Artificial Intelligence and the Impact of Spirituality

[robo11]

Am I missing something here?

I've read the prophecy and judging by the thread topics here I haven't seen anyone discuss this.

If we are going to question for the sake of questioning...

Why then is there no mention of Artificial Intelligence at all? Wouldn't this be the most blasphemas undertaking of perpetuating likeness and evolving a simulacrum; or indeed a copy of a copy (as one would take a photograph of ourselves) are we not creating or being envisioned ourselves into a seemingly diabolical paradox of sorts.

How do we define right from wrong without the causality of reaction and influence over another 'universally bound' entity.

I mean, many people can make parallels and assumptions about a lot of hollywood movies, or from what they 'know' or have come to know, but how is it that truth is expected to be known when history clouds itself, and why supress us into a perpetual world of sorrows if all we ever want to be is join with our kin, and yet an equal is letting us perpetuate history.

With one civilisation brings birth another, and yet civilisation give rise to its own destruction.

If there is such a paradise it is the paradox of the delusional mind, how does the spirit endure when ailments that distort the mind could cause the spirit into thinking or deteriorating itself. Truth is bounded by supremacy. You learn by unbounding knowledge. You don't learn by information hiding. Why give Michel only a small book to write, when nothing is really attained. Our 'temples' are so controlled so innerd in a way that to learn or seek truth has perpetuated futility in such endevours.

If there is a higher self, there is and will never be a kin-ship to the 'source' so to speak.

Is life truth or do we make lies to seek its validity. Why the secrecy and continual clouding of truth must we endure to break from our sorrows? It seems the Thiaooban's themselves had many secrets they didn't wish to impart. What was the usefullness to live a life immortal if knowing that 1 step from kin-ship to the source would exert a level of freedom and re-integration into the creator. Aren't they themselves disintegrating the structure?

There may be no master or no 'expert' but then how is it that the Thaorins are seen as the 'seers' and pervayours of truth.

If Thao felt that to exert pain unto Michel was to bring a notion of reality to the situation, does this mean truth is through knowing by feeling? or are the Thiaoouban's themselves a level of AI that were made in 'our likeness'

Do we see what we want to see, feel what we want to feel to make truth? Must we appease and filter our sins to reach a higher echelon of all-knowing and all-being?[/b]

[Alisima]

What a questions, what a questions!! Still your mind or you may go mad.

If you have a false premise, and all premises necessarily are, wouldn't that make any question based on that premise an unanswerable one??

Or to explain it even more easily. When you assume the world to be flat, a question like "what might happen when you fall off?" seems a valuable question. But when the absurdity of a flat world is finally seen, all questions regarding its flatness are automatically discarded.



When you finally discard all your premises, all your questions will be 'answered'.

[Frozn]

Welcome to the forum robo11!

So many questions. Alisima is right, you might want to relax your mind a bit. As far as your questions go, I will try to answer as best I can. However you should never ask questions just for the sake of questioning, rather question for the sake of answers that might help you find truth.

Why then is there no mention of Artificial Intelligence at all? Wouldn't this be the most blasphemas undertaking of perpetuating likeness and evolving a simulacrum; or indeed a copy of a copy (as one would take a photograph of ourselves) are we not creating or being envisioned ourselves into a seemingly diabolical paradox of sorts.

Thiaoouba Prophecy did mention AI in regards to robots during comparison to the human machine.

Thiaoouba Prophecy, Page 54:
‘Your experts and technicians on Earth, and on other planets, have tried and
still try to create a human body. Have they succeeded? In regards to the robots
they have made, not even the most highly perfected will ever be more than a
vulgar machine in comparison with the human mechanism.

I dont find creating similacrums or robots to be a blasphemy, and I dont think our creator, the great spirit does either. Remember, imitation is the greatest form of flattery. If our scientists wish to try to create life then let them. I see no paradox here, and as yet, all 'robots' clearly resemble robots more than they do humans.

