paul108h.bsky.social
35 posts
20 followers
21 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
A meaning (noun) is the unifying principle for any set of properties (adjectives) and their changes (verbs). Subjectivity comes from our individual choices of which properties and changes each person wants to consider as a set. We choose our preferred arrangements of nouns, verbs, and adjectives.
comment in response to
post
Nature speaks Saṃskṛtam. This explains why:
journal.shabda.co/2023/01/10/t...
comment in response to
post
A person is any agent capable of choosing, not just humans. We each choose how to prioritize our tastes as individuals, but the meanings themselves are fundamental. Generalizing a meaning from some particulars requires already knowing the meaning to identify which particulars should be included.
comment in response to
post
I was a scientist but concluded that the scientific method is built on false assumptions and doesn't lead to truth. For example, replication of experiments depends on isolating the events within experimental boundaries, but nothing in nature prevents interactions coming from outside the experiment.
comment in response to
post
It's easy to assume everything is human constructions, but there isn't a scientific theory that explains how we get ideas. Numbers are a simple example, but the modem definitions of numbers are circular, not logically sound. Meanings are arguably fundamental, which we discover instead of create.
comment in response to
post
By "person," I mean "an individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing," not necessarily a human. Duty (which choices are ideal) is based on the existence of entities with preferences and the relationships they have. A good stapler wants to push staples neatly into papers.
comment in response to
post
Nature can actualize possibilities, because nature and everything in it are persons. Which possibilities and the sequencing of states are choices of what should happen and when, determined by time. How and where the events occur are determined by space. The original person determines the purpose.
comment in response to
post
Any purpose implies desire, and desire is an aspect of personality, which is a characteristic of persons. A person is neither woo nor chemicals; it's a meaning capable of choosing. The universe is a person producing the world as a dream in which every noun is a person participating.
comment in response to
post
There would be plenty of meaning associated with spilling of coffee. For example, it means losing the opportunity to drink it (karma), implies a duty to clean up the mess (dharma), etc. Coffee doesn't randomly spill.
comment in response to
post
Possibilities are always existing. A purpose is needed to sequentially instantiate possibilities into reality.
comment in response to
post
If nature has no purpose, how does any event occur? Having a purpose enables the selection of one possibility instead of others.
comment in response to
post
There's no need to hit yourself. The Sanskrit language of the Vedas works well as a computer programming language, although ordinary spoken languages cannot. How would ancient humans have been able to invent Sanskrit so that modern computers could parse it and humans could speak it?
comment in response to
post
They're reportedly dictated by Vyāsa and recorded by Gaṇeśa.
I don't know what was perpetrated that you have in mind; but doing something in the name of the Vedas doesn't necessarily mean doing what the Vedas recommend.
comment in response to
post
That would be ideal, but it's not the reality.
comment in response to
post
Apparently NDT is only familiar with the Abrahamic religions, which have a perverse conception of God. The Vedas indicate the Supreme Person (Kṛṣṇa) does what He wants to do, knows what He wants to know, and loves those He wants to love.
comment in response to
post
Have you studied all religions? I'm specifically thinking of the Vedas. Why say they are man-made?
For example, Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagavad-gītā 3.15,
"Regulated activities are prescribed in the Vedas, and the Vedas are directly manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
comment in response to
post
"If a 'religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one." - John D. Barrow, The Artful Universe (1995).
comment in response to
post
The supposed laws of physics are merely pattern recognition. Causality is semantic. Physics proposes events are ontologically probabilistic, contradicting the principle of causality. Reducing concepts to things discards meanings, leading to indeterministic, incomplete, and inconsistent theories.
comment in response to
post
It's not a relevant question. Is a correct understanding of combustion needed for humans to be able to light fire? No. People could accurately throw stones without true theories of gravity, aerodynamics, etc. Scientists are still unsure how airplanes fly.
www.scientificamerican.com/video/no-one...
comment in response to
post
None of that is true. Physical theories depend on a semantic reality. Meanings are the real discoveries. Mathematical laws are merely pattern recognition from a human perspective, essentially imaginary, a coping mechanism. Physical laws are neither necessary nor sufficient to describe our world.
comment in response to
post
The "God of the gaps" argument assumes scientists have some true theories, but the inability to unify physical theories suggests scientists are actually clueless. Reality is arguably semantic rather than physical, and a semantic understanding points to a supreme person as the original foundation.
comment in response to
post
The cosmos is a person who produces matter as a dream, and we have chosen to participate.
comment in response to
post
Every material body is imperfect in various ways, but we are not these bodies. The Vedas explain that we are have any number of lifetimes to realize our innate perfection as pure spiritual persons. One's spiritual form (svarūpa) is not necessarily the same gender as the material body.
comment in response to
post
Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, said, "I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him." (Bhagavad-gītā 9.29)
comment in response to
post
I live in a rural part of central Pennsylvania, where most homes have ridiculously large lawns, and I almost never see anyone on their lawns unless they are riding their mower.
comment in response to
post
What's the point of having a big lawn? Why not let nature thrive?
comment in response to
post
The MMR and MMRV vaccines are made using bovine calf serum, which is obtained by sucking the blood out from the beating heart of baby cows. How hard must one's heart be to kill animals like that?
comment in response to
post
A semantic theory describing the universe is a dream can explain everything. Physical objects are detailed concepts, and distances are an illusion produced by semantic differences and the strength of the interactions.
youtu.be/nLkvJjwggo8?...
comment in response to
post
He's identified himself as a Libertarian, which is like a Republican who doesn't pretend to have strong morals.
comment in response to
post
Maher has identified himself as Libertarian, which is like a Republicans who doesn't pretend to have strong morals. Criticizing liberals is a major theme of his show.
comment in response to
post
It's definitely not like Abrahamic. The Abrahamic religions are closer to modern science (both of which have a impersonal conception of nature) than either is to Śrīla Prabhupāda's teachings. It would help to learn the philosophy instead of merely visiting a temple.
journal.shabda.co/2023/02/04/p...