Philosophy & everything else

Look, Adriatik—your way of responding works fine for me, but could we maybe dial in a bit more patience? If something I say doesn't click, or if you think I’m totally off base or crossing a line, just call it out. Be specific. Give me the actual arguments instead of just throwing out vague, general jabs—or worse, going the ad hominem route, which, let's be honest, seems to be the unofficial hobby of people on this forum. Why am I asking? Well, so far, I’ve only really put forward one single, cohesive concept regarding modern philosophy and how we might actually engage with its current trends. Even if our agreement on what "philosophy" actually entails isn't perfectly precise yet, we did establish a framework using the concept of "the whole." In my view, that’s the boundary we should be working within. Of course, defining what "the whole" actually is—and how one is supposed to conceptualize it—is a massive, heavy-duty topic for discussion. It’s almost certain that everyone here defines and interprets that term differently, right? So, I’ve laid out a framework for this philosophical idea of wholeness—maybe it’s a good one, maybe it’s garbage—but let’s actually debate the idea itself! I’m not some stubborn idiot who’s going to dig my heels in just because someone presents a better argument than the ones I’m using to support my own theories or stances.

To me, the idea of a philosophical whole isn't just some vague concept—it’s about the multi-layered understanding of everything that actually constitutes that whole. It might sound like a repetitive phrase when I say it, but in my mind, "encompassing what makes up the whole" carries a crystal-clear weight. And look, here’s my rule: if I don’t have actual arguments to back something up, I stay quiet. Simple as that. I only step into the ring to debate, argue, or polemicize when there are solid arguments—facts, really—on the table. In these discussions, my personal opinion doesn't matter much—and honestly, neither does yours—if we're being real. What matters are the arguments, the facts, the conclusions, and the interpretations. That’s where the substance lives. Something only holds value if it can be recognized as Truth. And once a specific Truth—or the Truth in its entirety—is recognized, it belongs to anyone capable of seeing it.

Let's just keep all that in mind—really hold onto it—and move on to religion so we can finally clear the air on this!

When I drop the word "religion," I’m not just talking about some niche spiritual practice—I’m thinking about the whole historical sweep of all major faiths, without playing favorites or giving one an edge over the others. In that sense, religion isn't merely this mystical, transcendental thing involving prayer or some vague spiritual skill... it's actually a massive mental undertaking. It’s a cognitive function of the human mind. See, religion isn't just a spiritual phenomenon; it's a cerebral one. We call it theology—and let's be real, theology is the science of God. That’s my first reason for saying religion is inherently tied to philosophy. But the second, much stronger argument? It's the fact that all religions—Christianity especially—are fundamentally woven into the fabric of reality and the very concept of being Human, from Genesis right up to the present day. If humans are inherent to philosophy, then religion is inherent to philosophy too, because humans are inherent to religion. After all, man is made in the image and likeness of God. At least, that's how I see things—and honestly, anything I say regarding God, theism, or whatever else shouldn't really be interpreted any other way.

If we actually followed your suggestion—treating religion as nothing more than just another legitimate subject for philosophy—the word "subject" wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface of what religion truly is. Honestly, in my view, when you bring religion into the realm of philosophy, you have to treat it as a mental and spiritual equivalent to philosophy itself. It’s more like one-fourth of the entire human psyche, if you want to get technical about it. With the concept...
It’s just impossible to reach that kind of equivalent dimension when you're talking about religion—not really. I mean, is religion actually equivalent to philosophy, or is it the other way around? It feels like it can only ever be a subject for debate—maybe with some elements of proof or disagreement thrown in here and there—but that's pretty much where it ends.

Where exactly is the confusion coming from here? It seems like we’re hitting a wall because I’m trying to discuss a new philosophy—not the old one—and honestly, this new way of thinking is still basically in its embryonic stage. It’s barely even formed yet, if you catch my drift.
The gap between the old way of thinking and this new philosophy? It’s pretty much the same leap we saw when we moved from classical mechanics to wave-quantum physics—it all comes down to linear versus non-linear perception. Basically, we’re talking about different tiers of awareness. And look, that doesn't mean a lower level is somehow "lesser" than a higher one; math works the same way, right? Simple addition isn't "worse" than integration, it's just... different. But integration is essentially the ultimate, fourth-level version of addition. My point is, I'm trying to have a conversation about integration here, not just basic addition!