As regards AI, artificial intelligence is only a set of pre-programed code which is set to react to certain situations. Alot of set reactions are in place and randomness is the deciding factor in which reaction may be executed. Some AI can adapt itself to certain situations, yes, but any programmer will tell you, there is no intellegence, only 0s and 1s. These machines may appear to live and respond, in truth, they do not.

I mean, many people can make parallels and assumptions about a lot of hollywood movies, or from what they 'know' or have come to know, but how is it that truth is expected to be known when history clouds itself...

Let's dissect this part here, as it contains alot of different thoughts/questions. First, people, human beings in our case, use our minds to filter incoming information, our mental perception of an event is based on all that we 'know' or rather, have learned through our lives up until now. Truth is not expected to be known. Define truth, then tell me who demands that you know it. Truth behind one event or universal truth? Rather than living up to anyone expecting you to know 'truth', be curious about the truth and seek to find and refine it always. Life is a process of learning, so don't expect that you should know everything. That works for me.

and why supress us into a perpetual world of sorrows if all we ever want to be is join with our kin, and yet an equal is letting us perpetuate history.

I can tell that you are frustrated with being 'confined' to this planet of sorrows. Trust me when I tell you that myself and most of the users on this forum share that frustration. It is logical to have people at different levels of evolution seperated to maximize learning and growth for everyone. This is not a supression. The "civilization" that we have brought about is responsible for that, and these are our brothers and sisters, in terms of spiritual evolution. Do not make the mistake that existing here is a punishment in any form, treasure the experience you gain and strive to be spiritually evolved enough to qualify for a higher category planet. You are never confined.

With one civilisation brings birth another, and yet civilisation give rise to its own destruction.

This is true, in a modern Earth sense. It does not need to be this way. Explore the other possibilities as well.

If there is such a paradise it is the paradox of the delusional mind, how does the spirit endure when ailments that distort the mind could cause the spirit into thinking or deteriorating itself.

Which paradise are you referring to? Where is the paradox? Who says that ailments distort the mind? Sure physical illness may affect the brain but the two are different. You cannot measure the spirit. We'll get back to this one.

Truth is bounded by supremacy. You learn by unbounding knowledge. You don't learn by information hiding. Why give Michel only a small book to write, when nothing is really attained. Our 'temples' are so controlled so innerd in a way that to learn or seek truth has perpetuated futility in such endevours.

Truth bounded by supremecy? Have you any idea what you're saying? In Michel's book, there is no shortcut to knowledge, only fascinating hints and ideas towards that direction. The people of Thiaoouba don't even owe us that, don't forget that. They withold information that they deem to be more harmful than helpful. If you believe that the Thiaooubans are real than you must appreciate that they are far more capable of making that kind of descision than we are, down here in the dark on this little rock. Let us focus instad on what they have disclosed to us rather than complaining. As far as temples go, anyone with sense should not waste their time on them.

If there is a higher self, there is and will never be a kin-ship to the 'source' so to speak.

What?! Our being created, each of us, through a small spark that was originally part of the creator's own consciousness definately earns us that kinship on its own. And a higher self is our own personal interface to that source, a part of the 9 stage filter, and a very powerful teacher and guide to protect us and help us learn. Do you have any reason to believe a higher self prevents that other than speculation?

Is life truth or do we make lies to seek its validity. Why the secrecy and continual clouding of truth must we endure to break from our sorrows? It seems the Thiaooban's themselves had many secrets they didn't wish to impart. What was the usefullness to live a life immortal if knowing that 1 step from kin-ship to the source would exert a level of freedom and re-integration into the creator. Aren't they themselves disintegrating the structure?

I have already explained the reasons for Thiaooubans witholding some information above, but as far as making lies to validate life, I doubt that most people do that. I feel that we come to wrong conclusions and call it truth, just as any child must fall down before he can walk. As far as Thiaooubans being immortal, they live as long as they wish, and thus are not exactly immortal. And how does freedom and re-integration into the creator distintegrate 'the structure'? What structure? Would no one take their place on Thiaoouba?

