Will all fellow posters say good bye to Franko/ hammegk

[Pahansiri]

Will all fellow posters say good bye to Franko/ hammegk as per their invitation I will now imagine them away.

Originally posted by Franko to Pahansiri But great One, I don’t have a “mind”. Only You have a mind. If you are reading this post now, then you are just imagining me, and all of the others. Your subconscious creates this reality just as surely as it created this post.

and

As soon as you imagine it, I have no choice but to comply.


Now Franko and “hammegk” you have stated what you say is reality. So I will now test your belief and imagine you away.

If you under any name i.e. Franko and “hammegk” again post at this site I must assume your beliefs are, well
:bs:

Goodbye :th:

[Upchurch]

Hm... an interesting thought experiment. Since I've been told that I'm "the" solipsist too, I'll join you in imagining Franko gone.

If he shows up, he must not be a figment of my imagination after all.

[Franko]

If he shows up, he must not be a figment of my imagination after all.

hehehe … I’m like a bad penny!

I think you overestimate your ability to control your subconscious. For example last night you seemed to be having a lot of trouble exerting complete control over your dreams.

I guess I am just an extension of your worst nightmare?

But be careful what you wish for … I feel myself fading out of existence as we “speak”.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Hm... an interesting thought experiment. Since I've been told that I'm "the" solipsist too, I'll join you in imagining Franko gone.

If he shows up, he must not be a figment of my imagination after all.

that is right let us all join together and do this, if he is gone then, well "he" was right.

but Upchurch if he told you what he told me i.e. But great One, I don’t have a “mind”. Only You have a mind. If you are reading this post now, then you are just imagining me, and all of the others. Your subconscious creates this reality just as surely as it created this post.

hmmmm if only I am real how can you be real too?

[Pahansiri]

Well there you go.

franko was wrong who would have thought...:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Franko]

hmmmm if only I am real how can you be real too?

Obviously the one of you who is not real is playing headgames with the one who is.

You can bitch about this little nighmare as much as you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that I am the only one you seemed to have programmed to tell it too you straight.

[Hexxenhammer]

Weird. I thought it worked for a minute. Pillory started this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28860 that Franko responed to between about 1:30 and 1:46 when I posted, quoting Franko. Then at 1:48 Paharisi posts this thread, and the next time I look at pillory's thread, Franko's post is gone.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Weird. I thought it worked for a minute. Pillory started this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28860 that Franko responed to between about 1:30 and 1:46 when I posted, quoting Franko. Then at 1:48 Paharisi posts this thread, and the next time I look at pillory's thread, Franko's post is gone.

Greetings Hexxenhammer.

No it did not work it had no chance to for if it did that would prove that Franko was right at something he said and believed.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Well there you go. Yep, there's yer proof that solipsism is false.

[lifegazer]

The trap you all seem to have fallen in, is in not noticing the distinction between concious-imagination and concious-awareness. This argument between you both is grounded within this confusion.
Imagination does not affect perceived reality. Concious-reality is usually altered by will. As in you might say "I will have Franko removed from this forum", and then proceed to willfully act in a manner that will yield that outcome.
Anyway, this imagination-experiment is a dud. Even if Franko leaves, I can tell you that it wasn't imagination which caused it.

You skeptics are hard work. Hard to talk to.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Greetings Hexxenhammer.

No it did not work it had no chance to for if it did that would prove that Franko was right at something he said and believed.
I guess it just proved he can delete his own posts, or someone else can.

[Franko]

Upchurch:
there's yer proof that solipsism is false.

What proof is that Upchurch?

Share with the figments. I am sure there are "many" who would love to hear your "proof".

[Upchurch]

Your post is the proof. The more you post, the more evidence there is that solipsism (or at least that I am the solipsist) is false.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You skeptics are hard work. Hard to talk to. Let me make it easier for you. Just about everyone posting in this thread is being sarcastic. Franko doesn't really believe that he's a figment of my or Pahansiri's imaginations. Nor does Pahansiri or I believe we can wish him away with our imaginiations. (although I honestly did imagine it. It was a nice happy place.)

[Franko]

Your post is the proof. The more you post, the more evidence there is that solipsism (or at least that I am the solipsist) is false.

No, the individual reading this post is the same entity that created it (imagined it).

You'll have to expand and elaborate your logic a little more if you really want to escape Solipsism. Otherwise it just looks like more of your pathetic wishful thinking.

Ahhh, on second thought why bother? Perhaps you should just convince yourself that one day you will cease to exist?

[lifegazer]

Enter the Monists.
A perceived entity - aka 'yourself' - cannot be the cause of its own perceptions. We are branches of God, the only existing entity.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Enter the Monists.
A perceived entity - aka 'yourself' - cannot be the cause of its own perceptions. We are branches of God, the only existing entity.

Room meet Franko/hammegk's other handle..

I recieved an e-mail telling me of him but have not seen this Persona until now.

[Franko]

Enter the Monists.
A perceived entity - aka 'yourself' - cannot be the cause of its own perceptions. We are branches of God, the only existing entity.

“God”? Ohhh, come on!

It is far more likely that Solipsism is true than that “God” exists. Even Pahansiri and Upchurch pretend to understand that much.

Besides if Solipsism is true than the person reading this is “God”.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Enter the Monists.
A perceived entity - aka 'yourself' - cannot be the cause of its own perceptions. We are branches of God, the only existing entity.

Room meet Franko/hammegk's other handle..

I recieved an e-mail telling me of him but have not seen this Persona until now.

Strange "he" just pops in now:rub:

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Enter the Monists.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]Enter the Monists.
A perceived entity - aka 'yourself' - cannot be the cause of its own perceptions. We are branches of God, the only existing entity.
Greetings my friend.

If you are not yet another handle of Franko as I was told I am sorry.

May I ask before we can properly discuss your statement that you provide the facts to support your position.

If it is a statement of belief I respect it as that if it is a statement of fact you must provide the facts to support it..


1-Prove “God”
2- Prove we are as you say “branches of God, the only existing entity.”


Nice to meet you if you are new.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Ahhh, on second thought why bother? Perhaps you should just convince yourself that one day you will cease to exist? You misunderstood. I convinced myself that you don't exist and yet, here you still are. Ergo, I'm not the solipsist.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings my friend.

If you are not yet another handle of Franko as I was told I am sorry.

Well if I am Franko I must be going mad, since Franko's post to me disputes what I say. lol
Hello there.

May I ask before we can properly discuss your statement that you provide the facts to support your position.

Sure, later tonight I'll start a thread about monism... monistic-idealism... whatever you want to call it. At the end of the day, it's my argument that only God exists.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Let me make it easier for you. Just about everyone posting in this thread is being sarcastic. Franko doesn't really believe that he's a figment of my or Pahansiri's imaginations. Nor does Pahansiri or I believe we can wish him away with our imaginiations. (although I honestly did imagine it. It was a nice happy place.)

As always well said Upchurch.

My friend lifegazer please again read my post and it should be very clear what was the intent.

Your statement You skeptics are hard work. Hard to talk to.

Seems rather silly now does it not?

[Franko]

You misunderstood. I convinced myself that you don't exist and yet, here you still are.

Hey great! Perhaps the next time you are having a nightmare you can similarly convince yourself that it isn’t really a nightmare?

[Franko]

Room meet Franko/hammegk's other handle..

Everyone but the individual reading this is a figment of your imagination (the entire “Room”). We are multiplying just like Agent Smith.

Well if I am Franko I must be going mad, since Franko's post to me disputes what I say. Lol

Give it up figment. The Solipsist is on to us. ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Hey great! My goodness. I honestly didn't expect you to agree with me so quickly. Well, I'm glad we have this solipsism/figment nonsense done with.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well if I am Franko I must be going mad, since Franko's post to me disputes what I say. lol
Hello there.

Sure, later tonight I'll start a thread about monism... monistic-idealism... whatever you want to call it. At the end of the day, it's my argument that only God exists.



My friend that would not truly be such stretch as you see Franko changes his belief or tweaks it with the wind.

I was writing my post when it seems Franko responded to you so I did not see what he said to you. For that reason in my post you found the following statement by me Greetings my friend.

If you are not yet another handle of Franko as I was told I am sorry. I am sure you read that, correct?

You write: Sure, later tonight I'll start a thread about monism... monistic-idealism... whatever you want to call it. At the end of the day, it's my argument that only God exists.



May I assume then at that time you will provide the following.

1-Proof of your“God”
2- and will Prove we are as you say “branches of God, the only existing entity.”?

I understand this is your “argument” but you made only a statement that it was true and offered no proof thus it is just a belief and carries no weight other then I respect you choose to believe as you do.

May you be well and happy.

[Franko]

Upchurch I notice that you keep rushing to declare victory, without actually posting your proof?

I guess your proof is as imaginary as I am?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch I notice that you keep rushing to declare victory, without actually posting your proof?



There is that pot calling the kettle black again.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
I guess your proof is as imaginary as I am? Why, yes, Franko. Exactly. If you are imaginary then my proof is imaginary. If you exist, then my proof is real.

And you keep on posting...

I'm glad you understand now.

[Pahansiri]

Franko as a test to your belief and I do not say this with disrespect but you have opened the door.

I truly have “imagined” you to be a small weak, small as in powerless, weak. You are either very thing or very heavy as to what I have “imagined” you to be. Someone who either lives alone having no wife, kids or able to attain a or many dates and or lives still with his mother. Someone that has know no or few “victories” in his life. I hate to say this, this way but someone most people would call a loser.



Now if you are truly a figment of my imagination and right you will confirm what I have “imagined” you to be is correct.

Also if you become angry and tell me I am wrong or attack me with silly personal attacks you would disprove your belief.

Be honest are you what I “imagined” you to be?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Franko
“God”? Ohhh, come on!

It is far more likely that Solipsism is true than that “God” exists. Even Pahansiri and Upchurch pretend to understand that much.

Besides if Solipsism is true than the person reading this is “God”. [/B]
I have a question for you. Who are you? Really... do you know who 'you' really are when you ponder your own existence?
I would argue that you think you are Franko. Not that you are Franko (whatever you think that is, essentially).
You are interacting with your inner-sensations in a manner that defines Franko - your perceived body... a fragmented part of the whole of your awareness. Ultimately, I would argue that 'you' are the entity who has defined yourself. 'You' are reality, and what you perceive to be 'you' is but a mere belief, gleaned from inner sensation.

[Pahansiri]

lifegazer, may I have that proof? You did make your statement in a thread I started , making a statement of fact.

Please. do post the proof.

Thank you.

[Franko]

Upchurch?!?!

What are you talking about? Remember the other day, I clearly explained why I don’t believe in your whacky religion.

The Scientific Method states that only that which can be empirically observed and verified is considered “Scientific” (or logical, provable, testable).

So what is the first thing that a Materialist does in the morning when he gets out of bed …?