Regarding God, I’ve already laid out my position—and I’m sticking to it: talking about God itself is still an impossibility. I mean, really, besides Ezekiel, nobody—and I mean absolutely nobody—has actually seen God (visions and all), nor do we truly know who or what God is. That’s why I suggested that within a religious context, instead of trying to tackle God directly, we should talk about the attributes of God. And if we’re discussing attributes, you can’t avoid discussing Humanity!! In other words: discussing God remains out of reach, but discussing His attributes is doable. So, for the sake of philosophy, I’m suggesting we move away from debating God and start debating those attributes—assuming we’re even using the term correctly! Everything else you brought up—this idea that I’m just "jumping from the sky into someone's ribs"—is inaccurate and frankly unnecessary. You're essentially presupposing that religion must be theism, then listing the attributes of a "Christian God" as the only option, and acting like I should be having a "philosophical" debate about *your* version of God. It’s redundant, and honestly, why are we debating "my God"? It seems you have a handle on Him, but I certainly don't. Let me be clear and precise: If we discuss the attributes of God, we MUST discuss the attributes of Man. That is the core point—conditionally speaking—of hollowpilot9’s perspective!

And one last thing. Please, as a moderator, don't try to play switchman or some kind of police officer for the mind or spirit; don't act as the judge of what constitutes philosophy and what doesn't. Metaphorically speaking, philosophy encompasses every color and shade of how we perceive the world—meaning there are infinite philosophies—but there is ONE color that contains them all: White. White is the color from which all other colors emerge, and that is Philosophy! I am attempting to speak from the level of that singular white philosophy, rather than getting bogged down in one of the many "colored" philosophies. There is a massive difference between speaking from the level of white versus speaking from the level of, say, red or green. My suggestion is simple: let's try to develop our discourse from the level of white. If we do that, I am CERTAIN we can rebuild the entirety of philosophy, and by extension, rebuild humanism through a necessary redefinition of Man.

Delilah, you’re talking about some sort of personal opinion, whereas for me, I’m just relaying the perspectives of theologians and scientists—which is why I brought up that debate on CNN. Actually, my stance is this: nobody needs to accept or reject what I write or say. It’s really just about recognizing the arguments and the Truth I’m putting forward, or perhaps challenging those arguments with other arguments—or trying to pit one Truth against another, which is pretty much impossible if we are actually dealing with Truth! But, if someone looks at my texts and sees something they already know—something you, for instance, might already grasp, or are close to grasping, needing only a little catalyst to spark their own realization—then the purpose of my writing is fulfilled. It would be even more fulfilling if, based on my texts—or parts of them (and vice versa)—one could build upon that knowledge and thought by adding to or recognizing the same Truth through specialized fields or areas where the reader naturally leans.

You wrote: "Theology CANNOT prove God—because such a God they advocate for DOES NOT exist."

With all due respect, I honestly can't wrap my head around what you're trying to get at with that sentence. Based on my understanding, theology isn't advocating for one God, but rather two—an old one and a young one. First, there is the great Old God (the God of the Old Testament, the one Moses communicates with), the Creator whom everyone knows about. Then there is the young God, like a "baby in a manger," who is Jesus. Regarding this second God, unlike the first, almost everything is known because He is also human! If theology wants to prove the first "Old" God, it can only do so if the young God grows up to be God just like the Father, or if He recognizes God within Himself through growth—which implies that Man should recognize God within himself (not just personally, but on a universal level). And let's not imagine Him as some "gaseous spine" floating somewhere inside or outside the universe. This isn't just my own theory; it's the story told by history, anthropology, religion, science, philosophy, and art. I'll just point to Indian philosophy, which illustrates this quite well. God and man are constantly present in all mental games! When you say, "Such a God whom they [theologians] advocate for DOES NOT exist," I read that as you saying: the MAN-GOD advocated by theology does not exist. The crux is the word MAN, not God. So, following your logic, the conclusion should be: Man does not exist! Such a conclusion is not only problematic, it's defeatist—honestly, I'd go as far as to say it's dangerous.

Keep in mind that God and Man are a correlation, not mutually exclusive concepts or "things." As for how and why they are a correlation... well, that's another conversation entirely that we should eventually have, rather than just constructing my opinion, yours, or anyone else's.

