Good question, but consider that in most scenarios, we arent willing something to happen , we're believing completely that something DID or IS happening; which would seem to be the highest possible will of the human mind. If we were to will something to happen, we would have to collectively, and consciously, attempt to make it so - and that doesnt often happen.David: In that case there must be something like a percentage of votes, because your theory necesitates a true Democracy where every individual vote counts. Andrew: Yes, I would think it would work similarly to a Democracy. Except, the human mind is a little more fragile. For instance, take someone who's been heavily traumatized. Let's say their family was raped and murdered infront of their eyes. When they go to the police, they're sat in an interrogation room. Now, let's say the cops ask her what happened; she responds shakily with what she can remember - heavy trauma blurrs memory - but the police in the room know the rapist, and defend him as a good person. So the officers tell her that she ccouldn't have seen that. They tell her that man was in the office the whole day, and that she must have seen something else - it must have been that black neighbor of theirs.'
David: To interject, I find it incredibly sad and pathetic that it happens, but you are very much correct in your assumption that the crime - in one scenario - would result in the officers being racist pigs. Please, continue...
Andrew: Lol. They keep repeating this, causing her to start screaming, "why are you doing this to me?," Eventually, she breaks down. Well a few years later, guess who's on trial for rape and murder?
David: What you have just described is the definition of resocialization, and I agree with what you are saying. It goes back to what I was saying yesterday about lieing until you can't remember the truth.
Chapter 3
Andrew: There was something i was gonna mention to you earlier, but it's gone now. I wonder if i still have the window open. I just exited the window a second ago. i remembered who it was just after exiting the window but i think it was along the lines of human beings not being mentally capable - as a singular - to define God. To clarify, no one person is capable of understanding God.
David: Agreed.
Andrew: So, then, a collective mindset will not be likely in this stage of evolution.
David: ...to do shit. Yah, I think I see where you're going with this. That's actually something I've thought about. Howevever that also goes under the basis that there is a "God" at all. Therefore I submit a change to the hypothesis in that no one person has the capabilities to define existance. My arguement being that "God" is relative.
Andrew: i agree
David: Everyone defines god differently, whether they go are affiliated with a "Church" or not.
Andrew: I am starting to believe in my reality that God is the record keeper of the library (just using the reference to convey understanding).[library of babel - Borges]
David: So you are saying that you believe in "God," as god - he who is universe.
Andrew: Yes, only my own brand of it, in that i don't believe that for any reason it would involve itself and i believe the collective mind power of human kind could have the potential today to be god. But as each day dawns, that potential goes down.
David: Why does that potential go down? What event or condition causes or caused this potential to fluctuate at all?
Andrew: The growth of the human universe. Our mental universe, collectively, is growing. As it gets larger, we have lessened control because it takes more collective will-power to change any one thing. We start to accept that we're not the highest sentient beings, and we cause a higher sentient being to come into existence. That being now has more power than us, so we lose a small portion of our ability of change.
David: So, you're saying evolution is creating "God." How ironic.
Andrew: i like it though. I wouldn't have thought to put it that way for a few more lines, but yeah. Basically, that's what im saying.
David: I like it, but there was one line I questioned. You said, "...as it gets larger, we have lessened control because it takes more collective will-power to change any one thing." I notice that you are speaking in universal terms through out, except in this line. Universally... wait... this actually leads me to ask this question; Have we met the threshold of what would amount to anything universally, because if we have, then i would describe said threshold as incredibly low. I was actually going to say we haven't, but instead of assuming i decided to question it.
Andrew: No, i dont think we've reached the threshold. What i mean to say, is that our relative universe - as humans - is only so large. As it grows, because we make it grow collectively, we lose power over it. Once it encompasses something greater than us - or it's out of our collective power to change major events in it - we lose control. No, i don't think we're near the threshold. The idea is that it will happen. Collectively, we have to accept that something is greater than us, or our universe will grow until we nolonger have control. Then we will have lost our "god right" by outgrowing our cage, so to speak.
David: Something greater than us as in the next level of sentients, plural, or of that universal "one," we as defined as "God."
Andrew: It could be either. It's just something to continue the expansion. I'm saying that potentially, if we all had the same view on a species or a god, it would create that species or god and enable the continuation of the universe, but without it, eventually everything will stay the same, in our relative universe. However, this leaves the question, did that being exist as greater than us before we accepted it as so?David: yes! I was about to ask that very question.
Andrew: Well, we create the next level of evolution, whether it be god or another level of sentient being, by accepting that it exists within our universe collectively--not THE universe, but OUR universe, relatively. It's the same question i have with the "God" (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. definitions) -- did He exist before we thought of Him if He does exist?
David: First off, I would like to coin the terms "Total Relative Universe," and "Collective Relative Universe." With them, I ask you this,if that being now existing in the Collective Relative Universe (CRU), is now in existance in the Total Relative Universe (TRU)?
Andrew: Indeed I ask the same question backwards. Before the being exists in the CRU, does it exist in the TRU? Honestly i really dont know, because for that to be answered, we'd have to switch realities with that other being, and the moment that we accept that it has been there, could we not be creating the fact that it was? we're assuming time is linear, and yet both of us have previously discussed haing a hard time believing that it is.David: It leads me to think that perhaps we are not CAPABLE of thinking in anything but linear time. However, if that is the case than it proves that atleast our CRU is indeed running in linear time.
Andrew: Yes, but having realized that time may not be linear, does this not prove that we are capable of at least envisioning that time isn't linear?
David: Perhaps, but can we invision non-linear time? Or is it purely an idea based on there being a possiblitie in our minds for more than one of anything - whether there is or not
Andrew: Interesting. I like the idea that every choice we make is of our own, but since there are multiple CRU's with every choice, there are infinite ti***ines. However, this brings back the question of IRR versus CRU. Are there multiple relative universes per individual? I personally cannot envision that, which makes me think it is not so. Our CRU changes, but it cannot exist on multiple levels at the same time as far as i can see.
David: However, I ask you this - are those infinite time lines part of the TTR? Also, I think that we can't understand them because we are not like the next level of sentience... like we were discussing before.
Andrew: Indeed. Can we make ourselves the next level of sentience by believing in our own superiority to everything?
David: If we don't start thinking of the possiblity of superior beings, then we dont grow and your whole theory is busted from earlier.