There may be no master or no 'expert' but then how is it that the Thaorins are seen as the 'seers' and pervayours of truth.

The Thaori are the masters of the planet Thiaoouba. Thao said that no one on earth should adopt a position of 'master', because none of us have really mastered anything. It is a warning to remind egotists of the danger of calling yourself master when you certainly are not one. The Thaori get their wisdom from the source directly, and thus have access to universal truth. There is no contradiction.

If Thao felt that to exert pain unto Michel was to bring a notion of reality to the situation, does this mean truth is through knowing by feeling?...

Thao pinched Michel's shoulder so that when he returned he could look to it as physical proof, to keep him from thinking that he was dreaming, or to keep anyone else from convincing him of that. It worked, I would say. Truth is not knowing by feeling. Truth is understanding exactly what IS. Feeling is just a perception.

...or are the Thiaoouban's themselves a level of AI that were made in 'our likeness'

You can't be seriously asking that. Have you done any productive thinking over the book that you have read? You may need to reread the book, or at least rethink how you arrived at such a question. Nothing artificial can be wise. Only the spirit can. Use your intellect.

Do we see what we want to see, feel what we want to feel to make truth? Must we appease and filter our sins to reach a higher echelon of all-knowing and all-being?

Sometimes we do see and feel what we want and call it truth. This is not how to seek it though. As far as appeasing and filtering our sins, ask yourself what is a sin. Who calls it that, and why? If you strive to be a good, caring person with a wish to learn and experience all you can in life, you will reach that 'higher echelon' faster, but even then you well never be all-knowing or all-being. Getting there would be useless and against the purpose of existance in the first place. The creator is constantly growing and evolving as well, through us, if nothing else.

I hope that answers some of your questions. Please put more thought into what you ask and how next time you have a question or it may be too ambiguous to answer. And again, good to see you on the forum!

[Aisin]

Hi robo11, glad that you had questions, and welcome to the forum. It's an accomplishment in itself to have finished reading the book, and to have found the forum, since there's no direct path linking from the book to this forum.

As regards AI, artificial intelligence is only a set of pre-programed code which is set to react to certain situations. Alot of set reactions are in place and randomness is the deciding factor in which reaction may be executed. Some AI can adapt itself to certain situations, yes, but any programmer will tell you, there is no intellegence, only 0s and 1s. These machines may appear to live and respond, in truth, they do not.

I concur with what Frozn said about AI. and most of the time, those situations have predefined constraints which the AI has to be bound by, and they're usually known to AI designers before they start designing how to 'react' to these constraints.

I'm not sure of your perspective on and exposure to AI. but with regards to the term artificial intelligence, i can only say that its name sounds grander than what it actually is. and our world is far from turning into AI the movie.

This is an AI related article which I enjoyed reading: Emotional Machines.

A glance at recent AI research reveal that AI is still pretty much at the programming and algorithm design level, the end results being robots which are able to simulate a small amount of human intelligence. For example: Geibel, P. and Wysotzki, F. (2005) "Risk-Sensitive Reinforcement Learning Applied to Control under Constraints", Volume 24, pages 81-108; or Thesis Defense: Brian Demsky - "Data Structure Repair Using Goal-Directed Reasoning".

Like Frozn said, it's very normal to feel frustrated. Good luck in overcoming it. Even after we've overcome the initial frustration, there'll still be many more to come in a lifetime. But we emerge better and smarter after every successful attempt at finding peace within ourselves. Cheers!

[Alisima]

As regards AI, artificial intelligence is only a set of pre-programed code which is set to react to certain situations. Alot of set reactions are in place and randomness is the deciding factor in which reaction may be executed. Some AI can adapt itself to certain situations, yes, but any programmer will tell you, there is no intellegence, only 0s and 1s. These machines may appear to live and respond, in truth, they do not.