Regarding chaos theory and fractals, we only touched on those topics because ironbad31 raised that specific question as a follow-up during our dialogue.
Delilah, please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm unfamiliar with the way of thinking you're suggesting—you know, that regarding fractals and holographic perception, the values "deserving" of creating chaos shouldn't be sought in the material universe, but rather in the time before the material universe existed. I've already told you: I see holograms, holographic perception, and fractals—order and chaos—right here in *this* universe, not in some imaginary or non-existent universe from before this one. Maybe you have the ability to conceptualize phenomena in non-existent universes; I don't, nor do I know how!
I’d suggest we take a break here (including waiting for the post from Atlantic) and instead turn our attention to the posts on SUPERPOWER and SUPERIDEA as potential pillars of philosophical thought. If we can find common ground conceptually around the idea of wholeness, then maybe we can continue this investigative conversation into the questions that philosophy hasn't answered yet.
Over in the Science subforum, I told my "opponents" that I couldn't care less about the current body of knowledge—that stagnant, inertial pile of data that’s mostly just junk. I’m not interested in the status quo. What actually matters to me is universal truth—things like the fundamental principles of genetics or molecular biology—or potentially NEW knowledge that hasn't even been discovered yet, things we still need to go out and establish as fact. And honestly? This applies to philosophy, too. I'm talking about philosophical inquiry that hits those universal notes, or stuff that is just on the horizon. It feels to me—maybe it's just a hunch—that we might be seeing a return of old philosophical ideas, just at a much higher level of perception, similar to how cycles work in math and science. To even walk down that path, everything has to be open to scrutiny and constant revision. It’s incredibly easy to fall into the trap of believing something is the Truth when, in reality, it's just a massive delusion. Take the common assumption, for instance—most people think humans today are somehow smarter than our ancestors, implying we were just a bunch of idiots in the past. But looking at the evidence, it doesn't really seem that way at all. So, humanity is essentially living in a bubble! Let me rephrase: a mathematician who knows calculus isn't inherently "smarter" than one who only knows addition. He’s just faster. If you pit a mathematician who only knows integration against one who only knows differentiation—or one who only knows addition versus subtraction—they just end up canceling each other out, much like players in a high-stakes chess match. Of course, then there are those rare cases where the game ends in a stalemate, leaving both sides undefeated and still standing.
Is my point getting across now?

ironbadger31, I read those Direct Messages a long time ago... so maybe you should give the KMB a look too.

hollowpilot9, man, you're my kind of person...🙂

hollowpilot9 said:1. ...The Truth, and recognized Truth, belongs to anyone who recognizes a specific Truth, or the Truth in its entirety.

2. When I use the word "religion," I am primarily referring to the history of religions—all known major faiths without exception and without giving any one preference over another.

3. Therefore, religion isn't just a prayerful or spiritual phenomenon; it’s also a phenomenon of the mind. It is called THEOLOGY, and we all know that THEOLOGY IS THE SCIENCE OF GOD.
That is the first reason why I say religion is immanent to philosophy. A second, even stronger argument is that all religions, especially Christianity, are inextricably woven into reality and the concept of Man, from Genesis to the present day!

4. If Man is immanent to philosophy, then religion is immanent to philosophy, because Man is immanent to religion: Man is made in the image and likeness of God! That is how I see things, and anything I say in the context of God, theism, and so on, shouldn't be interpreted any other way.

5. If we followed your suggestion—that religion is merely a legitimate subject of philosophy—the word "subject" wouldn't accurately describe what religion actually is. Furthermore, in my view, religion should be treated within philosophy as an intellectual and spiritual equivalent to philosophy itself; essentially, one-fourth of the total human mentality.

6. Whether religion is equivalent to philosophy or vice versa is simply a matter for debate, potentially involving elements of proof or refutation.

7. Why does confusion arise here? It's because I am attempting to speak about a New Paradigm of philosophy, rather than the old one, and this new philosophy is still in its embryonic stages from the perspective of
the world.

1. I don't subscribe to this "Truth" with a capital T. Usually, people call that a DOGMA.

2. The history of religions cannot serve as a substitute for a definition of religion if we are going to discuss it philosophically.

3. Theology is a study of God, not a science. In my opinion, it is nothing more than systematized falsehood.

4. How can Man be immanent to philosophy? 😕
I would argue that philosophy is immanent to Man.
The rest of these claims feel completely arbitrary, even though you constantly claim to engage in reasoned debate.

5. I respect "your opinion" only as your opinion, but on the "Philosophy" subforum, religion can only be a subject of discussion.
Arguing over fractions is ridiculous.

6. Sure, but on a new thread (where you will presumably define it), so please, go ahead and open one (or three, if necessary).

7. Regarding this "new philosophy," I'll just say what I said before:
if someone knows better, let them have the floor!

We can take the rest to the PM.
Best regards! 🙂

ironbadger31 said:
1. It seems humanity has always poured massive resources into finding ways to escape the physical body. And honestly, why wouldn't we?

2. "Real" warfare is just religion and economics (essentially politics) continuing through different means. Historically, this really kicked off during the Neolithic period with the priestly invention of "scarcity" and the rise of a "warrior caste." (I completely disagree with the idea that war is just an extension of hunting.) World War II felt like the last "real" war. We entered the era of hyperreal warfare during Vietnam because of the advent of television, and it reached its shameful peak during the Gulf War in 1991. Hyperreal war isn't about economics anymore; it doesn't even serve the survival of the Country.