… Why, he urinates all over the scientific method by assuming that “Matter” exist independently of observation. This is the foundational premise of the Religion of Materialism. It cannot be verified, tested, or observed. You simply have to take it on Blind Faith. Of course the big problem with making this assumption is that if it happens to be wrong (and there is empirical evidence that it is wrong) than all subsequent conclusions drawn from this premise will be similarly flawed in some fundamental way.

I lack-a-belief in the Religion of Materialism.

I am an Amaterialist.

(of course the Imtheists tend to call me an immaterialist)

I am still waiting for you to explain why I should assume that your unverifiable, untestable hypothesis is logically valid. You are the one who doesn’t believe in (adhere to) the scientific method. You’re just being hypocritical again.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch

I'm glad you understand now.

I missed your explanation of how *you* control your nightmares (or other figments ;) ).


My "buddy" PPP (figment?) should feel free to answer as well. :rolleyes:

[Franko]

lifegazer:
A perceived entity - aka 'yourself' - cannot be the cause of its own perceptions.

Alright my brother, let me ask you this, if one cannot be the cause of one’s own perceptions, then how do you account for dreams and hallucinations?

I have a question for you. Who are you? Really... do you know who 'you' really are when you ponder your own existence?
I would argue that you think you are Franko. Not that you are Franko (whatever you think that is, essentially).
You are interacting with your inner-sensations in a manner that defines Franko - your perceived body... a fragmented part of the whole of your awareness. Ultimately, I would argue that 'you' are the entity who has defined yourself. 'You' are reality, and what you perceive to be 'you' is but a mere belief, gleaned from inner sensation.

lifegazer the fact is that we may agree on far more than is apparent here, but I think you have failed to perceive the reality of the present situation.

We are branches of God, the only existing entity.

In other words, God is the Solipsist, and everyone except for that “God” is a figment of that “God’s” imagination. How is that any different than what I have been stating?

Stick with the divine plan my fellow figment. Pahansiri has already “outed” us.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk


I missed your explanation of how *you* control your nightmares (or other figments ;) ).


My "buddy" PPP (figment?) should feel free to answer as well. :rolleyes:
Actually within Buddhism such as to dreams is talked about very often. Not controlling the dream as to the flow etc but realizing that is illusion. Just as I realize all here in the waking world is in reality illusion as nothing we see or touch anything compound is in and of itself, self.

As Einstein said “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”

As to dreams Buddhism teaches to simply be aware in dreams that they are just that, a dream and illusion.

This I developed because as a child I was involved in a good bit of abuse and such caused many flash backs several years ago during dreaming. Very bad dreams. I developed the ability to simply end the dreams and wake.

[Checkmite]

Franko, how can you prove that you aren't, in fact, the Solipsist?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch?!?!

What are you talking about?Wow. I'm really concerned about your short term memory. Do you suffer from black outs or lost time?

Perhaps you should read back a few posts to help job your memory. We were talking about my proof against solipsism. Does that sound familiar now? Ring any bells?

Just in case you've forgotten what solipsism is as well, read this for reference:Solipsism (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=solipsism)

a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing
I am still waiting for you to explain why I should assume that your unverifiable, untestable hypothesis is logically valid.What an incredible coincidence! I am still waiting for you to explain why relativistic velocities add linearly rather than the way Einstein described. Small world, huh?

Reminder (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=376196#post376196)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

I missed your explanation of how *you* control your nightmares (or other figments ;) ). I missed how it was relevent.

Regardless, are you telling me that, with practice, you can't influence and control your dreams? How odd. Have you tried?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Franko, how can you prove that you aren't, in fact, the Solipsist?

He is. He has told me in the past only he exists and I and all here etc are figments of his imagination.

I demonstrated to him if this were the case he could simply be done with me and make me evaporate.

I also demonstrated to him that if I am a figment of his imagination and he is fully conscious of this fact for him to argue with figments of his imagination is something that need require medication and is very illogical.


But you know his response to this, his attempt to explain this? Crickets.

[Franko]

Pahansiri:
Franko as a test to your belief and I do not say this with disrespect but you have opened the door.

I truly have “imagined” you to be a small weak, small as in powerless, weak. You are either very thin or very heavy as to what I have “imagined” you to be. Someone who either lives alone having no wife, kids or able to attain a or many dates and or lives still with his mother.

Someone that has know no or few “victories” in his life. I hate to say this, this way but someone most people would call a loser.

Now if you are truly a figment of my imagination and right you will confirm what I have “imagined” you to be is correct.

Well I guess it is just like all of those undetected planets that you imagine exist? If you imagine it then it must be true … correct?

[Franko]

J.K.:
Franko, how can you prove that you aren't, in fact, the Solipsist?

I’m not sure “I” (meaning You) understand the question?

The individual reading this post is the only one who exist. First their subconscious imagined what I would say, and then their conscious mind perceived it.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

..... Not controlling the dream as to the flow etc but realizing that is illusion. ......Very bad dreams. I developed the ability to simply end the dreams and wake.

How are you doing with this dream of yours? Do you expect to "wake"?


Originally posted by Pahansiri


He (Franko) is. He has told me in the past only he exists and I and all here etc are figments of his imagination.



Are you sure he didn't say he could not PROVE that was not the case?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko


Well I guess it is just like all of those undetected planets that you imagine exist? If you imagine it then it must be true … correct?

So Franko can you yet prove or try to prove that the planet that was “discovered” today did not exist yesterday?:roll:

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk


How are you doing with this dream of yours? Do you expect to "wake"?

I guess asking you to prove your statment true with facts would be asking too much? lol It has been with every other statment you have made..:rolleyes:




Are you sure he didn't say he could not PROVE that was not the case? as you know you/Franko have proved nothing, remember?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Are you sure he didn't say he could not PROVE that was not the case?

Are you sure he said he could PROVE that this was not the case?

-=or=-

Are you sure he didn't say he could PROVE that this was the case?

-=or=-

Are you sure he said he could not PROVE that was was the case?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

Are you sure he didn't say he could not PROVE that was not the case? You're always asking someone if they're sure of something. Are you sure you don't want to develop a new debating tactic? This is very weak.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
You're always asking someone if they're sure of something. Yeah, the ironic thing was, when I pegged him down on the one thing he was 100% sure of, it turned out he wasn't. Go fig.

[EdipisReks]

why do you even bother, Franko/Hammegk+whoever else? don't you have a hotdog stand to run, or something?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
don't you have a hotdog stand to run, or something? That's funny. I always pictured Franko walking around carrying some variation of a "REPENT!" sign and using a library computer all day...

Just goes to show I'm not the solipsist, eh?

[Franko]

So Franko can you yet prove or try to prove that the planet that was “discovered” today did not exist yesterday?

Are you asking if something you imagined existed prior to your imagining it?

What do you think?

[Franko]

Franko/Hammegk+whoever else? don't you have a hotdog stand to run, or something?

Are you asking me this question or Pahansiri?

Upchurch:
I always pictured Franko walking around carrying some variation of a "REPENT!" sign and using a library computer all day...

So upchurch, how does violating the scientific method (and logic) and assuming the existence of something which is untestable, and unverifiable as the fundamental axiom upon which your entire worldview is built actually make you more “scientific” and “logical”? Especially since you have provided no reason why that assumption is necessary other than to sustain your wishful thinking (i.e. pessimism). Especially in light of your arrogance and utter contempt for anyone else who you perceive has committed this same “sin”?

Why all the dancing around and posting of these endless insults and woo-woo post?

Where is the meat of your argument? … or are you secretly and single-handedly trying to embarrass and humiliate all of the other Atheists in this forum?

Why do you believe it is acceptable to assume that “matter” exist independently of observation? What is the logical necessity of making this unfounded, unproveable, untestable assumption?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch in response to Franko

What an incredible coincidence! I am still waiting for you to explain why relativistic velocities add linearly rather than the way Einstein described. Small world, huh?

Reminder (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=376196#post376196) Doesn't surprise me that you're avoiding this one, really. I mean, the last time we talked about this you were gone for three months. Perhaps it wasn't fair of me to bring it up again....
So upchurch, how does violating the scientific method (and logic) and...{snip}Franko, do you know what a non sequitur is? Attacking my views on materialism has nothing to do with truth value of solipsism, does it? Then why bring it up?

I brought up my own non sequitur to mock you, which this one does twice over. First by aping your post and, second, by pointing out (again) your gross uncomprehension of physics. In this case, the implications and workings of Einstein's relativity.

edited to add: I felt the need to include that last paragraph because of your growing memory problems. Didn't want to confuse you with subtlty.
or are you secretly and single-handedly trying to embarrass and humiliate all of the other Atheists in this forum?For the record, if anything, I'm secretly and single-handedly trying to embarrass and humiliate all of the other Unitarians in this forum.

:rub:

[whitefork]

Unitarian stand up comic. It might just work.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
...

For the record, I'm not an Atheist. If anything, I'm secretly and single-handedly trying to embarrass and humiliate all of the other Unitarians in this forum.

:rub: Hey Buddy! This argument is raging in Franko's imagination. What makes you think your definitions count for anything?

[Franko]

Attacking my views on materialism has nothing to do with truth value of solipsism, does it?

Are you joking Discordian, or are you genuinely this clueless???

If you could prove that Materialism is True it is logically equivalent to proving that Solipsism is False. If there is empirical evidence that Matter makes Minds (materialism) then it cannot be true that Mind makes Matter (solipsism).

So again I ask you the other question that you seem so desperate to avoid addressing:

… upchurch, how does violating the scientific method (and logic) and assuming the existence of something which is untestable, and unverifiable as the fundamental axiom upon which your entire worldview is built actually make you more “scientific” and “logical”? Especially since you have provided no reason why that assumption is necessary other than to sustain your wishful thinking (i.e. pessimism). Especially in light of your arrogance and utter contempt for anyone else who you perceive has committed this same “sin”?

Why all the dancing around and posting of these endless insults and woo-woo post?

Where is the meat of your argument? … or are you secretly and single-handedly trying to embarrass and humiliate all of the other Atheists in this forum?

Why do you believe it is acceptable to assume that “matter” exist independently of observation? What is the logical necessity of making this unfounded, unproveable, untestable assumption?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Unitarian stand up comic. It might just work. A Unitarian walks into a bar... (http://matt.baya.net/jokes/uu.html)
Orignially posted by hgc
Hey Buddy! This argument is raging in Franko's imagination. What makes you think your definitions count for anything?Oh, right.

**ahem**

Snarl!! I'm a mindless raving A-Theist drone! Roar!!!


better?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

If you could prove that Materialism is True it is logically equivalent to proving that Solipsism is False.In our last lesson, we learned the definition of "non sequitur". In this lesson, we will learn the definition of "false dilemma (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.php)"A false dilemma is when a limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator. True, proving materialism is one way that I could prove solipsism false, but it is not the only way. Further, it is not the way I chose to disprove it in this thread. I instead showed evidence against it by proving one of the predictions of solipsism (i.e. manipulation of the "world" though wishing or will) false through experimentation. The experiment was unable to bear out the prediction, thus solipsism is shown to be false (well, at least in the scenerio where I or Pahansiri is the solipsist).