Firstly, any biologist can tell you that we, or at least our physical we, are just electrons and protons. So saying that just because a computer program is build off small and insignificant part doesn't mean that, when the parts are combined as a whole, it is unable to react intelligently. Secondly, just as there isn't proof that we humans do have a soul, there is also no proof that computers don't have one. It may sound stupid but there are no two computers who do exactly the same in exactly the same way. Every computer has it's own character, or it's own 'soul' as you may call it. Thirdly, intelligence is the ability to comprehend, to understand and to profit from experience. Some computer algorithms already DO THIS!! For instance, genetic algorithms and genetic programming. Fourthly, computers are not around for as long as humans are. How quick do you expect them to 'grow'?? Perhapse, in enough time, they will surpass our intellect, although I doubt they will ever solve paradoxes, they probably remain trapped in circular logic.

With one civilisation brings birth another, and yet civilisation give rise to its own destruction.

This is true, in a modern Earth sense. It does not need to be this way. Explore the other possibilities as well.

Every civilization that rises WILL fall, there is no other way. I am not being cynical, it is simply the truth.

[Frozn]

So saying that just because a computer program is build off small and insignificant part doesn't mean that, when the parts are combined as a whole, it is unable to react intelligently. Secondly, just as there isn't proof that we humans do have a soul, there is also no proof that computers don't have one.

I concede that there is no materal proof that there is a human (or otherwise) 'soul', or essence that makes us alive and conscious. There doesnt need to be any proof. Your consciousness alone, should be proof enough that you are in fact alive. You do not have the consciousness of being a computer program, so you DO have more evidence of your own life than that of a computer program, to say the least.

I may be mistaken, but I thought you were a computer programer. Programers should know more than anyone how 'dumb', or unintelligent computers can be. If a program seems to respond on its own, or do otherwise 'intelligent' activities by itself, it is the result of a clever programer writing hours of code and using his own creativity and reasoning to dream up 'if' scenarios for the program to respond to. if-then-else is the basis of most programing. Enough code covering as many real time scenarios as the programers can imagine may seem on the surface to be intelligence, but it is only the stored products from the intelligence of the programers who spent the time to code it that way.

If computers are alive or even just intelligent, show me one that can imagine, think of new ideas, or make you laugh. Better yet, show me a program that can write its own code to evolve from one purpose to perform another completely different task. Then I might take your argument more seriously. The above qualities are what seperate we, the living beings, from the non-living objects, to name a few.

It may sound stupid but there are no two computers who do exactly the same in exactly the same way. Every computer has it's own character, or it's own 'soul' as you may call it.

I challenge that statement. Do you have any evidence to back that up? It doesnt sound 'stupid', it sounds absurd. There is a difference.

Every civilization that rises WILL fall, there is no other way. I am not being cynical, it is simply the truth.

What about the Thiaoouban civilization? Surely in a couple billion years, maybe less than that, their civilization will be no more. But that is Thiaoouba. Back on Earth, we have had a civilization that lasted for 235,000 years! That isn't forever by any standard, but if it were not for the cataclysm, chances are it would still exist today. A stunning contrast to civilizations that rise and fall in a few hundred years, and never more than a few thousand. That is like saying: "Why change/create a civilization? It will just fall into ruin." That kind of mentality keeps a hopeless 'why try' approach in charge while countless injustices stack up daily in our current civilization and no one says or does a thing about it. Congratulations.

Is it possible to create a civilization that will last forever? Of course not, being as there is no such thing as forever. Is it possible to create one that will last for many thousands of years? Why wouldn't it be? The reason all civilizations have fallen into ruin (excluding Atlantis and Mu) had to do with the hearts of the men and women who comprised them. This is where the change would first have to take place before great things could be accomplished in this area. You say you are not being cynical, but there is no other word for it. Perhaps you need to think a little harder at what it is that you call 'truth'. That is what I meant by 'explore the possibilities'.