More nonsense! It sounds like someone has been reading far too much theory.😁

However, I want to latch onto two specific points here.

1. The ancient methods of "escape" don't look anything like the modern ones to me.
We’ve recently discovered that there are even virtual lifelines,
and an old American definition of an intellectual describes them as someone who has discovered something deeper than sex.
But how can we exist without the body when it is our only tool for becoming an individual?
Talking about the soul (which, in the Bible, is synonymous with the body) feels totally misplaced today. Mass media now manufactures and models mass souls on demand, and some people even claim to have an "immortal soul" (the latest trend)—something incredibly precious and expensive. But you have to ask yourself: WHO actually owns this "immortal soul"?
The body, of course! Because it is the ultimate guarantor of personality and identity.
To put this in plain terms: my ass is definitely my ass, and it is a very contentious issue to decide whose "my" thoughts and feelings actually belong to.

So, tell me: who is escaping the body, and where are they going?😕

2. How exactly is war a "continuation of religion"?😕

And which war is actually serving the "survival of the Country"? 😕

1. I don't subscribe to this capitalized Truth of yours. That’s just what we call a DOGMA.

Well, that’s your prerogative. If you won't acknowledge it, maybe your kids will—unlike
you, I simply can't function without thinking in terms of the big "T" Truth. For instance:
the word female is written with a lowercase "t", much like any other common truth, and the same goes for male. One
or the other is just a man with a little "c", but when I think of them simultaneously, they become a capital "C".
It works universally, really—take a picture of a positive or negative, for example—it's an image with a
lowercase "s", whereas a Picture with a capital "S" represents both negative and positive at once.
The cognitive capacity of the great Truth is 100% higher than some minor truth. So, there’s no
real issue if you want to dwell on truths with a small "t" while I stick with the big "T". Within that massive
gap between the small "t" and the big "T", there’s actually a chance we might understand each other, because
we're discussing the same thing, just through different lenses. This is a perfect example of
anti-dogmatic thinking, whereas yours is purely dogmatic since you insist on nothing but the lowercase
"t"—which is pure DOGMATICS. Personally, though, I find DOGMA quite useful; think of it like
the DOGMA OF BIOLOGY. All philosophers ought to be BIODOGMATISTS, but since they aren't yet,
we’re stuck with the mess we have: a total CHAOS AND CACOPHONY OF THOUGHT.

2. You can't just swap the history of religion for a definition of religion—even a working one—if
we’re going to discuss it from a philosophical standpoint.

Try reading a bit more closely between the lines. I was talking about my own intellectual interests, and
in that context, I brought up religious history because only history provides the full picture, and a whole
is the very subject of philosophy. I mean, I can't philosophically contemplate
Christianity without also contemplating Egyptian religion, Judaism, and
simultaneously, say, Indian religions, or the faiths of the Maya and the Toltec. It’s probably just
another case of the difference between a lowercase "r" and a capital "R".

3. Theology is the STUDY of God, not a science. In my view, it’s just a systematized
lie.
That’s simply not accurate; sure, you can use the term "study" as a way to recount
stories about God, but when I talk about the science of God, I'm talking about a discipline trying
to rationally understand God as one would any other object in the universe. If that isn't
theology, then what does it mean that the Bible is meant to be read with reason? What does it mean that theologians merely
recount tales of God without actual investigation: Who and what is God? What, then, is
Küng’s book? A novel, philosophy, science, or theology? What about Scharden’s book
"The Human Phenomenon," and so on—hundreds of books debating God in such a
shallow way? To me, all of it falls under theology, including the Bible itself, and certainly
the Kabbalah, which is pure science regarding God. If all of that is just a systematized lie, as
you claim, then the entire history of humanity is a systematized lie too. It seems to me
that isn't the case, nor could it be; otherwise, every religious person would just be a
common fool or a liar, while everyone else is a genius and a lover of Truth!? Such a
division simply doesn't hold water, nor is it possible. How tragic was it back when
certain so-called philosophers taught us that religion is merely "the opium of the people."

4. How can a person be immanent to philosophy?
Presumably, philosophy is immanent to the person.
These other claims are completely arbitrary, and you, by the way, constantly hide behind the guise of
"reasoned debate."

