Nothing exist until after we perceive it

[Antonio Alejandro]

Am I not perceiving the computer? I require my senses to type onto a computer.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Am I not perceiving the computer? I require my senses to type onto a computer. Then where did "we" come from if we did not exist until "we" perceived ourselves?

edited to add:
And what is the source of this knowledge?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Then where did "we" come from if we did not exist until "we" perceived ourselves?

Well, that's aready been answered then hasn't it.

http://www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/images/escher/hands.gif

[CFLarsen]

Here's an experiment I would like those who claim this to participate in. Let's take Shirley MacLaine, one of the more prominent people who claim this. Let's choose a suicidal person, too, and call him Bill.

Shirley and Bill are standing in a field, a few yards apart. Bill is facing her, she is standing with her back to Bill. Unknown to her, Bill picks up a brick, and throw it at her.

Bill knows that the brick is flying towards her, so the brick exists, because Bill thinks of it, and is aware of it. To Shirley, the brick does not exist, because she doesn't know it does.

Before the brick hits Shirley, Bill shoots himself in the head, and is dead instantly. Bill stops thinking about the brick. Ergo, according to Shirley's claim, the brick ceases to exist.

Is Shirley going to be hit by a brick or not?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I know, I know! Not only does the brick disappear, but so does Shirley, because she was only a figment of Bill's imagination. Shirley MacLaine is gone. Praise Bill!

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

But if Bill is dea....*poof*

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Before the brick hits Shirley, Bill shoots himself in the head, and is dead instantly. Bill stops thinking about the brick. Ergo, according to Shirley's claim, the brick ceases to exist.I agree with what you are trying to say here, but I don't agree that it is a very good example. There is no way Bill can shoot himself and die in the short time it takes for the brick for hit Shirley. Someone cannot die instantly: it is a process that takes some time, in this case about 20 seconds or so, after the shot was fired.

The real problem with this idea that things do not exist before we perceive them, is this: how can we perceive something that does not exist yet?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Earthborn
how can we perceive something that does not exist yet? True. One wonders if Antonio is a solipsist. It doesn't answer the question, but that seems to be where he's heading.

[roger]

Wait, I see where he is going with this...

So if I hit somebody with my car because I was distracted didn't see them, then they don't exist, right?

QED :D

[Martin]

Originally posted by Upchurch
One wonders if Antonio is a solipsistThat's not exactly what this one was wondering about him, but...close enough, I guess.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I agree with what you are trying to say here, but I don't agree that it is a very good example. There is no way Bill can shoot himself and die in the short time it takes for the brick for hit Shirley. Someone cannot die instantly: it is a process that takes some time, in this case about 20 seconds or so, after the shot was fired.


OK, so we modify the scenario. Bill puts a bomb in her car that is wired to the ignition. Then Bill goes away and offs himself. She starts the car the next morning and it explodes.

I can think of non-lethal issues as well. Do planets and stars that have not been observed exist? Or what about the limits of perception. We cannot find the “dark mater” that accounts for the apparent mass of the universe. Does that mean that we do or do not perceive this apparent mass since we can observe it’s effect but not the mater itself?

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I agree with what you are trying to say here, but I don't agree that it is a very good example. There is no way Bill can shoot himself and die in the short time it takes for the brick for hit Shirley. Someone cannot die instantly: it is a process that takes some time, in this case about 20 seconds or so, after the shot was fired. Since we are only talking about his ability to perceive, maybe we can cut the 20 seconds down a bit. If not, then lets replace “shoots himself in the head” with “crushes his head in a 20,000 ton hydraulic press.”

[roger]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I agree with what you are trying to say here, but I don't agree that it is a very good example. There is no way Bill can shoot himself and die in the short time it takes for the brick for hit Shirley. Someone cannot die instantly: it is a process that takes some time, in this case about 20 seconds or so, after the shot was fired. Other's have dealt with this objection, but the original post specified perceiving as the criteria for existence, not life.

The bullet will destroy all function in the brain essentially instantly - thus perception will end before the brick hits.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I agree with what you are trying to say here, but I don't agree that it is a very good example. There is no way Bill can shoot himself and die in the short time it takes for the brick for hit Shirley. Someone cannot die instantly: it is a process that takes some time, in this case about 20 seconds or so, after the shot was fired.

The "trigger" could be something that was delayed. Bill could also give Shirley a poisoned drink.

Sure, Bill can die, by shooting his brains out. He is - by all definitions - dead before the brick hits Shirley. Now, what?

Originally posted by Earthborn
The real problem with this idea that things do not exist before we perceive them, is this: how can we perceive something that does not exist yet?

Unicorns.

[Antonio Alejandro]

I thought a brick hitting you on the head would be a big perception. Ouch!! If the brick is flying thru the air and it is not being perceived, i.e. it is not within the confines of our definition of existence, it does not exist.
Lets say that the detective who shows up at the scene determines that the brick is brown. The detective says: the brick is brown. Color is clearly one of the attributes of existence, of being. Is the brick truly brown? Does the brick have an intrinsic brown color?
To those that answer yes the brick has an intrinsic color brown. Then, can we have a color blind person view it, and he will see it brown?
a frog or a mosquito? Will they see it as brown?
Can someone name a person who sees the absolute color of brown? The argument then typically goes in this manner. Well in the electromagnetic spectrum there is a definite number for brown...so yes ...that is the color brown. But then if this was true then the color blind person, the frog, and the mosquito would be seeing exactly the same color brown. Existence is a human definition and it is bound by a human interpretation of time and space, of duration and dimension.
As the brick is flying thru the air, "something is happening", what is "happening" is clearly not whithin our definition of existence, because the universe is not as we think it is, but as it is. Perhaps the color blind man, the frog, and the mosquito have their own valid definition of existence.
We can only imagine what is happening to the unobserve brick, but what we imagine is not what is.

[Martin]

What's that? Why, it's the point, sailing majestically over Antonio's head.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I thought a brick hitting you on the head would be a big perception. But if Bill is dead, who is perceiving the brink? Not Shirley. She doesn't know it's there. Not Bill. He's dead.

Since no one perceives the brink the brink doesn't exist, does it?

[Ipecac]

Why does Antonio remind me of Pillory?

[Andonyx]

And isn't he confusing mysticism with meta-physics?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I thought a brick hitting you on the head would be a big perception. Ouch!! If the brick is flying thru the air and it is not being perceived, i.e. it is not within the confines of our definition of existence, it does not exist.
Lets say that the detective who shows up at the scene determines that the brick is brown. The detective says: the brick is brown. Color is clearly one of the attributes of existence, of being. Is the brick truly brown? Does the brick have an intrinsic brown color?
To those that answer yes the brick has an intrinsic color brown. Then, can we have a color blind person view it, and he will see it brown?
a frog or a mosquito? Will they see it as brown?
Can someone name a person who sees the absolute color of brown? The argument then typically goes in this manner. Well in the electromagnetic spectrum there is a definite number for brown...so yes ...that is the color brown. But then if this was true then the color blind person, the frog, and the mosquito would be seeing exactly the same color brown. Existence is a human definition and it is bound by a human interpretation of time and space, of duration and dimension.
As the brick is flying thru the air, "something is happening", what is "happening" is clearly not whithin our definition of existence, because the universe is not as we think it is, but as it is. Perhaps the color blind man, the frog, and the mosquito have their own valid definition of existence.
We can only imagine what is happening to the unobserve brick, but what we imagine is not what is.

Whoa, just a second: Will Shirley be hit by a brick?

Just yes or no, please.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Martinm
What's that? Why, it's the point, sailing majestically over Antonio's head. He's right, Antonio. A subjective quality of the brick, like color, isn't the issue. It's matter of its existance that we're trying to get at.

You claim that "Nothing exists until after we perceive it", however, that statement is filled with potential paradoxes, such as the brick example. More basically, if nothing exists until after we perceive it, how do we perceive anything at all? What generates the perception in the first place if the object we are perceiving doesn't pre-exist the perception?

If you believe that it is the perceiver who generates the perception and, thus, the object, then you are talking about solipsism. I think you'll find, with a little consideration on the matter, that solipsism is a philosophical dead end.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm trying to decide if it's comforting or unsettling that if I had never read Antonio's posts, they would not have existed.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Is Shirley going to be hit by a brick or not?
Yes, and I'm willing to bet it's gonna hurt.

[ImpyTimpy]

You're confusing subjective reality with objective reality. Subjectively, or to you, the brick does not exist. But objectively, the brick does. Once you're hit with the brick, subjectively the brick will now exist (objectively it always has).

Same with colour. You're subjectively defining the colour as brown while a dog would see grey. Say we have a red brick. You see it as red, a colour blind person (who can not see red) sees grey. Objectively, the photons striking the brick absorb most of the photon wavelengths and emit photons with a wavelength of say 638nm. So objectively, the "colour" is specific (it has a specific wavelength), the only thing that changes is how we label it subjectively (we apply label red or grey to it depending on perception).

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I thought a brick hitting you on the head would be a big perception. Ouch!! If the brick is flying thru the air and it is not being perceived, i.e. it is not within the confines of our definition of existence, it does not exist.
Lets say that the detective who shows up at the scene determines that the brick is brown. The detective says: the brick is brown. Color is clearly one of the attributes of existence, of being. Is the brick truly brown? Does the brick have an intrinsic brown color?
To those that answer yes the brick has an intrinsic color brown. Then, can we have a color blind person view it, and he will see it brown?
a frog or a mosquito? Will they see it as brown?
Can someone name a person who sees the absolute color of brown? The argument then typically goes in this manner. Well in the electromagnetic spectrum there is a definite number for brown...so yes ...that is the color brown. But then if this was true then the color blind person, the frog, and the mosquito would be seeing exactly the same color brown. Existence is a human definition and it is bound by a human interpretation of time and space, of duration and dimension.
As the brick is flying thru the air, "something is happening", what is "happening" is clearly not whithin our definition of existence, because the universe is not as we think it is, but as it is. Perhaps the color blind man, the frog, and the mosquito have their own valid definition of existence.
We can only imagine what is happening to the unobserve brick, but what we imagine is not what is.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What about something that goes really fast? If Bill shoots the gun at Shirley and can't see the speeding bullet, does she die?

~~ Paul

[ImpyTimpy]

Subjectively speaking, the bullet does not exist for Shirley until the moment it connects with her. Objectively the bullet always existed.

As to whether she dies or not depends on whether the bullet hits a vital organ and severity of injuries, assuming Bill actually shot at Shirley.

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What about something that goes really fast? If Bill shoots the gun at Shirley and can't see the speeding bullet, does she die?

~~ Paul

[Ratman_tf]

But who is generating the existence by perception? If Shirley is, then the brick will still hit her, since she is the origin of both Bill and the brick.
If it's Bill, then the moment he shoots himself in the head, the brick, Shirley, the field they're in, everything, is gone.

So it's logically consistent, if still a dead end for determining the actual truth of the matter.

[ImpyTimpy]

If anyone hasn't noticed, this notion is nothing more then a logical fallacy.

Basically Antonio is saying if you can't perceive it, it doesn't exist. Therefore what you can't perceive doesn't exist.

That's nothing more then proving itself by repeating the argument in a slightly different way, or to put it formally, fallacy of begging the question. :)

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
But who is generating the existence by perception? If Shirley is, then the brick will still hit her, since she is the origin of both Bill and the brick.
If it's Bill, then the moment he shoots himself in the head, the brick, Shirley, the field they're in, everything, is gone.

So it's logically consistent, if still a dead end for determining the actual truth of the matter.

[Antonio Alejandro]

How do you define existence? I defined it as perception of time and space, but nothing in time and space is absolute.
You are attempting to explain a non-conceptual event "conceptually". I never stated that the brick disappears, for to state that the brick disappears it would mean that i am using a concept "disappear" to explain a non-conceptual event. Disappearences only happen when referenced to perception, but i have already stated that it does not exist until after we perceive it. Additionally, I cannot say that no existence = disappeared. What i am saying is that whatever the "non-conceptual event" is is not within the definition of existence.
Once again, whatever is "occuring" as the unperceived "brick is flying thru the air" is not within the bounds of the conceptual. We can imagine what it is...but imagination is not what it is.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
How do you define existence?
(My definition of) Existence is as "is real; being actual in objective reality".

I defined it as perception of time and space, but nothing in time and space is absolute.
You defined (to a degree) the word "consciousness".

I dont follow, I dont know what you mean by "absolute".

Things that exist do exist, I guess that'd make all things that exist absolute.

Perception does not alter objective reality.

You are attempting to explain a non-conceptual event "conceptually". I never stated that the brick disappears, for to state that the brick disappears it would mean that i am using a concept "disappear" to explain a non-conceptual event. Disappearences only happen when referenced to perception, but i have already stated that it does not exist until after we perceive it.
I've never seen my brain before, I'm fairly certain its in there.

Second, there is a problem with perception, the problem of optical illusions. Its not hard to make a 3D image on a 2D canvas, you wouldnt say the object is 3D although it looks like it.

It's not necessary for something to be observed to exist.

Additionally, I cannot say that no existence = disappeared. What i am saying is that whatever the "non-conceptual event" is is not within the definition of existence.
Once again, whatever is "occuring" as the unperceived "brick is flying thru the air" is not within the bounds of the conceptual. We can imagine what it is...but imagination is not what it is.
I'm not sure I understand what that last part says, but nonetheless its not a good practice of ethics to throw bricks at people.

[Aoidoi]

"Reality is that which continues to exist after you stop believing it." Philip K. Dick (maybe, not positive of authorship, so I suppose the quote only partially exists)

I don't see the point in speculating on multiple forms of reality. Anybody have a reason to multiply entities? Is there something useful in defining perceived vs. non-perceived reality?

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
How do you define existence? I defined it as perception of time and space, but nothing in time and space is absolute.

Huh? Nothing in time and space is absolute sounds nice and deep, but what exactly do you mean by that?


You are attempting to explain a non-conceptual event "conceptually".

What???? Non-conceptual event conceptually? Either the brick flies through the air or it doesn't. There's nothing conceptual about it... You are the one who's attempting to create conceptual explanations for objective reality.

I never stated that the brick disappears, for to state that the brick disappears it would mean that i am using a concept "disappear" to explain a non-conceptual event.

You're not making much sense actually. Non-existence means the brick is not there. You're creating a concept of "if I don't perceive it, it doesn't exist". Nobody else is introducing "conceptual" events into this except you.


Disappearences only happen when referenced to perception, but i have already stated that it does not exist until after we perceive it.

Only if you're going to stick to begging the question fallacy.

Additionally, I cannot say that no existence = disappeared. What i am saying is that whatever the "non-conceptual event" is is not within the definition of existence.
Once again, whatever is "occuring" as the unperceived "brick is flying thru the air" is not within the bounds of the conceptual. We can imagine what it is...but imagination is not what it is.
Slow down sparky. You're not impressing anyone with your "deep" reasoning here except people who can't see through deep sounding words. You have created a conceptual event - that is non perception of something means it does not exist. What you failed to understand are two things.

One - this is a conceptual exercise. Objectively, the object does exist.
Two - the conceptual exercise is only limited to the person who is not observing the said object.

I know you're going to go back in a circle and say but my perception of reality is based upon my subjective understanding of it. However, that is simply begging the question - my subjective interpretation of the universe has absolutely no bearing on it's objective existence. To suggest otherwise is idiotic to say the least.

[CFLarsen]

Antonio Alejandro,

Please answer the question:

Will Shirley be hit by the brick?

Just yes or no, please.

[ImpyTimpy]

The second he does, either his entire thought experiment will be reduced to a pile of steaming dung or he'll earn the kook of the year award. Expect sounds of crickets chirping for a long time to come CF. :)

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Antonio Alejandro,

Please answer the question:

Will Shirley be hit by the brick?

Just yes or no, please.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Antonio Alejandro,

Please answer the question:

Will Shirley be hit by the brick?

Just yes or no, please.
Depends, does Bill have good aim?

If he does, then yes, Shirley will be hit with the brick (I'm sure she deserved it :D...).

Woohoo, I can see just myself making "throw bricks at old lady" jokes all day :p.

[neutrino_cannon]

What of the tunguska event? For purpose of arguement, we'll assume that there was a person/sentient reindeer near the epicenter of the blast.

They're not looking up, so they don't see the comet (it was most likely a comet or other peice of lethal cosmic debris that our loving gawd left over from creation). It's entering the atmosphere at well above the speed of sound, so there's no way to here it. The person/reindeer's demise by incineration is far faster than their nerves can report, so even when they died, they have no idea what hit them, or in fact that anything hit them at all.

BTW, this is not an entirely unlikely situation, there were people near the impact site, and reindeer could be sentient (the reindeer are watching you!).

In the above situation, the poor sap was clearly unaware of any comet, before, during or after the impact. In fact, heisn't aware of anything after the impact, because he's just been turned into air pollution.

If the comet does not exist, because he's not aware of it and probably nobody else is and will only be tipped off by fallen timber and shock waves, then why is the fellow/reindeer so very dead?

If the comet did not fit into the definition of "existant" then please explain why all the trees are knocked over, when they were standing up yesterday, and why the windows are broken, and why the siesmologists have siddenly decided to study a-causal events.

The point is, there are no a-causal events on a macro scale. I'm not sure about a micro scale, quantum physics is not my thing, but conscienceness is definatly definable as being a macro scale. Neurons are pretty darned big compared to, say, neutrinos.

It is possible that an object, or event, goes unoticed by everyone, and is only detected later by subtle clues such as hundred-square mile craters and telephone-pole trees. Nobody saw the comet, but it, or something pretty darned close had to have been there or else this was an a-causal event, which never happen because they violate TLOP, and TLOP controls EVERYTHING controls EVERYTHING ELSE. I tend to reason that large zones where trees have been knocked over and windows shattered, with reports of a huge blast, are in fact caused by large explosions, and that large explosions, in keeping with everything we know about the world, are caused by something rather than non-existant entities, even if those entities cannot be observed.

Either this came down to a semantics brawl of the Franko pagent has just found a (two?) new contestant.

[neutrino_cannon]

Aha! another example (please excuse the double post, it seems appropriate in this case).

What about things we percieve that no longer exist? We can see the light, via observatories, of objects far away in the universe, that due to he travel time of light, no longer exist.

This doesn't mean that the images are false, the structures observed by the hubble did once exist, nebulae and the like are most certainly a part of the universe. We're just percieving them only now, due to the fundamental nature of the universe.

Doe sthis mean that nebulae only exist once the hubble has seen them? Or could it possibly mean that only the photons we percieve exist?

The structures are being seen now, but do not exist now. They were not seen in the past, but must have existed in the past, otherwise our loving gawd is sending photons our way with no reason but to keep us busy. There's no way to reconcile this situation without appealing to the supernatural, which, suprise suprise, has never been perceived.

[Correa Neto]

So, applying this concept to other areas than bricks and Shirley McLaine, one can conclude that a viral infection, say the flu, exists only after the infected person perceives the symptoms!:eek: How is it possible that his/her cells are affected by the viruses, but only after a certain point, when the the usual symptoms are felt and our patient counsiently realizes that he/she got infected (*****, I´ve got the flu!) the infection becomes real?!

What a medical breakthrough...

Perhaps such lines of reasoning would be better placed as

Question- We care about the universe´s existence, but does the universe "cares" about our existence?
Answer- NO!

Disclaimer- many religious people and phylosophers will not agree with the above statement.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Impy, are you sure you're not taking this thread way more seriously than I am? I can't see you, so perhaps you don't exist. :D

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I defined it as perception of time and space, but nothing in time and space is absolute.Well done. You've used the tried and true method of covering one's hindquarters through fitting the data (i.e. definitions) to one's theory rather than fitting one's theory to the data.

If we all make up our own definitions for common words, ...well, you get carp like this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27173).

Now if you could reasonably justify redefining the words as you have, then maybe you'd have something.

[Franko]

Here's an experiment I would like those who claim this to participate in. Let's take Shirley MacLaine, one of the more prominent people who claim this. Let's choose a suicidal person, too, and call him Bill.

Shirley and Bill are standing in a field, a few yards apart. Bill is facing her, she is standing with her back to Bill. Unknown to her, Bill picks up a brick, and throw it at her.

Bill knows that the brick is flying towards her, so the brick exists, because Bill thinks of it, and is aware of it. To Shirley, the brick does not exist, because she doesn't know it does.

Once information is created (like “matter”) it cannot be destroyed, only its form (configuration or arrangement) can be modified.

The Brick initially exist as information (information NOT created by Bill incidentally). When Bill throws the brick at Shirley what has really happened is Bill’s consciousness has created information that conveys [brick thrown at Shirley]. This information is being transmitted to Shirley. It does not become reality for her until She perceives (receives) that information, either by seeing the approaching brick, or feeling the approaching brick as it strikes the back of her head (entering her perception range).

If the brick misses Shirley and She never perceives that it was thrown, then from her POV Bill never threw a brick at her. This is very similar to the notion that although little green leprechauns genuinely exist in reality on a far away planet they do not exist from your point of view until you perceive them (until you perceive evidence for their existence).

Before the brick hits Shirley, Bill shoots himself in the head, and is dead instantly. Bill stops thinking about the brick. Ergo, according to Shirley's claim, the brick ceases to exist.

If Bill wrote a book (information) before he died and then shot himself in the head, is the information in the book destroyed? What makes you believe that all of the information a consciousness created “ceases to exist” when the consciousness “ceases to exist”?

Is Shirley going to be hit by a brick or not?

If Bill transmitted the Information about the thrown brick to a neutral third party (i.e. TLOP or “God”) before he shot himself in the head, then the neutral third party is the one transmitting the information to Shirley – not Bill. Ergo, the existence of Bill is irrelevant to Shirley receiving the information about the incoming brick.

[Marquis de Carabas]

What if Bill shouts "I will throw a brick at you, Shirley," within earshot of Shirley, then throws the brick, then shoots himself in the head quickly enough that he no longer observes the brick?

Shirley has perceived a statment about the brick, but not the brick itself. In the (admittedly short) interval between the reception of the statement and the reception of the brick to the back of her head, what is the status of the brick?

[Antonio Alejandro]

1+1=2 is not an absolute truth
it is a conceptual truth.
it is not absolute because each of the four individual symbols 1, +, =, and 2 cannot be defined until after you made reference to other conceptual-symbols. The number 1 would be meaningless if it is does not have a reference. The number 1 does not have any intrinsic meaning. Its meaningful existence is only relational. This is true of all symbols, and all concepts.
In Eastern Mysticism the reason given to this is because causality is thought-based. The effect, our conditioned existence, the reality in front of us, carries this characteristic.
There will be those that apparently will not understand what it is meant by "our inability to understand any symbol intrinsically", those that feel that this logic is faulty, the challenge would be to provide a sample of unitary logic.

[Franko]

What if Bill shouts "I will throw a brick at you, Shirley," within earshot of Shirley, then throws the brick, then shoots himself in the head quickly enough that he no longer observes the brick?

Shirley has perceived a statement about the brick, but not the brick itself. In the (admittedly short) interval between the reception of the statement and the reception of the brick to the back of her head, what is the status of the brick?

The “brick”, the “gun”, and the “universe” around Bill and Shirley only exist as information projected by the omnipotent Atheist “God” TLOP (The Laws of Physics). When Bill “shouts” out to Shirley what is really happening is Bill is conveying information to TLOP, and then TLOP is relaying that information to Shirley (and back to Bill as well). When Bill “throws” the “brick” all that is really happening is his mind is conveying information to TLOP and then TLOP relays it that information to anyone who is “within range” to perceive it – in this case Shirley.

Bill, Shirley, and TLOP are the only “real” entities (consciousnesses). The gun, the brick, and Bill and Shirley’s physical bodies are nothing but information transmitted by TLOP.

[Marquis de Carabas]

"Nothing in time and space is absolute" is not an absolute truth
it is a conceptual truth
it is not absolute because each of the individual symbols N, o, t, h, i, sod it, you get the idea...

[Marquis de Carabas]

Bill, Shirley, and TLOP are the only “real” entities (consciousnesses). The gun, the brick, and Bill and Shirley’s physical bodies are nothing but information transmitted by TLOP.
TLOP are a conscious entity? Just like Shirley and Bill? Is there any difference between the consciousness of TLOP and those of S&B? If so, what is that difference? If not, why are TLOP necessary to transmit the shout to Shirley?

[ImpyTimpy]

Of course I don't exist. That's because you don't perceive my posts until after you log in here. During that time, the magical pixies actually do all the work. When you read my post I suddenly begin to exist and the pixies are no longer necessary. How do I know this? Because I'm a mystic and mysticism knows more then science so there!

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Impy, are you sure you're not taking this thread way more seriously than I am? I can't see you, so perhaps you don't exist. :D

~~ Paul

[uruk]

Call me dense, but I think all these mystics seem to refuse to believe that the "self " springs forth from the neural processes in the brain.
They believe in a soul which rides around in our bodies like you drive a Yugo. Seems to me like wishfull thinking that the self continues on after death dispite the fact that there is no proof or evidence of this.

Anyhoo, Just because the mind interprets the stimuli from the sensory organs into a view or perception of the universe doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist. The universe has to exist objectively and outside our perception in order to stimulate our sensory organs to produce a perception. And it appeares like semantical masturbation to think that things don't exist untill it comes into our perception, that's just silly and egotistical.

And even if it is true that the "self"or soul drives our bodies around. The "self" still has to percieve the universe by physical means. The universe and the laws of physics which stimulate the
sensory organs, the organs, the neurons which processe the
stimuli into a perception still exsist and are physical.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Am I not perceiving the computer? I require my senses to type onto a computer.

Wow, you're stupid.

Whoa, I see Franko is back, and he's still on my ignore list. :wink:

[CFLarsen]

Antonio Alejandro,

Please answer the question:

Will Shirley be hit by the brick?

Just yes or no, please.

[c4ts]

Gee, I dunno, maybe my computer suddenly entered its existence with a whole bunch of my dad's files including his website already on the hard drive as soon as I perceived it for the first time. Yeah, and the moon landing was faked...

