Ourcellves? (Identity)

by romansh , Friday, April 11, 2014, 02:44 (3878 days ago) @ GateKeeper
edited by unknown, Friday, April 11, 2014, 03:11

I see Both (yours and mine) definitions as "limiting" and may force us to a particular conclusion. If the two converge on the same it may be telling us something.
By definition all definitions are limiting ... is and is not.-Ultimately language is dualistic (or pluralistic at best). Hence I have problem describing a monistic world view. Consequently while I can understand DHW's point of view he claims to be non the wiser after my explanations. 
> calling it "mute" releases responsibility for drawling a conclusion to me. So I am not sure of the intentions here. I am only interested in if it may be, or it may not be, based on what we know today. With just small steps "off the curve" that is. 
Not sure what you mean by "mute" ... I meant moot.
 
> So Flip your notion. First what is the data. Then What is/may the data telling us? Is it more probable that the universe may be alive or is more probable that the universe is not alive? based on what we know.
The data are: that cause and effect seems to rule ... Cause and effect seems to stretch in an interlocking web back to some event 14 Gy ago or perhaps some event femtoseconds ago.-> "looping" is a play on words. "loop job", which I am. Or, First I look, Then I describe what I think it is. Based on measurements. Not what "I think it is". Some parts will be dualist and some parts will be monist. -Monism, dualism, pluralism and I suppose I should add nihilism are descriptions of the universe. While dualism and pluralism have their uses ultimately they don't seem accurate to me.