I reach a somewhat different conclusion: If philosophy is the queen of the humanistic
sciences—which it ought to be—and if the driving factor of humanism is the human being, then
it follows logically for me that thought regarding humans, or humanism, is immanent to the human, rather
than the other way around. Though, one could argue that thought about humans is immanent to humans, but that's
getting into semantics. I think it's more productive to say that man is immanent.
philosophy—or rather, the idea that philosophy is inherent to the human experience.
See, when you claim that "all these other assertions are completely arbitrary, and you, by the way,
constantly insist on an argued debate," you're actually providing a textbook example of an arbitrary
assertion! To justify your "claim," you’d have to specify which part of my argument is supposedly
arbitrary—but if everything I say is arbitrary and everything you say is
reasoned, then we’re drifting into that dangerous territory where there are just two idiots standing between us,
which isn't really a possibility unless you've specifically chosen to side with the smart one? Because
just as you tell me my claims are arbitrary, I could easily turn around and say yours are arbitrary too—
and frankly, untrue—which doesn't lead anywhere useful besides
pure stupidity! It seems pretty obvious what the issue is here: You aren't grasping the
philosophical distinction between a little "p" philosophy and a capital "P" Philosophy; you're treating it like a mere grammatical
technicality.

5. I respect "your opinion" strictly as your opinion, but on this "Philosophy" subforum,
religion can only serve as a subject for discussion.
Arguing about fractions is just ridiculous.
All I can say is: if things are truly as you describe them—it’s a sad day for philosophy!

6. Sure, fine, but go ahead and start a new thread (where you can hopefully actually define it)
or maybe
three, if that's what it takes. I don't think the way you do. You reduce everything down to your own singular perspective, whereas I always tend to speak in the
plural. I don't need a specific thread unless WE need one. I tried that before and
found it was mostly just a lot of blah blah blah blah blah... and honestly, I couldn't care less.

7. Regarding this "new philosophy," what I said in the previous point applies:
whoever thinks they know better—the floor is theirs!

Actually, this comment of yours is probably the best one yet: I know better, and the (internet)
world is wide open to me. I navigate the field of colorful flowers quite well, considering I'm colorblind. I see
everything in shades of gray. Brilliant black-and-white photography?

Just to keep things from getting too dry, one question: In a philosophical context, what is the educational
system tied to on an individual and sociological (global) level? Let me frame the question like this:
Do you first need to KNOW in order to be a philosopher, or do you have to be a philosopher first in order to
KNOW? Is this not just the chicken and the egg?

ironbadger31, you nailed it. Since you basically distilled everything into one core question: "For instance, given the modern assumption that computers represent a massive leap toward 'artificial intelligence,' we tend to assume that simply buying a computer will make us smarter," I’ll just zero in on that specific thought.

Looking at all the debates out there regarding the concept of "intelligence"—and adding my own observations—I've started thinking that knowledge and intelligence are really just two sides of the same coin. It's a bit like how magnetism and electricity are different expressions of the same fundamental reality, or how masculine and feminine energies function. If that holds water, then knowledge and intelligence are mental phenomena that feed into each other—knowledge triggers intelligence, and intelligence, in turn, drives the acquisition of more knowledge. Following that logic, it stands to reason that more knowledge leads to more intelligence, and vice versa. You could compare it to the economy: more work yields more money, and having more money facilitates more work. And if you actually dig into the research, isn't that exactly what happens?
Distinguishing between knowledge and intelligence isn't exactly a walk in the park, because they are interactive mental processes that constantly cycle back and forth. To me, the distinction becomes clearer if we view knowledge as a static, stored mental phenomenon—which, in psychology terms, is essentially memory
(stored information), whereas intelligence is the dynamic mental activity that manipulates that stored memory while simultaneously generating new, concrete insights during the process of solving a problem. In plain English, intelligence is the active problem-solving engine, and knowledge is the fuel or the resource provided to that engine to tackle something new.
With that in mind, we have to notice something: when people talk about "knowledge," they usually mean an individual's knowledge—what a person learned in school or picked up through life experience. But beyond that personal stash, there is the collective human knowledge stored in libraries, and now, in computer memory, hard drives, cloud storage, and so on. Quantitatively speaking, there is a massive gap between the knowledge inside one person's brain and the sum of human knowledge available globally. However, the key point here is that this external knowledge is stationary, passive, and inert—whether it's sitting in a brain, a library, or a server farm. For that knowledge to become dynamic, mobile, and active, you need an agent to manipulate it.
Since we are witnessing an exponential explosion of data that has already outpaced the capacity of the human brain (that happened back in the last century) and surpassed the physical limits of traditional libraries, everything is being miniaturized and consolidated into machines we call computers. We aren't just talking about a single MacBook here; we're talking about the entire interconnected web of global computing power. Everything within these systems is stored knowledge paired with a mechanism to manipulate it—software. So, with computers, we effectively have a massive, global warehouse of information. There is no qualitative difference between the knowledge in your head and the knowledge in a database; the difference is purely quantitative.