[Ceinwyn]

If Franko and Antonio get together and devise a time/space/graviton machine, does that mean we're in the future, yet still here, but dead. No wait, so that would mean that the fut







this post edited by buki from the future. Or dead. I haven't decided yet.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
1+1=2 is not an absolute truth
it is a conceptual truth.
This is because numbers are abstract concepts, they can be applied to concrete objects (or left abstract... whatever). It's been known for a long long time that numbers are merely concepts (however most would disagree that numbers are "meaningless" until they are applied to a concrete reference source, their numberical value and meaning are already described in their definition). Its never been a mystery to Philosophers or Mathematicians... or anyone who've taken the time out of there life to think about it.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
The “brick”, the “gun”, and the “universe” around Bill and Shirley only exist as information projected by the omnipotent Atheist “God” TLOP (The Laws of Physics).
The brick, the gun, the universe, Bill, and Shirley dont exist as information, they exist concretely in terms of matter and natural phenomena.

Omnipotence is a self-defeating term. God cannot be omnipotent, or at most he couldnt exist outside the realm of logic.

Your definition of Atheist is incorrect. Atheists lack religous beliefs, they have no Gods.

The Laws of Physics are not omnipotent, they are not God.

You dont know much about Physics, do you? (I'd love to read a Physics term paper authored by you, I havent had a good laugh in a while.)

When Bill “shouts” out to Shirley what is really happening is Bill is conveying information to TLOP, and then TLOP is relaying that information to Shirley (and back to Bill as well).
Wrong.

What is really happening is Bill's brain sends chemo-electrical signals down to Bill's vocal cords, this causes his vocal cords to vibrate. When Bill's vocal cord's vibrate, they push against the matter in and around Bill's throat. These vibrations carry through the air (because air, water, and most other surfaces carry vibrations easily), then they enter Shirley's ear. Her eardrum oscillates to same frequency as the vibrations which entered it, the ear is "wired" (for lack of wanting to get techinal about it) to send chemo-electrical signals to her Cerebral Cortex. From there, the signals are "converted" (more lack of technical descriptions) to give her the sensation of sound.

While the Laws of Physics are certainly involved, you're applied description of how they are used was incorrect.

When Bill “throws” the “brick” all that is really happening is his mind is conveying information to TLOP and then TLOP relays it that information to anyone who is “within range” to perceive it – in this case Shirley.

Bill, Shirley, and TLOP are the only “real” entities (consciousnesses). The gun, the brick, and Bill and Shirley’s physical bodies are nothing but information transmitted by TLOP.
Bill, Shirley, the gun, the brick, and everything else which exists in the universe are the only real entities (they exist in terms of matter and physical phenomena).

The Laws of Physics are not conscious, unless you have a grossly insane conception of what the words "Physics" and "Consciousness" mean.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Okay, here's another expiriment:

We take Justine Timberlake and cut him into small pieces.

Then we put him in a blender for about 15 minutes.


Now, this expiriment doesn't really prove anything, but it would be a lot of fun, don't you think?

[Filippo Lippi]

AA = MM?

[Correa Neto]

OK, Bill never shouted, never told anyone about his action, no one saw he throwing the brick (or if someone saw, he/she/it never cared about warning Shirley about it); he threw the brick then died while the brick was on the air, heading towards Shirley. The brick missed Shiley (dammit...). But Shirley saw the brick as it missed her ear by a milimeter...

How come? Shouldn´t the brick have faded in to oblivion? Or the brick was cast in to universe´s framework by Bill´s mind? BTW what about the forgotten question regarding who made the brick? :wink8:

Some people do not really understand whats the deal with the cat inside the box...

[Antonio Alejandro]

Upchurch,
Are you saying that I should maintain my definition on "something" that I don't see, taste, hear, or feel when it is clear that such a definition is species-specific, even possibly personal?
Also, the word, objective reality gets thrown around a lot here. If I were to use the word, objective, in reference to reality, then I would say that the objective realm is unthinkable and absolute because otherwise as soon as I think about something, it becomes personal.
You can, however, clarify your idea of what is objective.

[Antonio Alejandro]

CL Larsen
Shirley will get hit by a brick only, and only if someone is perceiving shirley (herself or others) being hit by a brick. If no one is perceiving the impact, the "event" will remain undefined.
If no one is perceiving the impact, that has the concept of "being hit", the "event" remains undefined.

You can imagine what may have happen...but what you imagine is not what is.

[Franko]

Call me dense, but I think all these [materialists] seem to refuse to believe that the ["matter "] springs forth from the [mental] processes in the [Mind/Soul].
They believe in [magical “free will” powers] which rides around in our bodies like you drive a Yugo. Seems to me like [pessimistic] wishful thinking that the self [ceases to exist] after death despite the fact that there is no proof or evidence of this.

Anyhoo, Just because the mind interprets the [information] from the [Laws of Physics] into a view or perception of the universe doesn't mean the universe [actually] exist [in the same way the mind/perception does]. The [Laws of Physics] have to exist objectively and outside our [universe] in order to [transmit information and] to produce a perception. And it appears like semantical masturbation to think that things [i.e. “the matter”] exists [without] our perception, that's just silly and [speculative].

And even if it is true that the [Laws of Physics] drives our bodies around. The [Laws of Physics] still have to [control] the [Mind] by [non-physical] means. The universe and the laws of physics which [transmit the information to the Mind] which processes [the information] into a perception still exist and are [purely mental].

[Lord Emsworth]

Am I correct in assuming that to perceive something I need my senses?

If that is the case, how do my senses pop into existence, since "nothing exist until after we perceive it"?

[Franko]

L.E.:

Am I correct in assuming that to perceive something I need my senses?

To perceive means to receive information. The perception of the mechanism for receiving that information is referred to as the senses.

If that is the case, how do my senses pop into existence, since "nothing exist until after we perceive it"?

Your mind is the only thing that exists. Your mind consist of three parts – Input (Perception), Output (Expression), and Processing (Thought or Cognition).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


To perceive means to receive information. The perception of the mechanism for receiving that information is referred to as the senses. Didn't really answer his questions about where those senses or information came from, did ya?
Your mind is the only thing that exists. Your mind consist of three parts – Input (Perception), Output (Expression), and Processing (Thought or Cognition). But if the mind is the only thing that exists, where does the input come from?

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Didn't really answer his questions about where those senses or information came from, did ya?

What information are you referring to?

Franko said:
Your mind is the only thing that exists. Your mind consist of three parts – Input (Perception), Output (Expression), and Processing (Thought or Cognition).

Upchurch replied:
But if the mind is the only thing that exists, where does the input come from?

Well there are two choices; you can take your pick:

1) The Inputs are simply the result of Processing and Output (i.e. there are no external inputs to the Mind).

… or …

2) The Inputs are produced by other Minds (i.e. the source of external inputs are other Minds/Souls/Gravitons).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Well there are two choices; you can take your pick: this is assuming that we accept your premise that "mind is the only thing that exists", which I don't. There would actually be a third option.
1) The Inputs are simply the result of Processing and Output (i.e. there are no external inputs to the Mind).

… or …

2) The Inputs are produced by other Minds (i.e. the source of external inputs are other Minds/Souls/Gravitons). ... or ...

3) The Inputs are a combination of those produced by the mind's output and the output of other minds.

The first option is merely solipsism, self-deception, and a dead end. The second option and third options open the question of how information is passed from on mind to the other and why imagined reality is not more flexible to the whims of the minds.

[Franko]

Upchurch:
3) The Inputs are a combination of those produced by the mind's output and the output of other minds.

I would consider this option the same as #2 (a variation of #2).

The first option is merely solipsism …

I agree.

self-deception, and a dead end.

Perhaps a “dead end”, but I don’t see how you can conclusively claim it is self deception without conclusive proof it is self deception, or put another way, to claim that a belief (unconfirmed information) is a fact (confirmed information) is the essence of “self deception”.

The second option and third options open the question of how information is passed from one mind to the other and why imagined reality is not more flexible to the whims of the minds.

I would say that reality is flexible to the whims of the mind, especially to the whims of the Mind of TLOP. Of course if #1 is true then the Thought/Cognition is the Mind (Source) of TLOP.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Okay, here's another expiriment:

We take Justine Timberlake and cut him into small pieces.

Then we put him in a blender for about 15 minutes.


Now, this expiriment doesn't really prove anything, but it would be a lot of fun, don't you think?
That would be fun.

Another experiment:

We take all of Franko's posts, divide them into individual sentences, write each sentence on a separate sheet of paper, put the pieces of paper in a hat, and draw them out to create new Franko posts.

Hypothesis: There would be no substantial difference in cohesion between Franko's "real" posts and our random Franko posts.

(I might actually try this one day when I'm really bored.)

[jan]

It is a well-known fact only a few weird materialists and a-theists doubt any longer that only those things exist that are perceived.

Unfortunately, there remain a few problems. Do perceptions exist? To exist, they must be perceived. I used to think things are perceived, not perceptions, but anyway: let us call a perception of a perception a perception of second degree. Obviously, a perception of second degree must be perceived to exist. I would call a perception of a perception of second degree a perception of third degree. And so on.

Another question is: who is perceiving all those perceptions? And who is perceiving the guy that is perceiving the one that perceives the perceptions? And so on.

Hm, I wonder whether there may be some things that are not perceived.

[Antonio Alejandro]

You are correct, my statement is not absolute, nor did i claim as such.
As soon as think of something, it immediately becomes personal. As soon as I utter something it is an opinion.

[Franko]

M.D.C.:
We take all of Franko's posts, divide them into individual sentences, write each sentence on a separate sheet of paper, put the pieces of paper in a hat, and draw them out to create new Franko posts.

Yes, but according to Materialism/Atheism isn’t that exactly what you believe is happening anyway?

Atoms (“Matter”) randomly bumping around eventually randomly creates a human being who randomly develops language and randomly has a random number of ancestors who eventually make completely random internet posts???

Hypothesis: There would be no substantial difference in cohesion between Franko's "real" posts and our random Franko posts.

Sure. It would be a great way to test the reliability of the Theory of Atheism/Materialism.

[Marquis de Carabas]

As soon as I utter something it is an opinion.
So, it must be your opinion that anything you utter is an opinion, which makes you therefore incapable of uttering a truth or a falsehood? Thus, your position seems to boil down to "Perhaps I cannot be proven right, but, then, no-one can prove me wrong."

[jan]

Originally posted by Franko


Yes, but according to Materialism/Atheism isn’t that exactly what you believe is happening anyway?

Atoms (“Matter”) randomly bumping around eventually randomly creates a human being who randomly develops language and randomly has a random number of ancestors who eventually make completely random internet posts???


I fail to see how anybody ever claimed that.

[Franko]

Jan:
I fail to see how anybody ever claimed that.

Are you claiming that the universe was designed?

I thought Atheism/Materialism was based on the notion that the origin and functioning of the universe was a purely random/stochastic event?

[Marquis de Carabas]

a·the·ism

noun

unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities
from http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=atheism

ma·te·ri·al·ism
noun

1. philosophy theory of the physical: the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions
from http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=materialism

Franko, please note the distinct lack of the word 'random' in those definitions. If you prefer to use definitions of materialism and atheism that are necessarily entirely random, please provide such definitions. Just don't be surprised when no-one else respect them.

edited for grammar: I was lookful for errors, and I found one.

[thaiboxerken]

Franko is a troll extraordinaire. He hates atheists and skeptics to the point where I think he would peform violence upon them. There really is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with him, as he will assign you arguements (build strawmen) and then attack the strawman. He has no idea what reality is and prefers his own version. In essence, he is insane but thinks everyone else is.

[jan]

Originally posted by Franko


Are you claiming that the universe was designed?

I thought Atheism/Materialism was based on the notion that the origin and functioning of the universe was a purely random/stochastic event?

I even don't know what "purely random/stochastic event" should mean. Heard of laws of physics? Adaptive selection? Human intentions?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahweh


You dont know much about Physics, do you? (I'd love to read a Physics term paper authored by you, I havent had a good laugh in a while.)


Yet another poster discover's Franko's mysterious lack of actual writing for someone so... uh... knowledgeable concerning his subject.

[Franko]

MCD:
please note the distinct lack of the word 'random' in those definitions.

So you are claiming that the origin of the laws of physics and the universe itself was NOT a random event? Does that mean you believe the universe was designed?

If you prefer to use definitions of materialism and atheism that are necessarily entirely random, please provide such definitions.

I am merely stating my interpretation/understanding of the theory of Atheism/Materialism, i.e. that the universe and the laws of physics were entirely random – the opposite of designed.

[Ossai]

From a now defunct thread in which you didn't answer.

Franko
Awaiting answers for the following.

If I can make a decision, freewill, then I am not controlled by TLOP.
If I am controlled by TLOP, then I cannot make a decision because TLOP is controlling me.

Example: It’s my fate to run a particular red light with my remote controlled car and run down a girl scout, killing her instantly. Since it’s my fate, how can I stop from running the red light?

From you earlier posts, fate/god – TLOP, controls everything. Again the remote controlled car is impounded while I walk away free and clear.

How can I behave more responsibly, if I’m being controlled by TLOP and the great TLOP conscious doesn’t want me to behave more responsibly? How can I go against the will of god? If I can, then by your definition, I’m supernatural, which would negate TLOP.



Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP.

Essentially states that all existence is physical. So without some sort of meta-physical existence, death is the end.


TLOP controls Atoms, and Atoms (“Matter”) are everything according to You – aren’t they?

I never proposed anything, I’m asking for clarification. Are you proposing some sort of non-physical existence that isn’t controlled by TLOP?

Ossai

[Franko]

Jan:
I even don't know what "purely random/stochastic event" should mean.

Well from the way I’ve heard Atheists talk random (unplanned) is the opposite of designed (planned).

Heard of laws of physics? Adaptive selection? Human intentions?

Yes I have, but we are discussing whether those “objects/entities/properties” were randomly formed or designed.

Do you have an opinion on the subject?

[Marquis de Carabas]

The opposite of random is ordered. The opposite of designed is undesigned. Keep your false dichotomies to yourself.

[Upchurch]

You know, I've been thinking about it and I don't think this argument has been carried far enough. You can't prove materialism without using materialism, but neither can you prove that the mind exists.

I know some will say that they know the mind exists because they have one and/or that they are 100% positive that they "think", but aren't they just taking faith in that fact? How do you show, proof positive, that the mind/spirit/whatever, or anything for that matter, truly exists and isn't just an illusion?

If we're going to reject what we perceive as external stimuli as possible illusion, why shouldn't we also reject what "we" "perceive" as internal stimuli as illusion also? Why the double standard?

[jan]

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms (“Matter”) randomly bumping around eventually randomly creates a human being who randomly develops language and randomly has a random number of ancestors who eventually make completely random internet posts???


I translate:


Atoms (“Matter”) bumping around without being created by a maker creates due to adaptive selection a human being who develops language without being told so by a god and having whatever number of ancestors she has who intenionally makes completely designed internet posts.

[jan]

Originally posted by Upchurch
How do you show, proof positive, that the mind/spirit/whatever, or anything for that matter, truly exists and isn't just an illusion?

It's even worse: I never perceived a mind. By the logic used by some immaterialists, this proves that there is no mind.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jan

It's even worse: I never perceived a mind. By the logic used by some immaterialists, this proves that there is no mind. Touche. Another assumption taken on faith and backed by circular logic.

What is our threshold for acceptance? If there is even an us to have a threshold, that is.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Upchurch
... but neither can you prove that the mind exists....Quoting "that nitwit Hume" as someone called him:
But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement. Our eyes cannot turn in their sockets without varying our perceptions. Our thought is still more variable than our sight; and all our other senses and faculties contribute to this change; nor is there any single power of the soul, which remains unalterably the same, perhaps for one moment. The mind is a .kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively make their appearance; pass, re-pass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations. There is properly no simplicity in it at one time, nor identity in different; whatever natural propension we may have to imagine that simplicity and identity. The comparison of the theatre must not mislead us. They are the successive perceptions only, that constitute the mind; nor have we the most distant notion of the place, where these scenes are represented, or of the materials, of which it is composed.from A Treatise of Human Nature.

"Never mind, no matter"

[Antonio Alejandro]

Your senses come into existence immediately after you define (conceptualize) senses. What is before then, is undefined.
Understand, also, that concepts such as "come from", "pop into existence" are also definitions.
In Eastern Mysticsm, it is believed that Mind is absolute and non-local, and that the direction of thought is what creates your conditions which define your reality. Your physical body, your brain, eyes, ears, skin, nose are all the result of what you have thought in the past. This is a belief.

[Franko]

MCD:
The opposite of random is ordered.
The opposite of designed is undesigned.

So you are saying there is no relationship between:

ORDER and DESIGN

…and …

RANDOM and UNDESIGNED

???

Keep your false dichotomies to yourself.

If you are uninterested in hearing opinions which differ from your own perhaps you should exercise a little self-control and not read my post?

[Franko]

Upchurch:
You know, I've been thinking about it and I don't think this argument has been carried far enough. You can't prove materialism without using materialism, but neither can you prove that the mind exists.

Yes, but you can directly observe (or experience) mind, the same cannot be said for “the matter”.

I know some will say that they know the mind exists because they have one and/or that they are 100% positive that they "think", but aren't they just taking faith in that fact?

Sure, but I still don’t see how you can say that it is more reasonable to assume “matter” than “mind”.

Mind you experience directly. “Matter” is only experienced indirectly via the Mind. To give “matter” precedence over mind seems like putting the cart in front of the horse.

How do you show, proof positive, that the mind/spirit/whatever, or anything for that matter, truly exists and isn't just an illusion?

Well, I would say that it is far more parsimonious and consistent to believe that the “matter” is an illusion than to claim that the mind is the illusion.

If Mind is truly an illusion, then that would seem to throw all observation into doubt.

If we're going to reject what we perceive as external stimuli as possible illusion, why shouldn't we also reject what "we" "perceive" as internal stimuli as illusion also? Why the double standard?

What double standard? I have already conceded that it is possible the external information is an illusion. As for you own internal information, I am unable to comment.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


Yes, but you can directly observe (or experience) mindCan you? Do you not experience through perception? Are you not perceiving that you are thinking? How do you not know that "you" are merely being told through your senses that "you are thinking and experiencing"?
Sure, but I still don’t see how you can say that it is more reasonable to assume “matter” than “mind”.I'm not. I continuing the argument to its end. You've argued that it is not reasonable to assume matter because we experience it through our senses, which may be a lie. I'm extending that argument further by saying, by this logic, it is not reasonable to assume mind because we also experience it through our senses, which may also be a lie. At what point to you exept what you're senses tell you?
Mind you experience directly."You" who? How do you experience anything directly, if not through your perceptions? How do you know what you are experiencing is real at all?
If Mind is truly an illusion, then that would seem to throw all observation into doubt.Yes. This is what I'm asking. If any observation is in doubt, why shouldn't all observation be in doubt? How do you rationally draw the dividing line between, "I will believe these observations" and "I will not believe these observations"?
What double standard? I have already conceded that it is possible the external information is an illusion. As for you own internal information, I am unable to comment. Then why do you continue to insist there is a "mind" when it would be more simple that nothing exists at all?

[Marquis de Carabas]

My dearest Franko,

I read your posts because you so amuse me. We went over this, months ago.

I never said there is 'no relationship' between 'ORDER and DESIGN' nor 'RANDOM and UNDESIGNED.' Neither do I agree that they are strictly synonymous, however. I can observe something which is ordered and not immediately leap to the conclusion that it is designed. Order is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Design. Random and undesgined are the antonyms of order and designed, respectively.

All designed entities are ordered.
This entity is ordered.
Therefore, it is designed.

See the problem?

[uruk]

Nice attempt at responding to me post. Just replace the words
with your own without showing any proof or explination of your own views. How typical of someone fighting with no ammunition.
Your just hoping gall will carry you through the ounslaught.

O.K. let's revisit the Shirley case. What if a meteorite hits Shirly in the head while she is unaware. No Bill or other observer to manifest the meteor. We know that Shirley was hit because
we happen upon the grisly scene after the event. If there was noone around to manifest the meteorite and Shirley was unaware
, how did the meteor manifest?

And while were at it what evidence or proof do you have to support your beliefs. What is the process which brings matter into being from perception. Does perception create the matter
or does and if it does, how do you explain unexpected events
or systems which do not behave as you wish to expect them to?

And, where does this soul exist? how does it interact with the physical realm. you claim that the "TLOP" exist. where does it
it exist? and if the "TLOP" exists in some realm , well wouldn,t that "realm" be existance or "reality" which exist outside the mind.

And what is the process by which the outputs or inputs reach or exit the mind? How do the minds interact with each other?

If the minds are separate, doesn't the interaction from a separate mind count as an external source.

You said that once matter is created it cannot be destroyed.
if that "created" matter interacts with you , doesn't that count as an external interaction.

and why can't i create a unicorn by percieving it into existance.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
CL Larsen
Shirley will get hit by a brick only, and only if someone is perceiving shirley (herself or others) being hit by a brick. If no one is perceiving the impact, the "event" will remain undefined.
If no one is perceiving the impact, that has the concept of "being hit", the "event" remains undefined.

Sorry, your explanation does not hold water. Let's say that you go there later, to discover Shirley dead, her head smashed by a brick.

Who killed Shirley? A, Bill, by throwing the brick? Or B, you, who perceived the brick in Shirley's head?

If you choose A, then your claim is wrong. If you choose B, then you are saying that you can - without perceiving it - perceive the consequences of the actions of another person, even though that person is dead. Which is self-contradictory.

(BTW: This "undefined" state of things implies that nothing happens if humans do not perceive it. This is empirically shown to be false. Trees do fall in the wood, without people perceiving it.)

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
You can imagine what may have happen...but what you imagine is not what is.

Exactly. Try to apply that to your own thinking.

[Franko]

you can directly observe (or experience) mind .

Upchurch:
Can you? Do you not experience through perception? Are you not perceiving that you are thinking? How do you not know that "you" are merely being told through your senses that "you are thinking and experiencing"?

You are still trying to fit square-Materialism into a round-hole. Here is how I hear your question:

Do you not receive information through receiving information? Are you not receiving information (Inputs) that you are Processing? How do you not know that “you” are not merely receiving information (Inputs) that (tell you) you are Processing (Thinking)?

Do you not receive information through receiving information?: Yes

Are you not receiving information (Inputs) that you are Processing?: Yes

How do you not know that “you” are not merely receiving information that you are Processing (Thinking)?: I don’t, but you were the one who claimed that Solipsism was a “dead end”.

I'm not. I continuing the argument to its end. You've argued that it is not reasonable to assume matter because we experience it through our senses, which may be a lie. I'm extending that argument further by saying, by this logic, it is not reasonable to assume mind because we also experience it through our senses, which may also be a lie. At what point to you accept what you're senses tell you?

At the point the information becomes logically consistent (at the point you recognize a pattern (or mechanism) to the information).

"You" who? How do you experience anything directly, if not through your perceptions? How do you know what you are experiencing is real at all?

Well, it sounds like you have shifted the topic and are talking about something different than what I am discussing.

I am discussing the Information. The receipt of Information is the experience. What you seem to be asking is How do you receive information directly if not by receiving information? How do you know the information you receive is “real” at all?

I would say that you know it is information because you received it. Whether or not it came from an external source is another issue.

Yes. This is what I'm asking. If any observation is in doubt, why shouldn't all observation be in doubt? How do you rationally draw the dividing line between, "I will believe these observations" and "I will not believe these observations"?

I suspect I use the same criteria as everyone -- logical consistency. Observations (Information) who’s patterns conform to what is expected within a given system confirm the validity of that system. Observations (Information) who’s patterns contradict what is expected by a given system, contradict that system.

When a contradiction is perceived it is the result of either A) a faulty perception (Input), or B) a faulty system (Theory (Processing or Cognition)).

why do you continue to insist there is a "mind" when it would be more simple that nothing exists at all?

Because it is patently obvious to the person reading this post that something exists.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
Here is how I hear your question:When you hear what I said rather than what you choose to hear, you can respond here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28392).
Because it is patently obvious to the person reading this post that something exists. But you have no evidence that that "something" exists nor that it is the "mind"? Interesting.

[Franko]

MCD:
I never said there is 'no relationship' between 'ORDER and DESIGN' nor 'RANDOM and UNDESIGNED.'

Yes, I have noticed that you Atheists are very good at not saying anything.

But you still haven’t answered my question … Was the origin of the universe and The Laws of Physics RANDOM (UNDESIGNED/UNPLANNED) or ORDERED (DESIGNED/PLANNED)?

Do you consider our posts (yours and mine) more or less RANDOM than the formation of the universe and the laws of physics? Please explain your answer.

Neither do I agree that they [Random and Designed] are strictly synonymous, however. I can observe something which is ordered and not immediately leap to the conclusion that it is designed.

Of course, that is what makes you an Atheist.

Order is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Design.

Really? What else is required?

Random and undesgined are the antonyms of order and designed, respectively.

yeah, you are repeating yourself again.

The opposite of random is ordered.
The opposite of designed is undesigned.

But you still haven’t answered my simple question regarding your own beliefs?

Well from the way I’ve heard Atheists talk random (unplanned) is the opposite of designed (planned).

we are discussing whether those “objects/entities/properties” [the universe/consciousness/ and TLOP] were randomly formed or designed.

Do you have an opinion on the subject?

All designed entities are ordered.
This entity is ordered.
Therefore, it is designed.

See the problem?

No.

Perhaps you can make your own point?

[Franko]

Upchurch, are you running out of arguments? That posts is rather non-responsive.

But I saw it coming …

Upchurch:
But you have no evidence that that "something" exists nor that it is the "mind"?

No actually the fact that I am a figment of the Solipsist’s imagination is all the proof/evidence that I need for the existence of Mind.

How does the Solipsist prove that the “matter” is real again?

… Ohhh that’s right – faith in/and wishful thinking!

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Your senses come into existence immediately after you define (conceptualize) senses. What is before then, is undefined.

Simply because something is undefined, to, say, my mind, doesn't really mean it doesn't exist. If my senses didn't exist how could I receive information to define something.

And at least somewhere you have to make a start with defining: you need information. And how is that information delivered? By something that has not yet been defined. And althought that something is not yet defined, it works and delivers so that your mind can eventually perceive.


Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Understand, also, that concepts such as "come from", "pop into existence" are also definitions.
In Eastern Mysticsm, it is believed that Mind is absolute and non-local, and that the direction of thought is what creates your conditions which define your reality. Your physical body, your brain, eyes, ears, skin, nose are all the result of what you have thought in the past. This is a belief.

What the hell do 'absolute' and 'non-local' mean in this context?

I like the last sentence, however.

[Franko]

LE:
Simply because something is undefined, to, say, my mind, doesn't really mean it doesn't exist. If my senses didn't exist how could I receive information to define something.

Does your mind ever create something internally? Do you ever imagine anything in your head without external input (imagination)?

