From what the body experiences through either or all of the five senses, obviously.
So, why did you NOT ask that question instead?
But how could a plant or a bird bring forward their "apparent beauty" to a thinking human being?
To me, what is considered beautiful, or ugly, is in the eyes of the observer.
To me, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer. For example, neither a plant nor a bird bring you thee Truth of Life. The Truth of Life is there for you to SEE It. Whether you can SEE thee Truth or not depends upon how you are looking at and SEEING "things", and NOT how "things" are brought to you. I could, for example, write what thee actual Truth IS, and therefore bring thee Truth to you, but if you are yet able to recognize and SEE this Truth is depended upon, or relative, to you, and NOT the way It is "brought to you".
To me, 'thoughtful consideration' does NOT imply whatsoever of turning facts into favorable ways to see 'beauty' at all. In fact, the VERY OPPOSITE is True, to me. 'Thoughtful consideration' ALLOWS facts to be RECOGNIZED and SEEN for what they ARE, without any distortions at all.
I really could not be bothered anymore.
Of course some thing causing itself sounds totally illogical. But what about some thing creating itself. Does that sound just as illogical, to you?
Is it in any way possible that some thing could create itself?
Also, your first statement, to me, has absolutely not bearing on your second statement here.
If this is your argument, then okay.arjand wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am Valuing is the appropriation of what can be indicated as "good". When one values, one does not choose between "good" and "bad" but value.
The simple logical truth that something cannot cause itself means that the origin of valuing cannot be valued itself. That means that the senses cannot be the origin of valuing.
Okay.
But, to me, there is NO 'first cause'. So, I am NOT sure why it would appear to you that I have indicated this.arjand wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 4:30 amThe One that you appear to indicate is also known as "First Cause" or "God".evolution wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am
Which one, or, how does one implies a begin, and, what does 'a begin' actually mean, to you?
What does the 'it' word here refer to exactly?
If the word 'it' refers to 'a begin', then, whether 'a begin' can precede an observer is the question being asked to me, then I do not understand what the question is actually asking for.
Yes, the word 'One' refers to God, Everything, thee Universe, et cetera.
What is it with 'you' and 'the observer'?arjand wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am Spinoza: The Oneness of Everything
https://medium.com/personal-growth/spin ... 1a411085c9
Aristotle: First cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/
Marcus Aurelius: The nature of the universe did once certainly before it was created, whatsoever it hath done since, deliberate and so resolve upon the creation of the world. Now since that time, whatsoever it is, that is and happens in the world, is either but a consequent of that one and first deliberation.
I wonder if these perspectives can be valid. As it appears, the error is made to exclude the observer from the equation.
Who and/or what is 'the observer', to you?
Those perspectives can be completely valid. We just have to LOOK into them to SEE if they ARE. And guess what is NEEDED to LOOK at and SEE things? Yes, that is RIGHT - An observer.
Now, if ANY 'one' wants to 'observe' and SEE what thee actual Truth IS, then they just have to LOOK, or OBSERVE, from thee actual One's perspective and NOT from thee 'one's' own perspective.
I AGREE that a so called "first cause" does NOT exist.
Only when, and IF, you define what 'observer' means to you, then I will KNOW if I agree that a "first cause" does NOT exist for the reasons you give or for the reasons I KNOW.
Just a VERY SIMPLE question; Where did an observer come from if the Universe did not exist BEFORE the observer?arjand wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 4:30 amYes, my argument is that "the Universe" as in "a totality" did not begin until an observer introduced a begin.evolution wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am
Are you suggesting that the Universe did not begin until an observer came-to-be?
If yes, then, to you, thee Universe did not begin until 'you' began to observe.
Also, what are you basing the claim, "The Universe requires an observer to be possible", on exactly?
What caused or created the observer if the Universe supposedly did NOT exist until the observer introduced 'a begin', (whatever 'a begin' actually means or refers to?)
So, x cannot precede a y because x requires y to be possible, which this claim is based on that this is "how it is" because you, yourself, say so, correct?
My question is whether the observer can be included into 'something'. [/quote]evolution wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am Okay.
Are you making a "true" attempt to include the observer into something that you say does not even exist until an observer exists?
Also, could it be possible that what appears to you is not actually what is occurs nor is happening?
Could it be possible that you are just misunderstanding what I am saying, and meaning?
Yes, 'an observer' can be included into 'something'.
But WHY does 'something' require an observer to be possible?
And, are you aware that 'an observer' is 'some thing'?
But the origin of Consciousness is ALREADY KNOWN. Although it may not YET be known, by you, correct?