A way out of this loop is to realise that teh possibility exists that "creation" is a continuous process, which exists outside the realm of causality; space and time. That leads us to Kant's transcendental again.

Allow me to pauze for a moment then. Are we agreed on the consciousness and self-consciousness as relating to first and second order logic?

Trying to touch on all your points, deliberate behaviour, yes, there is deliberate behaviour in deciding upon the choice between reactions

, but even action is a reaction to intent,

There is no cause and effect, it is all reaction.

That we can dwell on a little more as the thread develops. Did I miss anything, let me know if I have.

Now your getting a bit.. obtuse? How can ("there is no such thing as freewill,") yet ("there are but choices in the way you might react"). The nature of 'choice' implies the 'freedom' to make that informed 'choice'. And if you are making a considered 'choice' then that also implies 'action'. But I can see how you can attribute 'reaction', to some extent, even to the 'thought processes' relating to the 'choice'.
One cannot have 'reaction', anyway, without there being likewise 'action'; one implies the other.
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective." -Book of Fudd (6:6:6)
Seems like a stretch, but I can see your intent

Can't be. If there is 'reaction', there must, logically, be 'action'; it is definitional, context. Thats been my experience in every universe that I have observed. There are no one sided coins.

If you like, though, I think that I see where you are comming from...
Peace

Arjen,

:mad:No we are not agreed, and I did not indicate that I was going become a student of yours, a little presumptuous on your part. What questions or statements do you have about the stated premise, straightforwardly. If you insist in staying in obsurity then do not respond to my posts, your wasting your time and mine.

Arjen:)

I fear you protest to much, if you believe in the first cause, tell me how it came to be, and, seeing as being itself is relational, if first cause was a something/actual it is only something due to its relational nature of a combined duality. If you wish to question something I have stated do not present a course for one and all to take, ask your question directly and I shall do my best to answer it accurately and honestly-----no home study courses!! Obsurity does not equal enlightenment.

Boagie,

I do not think you understood my post. I pointed towards the "point" where your causal theory refutes itself:

For your theory to be plasible the physical reality cannot be causal. However, it is inside the realm of space and time and therefore causal. That is where the theory refutes itself and that is how people came to the thought of a first mover.

I never said I think that theory is true. I do commend the theory for its realisation that things cannot exist as reaction alone; instead of merely ignoring that. I hope you see that you answering a question from your present opinion on the matter is not what I am after.

In the post you are replying to (in the quoted post) I have presented a theory outstepping present theories on this matter, which solves all problems on a religious, scientific and philosophical scale. Perhaps you should read it again and try to understand why I am asking you to reconsider your present opinions on the matter.

p.s. I have been very straightforward and have explained all that needs explaining in a few simple sentences. Perhaps a few questions from your side can clarify things for you?

Arjen,

:)The premise as presented by me is anything but causal, for that you have the long established cause and effect. You may be able to infer cause, example first cause, to get the convenient causual ball rolling so it can bump into something and thus begin the world with its effect, in fact, you can do nothing but infer this first cause. At anyrate we are faced with what is, and does it look like a cause effect world or does it look like a world of relational reality.

For my theory to be plausible you state, it must be casual, that is not really a new stance, cause and effect fit the bill nicely. Any theory which you might come up with is going to involve time and space, when you find one the does not, take it to the bank. Just prove to me, as matter of factly, as you infer, that there is indeed a first cause. If you have come up with a theory that out strips all present knowledge of the day and deals with all possiable complaints that might possiably arise, take it to a scientific journal man, what is a first rate genious like you doing here??

Arjen, It is best that we nolonger communicate with each other, I am sure you have peers, I am just not one of them. Good Luck! boagie:D

nameless wrote:

"Can't be. If there is 'reaction', there must, logically, be 'action'; it is definitional, context. Thats been my experience in every universe that I have observed. There are no one sided coins." nameless

nameless:)

:)Yes it is a definitional context, as contexts tend to be, but only if the context is linear cause and effect.

One still might speculate forever about a first cause, but it is as intangiable

:)Nameless, if your defination of freewill holds under the reality

that the subject does not have the ability NOT to react,

that the subject does not enjoy autonomy from context

, yet you still believe in this freewill because there are lots of choices? Freewill is autonomy or it is nothing, and it is, nothing.

Nameless,

:)Do tell me more, actually if they have done this, it is a step up the ladder, it is not that cause and effect as simplistic as it is, is false,

it is more like it is a holding concept, awaiting someone who might consider actually thinking about it.

It does seems apparent, that in chemistry mutual reaction is the ticket, thus the transformational power is in the constitution of the ingredients/elements not in the one as cause.

If I bake a cake, are all the ingredients causes, indeed it seems its all cause, all cause one effect--the cake.

What of how these elemental causes/ ingredients relate to one another.

I know you get the drift:eek: Part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts--there is a whole lot'a shakin goin on!!

Certainly apparent reality is dependent on consciousness.

I am unsure of this same statement relative to ultimate reality, but, perhaps their concerns are of, the apparent nature. Just a thought, what would ultimate reality be relative too?

Apparent reality is relative to one's biology, subtract that biology and there could be nothing, without its interpretation through something.

Please elaborate on the flaws of a relational perspective,

Nameless,
So, your theory is that it is not cause and effect, nor is it a relational world out there.

Yours is a freeze frame moment as ultimate reality,

the apparence of anything occurring is just illusion.

Is this freeze frame reality then a close system, I would assume it must be a closed system, as nothing is really happening.

Yours is a most unusual Persepective, actually consciousness is quite an adequate term for the reality you describe, reality basically being the relation between subject[consciousness] and object.

I would assume the dialogue is at an end about this topic of a relational reality, certainly in this form of reality you are bent on,

there is indeed, no activity, no reaction, no relations and no cause or effect.:rolleyes:

To say you have a working knowledge of ultimate reality I think stretches credibility somewhat.

Kant called it, the thing-in-itself, Schopenhauer, the will, but these are just make shift metaphors for the unknown, it was unknown to these fellows and I think it is still unknown.

If you feel discussing the topic, consciousness as reaction in an utterly relational world, requires you dummying down, then I do not believe either of us would enjoy the dialogue.

Allow me to pauze for a moment then. Are we agreed on the consciousness and self-consciousness as relating to first and second order logic?

peace