And at least somewhere you have to make a start with defining: you need information. And how is that information delivered?

By God or Fate (or TLOP, if you prefer).

By something that has not yet been defined.

Only if TLOP (or other minds) consider themselves similarly undefined.

And although that something is not yet defined, it works and delivers so that your mind can eventually perceive.

Yep, and once your mind has defined things it can start spreading those definitions to others.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch, are you running out of arguments? That posts is rather non-responsive. I was hoping to not derail the thread.
At what point to you accept what you're senses tell you?At the point the information becomes logically consistentThen please share how matter is logically inconsistent.
(at the point you recognize a pattern (or mechanism) to the information)I recognize a pattern and mechanism to matter/energy and spacetime. Are you saying I should trust that it is there?
I am discussing the Information. The receipt of Information is the experience. What you seem to be asking is How do you receive information directly if not by receiving information? How do you know the information you receive is “real” at all?Actually, what I'm asking, in context of your previous posts, is: How do you know that what you are thinking (Mind's Output due to its Processing) is truly the Output of the Mind or if it is, in fact, actually more Input and that there is no actual Processing or Output? In other words, as I've asked before, how do you know the mind exists?
I would say that you know it is information because you received it. Whether or not it came from an external source is another issueBut it is the critical issue. If your thoughts (Output) and experience is actually input, who is to say you have a mind at all?

I place my hand on the desk in front of me and I get the input of how it feels. It's texture, temperature, and firmness. I look at it and I get the input of it's color and shape. I smell it and I get the input of how it smells. I lick it and I get input of how it tastes. etc. Now I have an idea, a conception of the desk. But do I have this conception or has it and the rest of the previous senses been fed to me? When I hear in my mind that "this is a desk", is it my mind or just another sense that is being fed illusionary input from another source?
Observations (Information) who’s patterns conform to what is expected within a given system confirm the validity of that system. Observations (Information) who’s patterns contradict what is expected by a given system, contradict that system. This is as applicable to the physical world as it is to the immaterial or spiritual one. Why do you select one and reject the other? This explination doesn't differentiate the two.why do you continue to insist there is a "mind" when it would be more simple that nothing exists at all?
Because it is patently obvious to the person reading this post that something exists.How is it patently obvious that something exists? Because you "hear" your thoughts? "See" your memories? "Feel" your emotions? How are these senses different from the physical kind? How are these senses tamper proof?
How does the Solipsist prove that the “matter” is real again?

… Ohhh that’s right – faith in/and wishful thinking! How do you prove that the "mind" is real? The exact same way.

[Yahweh]

I only wish I had more time during my day responding to Franko posts...

Oh well, time to prove them wrong (again) one by one... what a truely constructive application of my time...

[Franko]

Upchurch:
please share how matter is logically inconsistent.

It’s not so much that it is inconsistent, but “matter” is completely unnecessary to the scheme as the primal casual agent – it’s unparsimonious.

Ergo it is illogical to assert that “matter” is necessary as the primal casual agent, and an illogical assertion is a logical inconsistency.

Put another way, the “matter” is as relevant to explaining the universe as “aether” is relevant to explaining the Theory of Relativity.

I recognize a pattern and mechanism to matter/energy and spacetime. Are you saying I should trust that it is there?

Sure, how else do you judge? The question really is, have you come up with the best equation, or is there another simplified version of the equation that better fits with the observations?

Actually, what I'm asking, in context of your previous posts, is: How do you know that what you are thinking (Mind's Output due to its Processing) is truly the Output of the Mind or if it is, in fact, actually more Input and that there is no actual Processing or Output? In other words, as I've asked before, how do you know the mind exists?

Well, assume that it doesn’t.

Who or what is having this conversation then? Who or what is receiving the information? Just TLOP?

Doesn’t that leave us in the same situation?

Franko:
I would say that you know it is information because you received it. Whether or not it came from an external source is another issue.

Upchurch:
But it is the critical issue. If your thoughts (Output) and experience is actually input, who is to say you have a mind at all?

So if mind doesn’t exist, then what is having this experience? TLOP? All you seem to be doing is transferring the problem elsewhere.

I place my hand on the desk in front of me and I get the input of how it feels. It's texture, temperature, and firmness. I look at it and I get the input of it's color and shape. I smell it and I get the input of how it smells. I lick it and I get input of how it tastes. etc. Now I have an idea, a conception of the desk. But do I have this conception or has it and the rest of the previous senses been fed to me? When I hear in my mind that "this is a desk", is it my mind or just another sense that is being fed illusionary input from another source?

I would classify all incoming information as INPUTS (Perception), all outgoing information as OUTPUTS (Expression (Speech, action)), and all internal manipulation of information as PROCESSING (Cognition).

Cognition relies on Memory. Memory is an internal source of inputs (i.e. not requiring the senses), but then again, for all you know all inputs originate internally. Put another way Cognition is dependent on Memory and memory is defined as the perception of internally contained information. Memory is a subclass of Inputs.

Franko:
Observations (Information) who’s patterns conform to what is expected within a given system confirm the validity of that system. Observations (Information) who’s patterns contradict what is expected by a given system, contradict that system.

Upchurch:
This is as applicable to the physical world as it is to the immaterial or spiritual one. Why do you select one and reject the other? This explanation doesn't differentiate the two.

Keep in mind Upchurch, that I do not believe in the supernatural, so for me there is not much difference between what you call “the physical world” and what you call “the spiritual world”.

How is it patently obvious that something exists? Because you "hear" your thoughts? "See" your memories? "Feel" your emotions? How are these senses different from the physical kind? How are these senses tamper proof?

I am not saying that they are tamper proof, all I am claiming is that perception is your only source of Inputs (information), and Cognition is your only method for Processing that information and determining if it is consistent with your previous information (ideas, notions, and beliefs). If the incoming information has been tampered with, then either there is a mechanism for you to perceive this, or you cannot, and if you cannot perceive the tampering or detect it in any way, then from your POV its exactly the same as if the information is not being tampered with.

How do you prove that the "mind" is real? The exact same way.

If you honestly believe that your mind (which you have directly experienced) is less real than the “matter” (which you have not directly experienced) then how is that anything different than claiming that Solipsism is true?

If the “matter” is more real than You are then isn’t that the same as saying your post is more real than the mind that wrote it?

[Antonio Alejandro]

CFLarsen
You are using reason to determine the course of event, yet you have not demontrated how this reasoning is non-conceptual (i.e. absolute and impersonal). Yet it is exceedingly simple to show how it is conceptual and personal.
You are also holding on to the idea that the brick disappears when undefined. If I state that the unperceived brick disappears as it is flying thru the air or when it is hitting her, I will also be stating that the unperceived brick can also have existence.
In the unperceived "event" there is no time, there is no space, there is no mass or motion. All of these things are known by measurements, they are not intrinsic. The meaning of undefined is not the same as existence.

[jan]

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch, are you running out of arguments? That posts is rather non-responsive.

But I saw it coming …


"You have not replied within 12 minutes. You are defeated. All your claims are belong to us."

[Antonio Alejandro]

you are essencially saying that there are concepts before there is anyone to think about them. Do you believe that existence is not a concept?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Call me dense, but I think all these [materialists] seem to refuse to believe that the ["matter "] springs forth from the [mental] processes in the [Mind/Soul].
Fine then, you're dense.

Matter does not spring forth from mental processes, that would be a violation of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, as well as completely absurd at its very root.

They believe in [magical “free will” powers] which rides around in our bodies like you drive a Yugo.
You're definition of free will is incorrect. Free will is the ability to choose at one's own accord.

You're concept of free-will is ill-concieved, you described it as "rides around in our bodies" suggesting "free-will" exists concretely. That is incorrect, free will is an abstract concept to describe the ability to choose at ones own discretion.

Seems to me like [pessimistic] wishful thinking that the self [ceases to exist] after death despite the fact that there is no proof or evidence of this.
Arguement from ignorance.

Ignorant arguement (that's one I made up), you cannot assert that a belief is wrong simply because it appears pessimistic.

Anyhoo, Just because the mind interprets the [information] from the [Laws of Physics] into a view or perception of the universe doesn't mean the universe [actually] exist [in the same way the mind/perception does].
Style note: You're use of brackets is a bit confusing.

You touched a bit on Problems Of Philosophy 101: We cannot leap out of our 1rst person frame of reference (which is my favorite frame of reference, by the way) to observe reality. However, our brain and senses work symbiotically, they've evolved to become "better", it is reasonable to assume your perception of reality is an accurate one (assuming you are physically and mentally healthy). It is reasonable to assume the plants I see on my desk are actually there.

The [Laws of Physics] have to exist objectively and outside our [universe] in order to [transmit information and] to produce a perception.
Upon reading that, I feel a slight tingling inside my brain... sounds like crackling or popping...

The Laws Physics do not exist objectively, they describe things which exist objectively (including matter, interactions between matter, and physical phenomena such as gravity). That's why its called "the study of interactions between matter and physical phenomena".

And it appears like semantical masturbation to think that things [i.e. “the matter”] exists [without] our perception, that's just silly and [speculative].
I think you were just looking for a reason to use the word "masturbation"...

And no, it is not a silly idea that matter exists without perception of it.

And no, (if I understand what you are saying correctly) it is not a question of semantics.

And even if it is true that the [Laws of Physics] drives our bodies around. The [Laws of Physics] still have to [control] the [Mind] by [non-physical] means.
You're concept of Physics is incorrect, physics is a science, it does not control or drive our bodies, it describes how and why they work.

The universe and the laws of physics which [transmit the information to the Mind] which processes [the information] into a perception still exist and are [purely mental].
Style note: Your superflourous use of brackets is confusing.

Your reasoning is flawed, the universe does not transmit information to the mind. Humans interpret stimuli (usually in forms of light, sound, touch, smell, and taste) from the evironment around us, the stimuli are not fed into humans.

[jan]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
CFLarsen
You are using reason to determine the course of event, yet you have not demontrated how this reasoning is non-conceptual (i.e. absolute and impersonal). Yet it is exceedingly simple to show how it is conceptual and personal.
You are also holding on to the idea that the brick disappears when undefined. If I state that the unperceived brick disappears as it is flying thru the air or when it is hitting her, I will also be stating that the unperceived brick can also have existence.
In the unperceived "event" there is no time, there is no space, there is no mass or motion. All of these things are known by measurements, they are not intrinsic. The meaning of undefined is not the same as existence.

You mean, Bill throws the brick, kills himself, and may Shirley gets hit by a brick, maybe not hit at all, maybe hit by something else, since it is undefined? Bill throws a brick, and Shirley gets hit by a gold bar?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
you are essencially saying that there are concepts before there is anyone to think about them. Do you believe that existence is not a concept?
Concepts are abstract, they do not exist concretely, your question is inherently flawed.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Yes, but you can directly observe (or experience) mind, the same cannot be said for “the matter”.
Mind: The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination; The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.

If that is the definition you are using, then yes, you can and do experience consciousness (or mind).

Mind originates from the brain, the brain is made of matter. Yes, its reasonable to say you can directly observe matter.


--------------------------------------------------
I know some will say that they know the mind exists because they have one and/or that they are 100% positive that they "think", but aren't they just taking faith in that fact?
--------------------------------------------------
Sure, but I still don’t see how you can say that it is more reasonable to assume “matter” than “mind”.
Sure, but I still dont see how this is in any way related to Upchurch's above comment.

(By the way UpChurch, "I am conscious/I have a mind" is not a statement of faith, I wouldnt be able to think it without being conscious.)

Mind you experience directly. “Matter” is only experienced indirectly via the Mind. To give “matter” precedence over mind seems like putting the cart in front of the horse.
Consciousness originates from the brain which is made of matter, you're analogy is flawed.

Well, I would say that it is far more parsimonious and consistent to believe that the “matter” is an illusion than to claim that the mind is the illusion.
Your defintion of "parsimonious" is incorrect, that makes your assumption of matter being an illusion completely unfounded.

If Mind is truly an illusion, then that would seem to throw all observation into doubt.
I wouldnt see how "mind" is an illusion.

What double standard? I have already conceded that it is possible the external information is an illusion. As for you own internal information, I am unable to comment.
I dont know what you mean by information, unless you are using it as a transposition of "stimuli". In that case, assuming external stimuli is an illusion would be absurd.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
You are still trying to fit square-Materialism into a round-hole. Here is how I hear your question:

Do you not receive information through receiving information? Are you not receiving information (Inputs) that you are Processing? How do you not know that “you” are not merely receiving information (Inputs) that (tell you) you are Processing (Thinking)?

Do you not receive information through receiving information?: [b] Yes

Are you not receiving information (Inputs) that you are Processing?: Yes

How do you not know that “you” are not merely receiving information that you are Processing (Thinking)?: I don’t, but you were the one who claimed that Solipsism was a “dead end”.
I'm going to explain something to you as I already have: To explain something in terms of God is to explain exactly NOTHING (Source: Plato). To explain something in terms of Solipsism is to explain exactly NOTHING (Source: Yahweh).

Solipsism is defined as "a Philosophical theory which states that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified". This makes Solipsism a form a skepticism. But as I said before, it explains exactly nothing, therefore Solipsism is an irrational form of skepticism. Your assertion that matter is only an illusion is completly unfounded and in fact, irrational. Solipsism is the square peg trying to fit through the round whole.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

It’s not so much that it is inconsistent, but “matter” is completely unnecessary to the scheme as the primal casual agent – it’s unparsimonious. But "mind" is unnecessary as well. Wouldn't it be even more simple, more parsimonious if there were nothing at all, not even mind? You've not justified why matter is discardable but the mind is not.
Sure, how else do you judge? The question really is, have you come up with the best equation, or is there another simplified version of the equation that better fits with the observations?
Well, assume that it doesn’t.

Who or what is having this conversation then? Who or what is receiving the information? Just TLOP?

Doesn’t that leave us in the same situation?In other words, it's a dead end? ;) :D

If there is no mind then I cannot tell you (1) because I don't exist to tell you and (2) there is no you to tell. All this would be merely an illusion. For who or what's benefit would beyond knowing.
So if mind doesn’t exist, then what is having this experience? TLOP? All you seem to be doing is transferring the problem elsewhere. Isn't this precisely what you do with your solipsism and "figment of your imagination" arguments? When you ask me to prove that I'm not the only mind in the universe, I ask you prove that the mind (mine or anyone elses) exists at all.

I merely taking your reasoning to it's conclusion where I am skeptical of not only the reality represented by my senses but of the reality represented by my internal senses as well. Why reject one, but not the other?
I would classify all incoming information as INPUTS (Perception), all outgoing information as OUTPUTS (Expression (Speech, action)), and all internal manipulation of information as PROCESSING (Cognition). Incoming from and outgoing to where? The physical world? How do you know that exists? When you express, speak or act, where are you doing all this? If "you" are processing information, where are you doing that and how do you know for sure?
Cognition relies on Memory. Memory is an internal source of inputs (i.e. not requiring the senses), but then again, for all you know all inputs originate internally.Or, for all you know, all the inputs originate externally. How do you know? How can you differentiate? If you're looking for logical consistancy, wouldn't you expect that, if you were generating it all yourself, you would make it logically consistant? If all inputs were external, wouldn't you expect that you could be made to believe that the inputs are logically consistant?

How do you know anything is true at all?
Keep in mind Upchurch, that I do not believe in the supernatural, so for me there is not much difference between what you call “the physical world” and what you call “the spiritual world”.There might be others who consider what you consider to be "The Mind" to be supernatural. How do you refute them and assert that "The Mind" isn't supernatural? You've still not distinguished the differentiator between why you trust your "internal" senses but not your "external" senses.
If the incoming information has been tampered with, then either there is a mechanism for you to perceive this, or you cannot, and if you cannot perceive the tampering or detect it in any way, then from your POV its exactly the same as if the information is not being tampered with. Then you don't know whether your incoming information has been tampered with or not? Or even if your "thoughts" aren't just fabricated inputs? Then why do you claim the "mind" is real? Blind faith in your belief system?
If you honestly believe that your mind (which you have directly experienced) is less real than the “matter” (which you have not directly experienced) then how is that anything different than claiming that Solipsism is true?I'm not saying anything about matter being more or less real than Mind. I'm saying that if you reject the reality of your perception of one, how can you not reject the reality of your perception of the other? Why be critical of one perception but accept the other with no evidence whatsoever? That is the double standard.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
It’s not so much that it is inconsistent, but “matter” is completely unnecessary to the scheme as the primal casual agent – it’s unparsimonious.
Your definition of unparsimonious is incorrect.

Furthermore, mind is unnecessary to exist for reality or the universe to exist.

Ergo it is illogical to assert that “matter” is necessary as the primal casual agent, and an illogical assertion is a logical inconsistency.
Without matter, there would be no mind. Your ergo is self-contradictory.

Put another way, the “matter” is as relevant to explaining the universe as “aether” is relevant to explaining the Theory of Relativity.
Aether is completely unnecessary to describe GR, however matter and energy is completely necessary to explain the universe.

You might as well have said something along the lines of:
Respiration is about as relevant to describe breathing as the color red is relevant to describe mathematics.

Do you understand what a false analogy is?


--------------------------------------------------
I recognize a pattern and mechanism to matter/energy and spacetime. Are you saying I should trust that it is there?
--------------------------------------------------
Sure, how else do you judge? The question really is, have you come up with the best equation, or is there another simplified version of the equation that better fits with the observations?
GR and SR are pretty good at describing interactions between matter in terms of space time, at the quantum level, and also at the cosmic level. Newtonian Physics are good at describing macrophysical interactions between objects.


--------------------------------------------------
Actually, what I'm asking, in context of your previous posts, is: How do you know that what you are thinking (Mind's Output due to its Processing) is truly the Output of the Mind or if it is, in fact, actually more Input and that there is no actual Processing or Output? In other words, as I've asked before, how do you know the mind exists?
--------------------------------------------------
Well, assume that it doesn’t.
I can play along but I dont accept Nihilism as any means of reasoning.

Who or what is having this conversation then? Who or what is receiving the information? Just TLOP?
Your defintion that Physics is sentient is entirely and absolutely incorrect.

Consciousness is not necessary for anything in the universe to exist. Furthermore, the same physics would apply to the matter--wait, I'm supposed to be imagining matter doesnt exist... in that case, the illusion of physics would still make the illusion of matter behave in the same way (illusionarily speaking).

Humans are not just a big chain of chemical reactions, otherwise there would be no consciousness and I would be completely unaware that I am typing this. I am aware that I am typing it.

Doesn’t that leave us in the same situation?
*drools*
I dont know what that means.

So if mind doesn’t exist, then what is having this experience? TLOP? All you seem to be doing is transferring the problem elsewhere.

I would classify all incoming information as INPUTS (Perception), all outgoing information as OUTPUTS (Expression (Speech, action)), and all internal manipulation of information as PROCESSING (Cognition).
Although those definitions are rather vague and ambigious, they are acceptable for the time being.

Cognition relies on Memory. Memory is an internal source of inputs (i.e. not requiring the senses), but then again, for all you know all inputs originate internally. Put another way Cognition is dependent on Memory and memory is defined as the perception of internally contained information. Memory is a subclass of Inputs.
Memory is stored in coded RNA sequences in the part of the brain where memory is stored (I forgot the scientific term for it, I'll remember it later...), the sequences are reliant on a combination neural processing (cognition) and perception. You're hierarchy description of memory was incorrect.

"Inputs origination internally", well, perception is processed inside the brain, but conscious perception of the external world is reliant on external stimuli.

Keep in mind Upchurch, that I do not believe in the supernatural, so for me there is not much difference between what you call “the physical world” and what you call “the spiritual world”.
Supernatural is defined as "Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces; occuring outside description of scientific explanation". There is a huge difference between the natural world and the spiritual world, your comment is self-defeating.

I am not saying that they are tamper proof, all I am claiming is that perception is your only source of Inputs (information), and Cognition is your only method for Processing that information and determining if it is consistent with your previous information (ideas, notions, and beliefs). If the incoming information has been tampered with, then either there is a mechanism for you to perceive this, or you cannot, and if you cannot perceive the tampering or detect it in any way, then from your POV its exactly the same as if the information is not being tampered with.
I'll describe something to you:
I wear glasses, I have terrible eyesight. In my left eye, I'm pushing about 70. In the right eye, It's about 80. Nothing is in focus beyond the distance of my hand, I wouldnt be able to read my computer monitor without my glasses. Do the glasses tamper my with perception, or is everything really blurry in objective reality?

The answer: The glasses correct my vision, nothing is blurry in objective reality.

If you honestly believe that your mind (which you have directly experienced) is less real than the “matter” (which you have not directly experienced) then how is that anything different than claiming that Solipsism is true?
Irrelevant conclusion.

If the “matter” is more real than You are then isn’t that the same as saying your post is more real than the mind that wrote it?
False analogy.

[uruk]

A saying comes to mind when ever I read a Franko Post.

"If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, then baffle them with Bullsh!t"

Like I said, he's fighting with no ammunition, so he has to make
everything up as he goes along. Not once has he ever backed anything up he said with evidence or proof or directly answered any questions posed to him. He invents rebutals by pourposly missinterpreting twisting questions posed to him and evasion.

He just argues for the sake of argument.

[ImpyTimpy]

Ok, so far we've got two different things happening here. First of all, we have the screwed up argument of

Atoms obey TLOP
You are made of Atoms
Therefore you Obey TLOP

Which can easily be shown to be a fallacy (for uninitiated, this is a fallacy of composition) by simply changing it around to:

Atoms are invisible
You are made of atoms
Therefore you are invisible.

Basically what applies to a singular object does not necessarily apply to a whole made of those objects.

Second thing is that if we don't perceive it, it does not exist or something. The author of this revolutionary concept can't seem to explain it very well himself/herself (claiming it's all to do with mysticism and we should just look it up ourselves). As others have pointed out, that's just a load of steaming hors****t. The quickest proof is event that have occurred previous to the existence of anyone capable of perceiving them - or events that have occurred outside of perception.. Take a look at the stars, the event to produce the light has occurred in the past. By the author's logic, the event can not exist because nobody was there to perceive it. However, the event clearly exists. What does this mean? Two things. One, the originator of the idea is a moron. Two, events exist and occurr whether you're aware of them or not.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by uruk
A saying comes to mind when ever I read a Franko Post.

"If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, then baffle them with Bullsh!t"

Like I said, he's fighting with no ammunition, so he has to make
everything up as he goes along. Not once has he ever backed anything up he said with evidence or proof or directly answered any questions posed to him. He invents rebutals by pourposly missinterpreting twisting questions posed to him and evasion.

He just argues for the sake of argument.
Well in that case, I think I'll argue just to embarass him. Eventually, he'll give up. It's really hard to defeat science with philosophy, it get's especially harder when your philosophy is illogic.

My favorite philosophy: Leave Philosophy out of science.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Which can easily be shown to be a fallacy (for uninitiated, this is a fallacy of composition) by simply changing it around to:

Atoms are invisible
You are made of atoms
Therefore you are invisible.
This is the same reasoning used by creationists when they refused to believe epidemics were not devinely inspired.

Try to imagine someone saying this:
"I dont believe in germs. You say they are all over the place, they cover everysquare millimeter of my skin, but I cant even see them?! So you believe these tiny little animals called "germs" are all over the place but we cant even see them, yet they are making me sick..."

Basically what applies to a singular object does not necessarily apply to a whole made of those objects.

Second thing is that if we don't perceive it, it does not exist or something. The author of this revolutionary concept can't seem to explain it very well himself/herself (claiming it's all to do with mysticism and we should just look it up ourselves).
I usually like to respond with "Yeah, we've left the 19th century behind... oh, I hate to burst your bubble, but maggots dont spontaneously generate from meat either... hope I havent spoiled your day".

As others have pointed out, that's just a load of steaming hors****t. The quickest proof is event that have occurred previous to the existence of anyone capable of perceiving them - or events that have occurred outside of perception.. Take a look at the stars, the event to produce the light has occurred in the past. By the author's logic, the event can not exist because nobody was there to perceive it. However, the event clearly exists. What does this mean? Two things. One, the originator of the idea is a moron. Two, events exist and occurr whether you're aware of them or not.
Well said.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Ok, so far we've got two different things happening here. First of all, we have the screwed up argument of

Atoms obey TLOP
You are made of Atoms
Therefore you Obey TLOP



Please, please, please tell me we don't have to go through all of that "TLOP" horsecrap again. Please, Franko, don't!!! I can't another round of hearing that same crud over and over again.

[Dorian Gray]

Provided Bill is a good shot, the brick will hit Shirley.

The brick doesn't exist until she perceives it. She perceives it when it hits her, and then it exists. It disturbs the air around her head, etc.

To make it simpler, throw a brick straight up, with earplugs in, then as soon as you have thrown it, pull a blindfold over your eyes. You no longer perceive it.

Let us know if it hits you.

[Marquis de Carabas]

But you still haven’t answered my question … Was the origin of the universe and The Laws of Physics RANDOM (UNDESIGNED/UNPLANNED) or ORDERED (DESIGNED/PLANNED)?
I refuse to pander to your false dichotomies, my wonderfully humourous friend. I believe the origin of the universe was undesigned and unplanned. That does not negate the possibility of order (undesigned order)...well, it doesn't negate it for anyone but you.
Do you consider our posts (yours and mine) more or less RANDOM than the formation of the universe and the laws of physics? Please explain your answer.
I have not applied the word random to the formation of the universe. I do consider our posts (or mine, at least) more designed than the formation of the universe, because my posts are the products of a consciousness. There is no sound reason to believe the universe was.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Design.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Really? What else is required?

In a word, planning.
But you still haven’t answered my simple question regarding your own beliefs? Well from the way I’ve heard Atheists talk random (unplanned) is the opposite of designed (planned).

we are discussing whether those “objects/entities/properties” [the universe/consciousness/ and TLOP] were randomly formed or designed.

Do you have an opinion on the subject?

My opinion, which has been stated before, is that you are presenting a false dichotomy. I shall not explain it here again, nor in the future. Look up what I said.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All designed entities are ordered.
This entity is ordered.
Therefore, it is designed.

See the problem?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No.

Perhaps you can make your own point?
I already did. ;)

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Upchurch

I know some will say that they know the mind exists because they have one and/or that they are 100% positive that they "think", but aren't they just taking faith in that fact? How do you show, proof positive, that the mind/spirit/whatever, or anything for that matter, truly exists and isn't just an illusion?