A discussion of materialism is not required as solipsism is shown to be false by other means. And while I am tempted to answer you questions about my beliefs on the subject of materialism, I would not want to derail the thread to do it. Perhaps you could start a thread of your own to address this topic?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
So upchurch, how does violating the scientific method (and logic) and assuming the existence of something which is untestable, and unverifiable as the fundamental axiom upon which your entire worldview is built actually make you more “scientific” and “logical”?
Franko, I'm going to give you a hint:
Dont pretend like you know what the scientific method is, you obviously do not. To people like me (those who know what the scientific method is), you only make yourself look like an idiot.

If you need help understanding what makes you look like an idiot, imagine somebody saying this:
"Modern medicine means that we cut people open and take out there insides, then they feel better."

If someone said that (without being sarcastic or making a joke), I think that would be plenty enough to assume they have absolutely no understanding of what modern medicine is.

Franko, dont make up your own facts, they are a terrible way to present an arguement.

Franko, dont pretend like you understand a subject when you clearly have no idea what it is or what it means, its a terrible way to present yourself.

Franko, you do realize that you are not making an arguement. To explain something in terms of "its all an illusion" is to explain exactly nothing. You have no arguement.

Franko, you perception of reality does not alter reality.

Franko, you obviously exist. You are a real person, you are conscious, you are not a figment of anyone's imagination, you exist objectively. I also happen to exist objectively, I am conscious as I'm typing this. We are not a figment of anyone's imagination, we exist. UpChurch also exists, so does Pahansiri, as does hgc. Have fun in reality.

Where is the meat of your argument? … or are you secretly and single-handedly trying to embarrass and humiliate all of the other Atheists in this forum?
You're a funny guy, just imagine yourself in my position, you'll then see why the irony of this statement is steaming off the computer.

Why do you believe it is acceptable to assume that “matter” exist independently of observation?
Everything can be described in terms of matter and natural phenomena, human consciousness wouldnt exist without matter.

I can set up an experiment that shows atoms are composed a single heavy nucleus (composed of Protons and Neutrons) with electrons orbiting around the nucleus. (It involves electrons, gold foil, and a big curvy wall of flourescent "stuff").

If matter didnt exist independently of observation, we wouldnt exist. We would be bound by circular logic. "Matter has to exist before consciousness... matter cant exist unless its being observed by something", that kind of logic will take you no where. Or you can take the other route of "You have to observe something for it to exist... you cant observe something if it doesnt exist", that's more circular logic. Both "logics" are flawed, they are internally-contradictory.

What is the logical necessity of making this unfounded, unproveable, untestable assumption?
I dont know what your problem is with it, were you bad at Chemistry when you were in 9th grade?

Dont let your memory fail in registering what I just said.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
-----------------------------------------------------
So Franko can you yet prove or try to prove that the planet that was “discovered” today did not exist yesterday?
-----------------------------------------------------

Are you asking if something you imagined existed prior to your imagining it?
That's obviously not the question.

Deliberately misrepresenting someone's position to make it easier to attack them is a terrible way to make an arguement.

What do you think?
I've never seen the Andromeda Galaxy or any of its stars. I've never seen any of the planets that might be revolving around the stars. Those planets exist regardless of whether I imagine them or see them or whatever. Why? Because my perception of reality does not alter objective reality.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
.....solipsism is shown to be false (well, at least in the scenerio where I or Pahansiri is the solipsist).

Uppie are you truly so dense you don't see the fallacy of that statement offered as a "proof" that solipsism is false?

Go ahead & just imagine your answer; that'll be fine with everyone else.



Yahweh: You talk a good story, but, how do you propose to "prove" solipsism false? Best I've been able to logically achieve is by "gentlemens' agreement": that is, I'll agree you exist if you agree I also exist. Can you provide a better logical proof? If so, please do so.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yahweh: You talk a good story, but, how do you propose to "prove" solipsism false? Best I've been able to logically achieve is by "gentlemens' agreement": that is, I'll agree you exist if you agree I also exist. Can you provide a better logical proof? If so, please do so.
Well, I first have to take a look at what Solipsism is...

Solipsism is defined as "the Philosophical theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified". While it is inherently true that "self" is something you can be known to exist with 100% certainty, I dont see it as described as "I also believe everyone around me is a figment of my imagination" or "I am god" or "I am the only one that exists", it neither accepts nor denies materialism or immaterialism. Somehow, "its all an illusion" has been added somewhere within the definition later, I'm surprised I havent seen any Solipsists say something along the lines of "Its a common misconception that Solipsists believe everything is all and 'illusion'".

You are asking me to do something different, you are asking me to do something which doesnt fit the defintion of Solipsism: You want me to disprove an unrestricted negative (everything is all an illusion, I am the only "consciousness" that exists, yada yada yada).

Of course, that unrestricted negative falls into the catergory of "Arguement from ignorance". You've shifted the burder of proof (you dont want to prove your beliefs true, you want me to prove them wrong), that's not a good way to uphold a belief.

I'll widdle down the unrestricted negative using Yahweh's Arguement of a Defeated God:
If I am God, then I should be omnipotent. I cannot create a rock so big that I couldnt lift it, that would be a self-defeating task which is logically impossible, therefore I am bound by the laws of rational logic.

If I am bound rational logic, I cannot just "be", that would a violate the philosophy of existence where "If I didnt exist before, I couldnt self-create my existence", I have to come from somewhere. But if you use that, you get into the circular logic of "who created my creator, who created the creator of my creator". From that, a supreme being that came before everything is self-defeating, therefore I am not a supreme being and you can rationally conclude things existed before I existed.

I cannot perform any task that cannot be described in terms of matter or natural phenomena, therefore I am bound by materialistic philosophy. You can conclude that reality has to be an objective reality (meaning reality is not limited to my perceptions, things exist outside of my own awareness of them).

If I am bound by materialistic philosophy, then matter has to exist before consciousness can exist, therefore I have to be a corporeal being (meaning I have to be made of matter before I can be conscious... and also means I cannot be immortal).

If I am not immortal, then I have to sustain my existence (I do this by eating food and keeping myself from dying), therefore matter (in the form of food) has to exist for me to convert into life-staining nutrients and energy, otherwise I dont exist (this is also described in the above statement).

I cannot imagine the food, my perceptions, dreams, imaginations, hallucinations do not alter objective reality.

I know with 100% certainty that I exist, I've shown that reality has to be objective which says I am made of matter. If I can exist in a material reality, matter has to exist before I could be self-aware, things have to exist before I exist (my parents), then you can finally say "I am not the only being which exists in the universe".

There you go, both you and I exist in objective reality, the insane representation of "solipsism" that has been presented is false. Proven through deductive reasoning and logic, not assumed.

(Wow, right off the top of my head...)

I happen to believ

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
How are you doing with this dream of yours? Do you expect to "wake"?
I'm getting two things out of your post.

1. A reference to free will versus dreams:
This is an easy one...
In cognitive psychology, you learn all about the psychology of sleep. When you are dreaming, you are not sentient or have "free will". When you are awake, you do happen to be sentient have free will.

Of course, in cognitive psychology, its well known you can train yourself to wake up in the middle of dreams, this lets you retain some of the memories, then you can write down your dreams in a dream journal.

Also, you should be aware of something called "Lucid Dreaming". Its a dream where you suddenly become aware that you dreaming. It can occur when you have been sleeping for an abnormally long period of time (such as 12+ hours). You are pretty much omnipotent and in control of your own dream. I've heard of people being able to induce lucid dreams but I dont know how they do it (without LSD).

2. You are suggesting that Paharansi is asleep and dreaming right now:
Here's a quick checklist...
Are you dreaming Checklist
1. Are you sentient?
[x] Yes
[_] No

1a. If you checked "Yes", are you awake? (This question is to see if you are having a Lucid experience.)
[x] Yes
[_] No

Note: If you are unsure, try to shoot a laser out of your eyes, if you cannot shoot a laser out of your eyes, you are not having a lucid dream therefore you are awake.

2. Is everything you are experiencing occurring that cant be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena?
[x] Yes
[_] No

There are more questions you could ask yourself, those are just the important ones. If you checked "yes" to all questions, you are obviously awake right now.

Delimma solved.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Franko
Alright my brother, let me ask you this, if one cannot be the cause of one’s own perceptions, then how do you account for dreams and hallucinations?

'We' give nothing to the creation of dreams except our emotional state and general attitudes towards concious-existence. Dreams are actually created by an aspect of our mind which is subconcious to 'we' who observe that dream. Those dreams mirror what 'we' think that we are. But we did not create them - we just experience them.

In other words, God is the Solipsist, and everyone except for that “God” is a figment of that “God’s” imagination. How is that any different than what I have been stating?

Yes, I like this. But does the solipsist in us understand that the I in we is not he or she? God is not human. God can only believe that God is human.

Stick with the divine plan my fellow figment. Pahansiri has already “outed” us.
What will it take to get him on the payroll?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko


Are you asking if something you imagined existed prior to your imagining it?

What do you think?

Franko as I have always said you are a fine dancer. So stop the dance and for once answer the question.

Now for once try to be honest and mature and answer.

1- Franko can you yet prove or try to prove that the planet that was “discovered” today did not exist yesterday?:confused:

and
2- Franko as a test to your belief and I do not say this with disrespect but you have opened the door.

I truly have “imagined” you to be a small weak, small as in powerless, weak. You are either very thin or very heavy as to what I have “imagined” you to be. Someone who either lives alone having no wife, kids or able to attain a or many dates and or lives still with his mother.

Someone that has know no or few “victories” in his life. I hate to say this, this way but someone most people would call a loser.:eek:

Now if you are truly a figment of my imagination and right you will confirm what I have “imagined” you to be is correct.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings again lifegazer I see you are on line.

I have asked 3 times that you provide the facts and proof to support your statement

Originally posted by lifegazer
Enter the Monists.
A perceived entity - aka 'yourself' - cannot be the cause of its own perceptions. We are branches of God, the only existing entity.

I asked the following

Pahansiri wrote:
Greetings my friend.

If you are not yet another handle of Franko as I was told I am sorry.

May I ask before we can properly discuss your statement that you provide the facts to support your position.

If it is a statement of belief I respect it as that if it is a statement of fact you must provide the facts to support it..


1-Prove “God”
2- Prove we are as you say “branches of God, the only existing entity.”


You wrote back

Sure, later tonight I'll start a thread about monism... monistic-idealism... whatever you want to call it. At the end of the day, it's my argument that only God exists.

As I said I understand this is your “argument” but you made only a statement that it was true and offered no proof thus it is just a belief and carries no weight other then I respect you choose to believe as you do.

May you be well and happy and I look forward to your data.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


Are you joking Discordian, or are you genuinely this clueless???

If you could prove that Materialism is True it is logically equivalent to proving that Solipsism is False. If there is empirical evidence that Matter makes Minds (materialism) then it cannot be true that Mind makes Matter (solipsism).