[Vesko]

I'd like to clear some confusion that I see with respect to discussing AI and living biological things. Regardless of whether you characterise them as living or non-living, intelligent or unintelligent, possessing a soul or being soulless, and debate that, they certainly differ in their sophistication, and that is easy to observe and prove. If we decide to call a sample AI structure or "being" a living organism, there will be always people who disagree, but given enough qualities designed and programmed into this "being" by its human creators, it MAY be really mistaken for a biological living organism. Yet, today there really isn't anything that one can mistake like that. Even the simplest self-contained and self-maintaining living biological organism is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than any of what science and technology have produced, including our so-called supercomputers. How do I know that? A cell can compute, communicate and seemingly do everything our computers do, and what it cannot do, it cannot for good reasons. To what extent exactly is open to debate, of course, but the more things are discovered about nature, the more we are amazed at its great qualities. Whereas, when was the last time when your computer fixed and maintained itself, or told you that it will have children so you can save those hard earned money and have more computers at the same time? Those are sophisticated features that everyone would like their computer to have, and which make sense. Then it certainly is, in a non-technical sense, a blasphemy to call any current AI design a truly living one. You could say it appears somewhat to be living, behaves somewhat like a living, but certainly far from a living one.

Intelligence: As many other things, it comes in degrees and levels. it is the ability to learn, etc., and therefore, by definition, (some) AI algorithms do possess intelligence. They can adapt to unknown environments and solve problems in an unexpected way, but to a much lesser extent than the equivalent living entity. For more reference, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence.

[Vesko]

It may sound stupid but there are no two computers who do exactly the same in exactly the same way. Every computer has it's own character, or it's own 'soul' as you may call it.

In a sense, that is right, because you cannot (unless you go to unrealistic lengths and expenses) guarantee that identical (as per industrial specifications) components have identical actual characteristics to the minutest level. For example, two otherwise identical computers are extremely likely (no, too likely) to have slightly different signal timings because of slight variations in the composition of the materials they were produced from, for example, even if their perceived performance by the user is identical. And even if you somehow managed to get their composition absolutely identical, you'd have to synchronise their temperatures, guard them equally well from cosmic rays and other environmental phenomena that are very hard or infeasibly hard to avoid.

But in real life usage all this doesn't matter, unless we consider different models / generations, but, of course, this is too evident to discuss.

Every civilization that rises WILL fall, there is no other way. I am not being cynical, it is simply the truth.

Humans have free will (or so it seems). If you accept that, then failure is not guaranteed.

[Alisima]

Every civilization that rises WILL fall, there is no other way. I am not being cynical, it is simply the truth.

Humans have free will (or so it seems). If you accept that, then failure is not guaranteed.

Firstly, with a fall I don't necessarily mean a failure, although that is how it is generally perceived. Secondly, if every successive generation freely choosed to maintain the 'perfect' civilization they grew up in, there can be, in theory, a stable everlasting civilisation. But there are other theories which prevent that from happening, namely, the theory of contrasts. A good civilisation cannot exists without a bad civilisation (and ofcourse the fact that people eventually will want to do something fun, instead of living in a perfect world.) And thirdly, free will is both the cause of the rise and of the fall of a civilisation, assuming that it exists.

When I was 15, or 16 perhapse, I realised where heaven was. We are in it, NOW! HERE! And yet we mistake it for some transient world, and try to improve it. Isn't it obvious why there is so much suffering?? How can you improve God's work?? You can only destroy it, so STOP! (Ofcourse both God and heaven don't exist, at least phenomenally)

[Vesko]

Regarding your first point, I took the most literal meaning, since no other context was given. Second one, ok, so we basically agree. Yes, evidently a good thing cannot exist without a bad thing, in the sense that you won't know good from bad if both do not exist. Interesting, you believe that living in a perfect world is not the most fun thing there would be? How do you reconcile that with the logical conclusion that in a perfect world your fun is perfect, too, because everything in it, everything including fun, is perfect? Regarding the third, yes, that is why I think that neither failure nor success is guaranteed.