If we're going to reject what we perceive as external stimuli as possible illusion, why shouldn't we also reject what "we" "perceive" as internal stimuli as illusion also? Why the double standard?

I like this concept. For the sake of argument, I hereby accept the possibility that I am not concious and assert that I am some kind of simulation or figment of someone else's imagination that is complex enough to respond as if it is concious.

Really, how could I tell the difference?

[ImpyTimpy]

You can't. I tried to present this argument for young Kenneth a while back but he didn't understand it. :p In effect, we're taking our existence based on a degree of "faith" - that is, what I perceive is me existing in a real world and not some illusion. I have no evidence either way so I believe that what I see is what I see and I'm not locked away in a mental institution... :eek:

Going back to the original topic with this idea, does my perception of the world somehow alter anything however? Hardly. The base line is, even if my perception is false, there's some sort of objective reality outside that perception. For example, I find myself in a mental institution. Subjectively, I perceived myself to be typing this message, but objectively, I am simply an inmate in a mental house. Subjective reality therefore has no bearing on objective reality.

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


I like this concept. For the sake of argument, I hereby accept the possibility that I am not concious and assert that I am some kind of simulation or figment of someone else's imagination that is complex enough to respond as if it is concious.

Really, how could I tell the difference?

[c4ts]

You can't. I tried to present this argument for young Kenneth a while back but he didn't understand it. In effect, we're taking our existence based on a degree of "faith" - that is, what I perceive is me existing in a real world and not some illusion.

But even then I would not call that a sort of faith either, because faith is more of a kind of trust that someone or something will honor their word. The world as we observe it makes no promises, and we have to go by what we can perceive. Illusion or not, it all seems to be there. So what we do is rationalize, and that includes using our sense of pattern recognition. This mean assuming that if something behaves a certain way, i.e. a rock falls to the ground when you let go of it, it will continue to behave that way, i.e. the rock will always fall when you let go of it. This appears similar to faith, but the rock has made no promise to always fall, and by not posessing any volition, it is entirely subject to any forces that would cause it to fall up instead of down. We simply assume that the pattern of falling down when dropped will continue. So the way we rationalize the world around us is not a really a kind of faith, nor is how we determine it to be an illusion or not.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by c4ts

But even then I would not call that a sort of faith either, because faith is more of a kind of trust that someone or something will honor their word. The world as we observe it makes no promises, and we have to go by what we can perceive. Illusion or not, it all seems to be there.
The point I was trying to make was to point out the hypocracy of the amaterialists (for lack of a better word) who say that accepting one set of senses as representing something that is real is "faith" but accepting another set of senses as representing something that is real is "patently obvious". One argument is that if we accept one set and reject the other, the world is a much simpler place. However, when I suggest that it is even more simple to reject all our senses, that is seen as silly. :rolleyes:

Besides, whoever said that the world was a simple, uncomplicated place?

It's not so much about what is real or what is not real as much as it is about where the threshold of acceptence is for what we've been calling "inputs". If one is going to be consistant and yet still rejects the material world senses as possible illusion, one much have a legitemate reason for not rejecting the amaterial (again, for lack of a better word) world senses as possible illusion as well.

To reiterate an example I used above, I can feel my desk and I can feel my emotions. If one is suspected of being an illusion purely by the fact that senses could be fooled, then the other must also be suspected of being an illusion as well.

edited to fix terminology

[Franko]

Upchurch:
But "mind" is unnecessary as well.

So you are claiming that your mind is an illusion?

Wouldn't it be even more simple, more parsimonious if there were nothing at all, not even mind?

Okay, so there is nothing at all … just the mind of the person reading this post.

You've not justified why matter is discardable but the mind is not.

You are the one claiming that information is actually matter. I am simply asking you and your Atheist friends to prove your assertion. So far I see a lot of obfuscation, logical fallacy and question dodging, but I haven’t seen any argument that information actually exist as anything other than information.

If there is no mind then I cannot tell you …

Can’t tell me what?

(1) because I don't exist to tell you

Upchurch, for a long Time I have been saying that Atheism is essentially the same as Solipsism. Now you seem to be agreeing.

and (2) there is no you to tell.

Because I am a figment of the reader’s imagination?

All this would be merely an illusion. For who or what's benefit would beyond knowing.

At least to us figments …

Isn't this precisely what you do with your solipsism and "figment of your imagination" arguments? When you ask me to prove that I'm not the only mind in the universe, I ask you prove that the mind (mine or anyone elses) exists at all.

Yes, but if Solipsism is true then YOU are the only MIND that is capable of proving anything at all.

You need to stop relying on priest to do your thinking for you. If Solipsism is true there are no priest.

I merely taking your reasoning to it's conclusion where I am skeptical of not only the reality represented by my senses but of the reality represented by my internal senses as well. Why reject one, but not the other?

What exactly are your “internal senses”? Are there little eyes and ears inside your mind?

Explain again why you believe that Information is actually hard stuff called Matter???

Franko:
I would classify all incoming information as INPUTS (Perception), all outgoing information as OUTPUTS (Expression (Speech, action)), and all internal manipulation of information as PROCESSING (Cognition).

Upchurch:
Incoming from and outgoing to where?

Internal = Contained within your own mind.
External = Outside of your own mind.

… The physical world? How do you know that exists?

You don’t!

But YOU are the one that claimed Solipsism was a dead end … not "me".

When you express, speak or act, where are you doing all this?

Whenever you Express yourself you are outputting information. Whether or not anyone exist to perceive this information is an entirely separate question. One that you and your “friends” seem reluctant to consider for some strange reason?

If "you" are processing information, where are you doing that and how do you know for sure?

You know for sure because you just said you were processing information. If you weren’t processing then you wouldn’t have been able to generate the expression (output).

Franko:
Cognition relies on Memory. Memory is an internal source of inputs (i.e. not requiring the senses), but then again, for all you know all inputs originate internally.

Upchurch:
Or, for all you know, all the inputs originate externally. How do you know?

What?

Are you claiming that your memories are external to your mind? Upchurch you seem to be talking a lot of nonsense in this post, which is odd, because up until yesterday you seemed like you actually wanted to have a conversation.

How can you differentiate?

… because if a perception comes from your senses then it is an External Input, and if a perception does not comes from your senses then it is an Internal Input (a Memory).

If you're looking for logical consistancy, wouldn't you expect that, if you were generating it all yourself, you would make it logically consistant?

Sure, but the universe you perceive is logically consistent. Are you claiming it is not?

If all inputs were external, wouldn't you expect that you could be made to believe that the inputs are logically consistant?

Yes, and external inputs are logically consistent. I don’t see what point you are trying to make?

How do you know anything is true at all?

Thermodynamics?

There might be others who consider what you consider to be "The Mind" to be supernatural. How do you refute them and assert that "The Mind" isn't supernatural?

For the Mind to be Supernatural it would have to be ultimately incomprehensible to itself. I perceive no evidence that the Mind is ultimately incomprehensible. In fact the Mind seems very comprehensible.

You've still not distinguished the differentiator between why you trust your "internal" senses but not your "external" senses.

I never made that statement. I only stated that I categorize perceptions into two main groups:

1) Sensory Perceptions = External perceptions (via the 5 “senses”)
2) Memories = Internal perceptions

Franko:
If the incoming information has been tampered with, then either there is a mechanism for you to perceive this, or you cannot, and if you cannot perceive the tampering or detect it in any way, then from your POV its exactly the same as if the information is not being tampered with.

Upchurch:
Then you don't know whether your incoming information has been tampered with or not? Or even if your "thoughts" aren't just fabricated inputs? Then why do you claim the "mind" is real? Blind faith in your belief system?

You were the one who claimed that the information was (or might be) tampered with. All I am saying is that without any evidence (or logic, or reason) to believe it I see no evidence, or logic, or reason to believe it.

Apparently you possess the Atheist trait which holds that anyone who does not interpret the evidence in the most pessimistic light possible is basing their beliefs on “blind faith”.

If your definition of “Blind faith” is actually “a lack of utter pessimism”, then I would say I have “blind faith” by your definition. But then again I don’t consider Pessimism or Cynicism the same things as Skepticism or Reason.

I'm not saying anything about matter being more or less real than Mind.

Sure you are!

You are claiming that Matter makes Mind. You are claiming that your Mind is really just a physical (matter) Brain, and you have no evidence for believing this.

All that you actually perceive is information, but you seem to want to claim (or pretend) that this information is more than just information. You want to claim that it has a life of it’s own independent of consciousness. You have presented no evidence for this belief, and you seem to want to ignore the evidence that directly contradicts you.

I'm saying that if you reject the reality of your perception of one [Matter], how can you not reject the reality of your perception of the other [Mind]?

Like you I reject neither the real difference between us is that you claim Matter makes Minds, and I claim that Minds make Matter.

I Why be critical of one perception but accept the other with no evidence whatsoever? That is the double standard.

Well the fact that I don’t accept things based on no evidence what-so-ever is precisely why I cannot accept that what is only Information actually has an independent existence as Matter. I cannot accept your religion based solely on blind faith and logically fallacious arguments. Apparently you can. I actually require proof/logic for ALL my beliefs including my religious ones.

[Franko]

The point I was trying to make was to point out the hypocracy of the immaterialists (for lack of a better word)

Me personally, I am an A-materialist!

(or Amaterialist)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Me personally, I am an A-materialist!

(or Amaterialist) If that is what you prefer, I will correct my post.

[Michael Redman]

Nothing exists until after we perceive it.

OK, either we are nothing (which doesn't make sense), or something (we) does exist before we perceive it. If we can exist before we perceive ourselves, then things can exist before we perceive them.

I don't understand how anyone can actually believe the statement is true.

[Franko]

Michael Redman:
Nothing exists until after we perceive it.

I don't understand how anyone can actually believe the statement is true.

Well, if I am imagining a planet with continents and oceans and entire races of people with diverse histories then my little imaginary planet doesn’t exist in your mind until I tell you about it (until you perceive it), so I don’t see what is so difficult for you to grasp about this concept.

Now I didn’t write the quote that you mention, and I don’t know that I would have worded it that way, but I do understand (I think) what the original poster meant.

I think what is causing the confusion is Objective Reality, or the universe. The fact is that until you perceived it, it didn’t exist in your mind (it didn’t exist for you), but the question is did it exist for anyone else?

Perhaps it did, but all that would mean is that:

Nothing exists until after someone perceives (or conceives of) it.

OK, either we are nothing (which doesn't make sense) …

On that “we” agree.

… or something (we) does exist before we perceive it.

How can you exist before you perceived your existence? That sounds like you are claiming your Soul exists eternally even if you are unaware (unperceiving) of it?

If we can exist before we perceive ourselves, then things can exist before we perceive them.

How can “You” exist before you perceive yourself? Isn’t self-awareness a requisite for bona fide existence (at least as a consciousness)?

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Here's an experiment I would like those who claim this to participate in. Let's take Shirley MacLaine, one of the more prominent people who claim this. Let's choose a suicidal person, too, and call him Bill.

Shirley and Bill are standing in a field, a few yards apart. Bill is facing her, she is standing with her back to Bill. Unknown to her, Bill picks up a brick, and throw it at her.

Bill knows that the brick is flying towards her, so the brick exists, because Bill thinks of it, and is aware of it. To Shirley, the brick does not exist, because she doesn't know it does.

Before the brick hits Shirley, Bill shoots himself in the head, and is dead instantly. Bill stops thinking about the brick. Ergo, according to Shirley's claim, the brick ceases to exist.

Is Shirley going to be hit by a brick or not?

Hmmmm. I guess we'll just have to try it. Do any of you know how to get a hold of Shirley?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

So you are claiming that your mind is an illusion?

Okay, so there is nothing at all … just the mind of the person reading this post. Why must there be a mind at all?
You are the one claiming that information is actually matter. {snip} but I haven’t seen any argument that information actually exist as anything other than information. Actually, I'm not saying anything of the kind. I'm asking you to prove your claim that (1) information exists, (2) information has any kind of reality and isn't pure illusion and (3) that there is such a thing as a mind that uses the information.

All this seems to be based on assumptions that you can't prove and is, therefore, completely based on faith.
Upchurch, for a long Time I have been saying that Atheism is essentially the same as Solipsism. Now you seem to be agreeing. Almost, except for two critical item. First, solipsism means that at least one mind exists. I'm saying that we don't know that, as I've outlined above.

Second, I don't agree that solipsism has anything to do with atheism. You have yet to prove this claim either.
Isn't this precisely what you do with your solipsism and "figment of your imagination" arguments? When you ask me to prove that I'm not the only mind in the universe, I ask you prove that the mind (mine or anyone elses) exists at all.
Yes, but if Solipsism is true then YOU are the only MIND that is capable of proving anything at all.

You need to stop relying on priest to do your thinking for you. If Solipsism is true there are no priest. That's interesting. This is a new claim. If solipsism is true, how could the solipsist prove anything since all of the solipsist's perceptions are illusion? How, further, does the solipsist know that the solipsist's own thoughts are not illusion as well?

Please explain how the solipsist could ever prove anything.
What exactly are your “internal senses”? Are there little eyes and ears inside your mind?My appologies. I thought we had already covered this. Do you not "see" your memories? "Hear" your thoughts? "Feel" your emotions? Are these not internal senses or, if you prefer, amaterialist senses? Why do you trust these senses as being representative of real things but not your external or materialist senses? It isn't consistant.

Oh, look. You answered your own question:Internal = Contained within your own mind.
External = Outside of your own mind.
Explain again why you believe that Information is actually hard stuff called Matter???That isn't what we're discussing. Please explain again why you believe that information is real?
Whenever you Express yourself you are outputting information. Whether or not anyone exist to perceive this information is an entirely separate question. One that you and your “friends” seem reluctant to consider for some strange reason?

You know for sure because you just said you were processing information. If you weren’t processing then you wouldn’t have been able to generate the expression (output). But how do you know you are actually processing the information rather than what "feels" like you're processing information isn't just more illusionary input? Why can't you answer this simple question?
What?

Are you claiming that your memories are external to your mind? Upchurch you seem to be talking a lot of nonsense in this post, which is odd, because up until yesterday you seemed like you actually wanted to have a conversation. Okay, let's review.

You say that the external/physical/material world is an illusion that is really just an input of information, right? If this is true, that why would you think that your internal input (memories, thoughts, emotions, etc) aren't also an illusion that is really just an input of information?

Further, if your internal inputs are an illusion, wouldn't it be more parsimonious for their not to be a mind at all?

I thought you were for the simplist explination that makes sense.
… because if a perception comes from your senses then it is an External Input, and if a perception does not comes from your senses then it is an Internal Input (a Memory).But if you have a perception (internal or external), you must perceive it through a sense of some kind (internal or external). How do you know that any of your perceptions are real?
If you're looking for logical consistancy, wouldn't you expect that, if you were generating it all yourself, you would make it logically consistant?
Sure, but the universe you perceive is logically consistent. Are you claiming it is not?
It certainly seems so, but you're the one claiming that it is not, even though you've never explained how. but that's off topic.
Thermodynamics?:roll: Now who's telling jokes.
For the Mind to be Supernatural it would have to be ultimately incomprehensible to itself. I perceive no evidence that the Mind is ultimately incomprehensible. In fact the Mind seems very comprehensible. You mean to say that you understand your own mind in every facet? What of your subconscious? Do you have intimate comprehension of that? Of your emotions? Or why you remember some details but not others?

I'm impressed. You're in the wrong field. You should be presenting psychology papers and lectures.
You've still not distinguished the differentiator between why you trust your "internal" senses but not your "external" senses.I never made that statement. I only stated that I categorize perceptions into two main groups:

1) Sensory Perceptions = External perceptions (via the 5 “senses”)
2) Memories = Internal perceptions
Fair enough, I'll restate: You've still not distinguished the differentiator between why you trust your internal preceptions but not your external perceptions. Its like saying that you trust what you feel but not what you smell. Please explain why you trust some perceptions but not others.
You were the one who claimed that the information was (or might be) tampered with. All I am saying is that without any evidence (or logic, or reason) to believe it I see no evidence, or logic, or reason to believe it. Then why believe your memories, emotions or thoughts? What evidence, logic, or reason do you have to believe those
You are claiming that Matter makes Mind. You are claiming that your Mind is really just a physical (matter) Brain, and you have no evidence for believing this.

All that you actually perceive is information, but you seem to want to claim (or pretend) that this information is more than just information. You want to claim that it has a life of it’s own independent of consciousness. You have presented no evidence for this belief, and you seem to want to ignore the evidence that directly contradicts you. Not on this line of discussion I'm not. Trying to change the subject? I challenge you to quote where I have done this.

edited to fix piss-poor formating

[Antonio Alejandro]

Impy what is the difference between subjective and objective reality?
Do you consider 1+1=2 objective? Are you saying that objective reality is conceptual?
Do you believe that objective reality is a species-specific agreement based on what they perceive. or do you feel it is universal.
If you consider 1+1=2 to be Objective, then how do you explain the non-intrinsic nature of each of the symbols, that their meaning is only relational?

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Why must there be a mind at all?

Then who or what is having (imagining) this conversation … The Solipsist? … the Matter? … TLOP?

It really doesn’t matter though does it? You are still left with the same problem. Perhaps you believe if you can avoid it long enough it will magically vanish in the same way you believe it magically appeared?

Franko:
You are the one claiming that information is actually matter. {snip} but I haven’t seen any argument that information actually exist as anything other than information.

Upchurch:
Actually, I'm not saying anything of the kind. I'm asking you to prove your claim that (1) information exists, (2) information has any kind of reality and isn't pure illusion and (3) that there is such a thing as a mind that uses the information.

All this seems to be based on assumptions that you can't prove and is, therefore, completely based on faith.

Why is it that you are unwilling or unable to defend the things you believe?

Our assertions are nearly identical, it is only that you make a few extra assumptions that I deem unnecessary. Instead of addressing those points you prefer to obfuscate the matter.

Why is that?

You are claiming:
1) That “matter” exists
2) That “matter” exist independently of perception/observation.
3) That “matter” creates a thing called “mind” that enables the “matter” to perceive itself.

All this seems to be based on assumptions that you can't prove and is, therefore, completely based on faith.

Franko:
Upchurch, for a long Time I have been saying that Atheism is essentially the same as Solipsism. Now you seem to be agreeing.

Upchurch:
Almost, except for two critical item. First, solipsism means that at least one mind exists. I'm saying that we don't know that, as I've outlined above.

Obviously you do not believe that or you would have stopped “posting” long ago. But perhaps you are right? Perhaps you never really posted at all? Perhaps the one person who is reading this has just been imagining your posts (and mine) all along?

Second, I don't agree that solipsism has anything to do with atheism. You have yet to prove this claim either.

Well, once you finally succeed in perceiving the unified physics equation, and you put it inside of your head you will realize that it has been running there quietly and has been generating this universe all around you, all along.

That's interesting. This is a new claim. If solipsism is true, how could the solipsist prove anything since all of the solipsist's perceptions are illusion? How, further, does the solipsist know that the solipsist's own thoughts are not illusion as well?

Please explain how the solipsist could ever prove anything.

Free Will is a wondrous thing, the only problem is there was never more than one entity willing to pay the price for it.

I thought we had already covered this. Do you not "see" your memories? "Hear" your thoughts? "Feel" your emotions? Are these not internal senses or, if you prefer, amaterialist senses? Why do you trust these senses as being representative of real things but not your external or materialist senses? It isn't consistent.

Well my question would be, why are your external senses more real than your internal ones? In other words, does the fact that you don’t perceive eyes inside your mind mean that you can’t see your memories?

Previously you had claimed that our physical eyes were just that – physical. Now you seem to be saying that you are still able to “see” things (memories) with imaginary mental eyes inside your mind.

My question is, if you acknowledge that you are able to “see” memories without physical eyes, then how do you know that your physical eyes are actually physical? Obviously physicality is not directly related to “seeing” so why do you claim that it is?

Franko:
Explain again why you believe that Information is actually hard stuff called Matter???

Upchurch:
That isn't what we're discussing.

Sure it is. At least that is what we were discussing. I can see where you might want to shift the point to some other tangent however.

Please explain again why you believe that information is real?

What I believe is that if you only have evidence for Information, then it is foolish to claim that you actually have evidence for Matter. Why you keep dancing around this point without actually addressing it is beyond my ability to comprehend.

how do you know you are actually processing the information rather than what "feels" like you're processing information isn't just more illusionary input?

Perceiving new (external) information is INPUT.

Manipulating information internally (i.e. perceiving without the 5 senses) is PROCESSING.

If those definitions are beyond your comprehension then I am not sure what else to OUTPUT.

You say that the external/physical/material world is an illusion that is really just an input of information, right?

I wouldn’t use the term “illusion”. I would say that this universe is a “shared reality” consisting of information generated by a common source (common to all observers).

If this is true, than why would you think that your internal input (memories, thoughts, emotions, etc) aren't also an illusion that is really just an input of information?

Well, I would say that all memories originated from the same common source. You perceive something, if you find it relevant you store it in your memory, and then you can perceive it later without access to the shared reality (the universe).

But like I keep saying, it is entirely possible that the “common source” (TLOP or “God”) is your own mind (Solipsism), but that doesn’t change one thing that I am saying.

Solipsism is irrelevant from my worldview. Whether it is true or not is a moot point.

Further, if your internal inputs are an illusion, wouldn't it be more parsimonious for their not to be a mind at all?

I never said that memories (internal inputs) were illusions, I simply stated that they consist of Information, and not Matter. You still haven’t explained why you believe your memories have an existence independent from your mind?

I thought you were for the simplest explanation that makes sense.

I am. And that is why I do not claim that something has an independent existence without verifiable evidence/proof/logic that it has independent existence. Do you consider unfounded and unproveable assumptions the simplest, most parsimonious explanation for phenomena?

But if you have a perception (internal or external), you must perceive it through a sense of some kind (internal or external). How do you know that any of your perceptions are real?

For the same reason I did yesterday when you asked this question.

Because an Input is the receipt of information. If you receive information – if you perceive it – then you have received INPUT.

As for it being “real” you will have to explain what you mean? You had been using that term to indicate made of independently existing “matter”, although that is not how I would define it.

Franko:
the universe (external) you perceive is logically consistent. Are you claiming it is not?

Upchurch:
It certainly seems so, but you're the one claiming that it is not

Upchurch, can you read or have you been completely blinded by Discordia? I just stated that the universe is logically consistent, and you just responded by stating that I claimed the exact opposite. Either address the points I actually make, or go off and imagine a debate with the person you are pretending me to be.

When have I ever claimed that the universe is not logically consistent?

Now who's telling jokes.

yeah, but the funniest part is that you didn’t get it.

Franko:
For the Mind to be Supernatural it would have to be ultimately incomprehensible to itself.

Upchurch:
You mean to say that you understand your own mind in every facet?

No, I mean exactly what I said. I see no reason to believe that the Mind is ultimately incomprehensible.

What of your subconscious? Do you have intimate comprehension of that?

It seems the older I get, the more I learn about it.

Of your emotions?

Ohh, I think I have learned a lot about controlling my emotions over the years. That’s another one that I feel I am improving with age.

Or why you remember some details but not others?

Same thing. I use to have no idea, now I have a vague idea.

You've still not distinguished the differentiator between why you trust your internal perceptions but not your external perceptions. Its like saying that you trust what you feel but not what you smell. Please explain why you trust some perceptions but not others.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding or miscommunication, but I never said that I trust some forms of perceptions, and not others. All that I said is I can classify perceptions into 2 main categories: Sensory Perceptions (External Inputs), and Memories (Internal Inputs). Memories are derived from (originate from) Sensory perceptions, the only difference is that external inputs require an external source, while memories do not.

Franko:
You are claiming that Matter makes Mind. You are claiming that your Mind is really just a physical (matter) Brain, and you have no evidence for believing this.

All that you actually perceive is information, but you seem to want to claim (or pretend) that this information is more than just information. You want to claim that it has a life of it’s own independent of consciousness. You have presented no evidence for this belief, and you seem to want to ignore the evidence that directly contradicts you.

Upchurch:
Not on this line of discussion I'm not. Trying to change the subject? I challenge you to quote where I have done this.

The subject of this thread is that nothing exist unless it is perceived.

Your entire line of arguments seems to revolve around the notion that Matter exist independently of consciousness (perception).

But perhaps you are confused about your own position?

… or perhaps you are just trying to confuse the poor reader?

[Upchurch]

Well, now you've just stopped trying and have fallen back on your old routine of strawmen, false acusations, and not reading what people actually say. I've read all that carp before and it's boring. I'll let someone who hasn't pointed out the multiple errors you make have a go at it rather than having all the (used to be) fun.

Have fun in the sandbox :rub: Good luck with you missionary work.

edited to add:

See? Didn't take uruk long to pick up the slack and home in on a big one. Good luck, uruk.

[uruk]

I actually require proof/logic for ALL my beliefs including my religious ones.

Could you show us this proof and how do you arrive at it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
CFLarsen
You are using reason to determine the course of event, yet you have not demontrated how this reasoning is non-conceptual (i.e. absolute and impersonal). Yet it is exceedingly simple to show how it is conceptual and personal.
You are also holding on to the idea that the brick disappears when undefined. If I state that the unperceived brick disappears as it is flying thru the air or when it is hitting her, I will also be stating that the unperceived brick can also have existence.
In the unperceived "event" there is no time, there is no space, there is no mass or motion. All of these things are known by measurements, they are not intrinsic. The meaning of undefined is not the same as existence.

Just answer the question, please:

Let's say that you go there later, to discover Shirley dead, her head smashed by a brick.

Who killed Shirley? A, Bill, by throwing the brick? Or B, you, who perceived the brick in Shirley's head?

If you choose A, then your claim is wrong. If you choose B, then you are saying that you can - without perceiving it - perceive the consequences of the actions of another person, even though that person is dead. Which is self-contradictory.

I am talking about a perceived event. Not something "undefined". You are there, Antonio. You perceive that Shirley is lying there dead, with a brick in her head.

Who killed Shirley, Antonio? You or Bill?

[Franko]

Could you show us this proof and how do you arrive at it?

Sure. I believe all of the things that you believe, except I do not make the same unfounded assumption regarding “the Matter” that you make.

As I told Upchurch, I’d say all that you actually perceive is information, but you seem to want to claim (or pretend) that this information is more than just information. You want to claim that it has a life of it’s own independent of consciousness. You have presented no evidence for this belief, and you seem to want to ignore all the evidence that directly contradicts you on this point.

What is your justification/logic/reason/or empirical evidence for believing that “matter” exist independently of perception?