Strangely enough they can both be true, There is no way to verify either one. Under science only the observable is available for testing and verification. So there is no empirical evidence that either one is definitly true.
But that is truely the teaching of sister Eris.

So again I ask you the other question that you seem so desperate to avoid addressing:

… upchurch, how does violating the scientific method (and logic) and assuming the existence of something which is untestable, and unverifiable as the fundamental axiom upon which your entire worldview is built actually make you more “scientific” and “logical”? Especially since you have provided no reason why that assumption is necessary other than to sustain your wishful thinking (i.e. pessimism). Especially in light of your arrogance and utter contempt for anyone else who you perceive has committed this same “sin”?


As I stated before it is not an assumption that matter hangs around or that it reappears when we open our eyes. Form the scientific method though we can say that it bahaves as though it were here before we observed.
That is the scientific stance, but you are just another zealot on a mission.
All hail Barney!


Why all the dancing around and posting of these endless insults and woo-woo post?


Because your figment is out of control, perhaps a walk in the woods will cause UpC to behave in conformnity to your standards.


Where is the meat of your argument? … or are you secretly and single-handedly trying to embarrass and humiliate all of the other Atheists in this forum?


Funny thing we were talking about this at the last meeting of pagans and Unitarians, I am proud to be in the same boat as UpC. Please don't call me a Frankonist. ;)


Why do you believe it is acceptable to assume that “matter” exist independently of observation? What is the logical necessity of making this unfounded, unproveable, untestable assumption?

Uh, because it behaves as though it does, even if the photons wink into existance right before they strike my eyes, they behave as though they hace a history.

It is not unfounded, which is where you as the solipist are missing the boat. Whatever the ontology of matter, it behaves as though it exists prior to an organic being observing it.

A truely cogent question is
Are all electrons just one electron?
Do quarks change thier underwear?

Is Pahansiri really HammeGK?

[Max560]

A bit off topic (sorry)

Since Franko's return, I have noticed that while his general points are the same, his posts seem to be lacking the rabid, hyper intense, insane quality of his pre-hiatus posts.

Am I alone in feeling a bit cheated by this? It's like we are getting Franko Lite or something.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings again lifegazer I see you are on line.

I have asked 3 times that you provide the facts and proof to support your statement



I asked the following

Pahansiri wrote:
Greetings my friend.

If you are not yet another handle of Franko as I was told I am sorry.

May I ask before we can properly discuss your statement that you provide the facts to support your position.

If it is a statement of belief I respect it as that if it is a statement of fact you must provide the facts to support it..


1-Prove “God”
2- Prove we are as you say “branches of God, the only existing entity.”


You wrote back



As I said I understand this is your “argument” but you made only a statement that it was true and offered no proof thus it is just a belief and carries no weight other then I respect you choose to believe as you do.

May you be well and happy and I look forward to your data.
I've just started that thread. My only request is that you bare with me - surely you don't expect an explanation of everything within 500 words? I ask that you explore my ideas.
Thankyou.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Uppie are you truly so dense you don't see the fallacy of that statement offered as a "proof" that solipsism is false? :roll: :roll: :roll:

hammegk, I've totally just been playing around on this thread and giving Franko ***** for the heck of it.

I guess the real question is: are you truly so dense that you can't tell the difference between a formal argument and *********** around?

:rub:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
:roll: :roll: :roll:

hammegk, I've totally just been playing around on this thread and giving Franko ***** for the heck of it.

I guess the real question is: are you truly so dense that you can't tell the difference between a formal argument and *********** around?

:rub:

You got me. Thanks for the clarification. :o

BTW, how do you like my Pahansiri sock? DD was not supposed to tell.

Originally posted by Yahweh
:
There you go, both you and I exist in objective reality, the insane representation of "solipsism" that has been presented is false. Proven through deductive reasoning and logic, not assumed.

(Wow, right off the top of my head...)

Wow. When will you start your cult? Er, actually you are just joining. Continue to have faith that the mantra "matter exists" is TRUTH.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings

I've just started that thread. My only request is that you bare with me - surely you don't expect an explanation of everything within 500 words? I ask that you explore my ideas.
Thankyou.

I just saw it was there and will read it and respond. Thank you. Please know I don’t “expect” anything. I do hope for a respectful, logical mature conversation/debate sharing of ideas and thoughts. I will as I do with all respect you and your beliefs, I will answer each point you make and question you ask and hope for the same.

Part of my point really the foundation was you made a statement of fact but then offered no supporting facts.

Then made this statement You skeptics are hard work. Hard to talk to. implying you are the only intelligent being in the room and people who do not believe as you are” lost, thick, slow, hard to handle” etc this is a statement of ego not of any truth or supported by fact and such has no value.


I look forward to a good exchange between new friend one free from emotion, ego and filled with respect and logic.

May you and all beings be well and happy.

[Franko]

Order: (logic)
If you could prove that Materialism is True it is logically equivalent to proving that Solipsism is False. If there is empirical evidence that Matter makes Minds (materialism) then it cannot be true that Mind makes Matter (solipsism).

Chaos: (random)
Strangely enough they can both be true, There is no way to verify either one. Under science only the observable is available for testing and verification. So there is no empirical evidence that either one is definitly true.
But that is truely the teaching of sister Eris.

Ohh, I beg to differ.

You do have empirical evidence for your own existence (a lifetime’s worth of empirical verification), but you have to assume that the “matter” exist independent of observation. If you consider an assumption the same as an observation, then you might as well assume that “Eris” or “Unicorns” exist.

D.D.:
As I stated before it is not an assumption that matter hangs around or that it reappears when we open our eyes.

How about the “matter” in your dreams? What makes you assume that this reality is any different? Perhaps it is only different in that it isn’t your dream?

What you are claiming is analogous to asserting that a computer generated universe persist as an “active world” while stored on a CD. In other words those worlds exist even when they are not running on a computer.

Form [From?] the scientific method though we can say that it bahaves as though it were here before we observed.

Yeah, see my computer world analogy above. Perhaps you can explain that away before it puts a dent in your recruitment quota for the week.

Because your figment is out of control, perhaps a walk in the woods will cause UpC to behave in conformity to your standards.

No doubt. But I am only following my orders. I’ll be taking my walk soon enough, I am about to be recalled “back to the woods”.

Order:
Why do you believe it is acceptable to assume that “matter” exist independently of observation? What is the logical necessity of making this unfounded, unproveable, untestable assumption?

Chaos:
Uh, because it behaves as though it does, even if the photons wink into existance right before they strike my eyes, they behave as though they have a history.

Ahhh, so religious beliefs are Okay so long as they are your religious beliefs?

Very cute. I hope the Christians and Muslims don’t find out what you are up to. I don’t think they would find it so amusing, one wonders how long you can prevent them from discovering your little plan?

It is not unfounded, which is where you as the solipsist are missing the boat.

What makes you assume that “I” am a Solipsist? I assure you I am not, if anything I am a figment of your imagination.

Whatever the ontology of matter, it behaves as though it exists prior to an organic being observing it.

Only if you beg the question.

Of course that initial faulty assumption (logical fallacy) opens up a whole world of bad choices for you as an Atheist (or should I say Discordian) – doesn’t it? Once you assume that “matter” exist independent of consciousness then it is easy to claim that you have magical “free will” powers beyond the scope of TLOP, and that TLOP is obviously non-conscious (whatever that means). Ohh yes, it is a big wonderful world you have created for yourself.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
You do have empirical evidence for your own existence (a lifetime’s worth of empirical verification), but you have to assume that the “matter” exist independent of observation. If you consider an assumption the same as an observation, then you might as well assume that “Eris” or “Unicorns” exist. There ya go again. Asserting more validity to some observations and less to others. How do you know that you continue to exist when you are asleep? How do you directly experience anything, even your own existence if not through some kind of sense?

On and on.....

[Franko]

Franko:
- You have empirical evidence for your own existence (a lifetime’s worth of empirical verification).
- but you have to assume that the “matter” exist independent of observation.

Upchurch:
There ya go again. Asserting more validity to some observations and less to others.

No, I am stating that an observation trumps an assumption.

How do you know that you continue to exist when you are asleep?

i.e. how do you know you dream when you sleep?

How do you directly experience anything, even your own existence if not through some kind of sense?

Do you need senses to see and hear things in your dreams?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko


No, I am stating that an observation trumps an assumption.





No, you said that nothing exist until it is observed.

originally posted by Franko 10-10-2003 11:19 AM The Ideal Religion Thread

So you are claiming that the Truth is the Truth independent of observation? That sounds more like an unsupported and untestable assertion.”.

Pahansiri responded:

Absolutely as I pointed out using several examples.

Do you really believe because no human has seen a sun or planet that is too far to see yet that that sun or planet is not there?

This would mean being that we discover new planets every day as the technology improves that these newly discovered planets discovered today were not there yesterday? That is illogical.

The truth is there are many more planets we have yet to observe and the truth is they are there and exist.

There are new species of life still being discovered on this planet do you believe they only exist when we first discover them? That is illogical.

No humans were alive to observe the dinosaurs does this mean there were no dinosaurs. There are countless examples disproving your position.

originally posted by Franko 10-10-2003 03:31 PMThe Ideal Religion Thread


I would say that I do not believe the planet you are referring to exist.
:rub: I am here to help you remember what you say.

Why? because we love you;)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


I’m not sure “I” (meaning You) understand the question?

The individual reading this post is the only one who exist. First their subconscious imagined what I would say, and then their conscious mind perceived it.

What do you mean, "I, meaning You"? There is no "me"...I don't exist. You are the one who is imagining your own responses, and causing these other posts to manifest based on the responses you expect your theoretical constructs to make.

[Krandal2]

Perhaps I can help here.

Franko is arguing for ontological solipcism (ie. Nothing exists but the self, or rather everything that exists is ultimately the self)
NOT epistemic solipcism (only the self can be verified)

under the ontological version of solipcism, the existence of objects or (non-conscious) persons outside (or independent of) ones own consciousness do not count as counter examples, but are merely considered a product of a more fundamental part of 'the self' (or in frankos terms the subconscious portion of the self).

Now there are some problems with (t)his view and If I had more time I would address them (maybe later), but I thought I should chime in since those arguing against Franko position dont seem to have a clear Idea of what exactly they are arguing against.

[Franko]

Pahansiri:
The truth is truth even if “no one” believes it.

Franko:
So you are claiming that the Truth is the Truth independent of observation?

Pahansiri:
Absolutely as I pointed out using several examples.
Do you really believe because no human has seen a sun or planet that is too far to see yet that that sun or planet is not there?

Franko:
I would say that I do not believe the planet you are referring to exist. There is no evidence to believe that you can “observe” this planet without actually observing it, and I do not believe that your imagined planet is the same as a planet which exist objectively in reality.

I am here to help you remember what "we" really said.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko


I am here to help you remember what "we" really said.

yes and?

That shows your dishonest in not answer the question as you simply will not answer most..

Allow me to try again.

We or a scientist through ever improving technology can see deeper into space all the time. Due to this we can see “discover” “new” or better word previously, by humans undiscovered or seen planets.

Is it your belief that the planet a scientist sees today for the first time by a human did not exist yesterday?

Did in the very second he/she saw it all the causes and conditions come together and billions of years of gasses converting to solids etc just occur?

YES or NO?

[hammegk]

Do you believe you will ever understand enough of the subject under discussion to contribute in a meaningful way?

YES or NO?

If YES, when?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
Do you believe you will ever understand enough of the subject under discussion to contribute in a meaningful way?

YES or NO?

If YES, when? hammy,

When, exactly, did you stop beating your wife?

Just tell me WHEN. It's a simple question.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
hammy,

When, exactly, did you stop beating your wife?

Just tell me WHEN. It's a simple question.

Sure. Right after you provide PROOF I ever started. Dunce.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk
Do you believe you will ever understand enough of the subject under discussion to contribute in a meaningful way?

YES or NO?

If YES, when?

Franko/hammegk you forgot to respond using the Franko handle.. Silly boy..

Why will you not answer???

Is it you can not?

Let us try again.

We or a scientist through ever improving technology can see deeper into space all the time. Due to this we can see “discover” “new” or better word previously, by humans undiscovered or seen planets.

Is it your belief that the planet a scientist sees today for the first time by a human did not exist yesterday?

Did in the very second he/she saw it all the causes and conditions come together and billions of years of gasses converting to solids etc just occur?

YES or NO?

Stop making yourself look foolish and answer.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Krandal2
Perhaps I can help here.

Franko is arguing for ontological solipcism (ie. Nothing exists but the self, or rather everything that exists is ultimately the self)
NOT epistemic solipcism (only the self can be verified)

under the ontological version of solipcism, the existence of objects or (non-conscious) persons outside (or independent of) ones own consciousness do not count as counter examples, but are merely considered a product of a more fundamental part of 'the self' (or in frankos terms the subconscious portion of the self).

Now there are some problems with (t)his view and If I had more time I would address them (maybe later), but I thought I should chime in since those arguing against Franko position dont seem to have a clear Idea of what exactly they are arguing against.
Thanks for the clarification.

I knew what I was arguing against Solipsism, I just didnt know it was the "not-quite-Solipsism" variety.

So Franko believes "Nothing exists but the self, or rather everything that exists is ultimately the self". In that case Franko would be making an unfounded assumption (by playing a game of "I dont understand anything so yall must lying") that everything around him is an illusion. Of course, he also makes several other unfounded and unintelligible assumptions such as "the Logical Goddess" (why a gender?),

I really do not believe Franko is a Solipsist. If Franko believes everything he says, then I would consider him an Immaterialist with his own personal deity, his own inner-religion (I'm a very bad graviton), and probably a severe thought processing disorder.

I'd like to find two people who think exactly like an Ontological Solipsist, then put them in a room. Then I'd like to hear their argument of which of them is real and which is the illusion.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
------------------------------------------------------
There you go, both you and I exist in objective reality, the insane representation of "solipsism" that has been presented is false.
-----------------------------------------------------
Wow. When will you start your cult? Er, actually you are just joining. Continue to have faith that the mantra "matter exists" is TRUTH.
AND THERE YOU GO, FELLAS! HAMMEGK HAS PROVEN ME FAL--wait...

Hammegk (and this goes for you also, Franko), I'll tell you what, your little "I stick me head in the ground" technique just doesnt cut it, try harder. (When did "I exist, you exist" turn into a cult?)

Aside from you little jokes and interjections of a mild flame or two, you have had nothing to say, you have proven nothing... nothing to prove, I suppose...

Pahansiri and I have been very patient. Pahansiri apparently has a little more patience than myself as I've come to one conclusion: You've been yanking our chains around.

I'd much rather participate in the community forum, at least a thread that might have a little more to offer than this one.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Sure, later tonight I'll start a thread about monism... monistic-idealism... whatever you want to call it. At the end of the day, it's my argument that only God exists.

If you are correct, there is much of God that is despicable, terrible, and plain vile.

Do you worship this God of yours? What are some attributes of this God besides being all pervasive?

Adam

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I'd much rather participate in the community forum, at least a thread that might have a little more to offer than this one.

That would be a good idea. Why not do so? I will give you this; you are closer to seeing the argument than Pahansiri has ever been -- or apparently ever will be.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk


That would be a good idea. Why not do so? I will give you this; you are closer to seeing the argument than Pahansiri has ever been -- or apparently ever will be.

Let us try again.

We or a scientist through ever improving technology can see deeper into space all the time. Due to this we can see “discover” “new” or better word previously, by humans undiscovered or seen planets.

Is it your belief that the planet a scientist sees today for the first time by a human did not exist yesterday?

Did in the very second he/she saw it all the causes and conditions come together and billions of years of gasses converting to solids etc just occur?

YES or NO?

Stop making yourself look foolish and answer.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Did in the very second he/she saw it all the causes and conditions come together and billions of years of gasses converting to solids etc just occur?

YES or NO?


Which answer are you hoping to discuss? You do realize he could answer either one? What makes you think Hammegk believes he knows the answer to that question? Or that it is even answerable? Or that he believes it's answerable?

Where do you expect this to go? I'm wondering about your motives in this line of inquiry? It's an honest question. It seems pointless to discuss specifics of metaphysics like this.

Adam

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Stop making yourself look foolish and answer.

If you can explain what a "human observer" has to with any question anyone except you seems to be discussing, I might. What would you do with an answer to your totally irrelevant question if you were to get it?

So far it makes more sense to continue to assume you are as clueless as the question itself.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


Ohh, I beg to differ.

You do have empirical evidence for your own existence (a lifetime’s worth of empirical verification), but you have to assume that the “matter” exist independent of observation. If you consider an assumption the same as an observation, then you might as well assume that “Eris” or “Unicorns” exist.


But master Franko, I have been taught in this forum that , that experience is irreducable, and according to some, not subject to verification. But i would maintain that it is open to discussion. And i don't assume that matter exists independant of my observation.

That is your assertion and you are acting like Dull Dian to put words in my mouth so.

I propose to you that you go out and make a mark on a tree, and then see if it is there the next day.

Again, I do not assume that matter exists when i close my eyes and sleep, I just note that it behaves as though it does.




How about the “matter” in your dreams? What makes you assume that this reality is any different? Perhaps it is only different in that it isn’t your dream?


But master Bladder, you didn't ask, you are sooo rude. I note that the matter in the dream world seems to vary from time to time. And if I can trust the reports of other human beings, thier dreams are different from mine. there may be scientific rules that govern the dream world. But i don't know.


What you are claiming is analogous to asserting that a computer generated universe persist as an “active world” while stored on a CD. In other words those worlds exist even when they are not running on a computer.

that isn't what i said at all, what I said is that matter/mind product behaves as though it is there when I close my eyes. Doesn't mean that it is, although I do wonder about tape recorders and continuity. In that they show continuity of time when ther is no sentient observer, by standard definition of sentience.

So another Dull Dian point to Franko, for making stupid assertions and blaming them on other people.



Yeah, see my computer world analogy above. Perhaps you can explain that away before it puts a dent in your recruitment quota for the week.

Personaly i ain't recruiting, but perhaps you have heard of freudian projection dear Jedi .



No doubt. But I am only following my orders. I’ll be taking my walk soon enough, I am about to be recalled “back to the woods”.

So are you really Phansiri? And hammeGK? Why won't idealist explain how mind differentiates?




Ahhh, so religious beliefs are Okay so long as they are your religious beliefs?
Any belief held in the abcense of evidence is faith, I at this point have no belief that matter exists when I close my eyes. So perhaps you should piss up another rope.


Very cute. I hope the Christians and Muslims don’t find out what you are up to. I don’t think they would find it so amusing, one wonders how long you can prevent them from discovering your little plan?


As Popeye says" I yam what I yam ", there are plenty of things that the people of the dull book find unfunny, I think that there are more things in the set they disapprove of than the set they approve of.




What makes you assume that “I” am a Solipsist? I assure you I am not, if anything I am a figment of your imagination.


You keep bringing it up, so I asked. I don't subscribe to it as a belief, but couldn't prove either way. usually my imagination is a little more interesting.




Only if you beg the question.

Of course that initial faulty assumption (logical fallacy) opens up a whole world of bad choices for you as an Atheist (or should I say Discordian) – doesn’t it? Once you assume that “matter” exist independent of consciousness then it is easy to claim that you have magical “free will” powers beyond the scope of TLOP, and that TLOP is obviously non-conscious (whatever that means). Ohh yes, it is a big wonderful world you have created for yourself.

Uh, I don't care where matter came from, only concerned with it's behavior, mind, solipistict ejaculate, whatever.
Matter could exist independant of consiousness, but it would be hard to prove, doen't make a difference.
I would never claim to have free willy except within the bound of lop.
I am not sure that i can convince philosphers that I am not a p-zombie, so I couldn't even try to make a claim about lop.


Another Dull Dian point, it is the world that you created and said was mine. Sigh, I could try to show you the stars, but would you hear the music of the spheres?

And as far as being an atheist, it depends on the day of the week, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I am a polytheist, on Tuesdays and Thursdays I am a nihilist, on Saturdays I am agnostic and on Sundays I roll a twenty sided die and then look at a chart!

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk


If you can explain what a "human observer" has to with any question anyone except you seems to be discussing, I might. What would you do with an answer to your totally irrelevant question if you were to get it?

So far it makes more sense to continue to assume you are as clueless as the question itself.

Nice dance. Will you ver be honest?

A human observer is the only provable and so only relevant observer, unless you can prove your Goddess?

So answer the question and prove the existence of your Goddess as an observer. For if you can not David Brooks has for you these find words.

To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." – David Brooks

Let us try again.

We or a scientist through ever improving technology can see deeper into space all the time. Due to this we can see “discover” “new” or better word previously, by humans undiscovered or seen planets.

Is it your belief that the planet a scientist sees today for the first time by a human did not exist yesterday?

Did in the very second he/she saw it all the causes and conditions come together and billions of years of gasses converting to solids etc just occur?

YES or NO?

Stop making yourself look foolish and answer.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings slimshady2357.

Which answer are you hoping to discuss? You do realize he could answer either one?

My friend please read the post I made earlier to get a back ground as to the base of this question. I am posing a question to him as to what he said was fact, that being that nothing exist until it is observed.

He is dancing now and saying his Goddess is the observer, a fine dance but meaningless and irrelevant because he can not prove the existence of the Goddess.


What makes you think Hammegk believes he knows the answer to that question?


I do not believe Hammegk /Franko knows what he believes as it changes often and he will not engage in a logical mature factual conversation.

Or that it is even answerable? Or that he believes it's answerable?

Is it answerable?

It is s simple yes or no.

Where do you expect this to go?

To go? Know where debate with Franko goes no where.



I'm wondering about your motives in this line of inquiry?

this is a discussion board, right?

It's an honest question. It seems pointless to discuss specifics of metaphysics like this.

? My question is metaphysical?


With great respect please again read my question We or a scientist through ever improving technology can see deeper into space all the time. Due to this we can see “discover” “new” or better word previously, by humans undiscovered or seen planets.

Is it your belief that the planet a scientist sees today for the first time by a human did not exist yesterday?

Did in the very second he/she saw it all the causes and conditions come together and billions of years of gasses converting to solids etc just occur?

And tell me your thoughts on how it is metaphysical unless you add in a Goddess as he is trying to introduce.

As to that if you do wish to insert such a thing and demand it is truth by making a statement of fact then you have the burden to provide the fact.

Be well.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


A human observer is the only provable and so only relevant observer, unless you can prove your Goddess?


Franko's Goddess is his belief, not mine. And I will categorically state he and I are different people; believe what you will. Other than that your statement approachs the question, although I'd say the "observer" is the only provable existent. Where does "human" get "proved"?



DD: Would you consider editing your last post for quotes & bolds? You do realize quote & /quote (In [xxxxx]) can be typed where needed? Ditto b & /b? :)

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings slimshady2357.

Hello! :)
My friend please read the post I made earlier to get a back ground as to the base of this question. I am posing a question to him as to what he said was fact, that being that nothing exist until it is observed.

He is dancing now and saying his Goddess is the observer, a fine dance but meaningless and irrelevant because he can not prove the existence of the Goddess.


Ahhh, I didn't realize that you think hammegk is Franko! I seriously doubt it. But one never knows ;)

? My question is metaphysical?

With great respect please again read my question[b] We or a scientist through ever improving technology can see deeper into space all the time. Due to this we can see “discover” “new” or better word previously, by humans undiscovered or seen planets.

Is it your belief that the planet a scientist sees today for the first time by a human did not exist yesterday?

See, it's just going to be a belief, and one founded in not much more than intuition. So that's why I ask what your motivation is in asking, since it can lead no where except perhaps to an interesting look into Hammegk's default views (intuitive views?)

And yes, the question is ultimately metaphysical. For a materialist, of course it exists. For an Idealist the answers could vary. Berkeley would say the planets existed in the mind of God. Perhaps some minimal idealists would say the planet truly doesn't exist.

Why do you ask?

And tell me your thoughts on how it is metaphysical unless you add in a Goddess as he is trying to introduce.

Well I told you how it's ultimately a metaphysical question. If I catch your meaning in asking the question (that there was no evidence what-so-ever of these planets and then suddenly at least one human becomes aware of their existence) the very wording of the question demands that it is beyond the physical. There can be no evidence of whether the planets were there before.

Perhaps I have a broader net for the term 'metaphysical' then most would use.

As to that if you do wish to insert such a thing and demand it is truth by making a statement of fact then you have the burden to provide the fact.

Be well.

Well, I doubt Hammegk made that statement. But then I haven't read everything and I don't believe him and Franko are one and the same.

Adam

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk

Franko's Goddess is his belief, not mine. And I will categorically state he and I are different people; believe what you will. Other than that your statement approachs the question, although I'd say the "observer" is the only provable existent. Where does "human" get "proved"?



DD: Would you consider editing your last post for quotes & bolds? You do realize quote & /quote (In [xxxxx]) can be typed where needed? Ditto b & /b? :)

Other than that your statement approachs the question, although I'd say the "observer" is the only provable existent. Where does "human" get "proved"?

Could you say this again in English? Also “approachs” is spelled approaches.

What exactly do you mean Other than that your statement approachs ( moves toward0the question,

although I'd say the "observer" is the only provable existent. Where does "human" get "proved"?

How is not the planet the human/ observer provable ?

What do you mean where does the human get "proved"?

As you can see I has always have addressed your points and answered your questions, for once can you give the same respect you seek.

As to if you are Franko yes I have my belief and have provided my facts to support it, is it important if I am right or if you are or not. No. I think is sad if you are but that is just my belief.


Just what I believe.

[Pahansiri]

Hello again my friend.


See, it's just going to be a belief, and one founded in not much more than intuition.

I agree and respect it as a belief as I respect all and their rights. But when one makes a statement of belief in a way that is a statement of Fact, then and greatly so in this atmosphere of a discussion board they must provide the facts to support this statement.

One would home that we could all share beliefs, thoughts and debate etc with respect and logic but that is so often not the case. Some make statements and when asked to provide the data only do we get personal attacks and dancing people simply will not answer questions only ask them.

Perhaps I expect too much.

So that's why I ask what your motivation is in asking, since it can lead no where except perhaps to an interesting look into Hammegk's default views (intuitive views?)

As you can see from my first post of the question it was to Franko not Hammegk, he responded, well he did not answer the question only launched childish personal attacks.

And yes, the question is ultimately metaphysical. For a materialist, of course it exists.

I am Buddhist and not materialist and yes in this reality/ perception it does exist does it exist in and of itself? No But that is not metaphysical it is simply fact.

But I respect your opinion.


For an Idealist the answers could vary. Berkeley would say the planets existed in the mind of God. Perhaps some minimal idealists would say the planet truly doesn't exist.

And I would respect their beliefs also, but for conversation I would seek conversation, talking, sharing debate. There is no fear in a belief if one truly believes and does so with an open logical mind. There is no question one would find anger over or avoid.



Why do you ask?

Why not?

Well I told you how it's ultimately a metaphysical question.

You told me you believe it is I demonstrated I believe it is not.



If I catch your meaning in asking the question (that there was no evidence what-so-ever of these planets and then suddenly at least one human becomes aware of their existence) the very wording of the question demands that it is beyond the physical. There can be no evidence of whether the planets were there before.
“There can be no evidence of whether the planets were there before.”?

Do you really believe that?

We know or have a fairly well developed model of how planets are formed. This takes great deals of time, millions of years. If tomorrow a new planet is discovered as in seen for the first time by human eyes logic tells us that planet was there today also. Does it not?

Perhaps I have a broader net for the term 'metaphysical' then most would use.

Perhaps and I respect that.


Well, I doubt Hammegk made that statement. But then I haven't read everything and I don't believe him and Franko are one and the same.

And that belief I respect too, in an other thread I offer my facts concerning this but as I said it is irrelevant and also again point to the fact that my post was to Franko and Hammegk offered this post
Do you believe you will ever understand enough of the subject under discussion to contribute in a meaningful way?

YES or NO?

If YES, when?

As you can see Hammegk it would seem from this entered himself into the conversation, not offering an answer but only childish insults.

Be well.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

What exactly do you mean
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than that your statement approaches ( moves towards the question,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, moves towards.


How is not the planet the human/ observer provable ?

What do you mean where does the human get "proved"?
Thank you for finally testing for understanding.

Can we agree, "observer" is provable? I.E. You think(or think you know) that you "observe". Same for me; I observe.

"Human" is a concept -- we can agree solipsism is false and that "you" and "I" both exist and think/observe -- but that is not proof of anything.

Now, the observer (provable) exists, and we can agree both of us are observers. Yet that has nothing to do with your question, if you see what I mean.


As to if you are Franko yes I have my belief and have provided my facts to support it, is it important if I am right or if you are or not. No. I think is sad if you are but that is just my belief.

Please note you have no "facts", only conjecture. Unfortunately, on close enough examination every "fact" I have ever "known" is in the final analysis based on conjecture (Science calls them axioms).

[Yahweh]

I'll give "the assumption of Materialism" another shot.

Who would have imagined, Atoms do exist...

I decided to search around the internet a bit for images of atoms. I found lots of diagrams of atoms. I decided to search "Scanning Tunnelling Microscope", and I came up with a few articles.

From http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/atoms.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/images/atoms.jpg

This is an image of silicon atoms arranged on a face of a crystal. It is impossible to "see" atoms this way using ordinary light. The image was made by a Scanning Tunneling Microscope, a device that "feels" the cloud of electrons that form the outer surface of atoms, rather as a phonograph needle feels the grooves in a record.

It had long been suspected that crystals are made of atoms lined up in neat arrays. But at the start of the 20th century there was no way to actually see them. Some scientists thought the "atom" in physics theories might be merely a sort of abstract device useful for computations. Einstein's paper gave one of the first convincing proofs that atoms do exist as real objects.

It's my personal opinion that the way the author crammed STM into a "like a phonograph needle" nutshell sounded very "stupid" but it was pretty much accurate.

Here (http://www.sljus.lu.se/stm/NonTech.html) is a description of how STMs work, it includes some very nice pictures (they are colorized to show detail).

More STM images...
http://www.sljus.lu.se/stm/NonTech/Si111.jpg


Here (http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/History_n2/index_n2/einstein_theory.html) is a brief summary of Einstein's theories which transformed mankind's understanding of Cosmology and the world.
Here is an excerpt:

In March 1905 , Einstein created the quantum theory of light, the idea that light exists as tiny packets, or particles, which he called photons. Alongside Max Planck's work on quanta of heat Einstein proposed one of the most shocking idea in twentieth century physics: we live in a quantum universe, one built out of tiny, discrete chunks of energy and matter.

Next, in April and May, Einstein published two papers. In one he invented a new method of counting and determining the size of the atoms or molecules in a given space and in the other he explains the phenomenon of Brownian motion. The net result was a proof that atoms actually exist - still an issue at that time - and the end to a millennia-old debate on the fundamental nature of the chemical elements.

...

Then in 1915, Einstein completed the General Theory of Relativity - the product of eight years of work on the problem of gravity. In general relativity Einstein shows that matter and energy actually mold the shape of space and the flow of time. What we feel as the 'force' of gravity is simply the sensation of following the shortest path we can through curved, four-dimensional space-time. It is a radical vision: space is no longer the box the universe comes in; instead, space and time, matter and energy are, as Einstein proves, locked together in the most intimate embrace.

Einstein's work is why I am the Materialist that I am. It is no wonder that one of my dreams is to be the next Einstein (or the next Stimpy).

Now I want to address some of hammegk's comments:

Please note you have no "facts", only conjecture. Unfortunately, on close enough examination every "fact" I have ever "known" is in the final analysis based on conjecture (Science calls them axioms).

Yes, I finally realized what this whole debate has been about all along, it was own personal little epiphany. Now I want to see if I can give you an epiphany of yours...

You are at least partially correct when you say facts are conjectures. The part where you are correct is because facts are revisable. You are incorrect with the use of the word "conjecture", that would be a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is (in a formal sense) a reasonable explanation of an observation or experimental result that is not fully accepted as factual until tested over and over. To be a scientific hypothesis, the hypothesis must be falsifyable (must be able to be shown to be true or false). A falsifyable hypothesis looks like this: The moon is made of cheese. An unfalsifyable hypothesis looks like this: There are invisible pink unicorns flying in the air that cannot be detected by scientific means (or you could suggest that you are the Solipsist). Hypothesises demonstrate the transition from Philosophy into Science (source for that last statement: Myself).

A fact is (in a formal sense) a close agreement by competent observers of a series of observation of the same phenomena.

An example of a fact is "When a wrench is throw, it will spin on its center of gravity, the wrench's center of gravity will horizontal vector of equal to the speed at which it was throw, the vertical vector will be that of the acceleration of gravity" (When I was thinking about my example, I had to remember that vertical components of movement are seperate from horizontal components... hey that's another fact).

A law is (in a formal sense) a general hypothesis or statement about the relationship of natural quantities (note the use of the word natural quantities) that has been tested over and over again (that makes it a fact) and has not been contradicted.

Here is a very easy to understand example of a law: Hooke's Law states the distance of stretch or squeeze (extentension or compression) or an elastic material is directly proportional to the applied force. It means compressing an elastic material makes more force, extending it makes less force.

Here is the problem with observation: It can be inaccurate. Example: Atomspheric refraction which causes an observer to make inaccurate assumptions of what he is looking at (he might see a mirage or see fish nearer toward the surface of water than they actually are).

Another problem with observation is obviously the frame of reference. Take for example Special Relativity and object traveling at 0.87c. An object 1 meter long that whizzed by someone standing still would appear to be contracted to 50% of its horizontal length (the vertical length is unchanged). In the metersticks frame of reference, the observer appears contracted. To sum up the frame of reference problem all at once: "Is what you see the same thing as what I see".

Primary problem with observation: Incompleteness (I'm not making a reference to G”del).

Of course, the frame of reference science takes is not that of a human. It takes the 3rd person frame of reference (or the omniscient frame of reference).

Science good example of the 3rd person nature of observation. Humans are an example of the 1rst person nature of human observation. In science, everything always behaves the same, everything works and functions in the same way, inferences from the scientific frame of reference are always the same (which cannot be said from the human frame of reference).

A theory is (in a formal sense) a synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well-tested and verified hypothesis about aspects of the natural world. Laws are parts of theories. It is a common misconception that theories need to be "proven" to become "laws" (if you have an understanding of science, you realized the importance of that last particular statement).

For Franko:
The scientific method is simply an orderly method for gaining, organizing, and applying new knowledge.

(My source for my definitions: A highschool physics book with some additional clarification and detail from myself.)

Conclusion
If you have skipped everything I've written, perhaps you attention has been attracted by the bolding of the word "conclusion":

Science does not make assumptions. Everything in science is demonstratably true. (Source for those statements: Myself)

Unfortunately, I cannot leap out of my mind and into the 3rd person frame of reference, however my understanding of science is what transcends my assumptions of truth into truth. (Source for that last statement: Myself)

[hammegk]

Yahweh, you're a hoot.

Would you please describe how you propose to examine "energy" scientifically?

And you might try some thought before you demonstrate your knowledge of search engines & Physics 101.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


DD: Would you consider editing your last post for quotes & bolds? You do realize quote & /quote (In [xxxxx]) can be typed where needed? Ditto b & /b? :)

yes I do, and I missed a backslah and so it didn't parse the bolding after that.

:) You may have noticed that I get it right frequently.

[Dancing David]

Yahweh:

Some conclusions I have reached.

If you engage in discussion with hammegk you will find out he basis for his questions. It just takes a little patience and a lot of wondering, I am not sure that I always understand, and his method is to not explain.

In the past hammegk has agreed that the world apprears to be very old, and he would probably agree that it appears to be made of particles. Below the level of atoms I am not sure.

The contention that hammegk has is that the physical world is a closed system with no outside referent, and therefore we can not know the answer to many of the ontological questions about the world.

So while the world appears to exist, and apperas to have great depth, it is unknown if it is a product of mind or matter.

The argument is called 'using matter to prove materialism'.

So while you can use the same line of reasoning that I might, it does not escape the 'using matter to prove materialism' argument.

My proof is purely speculative on this forum, the fact that we have no evidence for mind outside of organic awareness is a moot point in the philosophy forum, as is any argument about the depth, fineness and overwhelming persistance of matter. Those are philosophicaly moot points.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yahweh, you're a hoot.

Would you please describe how you propose to examine "energy" scientifically?
Physics is the science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two.

You can study energy scientifically in any number of ways. Drop a bowling ball off a cliff (energy in motion), measure the change in temperature of a substance where a chemical reaction has just occurred, etc., etc., etc.

That question wasnt too terribly difficult to answer.

And you might try some thought before you demonstrate your knowledge of search engines & Physics 101.
As I said earlier, your little "I stick my head in the ground" technique doesnt cut it, try harder. But hey, get this, if you can prove Einstein wrong or demonstrate how any of the scientific laws are incorrect, I will concede, and you can go to the Nobel committee and get yourself one of those prize dealies.

Believe me, my knowledge goes much further than that of search engines and Physics 101, but if its all I need to "defeat the immaterialist/amaterialist/skeptic of observations" well then so be it, I wont try any harder than I actually need (and I wouldnt want to speak over someone's head when I go into the really hard stuff).

Your little "I attack the scientist, not the science" approach is meaningless.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh

That question wasnt too terribly difficult to answer.
Too bad you didn't answer it then. In case you forgot, the question was "what is energy", not "what forms can it take".

Franko thinks gravitons are the answer. What do you think? No, I don't know either.


....I wont try any harder than I actually need (and I wouldnt want to speak over someone's head when I go into the really hard stuff).
Self-confidence A+. So far, that's about it from you.


Your little "I attack the scientist, not the science" approach is meaningless.

If you ever understand anything I said, or say, we might talk. No, I obviously don't state many things "clearly" (well, dammit, they are clear to me). Try the technique called testing for understanding before flailing overmuch at strawmen of your own devising. Or don't; whatever seems best to you. ;)

Have people explained to you that doing the same things expecting different results is insanity? I may do the same things; I just "expect" the same results, but would be gratified if a different result actually occured. :)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
Too bad you didn't answer it then. In case you forgot, the question was "what is energy", not "what forms can it take".

Everything in the universe can be described in terms of matter and physical phenomena. What about energy? I'll explain...

Einstein realized everything in the universe is comprised of 1 of 2 things:
1. Energy or 2. Matter

Einstein revelutionized Physics when he realized matter can be come energy, energy can become matter. This idea was his most famous equation of E=mc².

What does that mean? It means matter and energy are equivelant.

Energy is transferred in many forms including the most common heat (thermal), light (radiant), mechanical, electrical, chemical, and nuclear.

Mass and energy are equivelant, mass is simply "congealed" energy.

Energy defined as "the capacity of a physical system to do work", it is measured joules. Because matter and energy are equivelant, you can use Einstein's equation to figure that one kilogram of matter is equivelant to 90 quadrillion joules of energy.

Keep in mind, Einstein's equation has nothing to do with light and nothing to do with motion.

I want to quickly mention one fact: Is E=mc² another way of saying "Matter transforms into pure energy wihen it is traveling at the speed of light squared"? Then answer is a resounding NO. Matter cannot be made to move at the speed of light let alone the speed of light squared (which is not a speed), the equation E=mc² means energy and mass are "two sides of the same coin". (This ties into the "nothing to do with motion thing I mentioned above.)

(Source: I'm just a smart guy, a few definitions from Dictionary.com, and a highschool physics book as a reference tool)

Franko thinks gravitons are the answer. What do you think? No, I don't know either.

I dont know why Franko calls them gravitons. Wikipedia has a nice article describing gravitons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Einstein outlined his "Problems of Gravitation". Gravitons are hypothetical elementary particles that supposedly carry the attracting force of gravitation. The reason why energy is treated as particles (quanta) and gravitons are not is because gravitons do no behave quantized particles, even still they would be difficult to detect. I dont rule out the possibility of the existence of gravitons, but I'm very skeptical of their existence. What we do know about gravitation is that gravitation and acceleration are equivelant. (That wont make much sense if you are unfamiliar with GR and QM...)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh

What does that mean? It means [b]matter and energy are equivelant.


Mass and energy are equivelant, mass is simply "congealed" energy.


Yeah, my parrot says that too.


Energy defined as "the capacity of a physical system to do work", it is measured joules. Because matter and energy are equivelant, you can use Einstein's equation to figure that one kilogram of matter is equivelant to 90 quadrillion joules of energy.
I'll be darned! If I give you a kilogram of water, and you can convert it into "energy" you will definitely win a Nobel, not to mention becoming World Ruler.


(Source: I'm just a smart guy, a few definitions from Dictionary.com, and a highschool physics book as a reference tool)

Assuming your current persona here has some credence in reality, you are doing reasonably well, too.


I dont know why Franko calls them gravitons. Wikipedia has a nice article describing gravitons:
His probably aren't in there; his are G (see the capital letter) ravitons. ;)

I too find that contemplation of "what is energy" points to gravity as being important if not primary.


...(That wont make much sense if you are unfamiliar with GR and QM...)
You continue to be a hoot! Worry instead about energy in dimensions 5 through 10 (or 11) for example. :)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yeah, my parrot says that too.
It doesnt exactly disprove it. (You've got a very intelligent parrot).

I'll be darned! If I give you a kilogram of water, and you can convert it into "energy" you will definitely win a Nobel, not to mention becoming World Ruler.

Are you aware how nuclear fission works in Nuclear Plants? They do that all the time (the amount of water that is converted into energy is actually around that of a gram, or 90 million megajoules).

Here is an example of energy being converted into mass (an introduction into the Muon):
When radient energy from the sun strike atoms near the top of the atmosphere, new particles are made. Some are Muons. Muons are elementary particles which are radioactive, they are about 209 times more massive than electrons (which is still extremely tiny). Muons have a half-life of about 0.0002 seconds (two-millioneths of a second), but because they move at nearly the speed of light which means you are actually being hit by hundreds of muons a second (although it has a very brief half-life, due to its high velocity, length contraction described in Special Relativity dramatically reduces their distance to the earth). Muons decay into electrons and neutrinos (and possibly the hypothetical anti-neutrino). Like all elementary particles, they can cause biological mutations.

Edit to add:
Here is an example of converting matter into energy:
Einstein's equation E=mc² and his idea that matter and energy can be converted into each other and back has been demonstrated many times through atomic bombs (via nuclear fission).

Physics is fun!

Assuming your current persona here has some credence in reality, you are doing reasonably well, too.
:)

His probably aren't in there; his are G (see the capital letter) ravitons. ;)
I already know his definition of "gravitons" has nothing at all to do with the hypothetical particles.

I too find that contemplation of "what is energy" points to gravity as being important if not primary.

With a little work (pun intended), you can turn energy into gravity. Energy and matter are equivelant. Mass is a qualitive property of matter. Mass and gravity are equivelant. Problem solved.

You continue to be a hoot! Worry instead about energy in dimensions 5 through 10 (or 11) for example. :)
Welcome to the space-time continuum, 3 spatial dimensions, 1 temporal dimensions. I've heard of as many as 10 spatial and 1 temporal, those only exist mathematics, they do not exist in reality.

Edit: Minor spelling corrections.

[uruk]

I'll be darned! If I give you a kilogram of water, and you can convert it into "energy" you will definitely win a Nobel, not to mention becoming World Ruler.

It has already been done. Heavy water contains deuterium
which can and has been used as fusionable fuel in Thermonuclear
bombs and fusion reactor research. Ask the people of the Bikini Islands. I don't think anyone who does research in nuclear bombs
has won a Nobel prize in weapons research though.

Also, The space shuttle uses Liquid Hydrogen and oxygen as fuel.
Also in a indirect sense, water flowing through a hydroelectric Dam can convert it's potential energy into electricity.
Water can be converted into steam to power a locomotive.

I've often marveled at how al these new age yahoos throw
around the word "energy" without knowing what the heck it means or defining what they mean by it.

With a little work (pun intended), you can turn energy into gravity. Energy and matter are equivelant. Mass is a qualitive property of matter. Mass and gravity are equivelant. Problem solved.

Einstien states that both Mass and Energy can bend or warp space/time As per Energy=Mass

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch I notice that you keep rushing to declare victory, without actually posting your proof?

I guess your proof is as imaginary as I am?

LOL

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith

LOL :rub:

Franko, that's just lame.

[wraith]

You need to get some new quotes for your signature field :rolleyes:

[hammegk]

What path are ya'all on? I didn't check the math on your conversion of water to energy but guessed you just used e=mc**2; if not, more power;) to ya.

For example, you could think "zero-point" energy -- well, once we can figure out what "energy" *is* -- and join the discussion in progress. It's actually a bit further along than your comments imply your level of understanding is. :rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith
You need to get some new quotes for your signature field :rolleyes: Jealousy is so cute, even in a sockpuppet. :rub:

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
What path are ya'all on? I didn't check the math on your conversion of water to energy but guessed you just used e=mc**2; if not, more power;) to ya.

For example, you could think "zero-point" energy -- well, once we can figure out what "energy" *is* -- and join the discussion in progress. It's actually a bit further along than your comments imply your level of understanding is. :rolleyes:

I'll already described what "energy" is, no need to repeat myself.

I'll quickly describe what Zero-point energy is...
Zero-point energy is bullplop.

I'll explain in detail what it is and why it is bullplop after you are entertained by a few claims on the internet...

http://www.zpower.net/zpe.htm
Zero Point Energy -- vibrational energy that molecules retain even at the absolute zero of temperature. Temperature in physics has been found to be a measure of the intensity of random molecular motion, and it might be expected that, as temperature is reduced to absolute zero, all motion ceases and molecules come to rest. In fact, however, the motion corresponding to Zero Point Energy never vanishes.

This (http://users.rcn.com/zap.dnai/) result came up. I was expecting something worth reading, instead it appears to be a bizarre conspiracy theorist's views on Government and Religion (I actually cant tell if this website was intentionally written as a joke or parody or whatever):
THE PLAN TO BEGIN THE VIGOROUS APPLICATION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON ENLARGED SCALE BEGAN JULY 28, 1999 (the world-wide hallucination was "empowered" -meaning that your fantasy world is "valid.") THIS CELESTIAL EVENT WAS EFFECTED BY THE END OF AUGUST, THAT YEAR, WITH THE CONCURRENT INSINUATION OF CONDITIONS CRIPPLING TO USA ECONOMY AND GLOBAL STABILITY SOON THEREAFTER. Materials detailing this ARE HERE

Does anyone recognize Armegeddon? Don't think "terror," think "tribulation." Don't think Jihad/Holy War, think Armeggedon. Don't think NWO (New World Order,) think "End Times."

It is continuously announced that the FULL psychological attack on this planet will begin with a ploy (an "extra-dimensional biological entity" coupled with) using scalar technology soon after the Japanese economy crashes very badly; this presumably in the next year, and possibly much sooner. The revelation is made by a former USA diplomat in a book and on radio shows.

...

Caution: government scalar physicists use language like: ascending angels, descending angels, standing angels (enthalpy, entropy, steady-state.)

...

The biblical name for The Milky Way is Lucifer. Bibles appear to be opaque because we are hideously stupid and prideful in reading them. The Bibles' logic is that of this physics!
:dl:

(It goes on like that for a while...)


Here is the only competent source I could find on the internet:

Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations.

A minority of physicists accept it as real energy which we cannot directly sense since it is the same everywhere, even inside our bodies and measuring devices.

(Source: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html)



To answer, what is Zero-point energy, it is a bizarre theory which predicts that matter at absolute zero retains some kind of "absolute or raw energy" that supposedly has a few origins in the causes of the big bang. It is supposed to be immensely powerful energy, one cup of water has enough zero-point energy to evaporate all of the worlds oceans.

Of course, remember the 3 laws of thermodynamics:
1. Matter and Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Whenever heat is added to a system, it transforms to an equal amount of some other form of energy. (The short version of this is simply "The convervation of Matter and Energy")
2. In thermal systems, heat will never flow from a cold object to a hot object. In closed systems, energy can change forms, but never return to its original form.
3. Absolute zero is unattainable.

While there doesnt appear to be an upper limit for temperature, there is a lower limit called absolute zero. It is the temperature at which no more energy can be extracted from a substance, no more lowering of temperature is possible. The Kelvin scale starts at absolute zero (which is called 0 K or "zero kelvin"), there is no such thing as negative kelvin.

Usually, people try to bypass the laws of thermodynamics by saying "Oh, thats Newtonians physics, zero-point is Quantum Physics". Of course, Quantum Physics does not state that you can extract energy from something at absolute zero, and of course not even quantum physics can escape the "anything greater than but not equal to 0 K" law of thermodynamics.

Zero-point energy is fictional.


I just want to entertain you with a common Physics question:

Take a piece of iron is 0°C, now take a second identical piece of iron which is twice as hot. How hot is the second chunk of iron?

Answer (highlight to read):
<div style="background:#000000;">It is a tricky question isnt it. It fools you into believing there is no answer because 0*2=0. However, that is not the correct answer.

0&deg;C is an absolute temperature which is equal to 273 K. The second chunk of iron is 546 K (which is twice as hot as 273 K), or 273&deg;C (or 523&deg;F).

To give you an idea of how hot that is, keep in mind tin melts at 500 K, iron melts at 1800 K.
</div>

[uruk]

There's also quantum foam, or virtual particle pair production.
The particles pop into existance and anihilate in time intervals less than Plank time.
Hawking posulated that the "virtual" particles could become "real" if the pair poped into existance near an event horizon and one of the partners fell in. This is called Hawking radiation. The liberated particle is able to continue to exist
by stealing mass/energy from the black hole and thus does not violate entropy.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Here is the only competent source I could find on the internet:

Yeah, the work ongoing is post-doc I'd guess, although don't most "publish" on the net? Maybe not if they are working at the frontier.


quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To answer, what is Zero-point energy, it is a bizarre theory which predicts that matter at absolute zero retains some kind of "absolute or raw energy" that supposedly has a few origins in the causes of the big bang. It is supposed to be immensely powerful energy, one cup of water has enough zero-point energy to evaporate all of the worlds oceans.
Ignoring your extraneous commentary, think more like Einstein's Cosmological Constant dilemma. (Perhaps?)

And what did you say is the temperature of a single atom? ;)



Originally posted by uruk

There's also quantum foam ...
Yes, if space-time is infinitely divisible. Perhaps not if M-Theory is more correct.


or virtual particle pair production.
Yeah, some time back I'd raised the question here "is the total energy of the universe = zero?". Stimpy & Dorman made a couple replies, but it seems to me a "final answer" was never agreed on.

Point being, for virtual pairs, where does the "borrowed" energy come from (even if it does not violate Heisenberg). I was getting beaten up on this question, but still think either a + losses a little momentarily -- remaining +, or the + swings to - for the infinitesmal moment the "pair" almost exist. So what is "negative" energy? :confused:

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, some time back I'd raised the question here "is the total energy of the universe = zero?". Stimpy & Dorman made a couple replies, but it seems to me a "final answer" was never agreed on.
That is a great question because the answer is probably no, unless you include the place outside the universe where the universe came from, my .02.
Point being, for virtual pairs, where does the "borrowed" energy come from (even if it does not violate Heisenberg). I was getting beaten up on this question, but still think either a + losses a little momentarily -- remaining +, or the + swings to - for the infinitesmal moment the "pair" almost exist. So what is "negative" energy? :confused:

Negative energy drives me nuts too, just like gravitons.

When virtual pairs are created the only requirement is that they are less in energy than the potential of the vacum energy at that point. vacum energy is a totaly wierd thing, either the frozen forces in the inflation or some huge ass particles that clanged out early on. But 'empty' space has the thing called vacum energy and the particles comes from it. My .01.

[De_Bunk]

Hey Franko...

You raging kookball....

Good to see you're still around...

:D

DB

[hammegk]

Hmmmm?

One of us is still here, but where do you identify Franko?

[WanderinWTF]

Actually within Buddhism such as to dreams is talked about very often. Not controlling the dream as to the flow etc but realizing that is illusion. Just as I realize all here in the waking world is in reality illusion as nothing we see or touch anything compound is in and of itself, self.

As Einstein said “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”

As to dreams Buddhism teaches to simply be aware in dreams that they are just that, a dream and illusion.

This I developed because as a child I was involved in a good bit of abuse and such caused many flash backs several years ago during dreaming. Very bad dreams. I developed the ability to simply end the dreams and wake.
Do you still have this problem? There's a lot of adults these days dealing with situations like this. I know how to make them stop.

[Upchurch]

Wow. this is an impressive thread resurrection.

[NoZed Avenger]

Wow. this is an impressive thread resurrection.

Yes. Jesus could only go back three days.

[jj]

I'm imagining Hammgek turning into a polite, civil individual who doesn't imagine that he's the center of the universe. :D

[Marquis de Carabas]

Were I a conspiracy theorist, I would note that WanderinWTF brought back an old thread about Franko on the same day Dragonrock surmised he (WWTF) might be a sceptic's sock (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1481202#post1481202) and that I made a post evoking Franko (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1480676#post1480676), especially given my recent admiited love of misdirection and subterfuge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1474446#post1474446).

I demand I be investigated.

[Upchurch]

I demand I be investigated.Okay, but remember that you asked for it.

[hammegk]

I'm imagining Hammgek turning into a polite, civil individual who doesn't imagine that he's the center of the universe. :D
No, I'll just continue to use the good points you demonstrate in your posts as my continuimg model.

[Imaginative]

I have a question for you. Who are you? Really... do you know who 'you' really are when you ponder your own existence?
I would argue that you think you are Franko. Not that you are Franko (whatever you think that is, essentially).
You are interacting with your inner-sensations in a manner that defines Franko - your perceived body... a fragmented part of the whole of your awareness. Ultimately, I would argue that 'you' are the entity who has defined yourself. 'You' are reality, and what you perceive to be 'you' is but a mere belief, gleaned from inner sensation.

Are you saying that all we really are is just a figure head, a mouth piece, a facade for whatever is really running things in the back ground of consiousness ?

[Soapy Sam]

Does anyone here who has seen both seriously think Franko and Hammegk are the same person?
I do not.