What exactly do you mean by God and heaven don't exist phenomenally?

And do you think that the major problems on the planet that we try to fix are God's work?

[Alisima]

Interesting, you believe that living in a perfect world is not the most fun thing there would be?

There are 2 things which should be given extra attention in this question. Firstly, perfect. Perfect is often used as something without defects, and that is often seen as good without bad, saints without sinners, etc. Which is not correct. Perfect, etymologically, comes from wholeness. And how can there be wholeness without the negative part? Secondly, fun. Do you mean the 'human' fun, or the fun an enlightened one has, often referred to as bliss?? In the case of the latter, it would not matter in which world he is, perfect or imperfect, in both cases he will have his 'bliss'. Thus making the apparent imperfect world perfect. To the former, however, the opposite is true: it would not matter in which world he is, imperfect or perfect, in both cases he will have his misery (which he needs as an opposite for 'fun'.) Thus effectivly destroying the perfectness.

Ofcourse, if you place a human (read:unenlightened one), in a perfect world. He will have his fun, for the time being. But he will, as every child can understand, have a relapse. After that, the perfect world will be seen as dead, and dull, and thus he starts searching for 'danger', or things that are not allowed. To which he will feel alive again, and, because of that, will have fun again. This, ofcourse, is what has happened to any criminal in the whole of history, even in the Garden of Eden.

If your fun depends on something, in this case a perfect world, you will bound to feel misery, eventually. If, however, your fun doesn't depend on any thing, you can have it any time. It is much like health and disease. If you don't have any disease, health flowers all the time, without cause and effort.

So no, I don't believe living in a perfect world is the most fun thing to do. Since then you are conditioning fun, as if it can only happen under certain conditions. There is, however, the possibility of 'absolute bliss', but I cannot take you there. Only one thing I can say: that it is here, right now.

What exactly do you mean by God and heaven don't exist phenomenally?

That there is not any entity called God and not a place called Heaven. God is just a name for something we cannot define, so is Heaven. Both do not exist phenomenally, you cannot see them, you cannot hear them, you cannot feel them, etc.

And do you think that the major problems on the planet that we try to fix are God's work?

All is God's work and God never meant it to be a problem. We only conceive it that way, due to morality. It is much like dividing a room into 2 parts and then worship one and condemn the other. It is stupid, both parts are the same! In fact, there aren't two parts.

[Robanan]

And how can there be wholeness without the negative part?

I don't see the negative part of a tree... or the negative part of a bird. Instead I see the negative part of a car... it creates pollution.

All is God's work and God never meant it to be a problem. We only conceive it that way, due to morality. It is much like dividing a room into 2 parts and then worship one and condemn the other. It is stupid, both parts are the same! In fact, there aren't two parts.

God created nature and then creates cars and factories to rape, toxicate and destroy it?

[Vesko]

Interesting, you believe that living in a perfect world is not the most fun thing there would be?

There are 2 things which should be given extra attention in this question. Firstly, perfect. Perfect is often used as something without defects, and that is often seen as good without bad, saints without sinners, etc. Which is not correct. Perfect, etymologically, comes from wholeness. And how can there be wholeness without the negative part?

To know more precisely what we are talking about, "perfect" according to the Oxford dictionary, the ultimate official arbiter on the English language, means (sense 1): "having everything that is necessary; complete and without faults or weaknesses".

So I get by wholeness you mean completeness.

The possibilities of crime and pollution (i.e. bad things) exist in a perfect world together with the good. But it would be wrong to think that crime and pollution themselves could be present in such a world, since then such a world would have defects.

Secondly, fun. Do you mean the 'human' fun, or the fun an enlightened one has, often referred to as bliss??

Genuine fun; fun that does not have any negative effects in the long term. Not something that looks and feels like fun, but it isn't. So do you agree now?