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Well, now you've just stopped trying and have fallen back on your old routine of strawmen, false acusations, and not reading what people actually say. I've read all that carp before and it's boring. I'll let someone who hasn't pointed out the multiple errors you make have a go at it rather than having all the (used to be) fun.

Upchurch, are you running out of arguments? That posts is rather non-responsive.

But I saw it coming …

Funny how predictable you lovers of Discord (Chaos) seem to be.

… and here I thought you believed that the universe was so random, and stochastic, and magical?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Franko
Isn’t self-awareness a requisite for bona fide existence (at least as a consciousness)? Are you saying that existence is not a prerequisite for awareness? Doesn't something have to exist, and then become aware? Or do you think that awareness comes first, and then creates the existance?

[Franko]

Mike Redman:
Are you saying that existence is not a prerequisite for awareness?

I am saying that conscious existence and (conscious) self-awareness are the same thing.

If you are asserting a difference, then please specify what that difference is?

Doesn't something have to exist, and then become aware? Or do you think that awareness comes first, and then creates the existence?

I don’t see how you can have awareness without existence, nor do I see how you could have existence without awareness. Could you explain what you mean?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


*snip*
What is your justification/logic/reason/or empirical evidence for believing that “matter” exist independently of perception? About a billion years ago, give or take a few, there was no life on Earth. Yet it must have existed, otherwise life would not have appeared. So, without anybody/anything percieving it, Earth existed. -And, I consider Earth to fit the label "matter".

Hans

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Do you believe that existence is not a concept? Interesting question, Antonio

We, as humans, have a concept of existence, but that existence is not the concept we have of it. A good analogy would be a stretch of land and a map of that land. We have the map and through it we understand the stretch of land, but the map is not actually the stretch of land.

Now to turn the question slightly, I would also conceed that concepts have a sort of existence. It wouldn't be the same kind of existence that other things might have. So, it would be inappropriate to say that a conception exists in the same way that an apple exists or in the same way as an emotion exists (even though it's closer to the way an emotion exists than it is to the way an apple exists).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
what is the difference between subjective and objective reality?When refering to subjective and objective there are two elements involved: the subject (the viewer) and the object (that which is viewed)

Subjective is when the truth value is dependent on the subject.
Objective is when the truth value is dependent on the object.

For example:
Bob says, "That woman is pretty."
This is subjective because its truth value is determined by the subject, Bob. The statement may be true for Bob but not be true for another subject.

Bob says, "That man is 5 foot, 10 inches tall."
This is objective because its truth value is determined by the object. The statement if the statement is true for Bob, it is true for another subject.

There is caveat to this definition. Objectivity can be subject to relativity. I'm not speaking specifically of the Einstein version, but it does fit under this category.

Relative objectivity is when the truth value is dependent on the object as seen by a specific subject.

For example:
Bob, wearing rose colored glasses, says, "That dog is red."
The truth value of this statement is conditional on observing the object in the same manner as the subject making the statement. While the truth value of the statement may not be the same for all subjects, all subjects that view the object in the same manner as the subject making the statement will agree on the truth value of the statement.
Do you consider 1+1=2 objective?As defined above, yes. All observers who correctly understand the meanings of "1", "+", "=" and "2" will asign a truth value of "true" to the statement "1+1=2"
Are you saying that objective reality is conceptual?I would say it can be but isn't limited to being conceptual.
Do you believe that objective reality is a species-specific agreement based on what they perceive. or do you feel it is universal.By definition, objective reality would be universal for all observers.
If you consider 1+1=2 to be Objective, then how do you explain the non-intrinsic nature of each of the symbols, that their meaning is only relational? Okay, the tough one.

One of the conditions that ultimately makes most, if not all, objectivity fall under the category of relative objectivity is that we agree on the definitions of the words (or however we generate the statements) we are using.

Perhaps someone has different definitions for the symbols "1", "+", "=" and "2" that makes the statement "1+1=2" false. However, they would still agree that by the definitions used by the subject who states "1+1=2 is a true statement" is a true statement.

[Franko]

About a billion years ago, give or take a few, there was no life on Earth. Yet it [the Earth] must have existed, otherwise life would not have appeared. So, without anybody/anything percieving it, Earth existed. -And, I consider Earth to fit the label "matter".

Or equally probable:

1) A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

2) The Earth doesn’t exist, and life never “appeared” on it. You “appeared” all by yourself, and now you are just imagining the rest.

What evidence exist that makes your explanation more likely than either of these two?

[Antonio Alejandro]

"...One cannot say that mind exist or not exist for it is absolute reality."
some Taoist sutra I read a long time ago.

A skeptic is walking down the street and passes several houses before he comes to a stop. He looks around and shouts, I have stopped!!!
I most surely have stopped. A little boy with a propeller cap looks at the skeptics and says, mr you have not stopped you are still moving. Nonsense young man, the skeptic exclaims, as he stamps his feet onto the ground. I have stopped, and i have concrete and verifiable evidence. The skeptic then looks in his pocket and pulls out a ruler a lays it parallel to his feet. You see young man, there is no evidence that i have travelled because had I traveled i would be able to measure the distance by this ruler. But i am stationary, can you see that young man"? The little boy proceeds to explain and says: You have stopped only in relation to your surrounding but in fact you are still in motion. The earth revolves and so you being on the planet earth you are still in motion. The skeptic stamps his foot even harder saying. Can you see how concretely I have measured the lack of movement. I have not moved one inch, how can you say i am moving. The little boy says, you have only stopped in relation to the ruler and the immediate surrounding but you are still in motion because the galaxies solar system is in motion and so are the galaxies. In fact the concept of "stop" has no intrinsic existence, it exist only in relation to some other attribute. This is the way it is for everything that we call conceptual reality. This inability for us to know anything intrinsically may not be the way the universe is but a phenomena resulting from the thought process.
Rastabastapaperclip says the skeptic., now madder and more furious than ever, you clearly do not understand the fundamentals of science and of mathematics. There are specific laws of science which are universal whether we observe them or not. They are concrete, like my measurement of my lack of motion. You need education boy.
The skeptic clearly infuriated begins to walk away and as he walks away he says to the little boy, "you see now i am in motion!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
A skeptic is walking down the street and ...Yes, Antonio, this is a relative objective truth as I described above.

Incidently, in inertial reference frames, it is equally true to say that the skeptic is standing skill and the rest of the universe is what is moving.

[thaiboxerken]

A skeptic is walking down the street and passes several houses before he comes to a stop. He looks around and shouts, I have stopped!!!

Your story is stupid and doesn't properly illustrate a skeptic's point of view. In fact, your story is just a big giant insult, isn't it? You are a troll.

[Yahweh]

--------------------------------------------------
Upchurch:
But "mind" is unnecessary as well.
--------------------------------------------------

So you are claiming that your mind is an illusion?
I hate to break it to you but putting words in another's mouth is not a good way to present an arguement.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:Wouldn't it be even more simple, more parsimonious if there were nothing at all, not even mind?
--------------------------------------------------

Okay, so there is nothing at all … just the mind of the person reading this post.
That isnt what he suggested.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:You've not justified why matter is discardable but the mind is not.
--------------------------------------------------

You are the one claiming that information is actually matter. I am simply asking you and your Atheist friends to prove your assertion. So far I see a lot of obfuscation, logical fallacy and question dodging, but I haven’t seen any argument that information actually exist as anything other than information.
Shifting the burden of proof...
Arguement from Ignorance...
I could go on...

I dont understand what you mean by information.

And talk about dodging assertions, I've made repeated replies to your posts.

--------------------------------------------------
quote: If there is no mind then I cannot tell you …
--------------------------------------------------

Can’t tell me what?
Great argument! :rolleyes:


--------------------------------------------------
quote:(1) because I don't exist to tell you
--------------------------------------------------

Upchurch, for a long Time I have been saying that Atheism is essentially the same as Solipsism. Now you seem to be agreeing.
Atheism is nothing like Solipsism, to think such a thing would be absurd.

UpChurch is in no way agreeing with you. Again, making other's assertions for them is not a good way to present an arguement.


--------------------------------------------------
quote: and (2) there is no you to tell.
--------------------------------------------------

Because I am a figment of the reader’s imagination?
Absurdity.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:All this would be merely an illusion. For who or what's benefit would beyond knowing.
--------------------------------------------------

At least to us figments …
Your circular reasoning is getting you no where.

Furthermore (from a Solipsistic point of view), "at least to us figments" make the assumptions "figments" exist seperately from whatever Omni-mind is projecting reality. "At least to us figments" is a self-defeating phrase, I'd call it a logical contradiction.

--------------------------------------------------
quote: Isn't this precisely what you do with your solipsism and "figment of your imagination" arguments? When you ask me to prove that I'm not the only mind in the universe, I ask you prove that the mind (mine or anyone elses) exists at all.
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, but if Solipsism is true then YOU are the only MIND that is capable of proving anything at all.
Incorrect.

Furthermore, Solipsism is not true, the notion of being the only mind is not only absurd but the properties itself would be self-defeating. He should be omnipotent, yet he is clearly bound by the laws of physics, he exists withing the laws of logic, he is not omniscient, he cant do anything that he couldnt do in a material universe.

The idea has been dismissed since the 19th century, its not held in very high regard by Philosophers today.

You need to stop relying on priest to do your thinking for you. If Solipsism is true there are no priest.
You dont understand the concept of religion, do you?

Furthermore, as I've stated before: To explain things in terms of "its all an illusion" is to explain exactly nothing. It is not an arguement of any kind of value. It would almost be easier to assume we are in the Matrix...

--------------------------------------------------
quote:I merely taking your reasoning to it's conclusion where I am skeptical of not only the reality represented by my senses but of the reality represented by my internal senses as well. Why reject one, but not the other?
--------------------------------------------------

What exactly are your “internal senses”? Are there little eyes and ears inside your mind?
The little eyes and the little ears are not inside the mind, they exist objectively.

I'm not sure exactly what UpChurch means regarding "internal senses". I doubt he is referring to the intangible senses (the notion of intangible senses has been long dismissed, but in any case they would include a "sense" of humor, "sense" of justice, "sense" of etc. etc. etc). Perhaps he is making reference to cognition.

Explain again why you believe that Information is actually hard stuff called Matter???
Matter exists objectively, everything in the universe can be explain in terms of matter and natural phenomena. It is absurd to believe matter does not exist or its all an illusion. Without matter, nothing would exist, I clearly do exist so its a safe assumption to say "yeah, matter exists".

If that short little summary doesnt help, I could give you a detailed lesson in Cosmology...

--------------------------------------------------
quote:Franko:
I would classify all incoming information as INPUTS (Perception), all outgoing information as OUTPUTS (Expression (Speech, action)), and all internal manipulation of information as PROCESSING (Cognition).

Upchurch:
Incoming from and outgoing to where?
--------------------------------------------------

Internal = Contained within your own mind.
External = Outside of your own mind.
Fine by me.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:… The physical world? How do you know that exists?
--------------------------------------------------

You don’t![/quote]
Solipsism is an irrational and illogical form of skepticism, it doesnt even register on anything that could be called "reasoning".

But YOU are the one that claimed Solipsism was a dead end … not "me".
I believe I've said Solipsism explains nothing a few times...

--------------------------------------------------
quote:When you express, speak or act, where are you doing all this?
--------------------------------------------------

Whenever you Express yourself you are outputting information. Whether or not anyone exist to perceive this information is an entirely separate question. One that you and your “friends” seem reluctant to consider for some strange reason?
Your assumption is purely semantical.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of the middle stuff is garble, I'll skip right to the end...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well the fact that I don’t accept things based on no evidence what-so-ever is precisely why I cannot accept that what is only Information actually has an independent existence as Matter.
Everything you present rests without any evidence what-so-ever, do you so hideously contradict yourself like this to amuse us?

I cannot accept your religion based solely on blind faith and logically fallacious arguments.
Atheism is not a religion.
Neither Materialism nor Naturalism are religions.

Apparently you can. I actually require proof/logic for ALL my beliefs including my religious ones.
I guess you do like to amuse us...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Well, if I am imagining a planet with continents and oceans and entire races of people with diverse histories then my little imaginary planet doesn’t exist in your mind until I tell you about it (until you perceive it), so I don’t see what is so difficult for you to grasp about this concept.
The little planet you imagined planet does not exist objectively, furthermore the things you imagine in your mind do not alter objective reality. You appear to believe the opposite, that's why your concept is so hard to grasp.

I think what is causing the confusion is Objective Reality, or the universe. The fact is that until you perceived it, it didn’t exist in your mind (it didn’t exist for you), but the question is did it exist for anyone else?
Making up your own "facts" is a terrible way to present your arguements.

Whether or not it exists in my mind is irrelevant, it will continue to exist regardless if I've conceived to percieved it.

Nothing exists until after someone perceives (or conceives of) it.
Entirely incorrect.

How can you exist before you perceived your existence?
I was a fetus, I existed before I was ever sentient.

That sounds like you are claiming your Soul exists eternally even if you are unaware (unperceiving) of it?
Putting words in other's mouths is a terrible way to make an arguement.

How can “You” exist before you perceive yourself? Isn’t self-awareness a requisite for bona fide existence (at least as a consciousness)?
Entirely Incorrect, self-awareness is not a prerequisite for existence (what did I tell you about making up your own facts).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I'm not sure exactly what UpChurch means regarding "internal senses". I doubt he is referring to the intangible senses (the notion of intangible senses has been long dismissed, but in any case they would include a "sense" of humor, "sense" of justice, "sense" of etc. etc. etc). Perhaps he is making reference to cognition. I was speaking within context of the assumption that there is no physical world. In such a context, the external senses (i.e. sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell), are not conveyed by physical means (i.e. eyes, ears, skin, tongue, nose), but by some undefined mechanism that feeds the sensations directly into the mind.

Internal senses, then, would be those "inputs" we get that are not originated by what we imagine to be our external senses. Memories would be a prime example. We can still see what our friends looked like when they were younger. Our smell food that our moms were cooking. Those inputs which don't originate from the external world.

Another example would be thought. When we have an internal dialogue, we "hear" that thought. That could also be considered an internal sense in that one experiences it. And experience comes through the senses.

The catch is that in the assumption that there is no physical world, internal senses and external senses are the same thing. It is only our belief in the physical world that creates the illusion that there is a difference.

However, if our some of our inputs (specifically those of the physical world) are illusionary, there is every possibility, and in fact a probability, that all of our inputs are illusionary, including those we imagine come from within our own minds.

That's what I mean by "internal senses". Those which allow us to perceive the going-on's within the mind and even to perceive the mind itself. In the above context, there is no difference between the external and internal senses and, based on that context, all of it may be a false illusion.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
"...One cannot say that mind exist or not exist for it is absolute reality."
some Taoist sutra I read a long time ago.
That quote is a classic example of Solipsitic absurdity.

A skeptic is walking down the street and passes several houses before he comes to a stop. He looks around and shouts, I have stopped!!!
I most surely have stopped. A little boy with a propeller cap looks at the skeptics and says, mr you have not stopped you are still moving. Nonsense young man, the skeptic exclaims, as he stamps his feet onto the ground. I have stopped, and i have concrete and verifiable evidence. The skeptic then looks in his pocket and pulls out a ruler a lays it parallel to his feet. You see young man, there is no evidence that i have travelled because had I traveled i would be able to measure the distance by this ruler. But i am stationary, can you see that young man"? The little boy proceeds to explain and says: You have stopped only in relation to your surrounding but in fact you are still in motion. The earth revolves and so you being on the planet earth you are still in motion. The skeptic stamps his foot even harder saying. Can you see how concretely I have measured the lack of movement. I have not moved one inch, how can you say i am moving. The little boy says, you have only stopped in relation to the ruler and the immediate surrounding but you are still in motion because the galaxies solar system is in motion and so are the galaxies.
Yes, everyone recognized the word "frame of reference". The skeptic is stationary in his frame of reference, he is also stationary in the little boy's frame of reference.

If I'm sitting on a plane that is whipping around the world at 400 km/h, I am sitting still in my own frame of reference. To someone on the ground, I'm zipping by at 400 km/h, to my frame of reference the person on the ground is zipping by in the other direction at 400 km/h. If you have ever taken a highschool Physics class, you would learn all about "frame of reference" on the first day, you would also learn that for practical purposes we use the Earth as the indirectly named frame of reference

In fact the concept of "stop" has no intrinsic existence, it exist only in relation to some other attribute. This is the way it is for everything that we call conceptual reality.
The example you used is not a good example to demonstrate "conceptual reality".

Your example would be better attributed to the concept of "down". Which way is down? What about if I'm floating somewhere in space? Of course, again, using directional concepts is again defeated by the frames of reference.

This inability for us to know anything intrinsically may not be the way the universe is but a phenomena resulting from the thought process.
Its a phenomena attributed to frame of reference.

Rastabastapaperclip says the skeptic., now madder and more furious than ever, you clearly do not understand the fundamentals of science and of mathematics. There are specific laws of science which are universal whether we observe them or not. They are concrete, like my measurement of my lack of motion. You need education boy.
Rastabastapaperclip clearly does not understand the concept of "concepts". He also doesnt appear to have much in the way of distinguishing between concepts and laws of science.

The skeptic clearly infuriated begins to walk away and as he walks away he says to the little boy, "you see now i am in motion!
The skeptic is the correct one.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I was speaking within context of the assumption that there is no physical world. In such a context, the external senses (i.e. sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell), are not conveyed by physical means (i.e. eyes, ears, skin, tongue, nose), but by some undefined mechanism that feeds the sensations directly into the mind.

Internal senses, then, would be those "inputs" we get that are not originated by what we imagine to be our external senses. Memories would be a prime example. We can still see what our friends looked like when they were younger. Our smell food that our moms were cooking. Those inputs which don't originate from the external world.

Another example would be thought. When we have an internal dialogue, we "hear" that thought. That could also be considered an internal sense in that one experiences it. And experience comes through the senses.

The catch is that in the assumption that there is no physical world, internal senses and external senses are the same thing. It is only our belief in the physical world that creates the illusion that there is a difference.

However, if our some of our inputs (specifically those of the physical world) are illusionary, there is every possibility, and in fact a probability, that all of our inputs are illusionary, including those we imagine come from within our own minds.

That's what I mean by "internal senses". Those which allow us to perceive the going-on's within the mind and even to perceive the mind itself. In the above context, there is no difference between the external and internal senses and, based on that context, all of it may be a false illusion.
Ahhhh, I get it now. Thanks :). (It reminds me of the "brain in a vat" scenario.)

Qualia and such, its fun stuff to debate about.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahweh

(It reminds me of the "brain in a vat" scenario.)except without the brain, vat, or the ability to think.

[whitefork]

I remember a bit from Hegel where he talks about the form and matter of logic, or perhaps thought. I wish I could find that source. It's bugged me for years.

The matter of logic. What a concept.

You got some good comic timing going here, Upchurch and Yahweh. You should take the act on the road. I'd say the quality of these threads has improved since the last time this game was played.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Kullervo
You got some good comic timing going here, Upchurch and Yahweh. You should take the act on the road. I'd say the quality of these threads has improved since the last time this game was played. Q: Why did the absurdist cross the road?

A: Seventeen fish sticks.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Impy what is the difference between subjective and objective reality?

I thought I already explained it again and again. If you can't understand me or other people here explaining it, perhaps you should try and figure it out yourself. Remember the whole mystic crap you came up with? After being asked for an explanation you told us to look it up ourselves... Now here you are asking me to explain to you the difference. There's one word for you. Hypocrite.


Do you consider 1+1=2 objective? Are you saying that objective reality is conceptual?

You're setting up a strawman. Yahweh already explained very nicely that 1, +, = and 2 are conceptual representations that we have come to associate with certain objective things. 1+1=2 by itself is a concept. The meaning behind 1+1=2 is objective reality representation (putting two objects together results in two objects sitting together)


Do you believe that objective reality is a species-specific agreement based on what they perceive. or do you feel it is universal.


Objective reality is objective reality. It is not necessarily dependant on what you perceive. As I said, you could be locked away in a mental house perceiving yourself to be typing messages on a message board. Your subjective interpretation of your reality has no effect on objective existence. Understand now?


If you consider 1+1=2 to be Objective, then how do you explain the non-intrinsic nature of each of the symbols, that their meaning is only relational?

:rolleyes:

Once again, the symbols 1, +, = and 2 are representations (or concepts if you will) of objective reality. The symbols by themselves have no meaning unless we apply them to known properties of the world. Stop trying to sound intelligent - it's not working.

[uruk]

Sure. I believe all of the things that you believe, except I do not make the same unfounded assumption regarding “the Matter” that you make. As I told Upchurch, I’d say all that you actually perceive is information, but you seem to want to claim (or pretend) that this information is more than just information.


I never claimed that the "information" is more than than just information. That's just your usual method of "putting word is someones mouth". Please try not resort to tactics of falsehood.

Ok then a return in kind is in order.

You make the unfounded assumption that the information is more important than matter. The "information" as you call it is just part of total picture of what is going on. You forget about the stimulus that generates the information or how that information is stored.
There is a tremendous amount of testable,verifiable research done on the brain which explains the processes that information is gathered processed and stored. We have mapped out the different area of the brain which are responsible for processing each sensory input.
We,ve also mapped out the area of the brain which is responsoble for our higher thinking or "Consciousness" if you will.
It's the frontal lobe. A lobotomy (which is a removal of the frontal lobe) destroys the consciousness or mind. Medical science has captured snapshots using PET scans of the brain processing information. there are different patterns of electrical activity and blood flow patterns when a person is speaking, hearing, seeing, thinking.

Explain to me why the "mind" is so intrinsically tied to the brain? why not the liver? And where is our mind before we are born? Why do we have to go through birth and development? And what about the mentally ill and retarded. What happened to their "mind"?
medical science has an explination for their affliction. A physical
abnormality with the brain. Schizophrenia can be treated with chemicals. You claim that mind creates matter. well tell me how can matter affect the mind so radically. If you believe the brain is unimportant to the mind, Why does dammage to the matter (brain) affects the mind so severly? Why does a lobotomy destroy that mind? What about narcotics, chemicals which affect the brain (matter) If the mind is not so intrinsically associated with the brain (matter) why do drugs and dammage affect the perception and mind so profoundly?



You want to claim that it has a life of it’s own independent of consciousness. You have presented no evidence for this belief, and you seem to want to ignore all the evidence that directly contradicts you on this point.


It is not "alive" but it is independant of consciousness. As for my proof see above and below. What is the evidence that directly contradicts me? You say there is evidence but you don't say what it is. Well? What is it then?



What is your justification/logic/reason/or empirical evidence for believing that “matter” exist independently of perception?

My evidence is emense age of the universe, archaeological evidence, medical proof, physics, astronomy, centuries of collected observation, and experimentation by people much smarter than I am.
You claim to believe in the laws of physics. The laws of physics say: light cannot travel faster than 186,000 miles per second.
The stars and galaxies are billions of miles away. the light you see
in the sky at night took billions of years to reach your mind.
Are you claimimg to be billions of years old?
How do we know the light is old and from far away? Parallax and Spectral shift. testable, repeatable, verifiable and independent of who ever knows about it.


[1) A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

But you make and unfounded assumption that TLOP is conscious
What is your evidence and proof that TLOP is "alive" and makes
decisions or has a "mind". We are "conscious" but why is TLOP conscious? How is gravity, The weak nuclear, and the strong nuclear force and electromagnetisn conscious?

Hello, gravity, how are you doing? Great, how are the kids? What? The weak nuclear and the strong nuclear force hate each other? how terrible. Maybe, electromagnitizm can get them back together. By the way when are you all getting together again? Oh, That long.

All you did is tell me about what you believe in a very obtuse and evasive manner. you still have not shown me any proof or evidence. Obfuscation, evasion, Typical of your method of debate.

I have givin you proof of why I believe what I believe or where to find it. For once in your life, show us your definitive, coherent, testable, verifiable proof with out resorting to insults, obfuscation,
evasion or redirection. And while your at it, please answer my questions posed to you concerning the brain.

[uruk]

Internal senses, then, would be those "inputs" we get that are not originated by what we imagine to be our external senses. Memories would be a prime example. We can still see what our friends looked like when they were younger. Our smell food that our moms were cooking. Those inputs which don't originate from the external world.

I don't know if I understood you correctly, so forgive me if I missed the point. But. The problem with that assesment is that memeories are created by external stimulus. The process by which the brain stores memory is some whatl understood (it involves the hypocampus along with the requsite neuro transmitters). Remembering is the process of accesseing those memories or patterns. I guess what could be considered an input that does not originate from the external world would be the objective assessments of those memories. (i.e. Mom's cooking smelled GOOD, or that was a HAPPY experiance)

In the case of imagination or creativity. Our imagination is limited to reorganization or juxtaposition of what has already been experiance. We cannot imagine or create a thing or experiance unless we can relate or compare it to what we have already experianced. If we have never tasted a olive, we can only imagine
what it would taste like as compared to another taste, i.e. salty, bitter, oily. It isn't untill we actualy taste it can we have that memory to accesess. ( note to Franko: That doesn't mean that the olive doesn't exist!It mearly means that we haven't experianced it yet)

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Franko

Because an Input is the receipt of information. If you receive information – if you perceive it – then you have received INPUT.


What if the receipt, perception and processing of INPUT is an illusion? Not the data itself, but the process.

I think Upchurch was trying to ask why to trust the internal over the external. Someone can say "I think, therefore I am!" But what if that thought isn't a sign of conciousness, but a byproduct of some unpercieved process that has nothing to do with conciousness or awareness?

Why trust the internal over the external?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
--------------------------------------------------
About a billion years ago, give or take a few, there was no life on Earth. Yet it [the Earth] must have existed, otherwise life would not have appeared. So, without anybody/anything percieving it, Earth existed. -And, I consider Earth to fit the label "matter".
--------------------------------------------------

Or equally probable:

1) A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).
The Laws of Physics is not an entity.

Also, that situation is not scientifically sound (its barely Philosophically sound), it's probability of occurring is 0.0%.

2) The Earth doesn’t exist, and life never “appeared” on it. You “appeared” all by yourself, and now you are just imagining the rest.

What evidence exist that makes your explanation more likely than either of these two?
The second scenario isnt scientifically sound either.