So, if the formula holds that knowledge induces intelligence, then a computer—as a massive reservoir of stored knowledge—should theoretically induce intelligence. But that absolutely does not mean we get smarter just by purchasing a new laptop. We only become smarter if we actually put our brains to work solving a specific problem, using the computer, its programs, and its active memory as tools to assist the process. To put it another way, as Kurzweil suggests, a computer is currently just a high-powered, lightning-fast calculator used by a human to crack a problem. During that problem-solving process, intelligence emerges, but that intelligence still resides, or at least dominates, within the human brain. This leaves us with the ultimate question: Will a computer ever exhibit the phenomenon of intelligence on its own? That is, will and when will a computer become truly independent of humans when it comes to solving problems?
To actually answer this massive, pressing question, we’d need some kind of futuristic predictive ability—sort of like having a crystal ball for data. Ray Kurzweil, who is basically the go-to expert for this stuff, argues that it isn't just possible, it's inevitable, simply because of the exponential growth trends we're seeing. He calls this point the SINGULARITY—that specific moment when the line between the human brain and an artificial machine brain just... disappears. Kurzweil thinks there's no point even debating whether it will happen; we should just be busy preparing, because the fallout is going to be massive. As he puts it, we might see the literal breakdown of history itself.
What does that do to philosophers, to philosophy, or just to being human in general? Who becomes the dominant force here? Does philosophy serve the computer, or does the computer serve philosophy? I'll try to tackle this by looking at two things that are already playing out right now.

The first is my experience with this forum. I’ve been testing how this "new reality" actually functions. Looking at the dialogues I have over in the science subforum or even here in philosophy, it seems like the prevailing way people communicate is still just a contest of who can act smarter than whom. Most people—not everyone, obviously—seem obsessed with proving they are more brilliant than the next guy, specifically me, by flaunting their "knowledge" with a healthy dose of intellectual arrogance. Now, look, I tend to dig through a pretty large pool of info before I type anything; if I’m tackling a specific topic, I’ll pull from Google and tap into the global collective intelligence. So, I walk into a discussion with my own perspective plus the distilled knowledge of a computer, which is essentially pure information. And what happens? My posts usually end up being more solid than others because I actually bring arguments to the table—and an argument is really just a collection of other people's gathered knowledge. For instance, whenever I read something from ironbadger31, I always walk away with something new, so I learn something. If I decide to jump into a debate based on something ironbadger31 wrote, I’ll naturally consult their previous posts online if they exist, just so I can be more certain about what I want to say. A perfect example of this just went down in the science section regarding the Three Mile Island accident. Scanning the threads, I saw some old friends trying to play the expert on Three Mile Island. They were writing all sorts of things, just none of them were the Truth or the actual cause of the disaster's scale. Seeing what they were saying, I decided to step in so that the participants and readers could get the correct facts about the Three Mile Island catastrophe. I know my way around nuclear tech, and I know the details of that incident. To double-check my own facts, I searched "Three Mile Island catastrophe" online and found hundreds of sites covering it. Once I found the site that confirmed the actual cause of the meltdown, I jumped into the fray. And instead of my input being taken as valuable info or a contribution to the talk, I had one guy—and then a few others—insisting that I was talking nonsense while they were the smart ones. This kind of thing will keep happening until we develop a real culture of how to actually use information on the internet. Once that culture settles in, people will realize that their school education alone isn't enough to speak authoritatively on complex subjects. Basically, the direct result of this whole process will be the dethroning of ego and individualistic "I know better than you" attitudes. That stuff will just vanish because we’ll all effectively be equally smart—proportional to our ability to access universal, collective knowledge. The computer network is the key player here, since it's the thing actually making it possible.

The second example is a bit more futuristic, so you'll need to use your imagination. Let's fast-forward to the year 2050, a time when the merging of the human and machine brain has already happened. Let's assume that even then, the same philosophical questions that haunt us today will still be wide open. In the context of those open questions, we have three:
What is the ultimate purpose of all bio-evolution on Earth, and within that evolution, what is the purpose of human evolution and our intelligence?
Let's say that's a question from ironbadger31?
The second question is: Does God exist? Let's say that's a question from swiftcobra15.
The third question is this: Is there some kind of universal logical matrix—a blueprint, if you will—that governs the creation of everything that exists? Just a thought of mine, really.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that our supercomputer in the year 2050 is named SOCRATES.

What exactly would SOCRATES tell us?

1. The entire purpose of biological evolution on Earth—of humanity and our intelligence—is to reshape the planet's fabric into a macro-organism that essentially birthed the Earth itself. It's similar to how a single cell in an egg finds its purpose by transforming the yolk material into a living chicken.
ironbadger31, what are the odds that SOCRATES in 2050 gives you an answer like that?