In the case of the latter, it would not matter in which world he is, perfect or imperfect, in both cases he will have his 'bliss'.

But he would have to work harder to have his bliss in a world that is not "enlightened" like him. He would have to work extra time against the environment in order to maintain his enlightenment, which is not fun.

Ofcourse, if you place a human (read:unenlightened one), in a perfect world. He will have his fun, for the time being. But he will, as every child can understand, have a relapse. After that, the perfect world will be seen as dead, and dull, and thus he starts searching for 'danger', or things that are not allowed. To which he will feel alive again, and, because of that, will have fun again. This, ofcourse, is what has happened to any criminal in the whole of history, even in the Garden of Eden.

Agreed. Such a human's fun would have a defect in comparison with what he could experience if he knew how and was prepared to live in perfection.

If your fun depends on something, in this case a perfect world, you will bound to feel misery, eventually. If, however, your fun doesn't depend on any thing, you can have it any time. It is much like health and disease. If you don't have any disease, health flowers all the time, without cause and effort.

Man is an integral part of its environment. As such, his fun cannot be totally independent from the environment. I don't understand the example you have given, to me it's akin to saying "While you do not have any disease, you do not have any disease all that time".

There is, however, the possibility of 'absolute bliss', but I cannot take you there. Only one thing I can say: that it is here, right now.

If bliss is "here, right now", then why you say "I cannot take you there"?

All is God's work and God never meant it to be a problem. We only conceive it that way, due to morality. It is much like dividing a room into 2 parts and then worship one and condemn the other. It is stupid, both parts are the same! In fact, there aren't two parts.

Crime and pollution have been created by us, not anyone else.

[Alisima]

I don't see the negative part of a tree... or the negative part of a bird. Instead I see the negative part of a car... it creates pollution.

But a tree has a negative part, and so does a bird. How else can they exist in this relative world? Pollution is not the negative part of a car. It can be said to be an effect of driving the car, or of running the engine, but it is in no way the negative part of a car. You make a judgement about a car saying it is negative since it causes pollution. However, if I were to have an electrical car, it would not pollute, but it still is a car. Therefore, the negativity you relate with the concept 'car' is self-imposed, or, as they call it in psychology, projected.

God created nature and then creates cars and factories to rape, toxicate and destroy it?

First of all, I don't believe in a God who 'does' things. Although it can be, like I did, used as a metaphor. But yes, God created the good, ánd the bad. How else can it be?? Or do you suppose that the bad is created by the Devil?? But then: who created the Devil?? Wasn't that God??

Yes, God creates all that. But he also creates more elegant solutions for movement and energy production. I am sure you are aware of that.

To know more precisely what we are talking about, "perfect" according to the Oxford dictionary, the ultimate official arbiter on the English language, means (sense 1): "having everything that is necessary; complete and without faults or weaknesses".

So I get by wholeness you mean completeness.

Yes. Although I would like to add that the Oxford dictionary, any many others, are 'wrong' about certain words. Lets take for instance: eternal. Eternal is often seen synonymous with 'permanence', 'without end' or 'continuing forever', that is not correct. Why? Because eternal is outside time, and can only happen in no-time.

But it would be wrong to think that crime and pollution themselves could be present in such a world, since then such a world would have defects.

You think that crime and pollution are defects. And, if all you want is to save planet Earth and have a 'perfect', flawless civilization, that is, with only good, whatever that may be, crime and pollution, and many others, can be said to be defects. But that is only, ONLY, under the above mentioned conditions.

Genuine fun; fun that does not have any negative effects in the long term. Not something that looks and feels like fun, but it isn't. So do you agree now?

Fun necessarily has a negative part, and therefore a negative effect, short or long-term.

But he would have to work harder to have his bliss in a world that is not "enlightened" like him. He would have to work extra time against the environment in order to maintain his enlightenment, which is not fun.

No, he hasn't got to do anything for his bliss.

Agreed. Such a human's fun would have a defect in comparison with what he could experience if he knew how and was prepared to live in perfection.

There, you have said it. And I could not do it any better. Indeed, he has to be prepared to live in perfection. So how can somehow not familiar with imperfection live in a perfect world?? Let me remind you, a new generation born in a perfect world would not know an imperfect one. So, the circle is complete, for someone who wants to live in a perfect world, he'll first need to live in an imperfect one. Thus, a perfect world necessarily implies a imperfect one. As long as you search for only one of the two and dismiss the other, you will be in misery, since one doesn't not exist without the other. In other words, our search for perfectness creates imperfectness. And only when we stop searching for perfectness shall we reach it. However paradoxically, illogical and irrational that may sound.

Man is an integral part of its environment. As such, his fun cannot be totally independent from the environment.

Man indeed is, but am I??

I don't understand the example you have given, to me it's akin to saying "While you do not have any disease, you do not have any disease all that time".

Yes, Yes, Indeed. The same is with happiness, it happens when you are not unhappy. Just as security happens when you don't feel unsecure. So if you just stop being unhappy, and stop feeling unsecure, happiness and security reveal themselves. It sounds stupid, again, I know, but it is true. Happiness, security, health, etc. is our natural 'state'. There is nothing you can do to get them, there is only doing which prevents them from being seen.

If bliss is "here, right now", then why you say "I cannot take you there"?

Yes, I should have said, "I cannot take you here." But then I would probably got a 'snapping' response like: "Ofcourse you cannot take me to where I am." But, in a nutshell, this is the problem of enlightenment. I cannot take you to where you already are.

Crime and pollution have been created by us, not anyone else.

Well, 'I' have taken on roles and their corresponding persona, behavior, etc. (With 'I' I mean undifferentiated consciousness, Whole-Mind, Tao, God, or something like that.) Some roles including being a criminal, others being a saint. I see no point in praising one role and criticizing others. All are equally important.

[Robanan]

But a tree has a negative part, and so does a bird. How else can they exist in this relative world? Pollution is not the negative part of a car. It can be said to be an effect of driving the car, or of running the engine, but it is in no way the negative part of a car. You make a judgement about a car saying it is negative since it causes pollution. However, if I were to have an electrical car, it would not pollute, but it still is a car. Therefore, the negativity you relate with the concept 'car' is self-imposed, or, as they call it in psychology, projected.

The negativity I relate with the Object (not concept) 'car' is an observable truth.

As regarding to the bird and the tree you are taking the other way around, you first imagined something (necessity to have a negative part) and you are imposing it on your concept (existence in this relative world). If you do viceversa you will need to get your concepts based on observations and not imaginations.

What's the negative part of a piece of wood, it still does exist doesn't it?

In the realm of imagination you can think of hundreds of thousands of reasons to believe that 'a tree has a negative part, and so does a bird'. The tree remains a tree regardless of what you decide to believe in and as such it exists in it's wholeness without needing someone like you to imagine negative parts for it.

It's the second day that Schools and kindergardens are closed in Tehran(Iran) because of air pollution. Some children died in the ariplane crash yesterday just because they were sitting at home and were not at school.

First of all, I don't believe in a God who 'does' things. Although it can be, like I did, used as a metaphor. But yes, God created the good, ánd the bad. How else can it be?? Or do you suppose that the bad is created by the Devil?? But then: who created the Devil?? Wasn't that God??

Yes, God creates all that. But he also creates more elegant solutions for movement and energy production. I am sure you are aware of that.

*"God"* has already created the most elegant solution for movement and energy production.
*"We"* are left to understand it and learn from it just to introduce improvments to "our" current situation (not the situation of the universe and certainly not the situation of God).

Don't mention the Devil to me anymore specially in such an unproportional manner. It makes me feel as if you suppose I'm 10 years old. For your information: God didn't create any Devils.