What evidence exists that makes the reference explanation more likely than the other two: The first scenario is scientifically sound, the other 2 scenarios are neither scientifically nor Philosophically sound (Note: Keep your Philosophical and semantical questions out of science).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Kullervo
You got some good comic timing going here, Upchurch and Yahweh. You should take the act on the road. I'd say the quality of these threads has improved since the last time this game was played.
:)

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Impy what is the difference between subjective and objective reality?
Do you consider 1+1=2 objective? Are you saying that objective reality is conceptual?
Do you believe that objective reality is a species-specific agreement based on what they perceive. or do you feel it is universal.
If you consider 1+1=2 to be Objective, then how do you explain the non-intrinsic nature of each of the symbols, that their meaning is only relational?

I consider it objective and testable that one apple, when placed next to another apple, leaves an arrangement of two apples, but don't take my word for it, you can try yourself.

Obviously, the above sentance is unweildy and awkward. by the providence of our absurdly large craniums, we are able to concieve of symbols as a shorthand for the amazing revelation that one apple, with another apple is in fact two apples.

The underlying principle is very objective. Saying that the symbols are non-intrinsic and strictly relational is petty. Consider our language. There is nothing intrinsic about the odd colection of hoots and yowels we call the englich language. There is obviously no objective way, in your notion of things, to transmit information of any nature, meaning that this entire discussion is subjective and pointless.

Oh... wait...

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


Or equally probable:

1) A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

2) The Earth doesn’t exist, and life never “appeared” on it. You “appeared” all by yourself, and now you are just imagining the rest.

What evidence exist that makes your explanation more likely than either of these two?

#1: Unparsimonious. You are adding a hypothetical entitiy with a hypothetical ability, which only complicates the equation.

#2: Unparsimonious, and unlikely. Adding complexity, plus all observations indicate that the world functions independently of me.

It is more complex to assume the existence of an entitiy capable of imagining the universe than to assume the existence of the universe.

My explanation fits the observations. Predictions based on my explanation can be observed to be true. In the words of PixyMisa (from way back ;) ) : The world acts as if it exists. We can test this and it turns out to be correct.

Hans

[Correa Neto]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Franko

...

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding or miscommunication, but I never said that I trust some forms of perceptions, and not others. All that I said is I can classify perceptions into 2 main categories: Sensory Perceptions (External Inputs), and Memories (Internal Inputs). Memories are derived from (originate from) Sensory perceptions, the only difference is that external inputs require an external source, while memories do not.
...
Your entire line of arguments seems to revolve around the notion that Matter exist independently of consciousness (perception).
...
[/QUOTE]

Well, if its like this, what about when one remembers dreams or some mental contruct, say, like a project?
What about dreams where one feels pain?
What about hallucinations (specially those induced by drugs)?
I imagined a planet. Does it actually exists during the brief period I am imagining it? Am I god to the tiny little people that live there? Do they have a soul? Are there little people inside my brain?:eek:

Our brain, specially when malfunctioning, can create simulacres of external information inputs that are virtually indiscernible from real ones. This does not mean anything else than whats stated above- the brain can create simulacres of external data input. And for those who feel them, these sensations may be, in a sense, real. But they are not actually abducted by aliens, for example.

The universe exists independently of us. It does not "cares" (better say if the universe could care, it would not care about)about us. It is irrelevant for the universe if we exist or not. If we did not existed, the universe would still exist. There are stars that we can not see (but in some cases we can see them trough telescopes), the Earth has a core composed of molten metal and we can not see it (but we can make images of it using seismic waves). If existence depends on perception, the Earths´s core and these stars were created only after mankind invented these instruments?

Regardless of word games, matter exist independently of consciousness (perception).


Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
"...One cannot say that mind exist or not exist for it is absolute reality."
some Taoist sutra I read a long time ago.

A skeptic is walking down the street and passes several houses before he comes to a stop. He looks around and shouts, I have stopped!!!
I most surely have stopped. A little boy with a propeller cap looks at the skeptics and says, mr you have not stopped you are still moving. Nonsense young man, the skeptic exclaims, as he stamps his feet onto the ground. I have stopped, and i have concrete and verifiable evidence. The skeptic then looks in his pocket and pulls out a ruler a lays it parallel to his feet. You see young man, there is no evidence that i have travelled because had I traveled i would be able to measure the distance by this ruler. But i am stationary, can you see that young man"? The little boy proceeds to explain and says: You have stopped only in relation to your surrounding but in fact you are still in motion. The earth revolves and so you being on the planet earth you are still in motion. The skeptic stamps his foot even harder saying. Can you see how concretely I have measured the lack of movement. I have not moved one inch, how can you say i am moving. The little boy says, you have only stopped in relation to the ruler and the immediate surrounding but you are still in motion because the galaxies solar system is in motion and so are the galaxies. In fact the concept of "stop" has no intrinsic existence, it exist only in relation to some other attribute. This is the way it is for everything that we call conceptual reality. This inability for us to know anything intrinsically may not be the way the universe is but a phenomena resulting from the thought process.
Rastabastapaperclip says the skeptic., now madder and more furious than ever, you clearly do not understand the fundamentals of science and of mathematics. There are specific laws of science which are universal whether we observe them or not. They are concrete, like my measurement of my lack of motion. You need education boy.
The skeptic clearly infuriated begins to walk away and as he walks away he says to the little boy, "you see now i am in motion!

:rolleyes: Do you really think a person with a minimum ammount of scientific knoweledge woud fall on that?:rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by uruk

I don't know if I understood you correctly, so forgive me if I missed the point. But. The problem with that assesment is that memeories are created by external stimulus. The process by which the brain stores memory is some whatl understood (it involves the hypocampus along with the requsite neuro transmitters). This assumes the existence of a physical brain. Normally, I would agree with you, but for the sake of this argument, I was assuming that the physical world is illusionary which implies that the mind and the brain are two entirely seperate things.

[Doubt]

If perception is required for things to exist, then what are the boundaries?

If I perceive something that is not there, (a hallucination,) it does not have to follow the laws of physics. (Floating bunnies anyone?) If I perceive something that is real, it does appear to follow the laws of physics.

Shouldn’t there be some intermediate condition where things that we perceive of as being real disappear or break the laws of physics? Also, consider the opposite. Shouldn’t hallucinations be able to pass on into the real world and start to obey TLOP?

Rabbit launching catapults don’t count. Ballistic hares are following TLOP.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Franko
I don’t see how you can have awareness without existence, nor do I see how you could have existence without awareness. Could you explain what you mean? I'm just saying that one has to come before the other. Your brain can't have been created by its own thoughts. It must exist before the awareness can happen.

I guess this assumes that awareness is the result of the actions of a physical brain, which I think it clearly is. If you think that the awareness came from somewhere else, I suppose it would be possible for the awareness to create the physical existance as it formed. I see no reason to think that this would be the case, however.

I also think it's quite obvious that there is no point in arguing about different views of reality that can not be proven one way or the other. I'm not going to come back and see if you ask any further questions, so you'll have to be satisfied with that.

[Franko]

Franko said:
I don’t see how you can have awareness without existence, nor do I see how you could have existence without awareness. Could you explain what you mean?

Michael Redman replied:

I'm just saying that one has to come before the other. Your brain can't have been created by its own thoughts. It must exist before the awareness can happen.

Only if you are assuming the Materialist Paradigm.

What I am saying is that there is no point in talking about observation (necessary for the existence of “matter”) without first talking about the Observer (that which Perceives).

The fundamental premise of Materialism is that the Object came first, and then created the Observer. I contend that this is an unfounded and untestable hypothesis.

I guess this assumes that awareness is the result of the actions of a physical brain, which I think it clearly is.

And I would say that if you have taken the Materialist premise as gospel fact that this is not a surprising revelation.

If you think that the awareness came from somewhere else, I suppose it would be possible for the awareness to create the physical existence as it formed. I see no reason to think that this would be the case, however.

I would contend that not only is this the more reasonable and logical assumption, but it is a more consistent and parsimonious explanation of observed reality.

I also think it's quite obvious that there is no point in arguing about different views of reality that can not be proven one way or the other.

Yes, I have noticed that when it begins to dawn on Materialist that they have deluded themselves and simply traded one unproveable Religion for another that they become more hesitant about expounding the metaphysical certitude of their belief system.

[Upchurch]

One would be tempted to ask what can be proven, if anything....

[Franko]

Doubt:
If perception is required for things to exist, then what are the boundaries?

If I perceive something that is not there, (a hallucination,) it does not have to follow the laws of physics. (Floating bunnies anyone?) If I perceive something that is real, it does appear to follow the laws of physics.

This reality – this universe – is generated by a single entity (a single consciousness). That entity, like all entities, is consistent in her behavior. That is what makes her an individual.

If you and I are present in the same room seated at a table, then She is the one telling both You and I where the table is, how large it is, each of our relative position, and the position of other inanimate objects in the room. You could think of Her (“God”) as like the program that generates the Matrix.

When you cease communicating with Her … when she ceases to transmit information to you (two sides of the same coin), then you are disconnected from this universe. You sleep, and when you sleep, then Your mind becomes the source of the Laws of Physics, and the source of all the “matter” as well.

A hallucination or delusion is a similar phenomena.

Shouldn’t there be some intermediate condition where things that we perceive of as being real disappear or break the laws of physics?

Not really, because either you are receiving information from TLOP (“God”), or you are not.

Also, consider the opposite. Shouldn’t hallucinations be able to pass on into the real world and start to obey TLOP?

If you possessed significant influence over TLOP you could imagine something in your head, and then transmit that perception to her in such a way that She caused it to manifest in this reality.

[Franko]

Upchurch:
One would be tempted to ask what can be proven, if anything....

Lots of things; why is it any different?

I still contend that my beliefs are inherently the same as your beliefs. Our main difference of opinion appears to regard a single foundational premise.

Or you could say that I just believe in one less form of “matter” (“God”) than you do. ;)

[Upchurch]

How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

[Franko]

Correa, you are correct in a sense that ”matter” exist independently of consciousness. The matter in this universe exist independently of Your consciousness, but that is because Your consciousness is NOT the consciousness that is generating the “matter”.

Correa Neto:
Well, if its like this, what about when one remembers dreams or some mental construct, say, like a project?

The difference between this universe and your dream universe is that YOU generate the “matter” and laws of physics in your dreams, whereas a different Individual generates the “matter” and laws of physics in this universe. The other main difference is that YOU are a Solipsist in your dreams. (Generally) there are no other “real” consciousnesses in your dreams, only your own.

In this universe every other living consciousness you see is fundamentally no different than yourself. This reality is a shared reality, your dreams (for the most part) are not.

Think of this reality (the Universe) as a hologram, and the Algorithm that is generating that hologram is called TLOP. Except TLOP is not really a giant computer somewhere, She is a mind inherently just like yours.

What about dreams where one feels pain?

Pain is ultimately a mental phenomena caused by negative Inputs (or feedback). Both positive and negative inputs are generated by all formal systems (all sets of “laws of physics”).

What about hallucinations (specially those induced by drugs)?

If you can stop thinking of “matter” as matter for a moment, and instead think of it as information, you could consider drugs or alcohol as a meme (or algorithm) that is run in your consciousness. Many drug-memes alter (or adversely effect) the connection between your own consciousness and TLOP’s. Your mind does not have a good connection to the source of information about reality, and so it makes up things (hallucinations) to fill in the gaps.

I imagined a planet. Does it actually exists during the brief period I am imagining it? Am I god to the tiny little people that live there? Do they have a soul? Are there little people inside my brain?

If you fell asleep and dreamed you were on such a planet I contend that it would be as real for you at that moment as any other reality you might experience.

Our brain, specially when malfunctioning, can create simulacres of external information inputs that are virtually indiscernible from real ones. This does not mean anything else than whats stated above- the brain can create simulacres of external data input. And for those who feel them, these sensations may be, in a sense, real. But they are not actually abducted by aliens, for example.

I agree, but that is only because you and I can objectively observe as events unfold, and we can perceive that what this individual thought they experienced is not what actually occurred in our realities.

The universe exists independently of us.

Sure, in the same way that I exist independently of YOU.

It does not "cares" (better say if the universe could care, it would not care about)about us.

If that is the case, then why did the universe spawn/create or bring you here?

If you want to claim it was a purely random and unplanned event, then you might as well claim that all of your actions and words are similarly unplanned and random.

It is irrelevant for the universe if we exist or not.

Do you mean in the same way it is irrelevant to YOU whether or not Me and everyone else exist?

Perhaps you are dreaming now, and everyone and everything is just a figment of your imagination?

If we did not existed, the universe would still exist.

And you have determined this how exactly?

There are stars that we can not see (but in some cases we can see them through telescopes), the Earth has a core composed of molten metal and we can not see it (but we can make images of it using seismic waves). If existence depends on perception, the Earth´s core and these stars were created only after mankind invented these instruments?

Some of the world was created in advance, before the Dungeonmaster really got the game going, and other things She “dreamed up” as the game went along. But until someone asked her where some untravelled path lead, no one really knew where the path lead.

[Franko]

How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

Your perceptions are a source of information. Whether or not that information can be trusted or not is determined by logical analysis (science, reason, logic). Accumulating information over time one is eventually able to perceive persistent and predictable patterns within the dataflow (Bayes). These patterns can be considered separate and distinct from the information itself. The patterns being forces and the raw information being energy which is acted upon by those forces.

In other words there are rules to the game (forces), and there are pieces to the game (energy or “matter”). By observing how the pieces move in the past and present, you are able to determine how they will move in the future (i.e. Truth).

[Upchurch]

Any conclusion that is based on potentially false information is still potentially false, even if that conclusion is derived in a logically consistent manner. Garbage in, garbage out.

To repeat the question: How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

[Franko]

Hypothesis: A (MRC)
About a billion years ago, give or take a few, there was no life on Earth. Yet it [the Earth] must have existed, otherwise life would not have appeared. So, without anybody/anything percieving it, Earth existed. -And, I consider Earth to fit the label "matter".

Hypothesis: B (Franko)
A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

Hypothesis: C (Franko)
The Earth doesn’t exist, and life never “appeared” on it. You “appeared” all by yourself, and now you are just imagining the rest.

Franko:
What evidence exist that makes your explanation (Hypothesis A) more likely than either of these two (B or C)?]

MRC:
Hypothesis B: Unparsimonious. You are adding a hypothetical entitiy with a hypothetical ability, which only complicates the equation.

I’m not adding anything that you haven’t already asserted. Your explanation calls upon TLOP, and so does mine. Your explanation is the UNPARSIMONIOUS version, in that YOU are asserting an entire universe filled with self-existing “matter” something you have absolutely no evidence for, and something which is completely untestable or verifiable.

Hypothesis C: Unparsimonious, and unlikely. Adding complexity, plus all observations indicate that the world functions independently of me.

All of who’s observations MRC? Your own? If you only have YOUR OWN observations to rely on, then YOUR OWN observations are the ONLY observations you have to rely on. That is EXACTLY what Hypothesis C is stating.

Really Hypothesis C is just a mathematically simplified version of YOUR Hypothesis A.

Could you please explain again how the simpler version of the theory is actually the more complex version of the theory?

It is more complex to assume the existence of an entitiy capable of imagining the universe than to assume the existence of the universe.

Unfortunately for you TLOP is not so easily swept from observation.

And TLOP is undoubtedly the source of ALL your information about this reality.

My explanation fits the observations. Predictions based on my explanation can be observed to be true.

Really? Then please explain how we can observe “matter” existing independently of consciousness, or please provide the experimental evidence that conclusively demonstrates “matter” making consciousness?

In the words of PixyMisa (from way back ) : The world acts as if it exists. We can test this and it turns out to be correct.

Hey that’s funny, because I also act as if I exist, yet you have been unable to prove that I actually do as anything beyond a figment of your imagination!

[Franko]

ratman:
What if the receipt, perception and processing of INPUT is an illusion? Not the data itself, but the process.

I think Upchurch was trying to ask why to trust the internal over the external. Someone can say "I think, therefore I am!" But what if that thought isn't a sign of conciousness, but a byproduct of some unpercieved process that has nothing to do with conciousness or awareness?

Why trust the internal over the external?

I never said that you could trust the internal inputs over the external inputs. I merely stated that you could separate the inputs into two categories.

Furthermore, I never stated that you couldn’t trust the external inputs. In fact, Upchurch was the one who claimed that the inputs could be tampered with, and I explained why I didn’t believe that was the case.

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Any conclusion that is based on potentially false information is still potentially false, even if that conclusion is derived in a logically consistent manner. Garbage in, garbage out.

Okay, so explain why you believe that “matter” has to have an independent existence from consciousness in order for incoming information to be objective?

All the term “Objective” means is that You and I agree we saw the same thing. Why is self-existing “matter” a requirement for you and I to agree about an observation?

To repeat the question: How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

I have no idea of why you believe that “matter” self-existing independent of consciousness is a necessary condition for objective reality?

[Upchurch]

....and we're back to misdirection and changing the subject. Can you answer the question or not? How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

Can anyone answer the question?

[Franko]

Upchurch:
....and we're back to misdirection and changing the subject.

No, you seem to be stating that information can be trusted under one premise, but not under the other. Without explaining your reason for believing this is the case it is impossible for me to comment on it coherently.

Can you answer the question or not?

You haven’t asked a question, you have simply made an unfounded assumption and you are asking me to disprove that assumption without knowing the reason you are making it in the first place.

Can you explain why self-existing “matter” is a necessary condition for objective reality? If you cannot, then there is nothing for me to respond to.

How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

Can anyone answer the question?

What makes you assume that faith in materialism is a necessary requirement for objective reality? You sound like a Christian crying that if his religion isn’t True the sky will surely fall.

[Upchurch]

Allow me to summarize:

I'm arguing against the immaterialist notion, which you'll note is the topic of the thread, that our perception of the material world is illusion and only our perceptions of the mind are real.

The implication of this immaterialist notion is that what we perceive as the material world is a falsehood created either by the individual's mind or by some unknown agent. However, if either of these are true, then all preceptions must be held suspect of being illusion, even those perceptions that we have a mind at all. And yet, the immaterialists (e.g. Antonio and Ian) still insist that the mind exists and that the material world does not. This is inconsistent and based on their personal opinions and preferences.

This is the limit of the argument I am making within the context of this thread alone. My personal opinions of why materialism may or may not be true is not pertenent to the argument of whether this immaterialist notion is true. If we are to discuss my opinions of materialism, it should be done in another thread because it is not the topic of this thread.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If you and I are present in the same room seated at a table, then She is the one telling both You and I where the table is, how large it is, each of our relative position, and the position of other inanimate objects in the room. You could think of Her (“God”) as like the program that generates the Matrix.

When you cease communicating with Her … when she ceases to transmit information to you (two sides of the same coin), then you are disconnected from this universe. You sleep, and when you sleep, then Your mind becomes the source of the Laws of Physics, and the source of all the “matter” as well.

A hallucination or delusion is a similar phenomena.

How do you know dreams, hallucinations, and delusions are derived from one's own mind? Why not postulate another entity (let's call her The Capricious and Whimsical Laws of Physics) who occasionally wrests control of your inputs from TLOP and starts screwing with your head?

And please, dear Franko, you know I love your humour, but don't say "Parsimony." I've a bit of a stomach-ache and laughing hurts today.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Franko


This reality – this universe – is generated by a single entity (a single consciousness). That entity, like all entities, is consistent in her behavior. That is what makes her an individual.


* snip *

Sorry, but you are on a tangent. The subject of this thread is the assertion that nothing exists until we perceive it. I don’t think the thread starter is including your goddess when he said “we”. The assumption here is that we, and not your goddess are the source of “reality”.

My questions pertains to why we cannot change our reality by choice within the model presented. Your ideas do not address the assumption that is at the start of this thread and is out of context to my question. What I want to see is how does the thread starter's model of reality address the limitation of our existance. Alternative explanations such as yours and materialism simply are not relevant within the sketchy framework offered up by Antonio.

On the other hand, as soon as you offer some proof of the existence and gender of your goddess, I will stop pursing the subject this thread started and commence addressing your ideas. Until you do provide such evidence, we have nothing to discuss.

[c4ts]

This entity is an individual because it has everything in common with all other entities? I'm sorry Franko, but you cannot have something different in the sense that it is the same, and since individuals are distinguished from others by by their differences, an individual that had everything in common with other things would be impossible to distinguish from those things.

[whitefork]

I'll try to start on an answer to Upchurch's question about what can be proven.

You have a diagram of a geometric proof. The diagram is a visual aid. It doesn't have to be precise; it cannot be precise. The perception of the diagram is not the proof. Sight can be deceptive. Circles can appear as ellipses.

The reasoning behind the diagram, the proof itself, is more reliable than the perception of the diagram. Of course, some demon can step in at any point and make my reasoning be defective (a la Descartes), but I can go back and repeat the process at will. I can refer to Euclid, I can do the proof again myself, I can talk to other people who do geometry. Any one of these steps is subject to error, but the more they reinforce one another, the less the liklihood of being wrong.

The proof is an ideal somewhere outside the process that we approximate by doing it.

How's that for a starting point?

[uruk]

Upchurch wrote:
This assumes the existence of a physical brain. Normally, I would agree with you, but for the sake of this argument, I was assuming that the physical world is illusionary which implies that the mind and the brain are two entirely seperate things.


Oops! My bad.

[uruk]

Think of this reality (the Universe) as a hologram, and the Algorithm that is generating that hologram is called TLOP.


I see your point here.


Except TLOP is not really a giant computer somewhere, She is a mind inherently just like yours.

However, what is your evidence or proof here. What do you have to corroborate this assumption.


the connection between your own consciousness and TLOP’s.

How is this connection established? By what means does TLOP
send you messages?


If that is the case, then why did the universe spawn/create or bring you here?

Your making an unfounded assumption that there is intenention or conscious thought assigned to the universe. He was spawned by his parents. If you mean life in general, That is result of chemistry and radiation. TLOP are such that this is possible.
This however, is not evidence for concsiousness in TLOP.
There is no consciousness involved in the planets orbiting the sun.
there is no consciousness involved in electromagnetic attraction.

If TLOP behaved erratically and against it's established logic, then there might be an argument. But in the centuries of observation.
there has been no reported case of an object falling up or acting against TLOP.

[Franko]

Franko:
TLOP is not really a giant computer somewhere, She is a mind inherently just like yours.

uruk:
However, what is your evidence or proof here. What do you have to corroborate this assumption.

You seem to be confusing evidence with the theory (or hypothesis, or explanation of evidence). I am offering a hypothesis that explains the existing evidence (observation).

What I am stating is that if there is no fundamental difference in the way that a Mind interacts with TLOP from the way that Mind interacts with other Mind, then it is illogical to claim that Mind interacts with TLOP in a fundamentally different way than Mind interacts with other Minds.

How is this connection established? By what means does TLOP
send you messages?

When I am able to explain this to you, then we would communicate exactly like TLOP communicates with you – directly Mind to Mind. We would be able to communicate instantaneously at any apparent physical distance in this universe bypassing the “matter” and Laws of physics in the process.

[Franko]

c4ts:
This entity is an individual because it has everything in common with all other entities?

No, you must have misunderstood me. TLOP communicates with every living entity in this universe. This entanglement with her is what makes this reality “shared”. But the fact that She communicates with everyone does not mean that She has everything in common with each individual.

Think of the situation (this universe) as a giant computer network. The Server (a computer) is linked to every other node (every other computer), but none of the nodes are directly connected to each other. The Server is analogous to TLOP (or “God”) and each of the nodes is analogous to a living consciousness within the universe. Since none of the servers are able to communicate directly (none of them are connected to each other), all communication between nodes must be translated and relayed by the Server (TLOP).

you cannot have something different in the sense that it is the same, and since individuals are distinguished from others by their differences, an individual that had everything in common with other things would be impossible to distinguish from those things.

I agree, but that is not what I am saying at all. The Goddess who generates this universe is no more the same entity that You are than your PC is the same PC as the Network server it is connected to. Your PC contains different information than the Server does.

[uruk]

When I am able to explain this to you, then we would communicate exactly like TLOP communicates with you – directly Mind to Mind. We would be able to communicate instantaneously at any apparent physical distance in this universe bypassing the “matter” and Laws of physics in the process.

Can you explain what the processes is, By what means do the minds transfere information. By what means does TLOP communicate with us. Your telling me what happens but not how
it happens.

Where do the minds exists?, By what processes and by what medium does the exchange of information happen?


I am offering a hypothesis that explains the existing evidence (observation).

So here your saying you could be wrong about this how thing.