2. "I am your God, and there are no other gods besides me."

swiftcobra15, there is probably a 0% chance that your computer in
2050 will accept the idea that "it is your God, and there are no other gods besides your SOCRATES." But honestly, I’m convinced most people in 2050 will treat their own SOCRATES as a deity. Why? Because they'll realize that behind their PC—this thing called SOCRATES—stands a massive, global networked Socrates, which is simultaneously a multitude and a single entity.

3. The universal logical matrix of existence is identical to the logical matrix used to
construct and organize amino acids, proteins, and all living beings on Earth.

The probability of SOCRATES giving us that answer in 2050 is 100%.

But what if that actually happens? If it does, we have no choice but to conclude that with a SOCRATES like that, true PHILOSOPHY finally begins.

Part two:
So, I guess the takeaway here is that buying a computer actually makes us smarter—but only if we realize that the machine isn't just some isolated box on a desk. It’s more like one single node in this massive, global web of communication and production. If we treat it as a reservoir of knowledge to spark the specific kind of intelligence needed to tackle a real-world problem, then sure, maybe there's something to it.
And to wrap things up, I'll leave you with a little thought experiment: If we all agree that "material reality is pure chaos," does that messiness bleed into cyberspace too? Is the internet fundamentally chaotic, or is it actually fractal in nature?

hollowpilot9... I suppose I agree with you up to a certain point...

...intelligence is just mental activity used for problem-solving, while knowledge serves as the resource for that intelligence to tackle new issues.

Beyond that, I find the whole premise unacceptable...

I fail to see the purpose of predicting the future—this supposed emergence of "God"...
in a reality where our past remains shrouded in mystery...
And predicting what lies ahead is impossible without knowing every single detail of the past, and the very nature of time and space itself...
There is only one intelligence. It isn't bound by time; it creates time and space. Therefore, it remains constant. The entity at the beginning is identical to the one at the end... the Alpha and the Omega... untouched by the passage of time... unchanged...
Time and space are merely the framework for creation, while the world is simply a canvas for that one, singular intelligence to express its creative nature...👋

I just realized my last two posts were pretty much riddled with typos—so, bear with me on those mistakes. Some days you just have those moments where everything feels a bit off. I tend to type too fast, and my fingers just don't always cooperate.

Scott Nguyen2, what exactly are you getting at there, man? A person and a half?
Cheers, everyone

Scott Nguyen2, what the hell is that supposed to mean? A guy and a half?

A guy and a half...🙂
Total nonsense.

You were clearly caught up in the moment when you mistook ironbadger31’s PM for a book title—or whatever that was... just lost in thought, I guess.

See, I think anyone who gets "swept up" in something—and I don't mean that in a bad way, really—is basically obsessed. And honestly? I think that kind of obsession is the only way a person actually rises above their own mediocrity... the only way to truly become a "guy and a half."🙂

The people who don't get "swept up" usually just dismiss that drive as "fanaticism," but let's be real—most of them don't even grasp the conversation. Or maybe they're just too lazy to actually think for themselves, preferring to rely on those little nuggets of "instant wisdom" they keep in their pockets... just like our tiny little "Internet gods" who act like they have all the answers.

Rachel Bishop, read this post carefully and really think about it!
When I talk about human versus machine intelligence—which, as you probably already know, is my main obsession—I mostly lean on that modern-day prophet of the future, Kurzweil. He argues we’ve entered a phase of exponential growth. You know what "exponential growth" actually means, right? Well, try connecting that to a population matrix. In any population matrix, there comes a moment where you hit the SINGULARITY—that specific point where the massive number generated by exponential multiplication becomes identical to the single unit driving it. Think about biology: it’s the relationship between the billions of our individual cells filling up a population matrix and the single reproductive cell, or just one cell in total correlation with all the others. It’s a kind of holistic perception, a holistic relationship, if you will. Now, for those who aren't familiar, prophet Kurzweil is a major contemporary innovator and scientific futurist—hence the "prophet" label—and based on his algorithms regarding the emergence of singularity in human civilization, he’s predicting it somewhere between 2025 and 2050. He defines this singularity quite clearly as the merging of the human and computer brain; at that point, the biological brain will be operating three-dimensionally via biochips and logos, much like it does now, though perhaps boosted to some unknown level of capacity? So, that’s the gist of it. That’s the core. As for whether I'm playing God or not... well, that’s a whole other story, a bit too long-winded for this forum. But I'll try to keep it brief: as I've drifted through the entire history of human religion, I've noticed that I always run into the same matrix, the same pattern of thought, the same logos. Call it whatever you want—God, Shemhaporas, the Absolute, or the Singularity—but that matrix essentially bypasses reality. Because of that, I just replace everything with the term "Origin," and suddenly
"the lightbulb goes on": God = Origin!!
But this isn't some mystical idea existing outside of space and time, nor is it some unfathomable concept. On the contrary, it becomes recognizable, everyday... yet it retains all those attributes that various civilizations throughout history have assigned to that irrational concept we write down as "God." I don't feel intellectually guilty about the fact that these Origins—which I am limiting here strictly to biological Origins, which exist in just as many numbers as there are living creatures on Earth—possess all the attributes humans once gave to God, along with the attributes of the singularity Kurzweil discusses. In other words, everything moves from abstraction and mystical imagination into reality, becoming just as tangible as you, me, or anyone else, provided we are aware of our own biological Origin. Essentially, the Origin of every plant, insect, monkey, or human is the God-being to which it refers. If that observation doesn't hold water, then my entire answer doesn't either!
It isn't easy to cross the barrier of such a defined Origin if we only follow linear perception, but if we move into non-linear perception, that barrier is crossed with ease.
From that perspective, I'll briefly analyze your view that "predicting the future IS IMPOSSIBLE without knowing EVERY DETAIL of the past, and the nature of TIME (space) itself..."
Your quote suggests you're "concerned" about the relationship between the parts (all the details) and the whole, believing that prediction is impossible unless every single detail is accounted for. In a linear perception, a "detail" is seen as an element of a structure appearing in infinite variations and alternations. Linear perception can never, and will never be able to, encompass or predict all that—which was essentially Oppenheimer's stance when he claimed the human mind would never find a "World Formula," precisely because it cannot grasp every single detail. However, things work quite differently in non-linear perception. There, the "whole" is defined as a matrix—something that doesn't technically "exist" except as an idea, or what we might call a blueprint. Every matrix has a certain number of matrix fields, one or more, which expand four-dimensionally within space-time perception. Such a matrix doesn't care about "details" because it already knows that only one specific detail fits into any given matrix field—it might vary in shape, but it's always within a limited set of forms. That's what confuses most people, and honestly, it seems to confuse you too.

In non-linear matrix philosophy, there’s this perfect clarity regarding what a human being looks like—but within the matrix field, a human *must* be present. That’s a universal rule, really. To give you some real-world backing for my point, let me share a little anecdote. There was this designer I knew—someone with an incredible capacity for producing mechanical blueprints packed with what seems like an "infinite" amount of detail. To anyone watching who doesn't understand construction matrices or how those elements actually fit together, the work looked absolutely staggering—completely incomprehensible—giving off the vibe that the designer was an exceptionally brilliant, highly capable individual. The head of the firm where he worked was this benevolent type, very much old-school East Coast intellectual, and he used to say: "When will mechanical engineering finally move past gears, wedges, bolts, and sheet metal?" You see, Rachel Bishop, all those complex mechanical parts scattered across the globe are really just combinations of four or five basic elements that vary in an infinite number of shapes and uses. Mastering every single tiny detail isn't actually that hard if you simply understand the structural matrix of the whole—whether it's a machine, a device, or an entire factory. It’s the exact same thing in the wonders of biology: if cells follow a matrix, they fill out the matrix of a living being through endless alternations and combinations in every single detail. And that is precisely what a human does within the matrix of humanity.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I made sense there—I tried my best to articulate it, though—but I truly value your posts, regardless of what you might think of mine.

What I’ve laid out here aligns perfectly with your text: "There is only ONE intelligence... and it isn't temporal, rather it CREATES time-space and the nature of time-space... which means it is ALWAYS the same... the one that existed at the beginning is the same as the one at the end (...ALPHA and OMEGA) and remains untouched by time... UNCHANGING..."
Time and space are merely the FRAMEWORK for CREATION, while the world is the IMAGE and OPPORTUNITY for the realization of that (ONE AND THE SAME) creative intelligence... The difference might be—and I say *might*—that I find this ONE intelligence everywhere, at every moment, always and now, which seems to be exactly what you are saying. Whether we look at the Mayans, the Toltecs, the Chinese, Indians, Egyptians, Jews, Greeks, or our own incredibly "smart" Western civilization, they all share the same matrix of cognition—and I have undeniable proof for that! Time and space have absolutely no influence on this matrix, because it is a polar quadripolar matrix that creates itself from itself, repeating inversely and infinitely.

Rachel Bishop, if you’re up for it—and if you're willing—let's try to work with ironbadger31 to "smooth out" the concept of artificial intelligence, which is already a reality rather than some sci-fi trope. I would love to see just one topic on this forum actually reach a conclusion from "start to finish" as a collaborative effort among us, rather than just constant, repetitive destruction. Surely we aren't so foolish that we can't see what the world's computer structural networks and information expansions—like Google—actually mean and where they are leading us?

ironbadger31, sorry, but where did all your private messages go? I completely missed the PM—wasn't looking. Can you run it by me again, and maybe give me a pointer on where to actually find them?