[Franko]

MCD:
How do you know dreams, hallucinations, and delusions are derived from one's own mind? Why not postulate another entity …

What is your reason, evidence, or observation for believing that an entity other than yourself generates you dream reality? Can you prove Solipsism is false in your dreams? When you can, I'll be more than happy to chat with you about this.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
The Goddess who generates this universe is no more the same entity that You are than your PC is the same PC as the Network server it is connected to. Your PC contains different information than the Server does.
OH BOY!! You brought up "The Goddess", Franko. I have been holding back from this discussion because you had pretty much stuck to philosophical stuff until now. But now you have brought religion into it again, so I once again (after a considerable delay) ask you to tell me if you disagree with any of the things on this list. There are lots of links, in case you can't remember what you said. I ask this only in the interest of accuracy, since I do not wish to misrepresent you. Tell me what to change and I will change it.
-------------------
Franko's beliefs
-------------------

NOTE: Many of these “beliefs” were verified by Franko in this post. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=290098&highlight=logical+goddess+omnipotent#post290098)
Origins This universe is part of an omniverse.
The Omniverse, and all of its subsets (Universes, even You and I) are all reiterative hierarchical structures, i.e. fractals. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=346035&highlight=hierarchical#post346035)
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=306446&highlight=progenitor#post306446)
After an Eternity of isolation, he was Infinity self-aware, but he had no idea what it would be like to experience individuality, so his Omniscience ended when Individuality began. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=370106&highlight=entanglement#post370106)
Your soul is a shard of what was once an Omnipotent Solipsist Entity, i.e. The Progenitor Solipsist. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=370106&highlight=entanglement#post370106)
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
Your actions are controlled by the Logical Goddess, but your perceptions are not. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=364145&highlight=actions+perceptions#post364145)
The Logical Goddess is bound by both fate (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343044&highlight=goddess+bound+fate#post343044) and logic. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343062&highlight=bound+logic#post343062)
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
Consciousness creates matter.
Once Time achieves a certain level of self-awareness it begins to evolve (and expand). Your “extra” spatial dimensions are the early manifestations of “the matter”, but they are merely the byproduct of Time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=352045&highlight=time+selfawareness#post352045[/url)
The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics . (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306475&highlight=configuration+stuff#post306475)



How Things Work One soul = one graviton.
Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
In the True reality Gravitons are ALL that exists (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=370106&highlight=entanglement#post370106)
When two Gravitons interact they exchange Energy in the form of memes. This entanglement creates a decision junction in SpaceTime. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=370106&highlight=entanglement#post370106)
Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
Spin is quality of Mass, and Charge is quality of Velocity. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334873&highlight=spin+quality+mass+charge+velocity#post33 4873)
Information (i.e. Energy) can be either True or False. The total quantity of information manifest as Mass. The ratio of True information to False information (quality of Mass) manifests as Spin (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=363463&highlight=manifest#post363463)
Velocity is Speed of Processing (speed of thought, speed of comprehension) and Charge is Quality of Velocity (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=363463&highlight=manifest#post363463)
Your consciousness is like a fractal. It consist of Two parts, your Algorithm (your Soul, the Velocity of your particle), and your Database (your Graviton, the fractal image itself, the Mass of your particle). (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=370106&highlight=entanglement#post370106)
Two premises make a conclusion and two conclusions become premises which in turn make a new higher level conclusion. The height of your = hierarchy pyramid is your Velocity, the width of your pyramid is your Mass. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=370106&highlight=entanglement#post370106)
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
Determinism/Fate/”free will” is the interaction of gravitons of varying strength.
The same logic that leads me to conclude a more evolved being exist leads me to believe that entities’ gender female. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=114229&highlight=determinism+interaction+gravitons#post11 4229)
The main difference between (males) and the LG, is that (males) don’t have Vaginas, and She doesn’t have a Penis. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=370106&highlight=entanglement#post370106)
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatabalist free will. None.
An entity which can perceive the future has the power to change the future. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=370106&highlight=entanglement#post370106)
The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
This entire Universe is essentially an illusion. You and I actually exist as particles in the Truer reality of the Omniverse. This universe is a carefully constructed elaboration of the True reality. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334724&highlight=entire+Universe+is+essentially+an+illusi on#post334724[/url)
TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
True randomness does not exist.
If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.)
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
Gravitons are not real in the sense that you and I are real. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=338621&highlight=matter+real+sense#post338621)
Gravitons obey a higher law that we'd probably call Thermodynamics. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=338862&highlight=thermodymics#post338862)
A Graviton is just a special kind of meme, and memes are just distinct packets of information. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704)
Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)
The Logical Goddess cannot create gravitons, but she can destroy them. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=346035&highlight=hierarchical#post346035)
Objects without gravitons don't really exist in the way that You or I do. They are merely projections. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334724&highlight=merely+projections#post334724)
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
The universe can be completely described in terms of binary responses.
If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them both.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
At the core of your Soul there is a special type of meme, a special type of algorithm. It possesses this quality you call self-awareness to a far greater degree than other memes. It has this quality because it possesses a meme which gives it Simultaneous Perception. In short it has the ability to perceive two realities (or more) at the same time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=342244&highlight=Simultaneous+Perception#post342244)
Electromagnetism is the memetic projection of the Goddess used as an enhanced means of conveying information. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343594&highlight=conditioning%2Fcontrol#post343594)
The rules which bind all consciousness are the Laws of Time and Gravity. These are not laws in the same sense as TLOP (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=344438&highlight=consciousness+laws+time+gravity#post3444 38)
Space and Time are essentially the same thing, or more accurately “Space” (and it’s cousin the “matter”) are merely manifestations of extrapolated (evolved) Time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=352345&highlight=space+extrapolated#post352345)
Your subconscious mind and your conscious mind are not exactly the same entity. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=369952&highlight=conscious+exactly#post369952)
Two objects traveling from the same origin at speeds greater than half the speed of light are moving apart relative to each other at speeds greater than the speed of light. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=374054&highlight=asteroids+speed+of+light#post374054)



Morality Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
the abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=305988&highlight=progenitor#post305988)
There are consequences for the things you do.
The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
MPB is what is actually evolving. Your algorithm (as well as your database) expands, and evolves over time. It grows. It becomes more complex. You become more self aware. You gain individuality, you gain power. You gain control. You gain freedom. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=121324&highlight=database+expands#post121324)
Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306200&highlight=anyone+commits+immoral+insane#post306200 )
Threat of punishment is the only thing that leads to morality.
A situation is a pattern of events outside the context of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=313714&highlight=situation+pattern+events#post313714)


Miscellaneous/The Lexicon Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.
Fate = Karma. Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303319&highlight=karma#post303319)
No evidence against a thing means evidence for a thing. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315164&highlight=figment+progenitor#post315164)
choices are preordained outputs (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=323334&highlight=choices+preordained+outputs#post323334)
In LD an Eternity is a very long long period of time, not an “infinite” period of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=324718&highlight=eternity+period+time#post324718)
Gravity is the force which makes Logic possible, and without Logic there would be no Fate. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=344470&highlight=gravity+logic+possible#post344470)
Logic works by having people compare their explanations and seeing which is more logical. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=344372&highlight=Upchurch+explain+something#post344372)
Love is when the existence of another Graviton becomes more axiomatic then your own existence. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=351994&highlight=axiomatic#post351994)


A more detailed explanation of the Logical Deism creation story is given here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315470&highlight=remnant+furthermore#post315470)

[Franko]

uruk:
Can you explain what the processes is, By what means do the minds transfer information. By what means does TLOP communicate with us. Your telling me what happens but not how
it happens.

Well I would contend that Materialism/Atheism is telling you even less than what I am.

For example how do oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light with a wavelength of 6500 angstrom go from being photons to being Red?

Where exactly is the “red” coming from? What happened to the oscillating photons? What is the intrinsic, inherent color of a photon? What would one look like if it was the size of a basketball?

Where do the minds exists?, By what processes and by what medium does the exchange of information happen?

All gravitons (or Souls) exist in the ultimate reality known as “the Omniverse”. In this reality Minds are the only “matter” (only particles/entities) which exist.

[Marquis de Carabas]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCD:
How do you know dreams, hallucinations, and delusions are derived from one's own mind? Why not postulate another entity …
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What is your reason, evidence, or observation for believing that an entity other than yourself generates you dream reality? Can you prove Solipsism is false in your dreams? When you can, I'll be more than happy to chat with you about this.

I have no reason, evidence, or observation, and I do not believe this. As should be rather obvious, I was asking you what prevented you from postulating it. You have gone so far as to postulate TLOP as an entity that informs us what goes on when we are not dreaming, hallucinating, or delusional. Why not have The Capricious and Whimsical LOP do the same for those times when you are? Or why not just make TLOP the Sometimes Capricious and Whimsical LOP and let that one entity take care of it all?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Kullervo
The proof is an ideal somewhere outside the process that we approximate by doing it.

How's that for a starting point? Wow. Pretty good, but there is still a problem with it. While the logic of geometry is consistent, it's still only true if the premises are true. We have no experience or perception of a straight line except what we receive through our senses. If our perception of a "straight line" is really just an illusion, then what does geometry prove?

You're closer to the mark by suggesting that we can prove that a logical system (e.g. geometry) can be shown to be self-consistent, but here again, how do we know that our perception of consistency isn't, itself, another illusion fed into our brain?

[Franko]

Upchurch:

Wow. Pretty good, but there is still a problem with it. While the logic of geometry is consistent, it's still only true if the premises are true. We have no experience or perception of a straight line except what we receive through our senses. If our perception of a "straight line" is really just an illusion, then what does geometry prove?

You're closer to the mark by suggesting that we can prove that a logical system (e.g. geometry) can be shown to be self-consistent, but here again, how do we know that our perception of consistency isn't, itself, another illusion fed into our brain?

So what about Godel?

Are you claiming that Godel proved the Truth doesn't exist? (or perception can't be trusted)

[Franko]

Franko:
What is your reason, evidence, or observation for believing that an entity other than yourself generates you dream reality? Can you prove Solipsism is false in your dreams? When you can, I'll be more than happy to chat with you about this.

MCD:
I have no reason, evidence, or observation, and I do not believe this. As should be rather obvious, I was asking you what prevented you from postulating it.

A lack of reason to postulate it (parsimony) is my reason for not postulating it.

Are you in the habit of postulating unnecessarily?

You have gone so far as to postulate TLOP as an entity that informs us what goes on when we are not dreaming, hallucinating, or delusional. Why not have The Capricious and Whimsical LOP do the same for those times when you are?

Well in a way that is exactly what I am saying, except:

CWLOP = YOU

Or why not just make TLOP the Sometimes Capricious and Whimsical LOP and let that one entity take care of it all?

If you read any of my exchange with Upchurch you would know that I make no claims as to whether or not Solipsism is True. If you are claiming that I am merely a figment of your imagination (along with everyone else) then I would have to agree.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Are you claiming that Godel proved the Truth doesn't exist? (or perception can't be trusted) Which proof are you referring to?

I'm actually claiming that immaterialists claim that perception can't be trusted, but that they apply that claim inconsistently.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Franko,

I'm not claiming anything. I'm just trying to see where you're coming from. And I think I'm about there.

What you are saying (please correct if this is wrong; I'm not trying to misinterpret you) is that there are individual consciousnesses which function as TCWLOP when dreaming, etc, and also there is TLOP, a further conscious entity that supplies info to all other consciousnesses when not dreaming, etc. That would be the non-solipsistic position.

Also, there is a solipsistic possibility that TLOP and TCWLOP (some individual consciousness) are one and the same, and that's all there is.

And you make no claims as to which of the above is the case?

[Franko]

Upchurch:
I'm actually claiming that immaterialists [Amaterialists] claim that perception can't be trusted, but that they apply that claim inconsistently.

Who said that perceptions can’t be trusted?

YOU were the one who said that the perceptions could be tampered with even if there is no evidence that they have been tampered with. Other than that brief tangent I have no idea what you are talking about?

As for Godel and formal systems, BOTH your worldview and mine would qualify as “formal systems” and by subject to Godel’s theorem (Godel’s Law), however your worldview asserts the self-existence (the preeminence) of “matter” beyond the scope of observation or perception.

If you are asserting an object which cannot be tested or verified by observation, then your belief in this object is based entirely upon Faith (not evidence or Logic).

Thus far you have not contested this point.

[Franko]

MCD:
What you are saying (please correct if this is wrong; I'm not trying to misinterpret you) is that there are individual consciousnesses which function as TCWLOP when dreaming, etc, and also there is TLOP, a further conscious entity that supplies info to all other consciousnesses when not dreaming, etc. That would be the non-solipsistic position.

Yeah, more or less.

Each consciousness is in reality a Graviton and TLOP would be just another Graviton.

Also, there is a solipsistic possibility that TLOP and TCWLOP (some individual consciousness) are one and the same, and that's all there is.

And you make no claims as to which of the above is the case?

Well, if I explained my worldview a little more thoroughly and completely I think you might begin to see that it is a moot point from my POV.

[Upchurch]

You know, I think I've come to realize something, Franko. You're not an immaterialist (or amaterialist, if you prefer) at all. You are a materialist. You believe that physical things exist. I mean, how many times have your agruments relied on the existence of atoms and gravitons and cars and so on? You just have a different concept of how the physical world came about and what some of the elements of it actual are.

We need to get an actual immaterialist like hammegk or Ian on this thread to explain the disparity.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I second Upchurch.

It seems to me, Franko, that your position does not differ significantly in application to a materialist's. In the case of Shirley and the brick, for instance, the materialist takes the view that a physical brick is thrown from Bill to Shirley. In your view (it seems to me) information about a brick is passed (through TLOP) from Bill to Shirley. That nothing has physical form seems inconsequential. TLOP, as a conscious entity, could continue perceiving the brick (as information) in the absence of both Bill and Shirley. The difference only seems to be one of form. To the materialist, the brick is physical; to you it is information (logical, perhaps).

Again, if I've muddled your views in any way, please clarify.

Well, if I explained my worldview a little more thoroughly and completely I think you might begin to see that it is a moot point from my POV.

Feel free to do so...

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Upchurch
While the logic of geometry is consistent, it's still only true if the premises are true. We have no experience or perception of a straight line except what we receive through our senses. If our perception of a "straight line" is really just an illusion, then what does geometry prove?The theorems of geometry are valid even if there are no straight lines - and of course, there are in nature no straight lines as defined by Euclidean geometry.

You're closer to the mark by suggesting that we can prove that a logical system (e.g. geometry) can be shown to be self-consistent, but here again, how do we know that our perception of consistency isn't, itself, another illusion fed into our brain? No fair! You know I can't answer that one, except by falling back on the argument that the more times the consistency of a system is demonstrated, the more reliable it is that those doing the demonstration have not erred. Can one know that one is not in error, when the word "know" is taken to mean "it is impossible to be mistaken about this"? I think not. That is too restrictive a definition of knowledge to permit anything to be known, even the fact of one's own existence.

[uruk]

Well I would contend that Materialism/Atheism is telling you even less than what I am. For example how do oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light with a wavelength of 6500 angstrom go from being photons to being Red?

Where exactly is the “red” coming from? What happened to the oscillating photons? What is the intrinsic, inherent color of a photon? What would one look like if it was the size of a basketball?


This is a common fallacy that immaterialsts make.

The lable "red" is just what we call a photon with a wavelength
of 6500 angnstroms as it acts upon our retinas and is processed
by the brain.
There is no inherent color to a photon. the statement is meaningless as it is an incorrect assessment of the properties of a photon. The problem your having is with the lable
"Red". It is nothing more than just a description that has no bering on the state of the existance of the photon. The photons which ocsillate at that particular frequency still exists wether
there is anyone to observe it or not.

How do I know that they existed before I became aware of them or for that matter before I existed?
When I look at a distant star through a telescope, the photons emitted from the star striking my retina took millions of years traveling through the universe to reach me. I am not millions of years old. Therefore they existed before I did.


True if there is noone around to percieve the photon there will be noone to call it "red". So What. How does that negate the existance of the photon?

What we call a thing or how we percieve a thing has no bering
or effect on that thing. If I call the star we are orbiting "freddy"
how does it change or affect the star? My "mind" can percieve the visiblel spectrum as well as feel the thermal radiation emitted by the sun. How does the application of the lable "sun light" or "warm" affect the sun? How can that mental perception create the physical sun?

Each consciousness is in reality a Graviton and TLOP would be just another Graviton.
Which definition of "graviton" are using? The generaly accepted one: Graviton: A massless particle hypothisized to be the quantum of gravitational interaction.; or do you have one of your own. Please clarify.

All gravitons (or Souls) exist in the ultimate reality known as “the Omniverse”. In this reality Minds are the only “matter” (only particles/entities) which exist.
Why the extreaneous reality? and what evidence do you have to believe that it exists? You just seem to be substituting one reality
for another. Why would the "ominverse" be any more real than our own? Couldn't the "omniverse" be the illusion and this existance the "realiy"? Why can't we just percieve the "omniverse" and just do away with this illusion?

As for Godel and formal systems, BOTH your worldview and mine would qualify as “formal systems” and by subject to Godel’s theorem (Godel’s Law), however your worldview asserts the self-existence (the preeminence) of “matter” beyond the scope of observation or perception

But as upchurch suggested, and by using your beliefs> How would you know that your world view is the same as upchurch's.
Your world view is being supplied by TLOP as is Upchurch's.
How would you know that TLOP isn't feeding you one world view
and feeding upchurch a different one" You and upchurch communicate via the TLOP, right? How would you know if upchurch existed or not? Could'nt upchurch just be some illusion that TLOP is feeding you?.

You claim that your telling me more than what materialisim / athieism (science) could tell me. I'm sorry but I can't agree with you.

Also, You haven't even answered my questions on how mental illness and retardation figure into your "omniverse". Or why
any physical damage to the brain can cause such a profound affect on the mind. And how about the blind and deaf? Did TLOP just decide not to send those minds those particular information?
Why? And why just the five senses? Why not 10 or 2?
Science has theories and experimental evidenceon all of those subjects. Not just hypothesis. You haven't said anything on those subjects.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You know, I think I've come to realize something, Franko. You're not an immaterialist (or amaterialist, if you prefer) at all. You are a materialist. You believe that physical things exist. I mean, how many times have your agruments relied on the existence of atoms and gravitons and cars and so on? You just have a different concept of how the physical world came about and what some of the elements of it actual are.

We need to get an actual immaterialist like hammegk or Ian on this thread to explain the disparity.
Damn, I was going to post the same thing yesterday. I had made another one of my large analzyed posts. Unfortunately, I as I was writing it, my internet connection became unstable and I was unable to post for a while. But I do have the post saved on my harddrive... hardly seems worth posting after Franko has been defeated (again... well, this time its a "special" kind of a defeat).

Edit to add: I feel dirty for using the word "defeat" in that way... naughty naughty...

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by Kullervo
*snip*
That is too restrictive a definition of knowledge to permit anything to be known, even the fact of one's own existence.

Guffaw. You guys kill me.

If there's one thing I know, it's that I exist. In fact, it's the only knowledge I possess that isn't probabilistic. I know I exist. It is impossible for me to be mistaken. I have direct access to the experience of being me, and that's all I need in this case. All the word play in the world won't change that one.

When you've fiinally managed to convince yourself that you might not exist, it's time to back up and take a good close look at things. At some point you should find yourself saying, "Hey, wait a minute." :D

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Franko
Correa, you are correct in a sense that ”matter” exist independently of consciousness. The matter in this universe exist independently of Your consciousness, but that is because Your consciousness is NOT the consciousness that is generating the “matter”.

The problem with your statement is that there are no evidences for it. What evidences you have that a conscience has generated any matter?


Originally posted by Franko
Think of this reality (the Universe) as a hologram, and the Algorithm that is generating that hologram is called TLOP. Except TLOP is not really a giant computer somewhere, She is a mind inherently just like yours.

One of the ways to define entropy is (on a very simplified way) the ammount of information that can be stored at a certain section of the universe. This, on a very simple way, is what's behind the "holographic universe" concept. Now, this concept has nothing to do (and does not requires) either with "intelligent design" or the gender of a supposed creator of the universe (BTW, could one use terms such as gender to an entity capable of creating the universe?).

Originally posted by Franko
Pain is ultimately a mental phenomena caused by negative Inputs (or feedback). Both positive and negative inputs are generated by all formal systems (all sets of “laws of physics”).

Why do you qualify pain as a "negative impulse"? Does this implys that when one feels pleasure (eating a tasty fruit, for example) one feels a "positive impulse"? And when one sees something that is irrelevant its a "neutral impulse"? Are you sure you are not using concepts based on your cultural and social background to define or classify things that have nothing to do with it? Pain means only "Warning, your body is being damaged". Its not good or bad. Good and bad (among many others) are just human concepts, that chance according to social and cultural framework.

Originally posted by Franko
If you can stop thinking of “matter” as matter for a moment, and instead think of it as information, you could consider drugs or alcohol as a meme (or algorithm) that is run in your consciousness. Many drug-memes alter (or adversely effect) the connection between your own consciousness and TLOP’s. Your mind does not have a good connection to the source of information about reality, and so it makes up things (hallucinations) to fill in the gaps.

The analogy beteween drugs and algortithms is incorrect. Drugs alter the brain's chemistry, changing the way it works. They will cause many different effects, ranging from slight mood changes to hallucinations. Not all drugs alter the perception of external inputs. In many cases the hallucinations are not caused by alteration of external perceptions or on the processing of data coming from sensorial organs. If this were true, the use of drugs on a person deprived of external sensorial inputs would not cause hallucinations. As a matter of fact, people deprived of sensorial inputs quite often experience hallucinations. Think of some LSD or peyote-induced hallucinations- its like the brain starts to generate its own data, based on what is stored within it, quite like in dreams.

Originally posted by Franko
If that is the case, then why did the universe spawn/create or bring you here?

If you want to claim it was a purely random and unplanned event, then you might as well claim that all of your actions and words are similarly unplanned and random.

Does the universe really needed to have had the will or intent to crate me? I don't think so. I exist and I am here by sheer chance. If something had gone slightly different 39 years ago, another spermatozoid would have won the race and I would not be here. The second part of you argument is the old "clock without a maker"argument. I am typing this because I planned to do so. But a crystal has an organized molecular structure, and when magma crystallizes, it does not plans to create feldspar crystals... Not all organized structures are designed. As a matter of fact most are not. OK, your next point will be that the crystal lattices are organized, are information, obey laws, and therefore its a sign of intelligent design. I will agree with you untill the words "therefore its a sign of intelligent design". The patterns of nature do not indicate or require a maker (or that this maker has a gender). Even random events may generate quite complex or non-random patterns if they repeat themselves for sufficient long period of time. If you let a monkey type for a long time, you'll find among countless pages fulled with meaningless letters, words and even sentences. Do they have any real meaning? No. They were formed by pure probability. But you may eventually interpret them as having a meaning, that the monkey was really trying to say something, or as a mark of the creator of the pages... But they will be nothing but randomly-generated sequences of letters.

Originally posted by Franko
you mean in the same way it is irrelevant to YOU whether or not Me and everyone else exist?

No. I just written that our existence is irrelevant for the universe. If we all die, the universe will still continue to exist. The universe does not "cares" (thats a human feeling, and such concepts can not be used litterally for the universe othern than as an analogy) about me, you, the whole human race and all the living beings in out small planet.

Originally posted by Franko
And you have determined this how exactly?

By looking everyday at rocks that are 2.4 billion years old...
By my eyes capting photons that were emmited by stars that ceased to exist before we existed...
By knowing that the stars will still be burning nuclear fuel for a long time after I die.

Originally posted by Franko
Some of the world was created in advance, before the Dungeonmaster really got the game going, and other things She “dreamed up” as the game went along. But until someone asked her where some untravelled path lead, no one really knew where the path lead.

And you have determined this how exactly?

edited to correct some typos- but never mind, the texts still has a lot of them...

[wraith]

Hi Franko! Good to see you back in the game ;)

CFLarsen: Here's an experiment I would like those who claim this to participate in. Let's take Shirley MacLaine, one of the more prominent people who claim this. Let's choose a suicidal person, too, and call him Bill.

Shirley and Bill are standing in a field, a few yards apart. Bill is facing her, she is standing with her back to Bill. Unknown to her, Bill picks up a brick, and throw it at her.

Bill knows that the brick is flying towards her, so the brick exists, because Bill thinks of it, and is aware of it. To Shirley, the brick does not exist, because she doesn't know it does.

Before the brick hits Shirley, Bill shoots himself in the head, and is dead instantly. Bill stops thinking about the brick. Ergo, according to Shirley's claim, the brick ceases to exist.

Is Shirley going to be hit by a brick or not?


Just because Shirley doesnt perceive the brick (because she is facing away from Bill) that doesnt imply that the brick doesnt ultimately exist. Bill and Shirley are experiencing the same universe/reality. Surely the information/energy that makes up the brick must exist whether WE perceive it or not because of TLOP.

When you close your eyes, does that mean that everything around you ceases to exist? No, everything is still there as energy/information due to TLOP. It's not till you open your eyes that you perceive that information as being a "chair" or "table".

So to answer your question, I believe that Shirley will get hit by the brick.


Marquis de Carabas: How do you know dreams, hallucinations, and delusions are derived from one's own mind? Why not postulate another entity (let's call her The Capricious and Whimsical Laws of Physics) who occasionally wrests control of your inputs from TLOP and starts screwing with your head?

Sure, why not postulate a "dream god" that controls your every movement in your own dreams, in the same way TLOP controls you when youre awake. Perhaps TLOP is responsible for your dreams, so there is no need for a "dream god", since when you dream, your brain is in a certain brain state and your brain obeys TLOP.

Perhaps youre responsible for your own dreams and your create the physics in those dreams?

This asks the question, if TLOP is indeed conscious (God), then what would it be like to perceive things as God? If God doesnt physically take form in this universe then does God have a brain? Would the brain of God obey a different set of TLOP in the same way our brains obey TLOP in this universe? Maybe God doesnt have a brain? Maybe we could perceive things without the aid of TLOP when we are "powerful" enough? (Just like God?)

Perhaps TLOP is here for the time being to "teach" us to perceive things without the need for a brain in the same way that a mum or dad would take the training wheels of their childs bike and guide them initially till the child got his/her balance and then the parant would let go?


You know this asks a different question. If our consciousness is algorithmic in nature and TLOP is deterministic in nature, this would certainly point to the existence of God?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
"...One cannot say that mind exist or not exist for it is absolute reality."
some Taoist sutra I read a long time ago.

A skeptic is walking down the street and passes several houses before he comes to a stop. He looks around and shouts, I have stopped!!!
I most surely have stopped. A little boy with a propeller cap looks at the skeptics and says, mr you have not stopped you are still moving. Nonsense young man, the skeptic exclaims, as he stamps his feet onto the ground. I have stopped, and i have concrete and verifiable evidence. The skeptic then looks in his pocket and pulls out a ruler a lays it parallel to his feet. You see young man, there is no evidence that i have travelled because had I traveled i would be able to measure the distance by this ruler. But i am stationary, can you see that young man"? The little boy proceeds to explain and says: You have stopped only in relation to your surrounding but in fact you are still in motion. The earth revolves and so you being on the planet earth you are still in motion. The skeptic stamps his foot even harder saying. Can you see how concretely I have measured the lack of movement. I have not moved one inch, how can you say i am moving. The little boy says, you have only stopped in relation to the ruler and the immediate surrounding but you are still in motion because the galaxies solar system is in motion and so are the galaxies. In fact the concept of "stop" has no intrinsic existence, it exist only in relation to some other attribute. This is the way it is for everything that we call conceptual reality. This inability for us to know anything intrinsically may not be the way the universe is but a phenomena resulting from the thought process.
Rastabastapaperclip says the skeptic., now madder and more furious than ever, you clearly do not understand the fundamentals of science and of mathematics. There are specific laws of science which are universal whether we observe them or not. They are concrete, like my measurement of my lack of motion. You need education boy.
The skeptic clearly infuriated begins to walk away and as he walks away he says to the little boy, "you see now i am in motion!

Yes, that's nice. Could you please answer the question?

Let's say that you go there later, to discover Shirley dead, her head smashed by a brick.

Who killed Shirley? A, Bill, by throwing the brick? Or B, you, who perceived the brick in Shirley's head?

If you choose A, then your claim is wrong. If you choose B, then you are saying that you can - without perceiving it - perceive the consequences of the actions of another person, even though that person is dead. Which is self-contradictory.

I am talking about a perceived event. Not something "undefined". You are there, Antonio. You perceive that Shirley is lying there dead, with a brick in her head.

Who killed Shirley, Antonio? You or Bill?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by gentlehorse


Guffaw. You guys kill me.

If there's one thing I know, it's that I exist. In fact, it's the only knowledge I possess that isn't probabilistic. If that is all that you know in the most strict sense, then what do you mean by "exists"? The I that you know (strictly)has an existence shared by nothing else. Nothing else exists in that sense. I argue in that case, the word "exists" has no meaning. The I is the thought that's happening exactly now - it has no connection to the I of 5 minutes ago or the I five minutes from now. If all that you know is that which you think now, you know nothing.

That's my point.

[thaiboxerken]

Wow, looks like Franko really is back, along with his other screenname.. Wraith. Both of his accounts are still on my ignore list. :D

[Tricky]

Not my point of view, but very appropos, n'est ce pas?

There once was a man who said, “God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If He finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there’s no one about in the Quad.”

“Dear Sir: Your astonishment’s odd:
I am always about in the Quad
And that’s why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by, Yours faithfully,God.”

---Monsignor Ronald Knox

[wraith]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Wow, looks like Franko really is back, along with his other screenname.. Wraith. Both of his accounts are still on my ignore list. :D

Do you want a medal or something? :rolleyes:

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by wraith
Do you want a medal or something? :rolleyes:

[Psydox]

Oy! this thread is giving me a headache so here's my revenge .. Yar !!!

I finally had to just give up reading the posts after a certain point. If someone has already posted what I am about to write then forgive me as I was not aware of it's existence *smirk* However, I am able to conceive the possibility that a situation such as this could occur because that possibility is within reason.

Where the Shirley -n- Bill situation is concerned I would have to say that much like the "is there a God or not" situation, we can not know the answer with absolute truth because the circumstances are also based on a conceptual situation. Unless anyone would like to volunteer to participate in a Shirley -n- Bill experiment :D how can anyone know for certain if Shirley would be hit by the brick or not since the Shirley of this conceptual situation is not available to identify if it hit her or not. In other words, we only have cause at this point not effect.

Now back to : I am able to conceive the possibility that a situation such as this could occur because that possibility is within reason.

Taking that into consideration with the conceptual situation of Shirley -n- Bill I want to take the concept a bit further and include effect. Say the brick did smack Shirley in the back of her head and as a result we now have proof. This would still only serve to prove that Shirley was hit despite her ability to perceive the brick on a Conscious level.

now more theory to throw on the concept.....

If we then question it by asking why it was possible, would it not be feasible to say that the reason is because the possibility that a situation such as this is conceiveable within reason.

Therefore I would define existence as :

that which is made manifest through conception of reason.


In thinking of existence as being defined like that, I'd like to say this :

Imagine now what could exist tomorrow if only our reasoning would allow it.

No I don't believe reasoning is limited but I do believe we limit our ability for it.


.....I'm going to stop here cause I'm to tired to think about "what if" it didn't hit her..... LOL

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by Kullervo
If that is all that you know in the most strict sense, then what do you mean by "exists"? The I that you know (strictly)has an existence shared by nothing else. Nothing else exists in that sense. I argue in that case, the word "exists" has no meaning. The I is the thought that's happening exactly now - it has no connection to the I of 5 minutes ago or the I five minutes from now. If all that you know is that which you think now, you know nothing.

That's my point.

Heh. The "I" that I know exists, as you say, "exactly now". "5 minutes ago "and 5 minutes from now" are convenient abstractions that we agree upon. I exist "exactly now". In case you hadn't noticed, it's always "exactly now".

You say that this means that my "existence is shared by nothing else" and that "nothing else exists in that sense". This sounds a bit like solipsism to me, so I'll just assume my way out of it, if you don't mind. I assume my way out of solipsism because to do so is convenient and functional. Any knowledge I gain is based on this assumption and is therefore probabilistic in nature. The knowledge that I exist, however, is not.

If you want to argue that the word "exists" has no meaning, dandy. You could write an eloquent book, using beautiful descriptors and flawless logic, explaining exactly how it is that I don't exist. I might be moved to tears by its beauty and awed by its logic, but upon finishing the book I'd still exist (providing I hadn't kicked the bucket upon finishing the book). A few hundred pages explaining why I don't exist doesn't hold a candle to my direct access to the experience of being me. Sorry. If it makes you feel better to think that I don't exist, it's okay with me. :D

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by gentlehorse
Heh. The "I" that I know exists, as you say, "exactly now". "5 minutes ago "and 5 minutes from now" are convenient abstractions that we agree upon. I exist "exactly now". In case you hadn't noticed, it's always "exactly now".

You say that this means that my "existence is shared by nothing else" and that "nothing else exists in that sense". This sounds a bit like solipsism to me, so I'll just assume my way out of it, if you don't mind. I assume my way out of solipsism because to do so is convenient and functional. Any knowledge I gain is based on this assumption and is therefore probabilistic in nature. The knowledge that I exist, however, is not.

If you want to argue that the word "exists" has no meaning, dandy. You could write an eloquent book, using beautiful descriptors and flawless logic, explaining exactly how it is that I don't exist. I might be moved to tears by its beauty and awed by its logic, but upon finishing the book I'd still exist (providing I hadn't kicked the bucket upon finishing the book). A few hundred pages explaining why I don't exist doesn't hold a candle to my direct access to the experience of being me. Sorry. If it makes you feel better to think that I don't exist, it's okay with me. :D
You are entirely correct, the only thing you can truely know with 100% certainty and accuracy is the fact of "I exist" (try explaining that to a Nihilist).

I do have a few problems with Solipsism however, its the way it assesses skepticism. If "I exist" is true, can it ever be known with any certainty whatsoever that I will "stop existing" (I chose the word "exist" because being unconscious is not the same as not existing, during 4 out of the 5 stages of sleep, you are unconscious, during the 5th stage of sleep - REM sleep - some would disagree to whether you are conscious or not)? What do Solipsists think of the possibility of others existing (ignoring whether they exist in material or immaterial form)?

I'm not entirely sure (I can never be 100% sure :D ), but would I be correct in assuming Solipsism is similar to agnosticism (Solipsism doesnt say "the rest of you dont exist", its more closely related to "I dont know if you exist"... kinda in the same way agnosticism says "I dont know if god[s] exist")?

[c4ts]

You know, it's interesting how Franko has never submitted any evidence that TLOP are conscious, nor has Wraith given us as much as a link to a single Logical Deist website... and they never will. So let's all follow Thaiboxerken's example.

[MRC_Hans]

:slp: Say, Frank: What were you doing while you were away? Did you not think of one single new thing? Most people, especially at your age, evolve a bit over time. But I guess you were always a one-trick pony. A very complex and initially entertaining trick to be sure, but you know, in the end everything gets boring.

Still, I quess you merit at least one reply:
Originally posted by Franko
Hypothesis: A (MRC)
About a billion years ago, give or take a few, there was no life on Earth. Yet it [the Earth] must have existed, otherwise life would not have appeared. So, without anybody/anything percieving it, Earth existed. -And, I consider Earth to fit the label "matter".

Hypothesis: B (Franko)
A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

Hypothesis: C (Franko)
The Earth doesn’t exist, and life never “appeared” on it. You “appeared” all by yourself, and now you are just imagining the rest.

I’m not adding anything that you haven’t already asserted. Your explanation calls upon TLOP, and so does mine. Your explanation is the UNPARSIMONIOUS version, in that YOU are asserting an entire universe filled with self-existing “matter” something you have absolutely no evidence for, and something which is completely untestable or verifiable.

No. You are adding a hypothetical entity to imagine matter. We have no evidence that matter should not be ably to self-exist. True, we can only observe matter with our mind, but we can make predictions on how matter must behave, and verifiy them. These observations are all very consistent. So consitent that we can formulate a set of laws that appear to apply universally to all matter; we call them "the laws of physics".

All of who’s observations MRC? Your own? If you only have YOUR OWN observations to rely on, then YOUR OWN observations are the ONLY observations you have to rely on. That is EXACTLY what Hypothesis C is stating.

Really Hypothesis C is just a mathematically simplified version of YOUR Hypothesis A.

Could you please explain again how the simpler version of the theory is actually the more complex version of the theory?

I already did. The complexity of the entity capable of IMAGINING the universe must be at least as great as the universe, so mathematically, YOUR version is at least twice as complex (Imagining entity + imagined universe).

Unfortunately for you TLOP is not so easily swept from observation.

And TLOP is undoubtedly the source of ALL your information about this reality.

Or you could say that TLOP is basically WHAT I observe. And?

Really? Then please explain how we can observe “matter” existing independently of consciousness, or please provide the experimental evidence that conclusively demonstrates “matter” making consciousness?

I could advice you about such an experiment, but it would be against board policy because it might be dangerous to your health ;) . As for "matter makes consciousness", no, I have a better idea: How about you providing evidence for consciousness existing without matter?

Hey that’s funny, because I also act as if I exist, yet you have been unable to prove that I actually do as anything beyond a figment of your imagination!

Meet me on the corner, and I will ;)



Hans

[whitefork]

Originally posted by gentlehorse
You say that this means that my "existence is shared by nothing else" and that "nothing else exists in that sense". This sounds a bit like solipsism to me, so I'll just assume my way out of it, if you don't mind. I assume my way out of solipsism because to do so is convenient and functional. Any knowledge I gain is based on this assumption and is therefore probabilistic in nature. The knowledge that I exist, however, is not.I'm delighted to acknowledge your existence in all its manifestations - it's your extrememly truncated view of what can be known that I take issue with. I don't think that the concepts "I" and "exist" and the relationship between them are primitive and irreducible, but that they are quite abstract and assume a great deal of prior knowledge and experience. Without all that - your assumptions if you like - I don't see what you have left to know.

[Upchurch]

Evasion through Sock Puppet.

Now there is a tactic you won't learn on the debate team.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Evasion through Sock Puppet.ESP for short. And now we have incontrovertable evidence for it. Alert the media!

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by Kullervo
I'm delighted to acknowledge your existence in all its manifestations -

I'm delighted to acknowledge my existence as well. It's yours that is relegated to the realm of the probabilistic. Sorry. Those are the rules. I only make 'em. :D

- it's your extrememly truncated view of what can be known that I take issue with. I don't think that the concepts "I" and "exist" and the relationship between them are primitive and irreducible, but that they are quite abstract and assume a great deal of prior knowledge and experience. Without all that - your assumptions if you like - I don't see what you have left to know.

emphasis mine--

Is this supposed to cause me to doubt my own existence? "I" and "exist" are symbols/words I use to convey the fact that I'm here. We agree on the meaning of these symbols or we don't. If we don't agree, then we are not communicating. This by no means demonstrates that I have cause to doubt my own existence. After all, I exist. Hi there.

[whitefork]

Hi there back, Gentlehorse, I'm not being very clear and I apologize for that. I have quite possibly been arguing against a position that you don't even hold.

I think the Cartesian method of systematic doubt is misguided since it results in a situation that all one knows for sure is that one thinks. It doesn't go far enough because there is an assumption that there is an I that thinks, when in fact all that is known is that there is thought. That thought requires a thinker is not obvious and I believe an unjustified assumption within this program. It also seems to lead to the awkward position that when one is not thinking, one does not exist. And then there's the little problem of reconstituting the rest of existence from the simple fact that there is a thought.

"I" and "exist" are symbols/words I use to convey the fact that I'm here.That assumes the "here" - if you require the "here" in order to exist, isn't that equally as certain as your existence.
I'm delighted to acknowledge my existence as well. It's yours that is relegated to the realm of the probabilistic.I agree completely. I regard my existence as merely probable, not necessary or even certain.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Kullervo
ESP for short. And now we have incontrovertable evidence for it. Alert the media! Somehow, I thought there'd be more to it than that. However, ya gotta admit, Franko finally has proven something us "A-Theist Discordians" didn't believe existed.

Fraith: You go, girl!

[wraith]

Yahweh, that looked more like a ribbon than a medal :rolleyes:
Nice try though haha
:rub:

[wraith]

Originally posted by c4ts
You know, it's interesting how Franko has never submitted any evidence that TLOP are conscious, nor has Wraith given us as much as a link to a single Logical Deist website... and they never will. So let's all follow Thaiboxerken's example.

Well since that Im conscious and that Im controlled by TLOP, then it seems contradictory to say that TLOP is not conscious itself.

Why would you want a website anyway? What you would find on JREF is what you would find on the site (if there was one).

Follow Ken's example. :rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Evasion through Sock Puppet.

Now there is a tactic you won't learn on the debate team.

It's quite evident that you like a good mass debate Churchy
:roll:

[c4ts]

Originally posted by wraith


Well since that Im conscious and that Im controlled by TLOP, then it seems contradictory to say that TLOP is not conscious itself.

That's not proof, that's an argument. Not even a very good one, seeing how the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. And for the love of God, use apostrophies.

Why would you want a website anyway? What you would find on JREF is what you would find on the site (if there was one).
Perhaps YOU could benefit from creating some kind of website or written source, so you don't have to go back and change certain arguments to support your dogma all the time, contradicting yourself in the process. Instead it would become a little more coherent, possibly even organized. If you're going to go around claiming it's a religion or philosophy, I suggest you start working it into either one or the other. Or both, if you really want a challenge.

Follow Ken's example. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately I'm not the outstanding atheist he is, and I lack the willpower to ignore you completely. You're like a rash that keeps getting worse.

[wraith]

wraith:Well since that Im conscious and that Im controlled by TLOP, then it seems contradictory to say that TLOP is not conscious itself.

Cats: That's not proof, that's an argument. Not even a very good one, seeing how the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. And for the love of God, use apostrophies.

Can you elaborate on this?

Perhaps YOU could benefit from creating some kind of website or written source, so you don't have to go back and change certain arguments to support your dogma all the time, contradicting yourself in the process. Instead it would become a little more coherent, possibly even organized. If you're going to go around claiming it's a religion or philosophy, I suggest you start working it into either one or the other. Or both, if you really want a challenge.

Well lets get direct. What things have I changed?

wraith: Follow Ken's example.

Cats: Unfortunately I'm not the outstanding atheist he is, and I lack the willpower to ignore you completely.

....touching

You're like a rash that keeps getting worse.

hah....GOOD

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well since that Im conscious and that Im controlled by TLOP, then it seems contradictory to say that TLOP is not conscious itself.
So since I'm male and I'm controlled by TLOP, TLOP is male? And since I'm American, TLOP is American? And since I like bacon on my burgers, TLOP likes bacon on its burgers? And since I find your argument entirely unconvincing...?:wink:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

So since I'm male and I'm controlled by TLOP, TLOP is male? And since I'm American, TLOP is American? And since I like bacon on my burgers, TLOP likes bacon on its burgers? And since I find your argument entirely unconvincing...?:wink:

Whats the association between "male" and "TLOP" and "consciousness"?

Im saying that there is an association between "consciousness" and "TLOP".

Obviously, TLOP has all the information it needs to "create" consciousness. To say that TLOP is non-conscious, to me, is ludicrous.

You might aswell claim that all the programs running or your computer spawned out of nowhere.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by wraith


Well since that Im conscious and that Im controlled by TLOP, then it seems contradictory to say that TLOP is not conscious itself.
...

Does not works...

TLOP made an amoeba... An amoeba is not conscious, therefore TLOP is not conscious. Or TLOP´s consciousness is an average between the consiousness of all living creatures (supose 99.99% of living beings are unconscious and 0.001 conscious- this would be TLOPs degree of counsciousness)?

I am conscious (sometimes). I was created by the union between a spermatozoid and an ovule. Therefore, they were conscious?!:eek:

I am conscious but a lot of times I am controlled by my basic physical needs. Example- when my energy supply runs low, my organs send me messages telling me to eat. Does this means my organs are conscious?

typos typos typos

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by wraith


...You might aswell claim that all the programs running or your computer spawned out of nowhere.

The old "clock without a maker" line... Doesn´t work also.

[Soapy Sam]

Every time I look at the moon, I am amazed that so many craters were made in the Precambrian, before there was anyone around to witness the impacts.
Or is it me looking at them now that made them possible back then?
If so, by having a hypnotist alter my memories, can I manage to undo some of the stupid stuff I pulled over the years?

Anyone read Ursula Le Guin's story "The Lathe of Heaven"?

On the Bill and Shirl thing- we can simplify it. Bill fires a field gun at random from over the horizon. If the shell is moving faster than sound when it blows Shirl to smithereens, so her nervous system literally has no time to respond, is she actually dead?

Nb. I know Shirley Maclaine is as daft as a ten cent watch, but I still happen to be a fan of the lady's abilities as an entertainer. So let's lay off Shirley, huh? Let's have Bill randomly fire a shell into Iraq. Hey, George did it and nobody got hurt, because clearly George is too dumb to perceive the results of his actions.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
[B]

Does not works...

It does actually

TLOP made an amoeba... An amoeba is not conscious, therefore TLOP is not conscious. Or TLOP´s consciousness is an average between the consiousness of all living creatures (supose 99.99% of living beings are unconscious and 0.001 conscious- this would be TLOPs degree of counsciousness)?

Why an average? Why would you relate the aveage of the NUMBER of conscious entities to the consciousness of God?

I am conscious (sometimes). I was created by the union between a spermatozoid and an ovule. Therefore, they were conscious?!:eek:

No. But there are other people who are conscious.

[QUOTE]I am conscious but a lot of times I am controlled by my basic physical needs. Example- when my energy supply runs low, my organs send me messages telling me to eat. Does this means my organs are conscious?

Your reasoning above doesnt "flow".
Your organs are a part of your body which obeys TLOP.

[wraith]

wraith: You might aswell claim that all the programs running or your computer spawned out of nowhere.

Correa Neto:The old "clock without a maker" line... Doesn´t work also. [/B]

Lets here it!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by wraith
Yahweh, that looked more like a ribbon than a medal :rolleyes:
Nice try though haha
:rub:
Your very good at pointing out my blatantly obvious jokes. I realized full and well you asked for "a medal", I decided to use MS Word to design a ribbon, I knew someone was going to point it out, I had the intention of derailing the thread a little and making joke of it, I think ribbons are prettier... unless you have a problem with that.

If you are going to patronize me, feel free to. Just try harder next time, lil fella, maybe one day you might make a joke or two...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by wraith
Well since that Im conscious and that Im controlled by TLOP, then it seems contradictory to say that TLOP is not conscious itself.
Fallacy of composition...
Begging the question...

Get your facts straight:
You are not controlled by the laws of physics, consciousness is described by cognitive neurosciences and neurobiologies (physics is inappropriate for describing cognitive functions), the laws of physics is not conscious.

Why would you want a website anyway? What you would find on JREF is what you would find on the site (if there was one).

People want websites for their own inner personal reasons, question them if you like but dont expect to get anywhere.

Follow Ken's example. :rolleyes:
I like my way better.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by wraith
Whats the association between "male" and "TLOP" and "consciousness"?
He was merely humoring you and your shoddy logic, at the same time he made a very good point: You insisted that because you are conscious, the Laws of Physics were conscious, this is a logical fallacy called "Fallacy of Composition".

Im saying that there is an association between "consciousness" and "TLOP".
Your association is entirely groundless, thats you primary problem.

Obviously, TLOP has all the information it needs to "create" consciousness. To say that TLOP is non-conscious, to me, is ludicrous.
Well then, most would assume then you have absolutely little if any understanding of what Physics really is. Educate yourself before you make your claims like this.

You might aswell claim that all the programs running or your computer spawned out of nowhere.
"A watch without a maker" is circular logic. Some had to make the watch didnt they, well someone also had to make the creator the of the watch, someone had to make the creator of the of the creator of the watch, someone... do you see why its circular? Its not considered an argument, at best its considered "well, at least I tried".

Of course if you well-learned in all sorts of sciences, you notice something peculiar: The Laws of Physics do not succomb to this circular logic.

Remember, Physics isnt the only science, all the known accepted sciences and Mathematics work symbiotically with one another. That's why Physics describes projectile motion better than it describes numerical cognitive neuralscience, its why proportions and stoichiometry works better for Chemical equations than Vector Physics or the Laws of Motion, its why acoustics (another branch of Physics) is better to describe "acoustics" than Electro-magnetics, welcome to the wonderful world of Cosmology, kids!

[wraith]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Your very good at pointing out my blatantly obvious jokes. I realized full and well you asked for "a medal", I decided to use MS Word to design a ribbon, I knew someone was going to point it out, I had the intention of derailing the thread a little and making joke of it, I think ribbons are prettier... unless you have a problem with that.

If you are going to patronize me, feel free to. Just try harder next time, lil fella, maybe one day you might make a joke or two...

Don't have a heart attack pops :rolleyes:

People want websites for their own inner personal reasons, question them if you like but dont expect to get anywhere.

What do you call JREF then?

wraith: Whats the association between "male" and "TLOP" and "consciousness"?

Yahweh: He was merely humoring you and your shoddy logic, at the same time he made a very good point: You insisted that because you are conscious, the Laws of Physics were conscious, this is a logical fallacy called "Fallacy of Composition".

Well my reasoning is similar to that of a programer and a program.
If you can show a program without a programer then you might have a point.
Since my argument is "fallacious", you can show that TLOP is non-conscious?

wraith: Obviously, TLOP has all the information it needs to "create" consciousness. To say that TLOP is non-conscious, to me, is ludicrous.

Yahweh: Well then, most would assume then you have absolutely little if any understanding of what Physics really is. Educate yourself before you make your claims like this.

I try not to make double standards my specialty....

wraith: You might aswell claim that all the programs running or your computer spawned out of nowhere.

Yahweh: "A watch without a maker" is circular logic. Some had to make the watch didnt they, well someone also had to make the creator the of the watch, someone had to make the creator of the of the creator of the watch, someone... do you see why its circular? Its not considered an argument, at best its considered "well, at least I tried".

I believe that it's a possibility that God worhips a God/s and so forth. I don't see how this is illogical.
I take it that you believe that the universe came from nothing? That's more of a "well, at least I tried".

Remember, Physics isnt the only science, all the known accepted sciences and Mathematics work symbiotically with one another. That's why Physics describes projectile motion better than it describes numerical cognitive neuralscience, its why proportions and stoichiometry works better for Chemical equations than Vector Physics or the Laws of Motion, its why acoustics (another branch of Physics) is better to describe "acoustics" than Electro-magnetics, welcome to the wonderful world of Cosmology, kids!

All of which are governed by rules, which I collectively call "TLOP".

[uruk]

Obviously, TLOP has all the information it needs to "create" consciousness. To say that TLOP is non-conscious, to me, is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]


Bad analogy.

I have all the information I need to create a sock puppet. To say that I am not a sock puppet, to me, is ludicrous.


I believe that it's a possibility that God worhips a God/s and so forth. I don't see how this is illogical.

So then why are we bothering with this god lets go over his head
to the big, big guy.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I wonder if God's God is going to send him to Hell is He doesn't do a good enough job with this Universe.

[wraith]

wraith: Obviously, TLOP has all the information it needs to "create" consciousness. To say that TLOP is non-conscious, to me, is ludicrous.

uruk: Bad analogy.

I have all the information I need to create a sock puppet. To say that I am not a sock puppet, to me, is ludicrous.

Well to say that youre not at least a socket pocket is ludicrous.
:roll:

[Correa Neto]

The fact that a clock must have been made by someone does not imply that the universe needs to have been created by something (regardles of its gender).

An analogy can be made between this line of reasoning and some attemps to use "common sense" or "daily experience" with physics. Common sense will fail, while the predictions based on the equations will not. You know that the clock needs a maker (because theres an intrinsic logic in its internal parts arrangements and on the way they work), then you extrapolate this "trivial" or "daily experience" to natural systems (because they have a degree of organization and follow basic sets of logical rules) and the whole universe (every set of logic rules must have been created by someone). That´s quite a jump, and to me it seems that our "common sense" is just too limited to be applied to the universe. Our "common sense" fails to predict situations that are trivial for Newtonian physics (that can be used to predict the vast majority of our daily experiences). Perhaps you should consider the possibility that this "clock without a maker" line of reasoning is just too shallow to be extrapolated to the universe and the laws of physic... The fact that they are logical do not necessarily imply in intelligent design.

"God´s God":eek: ... Speaking about circular arguments... And who is God´s God god? [sounds of trumpets, clouds open and bright light rays illuminate me] Ooooh, I´ve just got it... Its all information, its all a fractal code, gods multiplying themselves following fractal patterns, each god with a universe with universes and gods inside. Infinity and eternity... Gods inside gods and universes within universes... I see... Monetary possibilities on this idea... Will write a book about this, create my own sect, find disciples and win a lot of money...

[MRC_Hans]

Rule #1 of Franko/Wraith "communication": Never discuss anything with Wraith, he's just an echo. Only exception is the times when Frank forgets he is logged on as Wraith, in which case you can tell it by the writing style. :rolleyes:

Hans

[Franko]

Damn MRC! ... and all this time I thought the Wraith was your sock-puppet?

[MRC_Hans]

At least your little holiday has restored your humor ;)

Hans

[uruk]

Well to say that youre not at least a socket pocket is ludicrous.

Takes one to know one eh?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
The fact that a clock must have been made by someone does not imply that the universe needs to have been created by something (regardles of its gender).

An analogy can be made between this line of reasoning and some attemps to use "common sense" or "daily experience" with physics. Common sense will fail, while the predictions based on the equations will not. You know that the clock needs a maker (because theres an intrinsic logic in its internal parts arrangements and on the way they work), then you extrapolate this "trivial" or "daily experience" to natural systems (because they have a degree of organization and follow basic sets of logical rules) and the whole universe (every set of logic rules must have been created by someone). That´s quite a jump, and to me it seems that our "common sense" is just too limited to be applied to the universe. Our "common sense" fails to predict situations that are trivial for Newtonian physics (that can be used to predict the vast majority of our daily experiences). Perhaps you should consider the possibility that this "clock without a maker" line of reasoning is just too shallow to be extrapolated to the universe and the laws of physic... The fact that they are logical do not necessarily imply in intelligent design.

If not for design, what do you see as being logical?

"God´s God":eek: ... Speaking about circular arguments... And who is God´s God god? [sounds of trumpets, clouds open and bright light rays illuminate me] Ooooh, I´ve just got it... Its all information, its all a fractal code, gods multiplying themselves following fractal patterns, each god with a universe with universes and gods inside. Infinity and eternity... Gods inside gods and universes within universes... I see... Monetary possibilities on this idea... Will write a book about this, create my own sect, find disciples and win a lot of money... [/B]

Sure why not? :rolleyes: