A journey beyond the physical realm.

[lifegazer]

Hello, my name's lifegazer and I am your pilot & guide for our next tour beyond the physical-realm and into the domain of The Divine-Mind.
During our journey, we shall be flying through existence and contemplating the very foundations of human-knowledge and experience. I will be pointing-out the lanterns of existential- awareness and showing you all, via reason, what they actually tell us.
During this journey, your mind is liable to blow-out as you contemplate "landmarks" which will challenge the established mind-sets of our time: scientific and religious. At such times, I shall advise you all to "belt up" and adopt the meditative position.
Kindly take your seats... relax... and prepare for take-off.

(~lifegazer airlines~ smallprint-note: This airline takes no responsibility for supposed open-minded passengers trying to disrupt the route of this flight or of those moronic-types who will try anything to prevent this vehicle from reaching its promised destination. Whilst the pilot is fully-confident with the concepts of reasoned ascent, he does not claim to be able to control nutters at the same time. In the event of a complete moron ruining this flight, parachutes will be handed-out and free-tickets for a future flight will be guaranteed. Thankyou.)

[LFTKBS]

"During this journey, your mind is liable to blow-out as you contemplate "landmarks" which will challenge the established mind-sets of our time: scientific and religious."

A little sure of ourselves, aren't we? My mind will be blown if you manage to say anything lucid.

But go ahead - I'm sure that this will be a life-changing experience for all of us.

[Upchurch]

Steward(ess), I'll have a Diet Coke. Thanks.

[hgc]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
...

A little sure of ourselves, aren't we? My mind will be blown if you manage to say anything lucid.

...Your bad vibes have just grounded the flight. Note that all you have to do to be correct on Nutter Airlines is to get someone to disagree with you. The more you fail, the more you're proven a success.

[Peter Jenkins]

I will be pointing-out the lanterns of existential- awareness and showing you all, via reason, what they actually tell us.
Does this mean there's no movie? Huh? Is there a movie? Last flight I went on I saw 'Legally Blonde 2'. Not a great movie but, ya know, it passed some time. You're not gonna show 'legally blonde 2' again are you? what time's dinner. can I have some ice in this drink.
Sorry, what's the point of this thread again?
P

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Steward(ess), I'll have a Diet Coke. Thanks.

bring back the days of the honey roasted nuts.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Steward(ess), I'll have a Diet Coke. Thanks.

Upchurch, are you going to eat those peanuts?

[lifegazer]

Movies and nuts? The point of the journey is to take in the scenery so that you recognise the destination. I'll allow the banter to finish before I blast off.

[Hexxenhammer]

Why are tickets to the Omega Point only one-way? I wanted round trip.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Movies and nuts? The point of the journey is to take in the scenery so that you recognise the destination. I'll allow the banter to finish before I blast off.

How much does it cost to upgrade my tickets to first-class?

I hate the crampt seating in coach.

:p

[Nyarlathotep]

THERE"S A MAN ON THE WING OF THE PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Melissa Johnson]

urp...where's that airsickness bag?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Movies and nuts? The point of the journey is to take in the scenery so that you recognise the destination. I'll allow the banter to finish before I blast off.
Aw, man! I asked for an aisle seat! I'm going to have to lean over the guy next to me to see anything.

:mad:

[Small Town Jesus]

Can we buy one of those 'lanterns of existential-awareness' in duty free after the flight?

[hgc]

There's been a little problem in the cockpit.

The cockpit? What is it?

It's a little room in the front of the plane, where the pilots sit, but that's not important right now.

[Hexxenhammer]

Surely you're joking.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by hgc
There's been a little problem in the cockpit.

The cockpit? What is it?

It's a little room in the front of the plane, where the pilots sit, but that's not important right now.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

[Tricky]

Erm... Lifegazer, I think Ted Nugent already covered this.

Leave your cares behind
Come with us to find
The pleasures of a journey
To the center of your mind.

Come along if you care!
Come along if you dare!
...

For it's a land of hopes and dreams
Where fantasy is fact.
But if you can, please understand,
You might not come back.
(guitar solo)

So you have quite a standard to match. How's your guitar solo?

[Pahansiri]

Hello my friend lifegazer

Before you “lift off” could you fly over to “Only God exists: Monism.” And fully respond to my post as I have done to yours?


and Nyarlathotep don't call hgc Shirley:p

[Nyarlathotep]

I am getting a psychic image. Right now some guy who calls himself "lifegazer" is experiencing profound regret over his choice of an analogy.

I'll take my million, please.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I am getting a psychic image. Right now some guy who calls himself "lifegazer" is experiencing profound regret over his choice of an analogy.

I'll take my million, please.
At least my first comment was an on-topic joke.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I am getting a psychic image. Right now some guy who calls himself "lifegazer" is experiencing profound regret over his choice of an analogy.

I'll take my million, please. Maybe that'll teach lifegazer to make his case without the preliminary description of what it'll be.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by hgc
Maybe that'll teach lifegazer to make his case without the preliminary description of what it'll be.

Oh, he walked right into it, no doubt about it.

I just have this image of him bashing his head against the keyboard in frustration. It's more funny than anything.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Tricky
Erm... Lifegazer, I think Ted Nugent already covered this.



So you have quite a standard to match. How's your guitar solo?

Tricky rocks the room with The Amboy Dukes Trivia

[lifegazer]

Somebody remind me of who Ted Nugent is. And why should I care?

[lifegazer]

Something else: Why should I regret having a little fun on our mind-plane?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Something else: Why should I regret having a little fun on our mind-plane?

So does this mean I don't get the million?:(

D@mn, I had plans for that money too.

[Upchurch]

I flew single engine fighters in the Air Force, but this plane has four engines. It's an entirely different kind of flying altogether.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Somebody remind me of who Ted Nugent is. And why should I care?
He is a musician, and you should care because his philosophy is every bit as deep and full of truth as yours. So, given equally valid philosophies, I think the guitar solo will have to be the deciding vote.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Somebody remind me of who Ted Nugent is. And why should I care?

Time warp ahead 30 years. Lifegazer’s child looks to him and says “who is

Destiny's Child :confused: Jennifer Lopez :confused: 'N Sync :confused: Nelly Furtado :confused: Pink :confused:
Usher :confused: Alicia Keys etc etc And why should I care?”

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I flew single engine fighters in the Air Force, but this plane has four engines. It's an entirely different kind of flying altogether.

It's an entirely different kind of flying.

[Pahansiri]

Will this be a red eye?

[whitefork]

I prefer "Astral Plane" by Jonathan Richman and The Modern Lovers, but I can't find the lyrics at the moment.

Hows about....

Road Runner Road Runner

No, better

Well some people try to pick up girls
They get called @ssholes
This never happened to Pablo Picasso

The girls would turn the colour of a juicy avocado
When he would drive down their street in his El Dorado

He could walk down your street
Girls could not resist his stare
So Pablo Picasso was never called an @sshole
Not like you
Wow!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Time warp ahead 30 years. Lifegazer’s child looks to him and says “who is

Destiny's Child :confused: Jennifer Lopez :confused: 'N Sync :confused: Nelly Furtado :confused: Pink :confused:
Usher :confused: Alicia Keys etc etc And why should I care?”

I wish I didn't know who some of those people were

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kullervo
I prefer "Astral Plane" by Jonathan Richman and The Modern Lovers, but I can't find the lyrics at the moment.

Here you go. (http://www.iol.ie/~murphypj/richman/astral.txt)

[fishbob]

Originally posted by lifegazer:Somebody remind me of who Ted Nugent is. And why should I care? Grasshopper, if you follow the path of Ted Nugent, you will spend a lot more time running around in the woods with a pointy stick, and a lot less time flitting around in your mind-plane.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I wish I didn't know who some of those people were

:mad: &%^#*^#% old fart...LOL I am on your team..

[Tricky]

If you're looking for a great plane to fly around in, here's one. (http://terrafly.com/)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


:mad: &%^#*^#% old fart...LOL I am on your team..

The problem with being a child of the eighties is that you lose out on the privilege of telling young kids how much better music was when you were a kid.

"Pfah! You call that music? Back in my day we listened to real musicians like Duran Duran and Wham!" , just doesn't have the ring of authority to it because I don't even believe it myself.

[whitefork]

Thanks Tricky -

here's another old flyin' song (Captain Beefheart Tarotplane after Robert Johnson's Terraplane:

Baby person told Elixir Sue
Listen to me baby
I'm gonna tell it to you
Gonna need somebody on your bond
You gonna need some bodies on your bond
Just you bear this in mind
True friends is hard to find
You gonna need some bodies on your bond
........
Automatic Sam told Everready Betty told Prestcold Milly
With the long black wavey mane
Oh listen little girl don't you understand?
Oh, you ain't too old
No you ain't too old
Well you ain't too lold
As long as you can boogie you ain't too old
Little girl, little girl
Little girl, little girl
Gonna take you for a ride in my Tarotplane
Gonna take you for a ride in my Tarotplane
You goin' flyin'
You goin' flyin'

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Uh...ok...lifegazer, what is your point?

[Pahansiri]

http://www.abc-kid.com/jetsons/pictures/tn_004_jpg.jpg http://i12.ebayimg.com/03/i/00/c1/78/27_1.JPG

[whitefork]

ruh - ro!

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


The problem with being a child of the eighties is that you lose out on the privilege of telling young kids how much better music was when you were a kid.

"Pfah! You call that music? Back in my day we listened to real musicians like Duran Duran and Wham!" , just doesn't have the ring of authority to it because I don't even believe it myself.

"a child of the eighties" OK you are younger then me just back off...:roll:

[LawnOven]

Dude, Duran Duran and Wham! are about 8 times better than todays Nu-Metal and Souless "soul music". Atleast in the 80's they were trying new stuff, it didn't always work, but they were trying. :)

[Evil_Jesus]

"Damn, my bag of pure uncut Columbian cocaine is to big for the overhead compartment, Hey Upchurch hold this bag will ya"

-Evil Jesus-

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by LawnOven
Dude, Duran Duran and Wham! are about 8 times better than todays Nu-Metal and Souless "soul music". Atleast in the 80's they were trying new stuff, it didn't always work, but they were trying. :)

I dunno. Cr@p = Cr@p regardless of the decade that it came from

[jimmygun]

Can we please get this plane in the air? And tell that little prick behind me to quit kicking my seat!:mad:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Evil_Jesus
Hey Upchurch hold this bag will ya Huh? Wha? Oh. Sure.
Originally posted by jimmygun

And tell that little prick behind me to quit kicking my seat! Sorry.

[MRC_Hans]

Uhh? Was there a point to this? Lifechaser, did you have anything to say, or do you just enjoy the attention?

Hans

[Tricky]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Uhh? Was there a point to this? Lifegazer, did you have anything to say, or do you just enjoy the attention?

Hans
Oh, I suspect he'll be back, and displaying the same crystal clear logic and incisive critical thinking skills he showed in his existence (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28677) thread over in the Paranormal forum.

Keep your barf bags handy.

[Wudang]

The 80s had The Clash - greatest band of all time.

Before we take off, what do we do in the event of an in-flight emergency? Has anyone pointed out where the emergency exits are located? Let's take this seriously please.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Wudang
The 80s had The Clash - greatest band of all time.


Hi Wudang . The Clash were great as in I also liked them.

"greatest band of all time. " illogical statment as is any "greatest/best, strongest, smartest etc etc anything of all time.

[Dancing David]

uh, could you wake me when we are cleared for take off. has the pilot boarded yet?

man I hate these exisential flights, we wait for ever just fly over something that we can't see anyway, because of the cloud cover. Oh wel, is our destination No name city?

[Pahansiri]

I hope the inflight movie is http://home.swipnet.se/~w-28870/mainkill.jpghttp://home.swipnet.se/~w-28870/mainlogo.jpg

I love that movie..

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Oh wel, is our destination No name city? I don't know the name of the city, but I think it's supposed to be in the state of Enlightenment. I hear there might be an indefinite in the state of Befuddlement, though.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
"greatest band of all time. " illogical statment as is any "greatest/best, strongest, smartest etc etc anything of all time.

Normally, yes, such things are a matter of individual taste but I think any reasonable person would agree that The Clash are the greatest band of all time.
Is there a smilie for deadpan?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Wudang


Normally, yes, such things are a matter of individual taste but I think any reasonable person would agree that The Clash are the greatest band of all time.
Is there a smilie for deadpan? I am sure you would.;)

[lifegazer]

Sensations on... engage reason & emotional responses.
We have lift-off... and are flying through the mind.

Existence is mindful. It’s an inner-experience. Your ability to reason and your emotional responses happen to you and within you. These attributes of existence are experienced at the singular-level and give the impression of a singular identity: ‘you’.
Similarly, your sensations occur within a singular awareness: within your awareness… within ‘you’.

So, first & foremost, the passengers must concede to the fact that all known existence is founded upon the inner-attributes of sensation, reason & emotion.
In other words, no individual can have an experience of anything outside of themselves, regardless [at this point] of whether an external-reality exists or not.
You cannot experience anything beyond your own personal inner-sensation of it.
External-reality is mere conjecture and to assume it exists is bad philosophy.
Note: I have not (yet) refuted the existence of an external-reality. I have merely shown that we do not know that one exists.

All we know for sure is that "existence" is comprised of inner-sensation, reason/judgement and emotion. Is anyone going to dispute this, rationally, before I attempt to reach for the stratosphere?

[glee]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Sensations on... engage reason & emotional responses.
We have lift-off... and are flying through the mind.


Actually I think this plane is still on the ground.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence is mindful. It’s an inner-experience. Your ability to reason and your emotional responses happen to you and within you. These attributes of existence are experienced at the singular-level and give the impression of a singular identity: ‘you’.
Similarly, your sensations occur within a singular awareness: within your awareness… within ‘you’.


1. You have much to learn, Grasshopper.
2. I'm a Buddhist - there is no 'me'.

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, first & foremost, the passengers must concede to the fact that all known existence is founded upon the inner-attributes of sensation, reason & emotion.
In other words, no individual can have an experience of anything outside of themselves, regardless [at this point] of whether an external-reality exists or not.
You cannot experience anything beyond your own personal inner-sensation of it.


So stubbing your toe proves nothing, huh?

Originally posted by lifegazer
External-reality is mere conjecture and to assume it exists is bad philosophy.
Note: I have not (yet) refuted the existence of an external-reality. I have merely shown that we do not know that one exists.

All we know for sure is that "existence" is comprised of inner-sensation, reason/judgement and emotion. Is anyone going to dispute this, rationally, before I attempt to reach for the stratosphere?

Existence includes computers and the Internet. Or are you imagining my post?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Sensations on... engage reason & emotional responses.(Now turn off reason, especially the logic setting. In fact, try not to think at all.)
We have lift-off... and are flying through the mind.(I think we are anyway. It's dark in here and none of the damn instruments seem to work. Could be the pancreas.)

Existence is mindful.(and merdeful) . It’s an inner-experience. . (At least it is for me. I don't get out much.)Your ability to reason and your emotional responses happen to you and within you..(That's right. Ignore any sensory inputs or actual physical evidence. If you can actually manage to be in a coma, that would be optimal.) These attributes of existence are experienced at the singular-level and give the impression of a singular identity: ‘you’. (Translation: Try to become the most self-centered person since Donald Trump.)
Similarly, your sensations occur within a singular awareness: within your awareness… within ‘you’. (Um... but that means you can't be reading this since it comes from outside of ‘you’. Sometimes I confuse myself.)

So, first & foremost, the passengers must concede to the fact that all known existence is founded upon the inner-attributes of sensation, reason & emotion. (After you have conceded your right to question this BS, we'll be asking you to concede your wallets. Boy if this works, I'm gonna be rich! Rich, I tell you. Ha ha ha ha...).
In other words, no individual can have an experience of anything outside of themselves, regardless [at this point] of whether an external-reality exists or not. (In other words, I've just discovered that the brain is somehow connected with thoughts!!! (I wonder if I'll get a Nobel Prize for this.))
You cannot experience anything beyond your own personal inner-sensation of it. (Yeah. I know it is a shock to discover that Vulcan Mind Melds are just fiction. It sure was for me.)
External-reality is mere conjecture and to assume it exists is bad philosophy. (You heard me right. Ignore external reality. Don't eat. Don't bathe. Don't worry what your friends think. If you follow my plan, soon you won't have to worry about having any of those so-called 'friends'.)
Note: I have not (yet) refuted the existence of an external-reality. I have merely shown that we do not know that one exists. (At least I don't know that it exists. I plan to test this theory by running into the wall. Of course, the walls are padded here, so even if the external reality of the wall does exist, I won't be badly hurt.)

All we know for sure is that "existence" is comprised of inner-sensation, reason/judgement and emotion. Is anyone going to dispute this, rationally, before I attempt to reach for the stratosphere? .(And if you do decide to dispute this rationally, prepare yourself for more of this irrational babble before I reach for the stratosphere (which also doesn't exist.)).

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Sensations on... engage reason & emotional responses.
We have lift-off... and are flying through the mind.
....snip....
External-reality is mere conjecture and to assume it exists is bad philosophy.
Note: I have not (yet) refuted the existence of an external-reality. I have merely shown that we do not know that one exists.

All we know for sure is that "existence" is comprised of inner-sensation, reason/judgement and emotion. Is anyone going to dispute this, rationally, before I attempt to reach for the stratosphere?

Yes, I'm far too smart and amusing to imagine something so banal as this. Or mine artists, lite beer or Eric van Lustbader, for that matter. And as for the program I'm currently debugging, how can I be imagining something I can't believe exists?

[MRC_Hans]

Gawd, don't y'all hate these endless taxy runs before a flight. You always start to wonder if they are gonna drive all the way! :rolleyes:

This reminds me of ... what was his name? The guy with the Familycology thingy? Endless reiterations of banalities, never got to the point.

Hans

[Tricky]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Gawd, don't y'all hate these endless taxy runs before a flight. You always start to wonder if they are gonna drive all the way! :rolleyes:

This reminds me of ... what was his name? The guy with the Familycology thingy? Endless reiterations of banalities, never got to the point.

Hans
I believe that was Yalel. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=2999) He finally entered another general orthoganal dimension and left this one (for which we are all grateful.)

[wayrad]

If we have to wait any longer for takeoff, I think the least he could do is to send the drinks cart around.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tricky
"Your ability to reason and your emotional responses happen to you and within you."

That's right. Ignore any sensory inputs or actual physical evidence. If you can actually manage to be in a coma, that would be optimal.

All I tried to do in the previous post was to get a general agreement upon the fact that all of known-existence is founded upon the reasoning and emotional-response to our inner-sensations.
I haven't even discussed external-reality or sensal-causality yet. You're just jumping the gun and presenting you're argument for the defense before the prosecution has even started.

(Um... but that means you can't be reading this since it comes from outside of ‘you’. Sometimes I confuse myself

All I know is that 'this' has been seen within my awareness... studied with reason... and emotionalised indifferently. All within me.
My prior point remains true.

I plan to test this theory by running into the wall. Of course, the walls are padded here, so even if the external reality of the wall does exist, I won't be badly hurt.)

Do whatever you like. The result will be that you feel pain within your awareness and will see bruises within your awareness from a wall that exists within your awareness.

Boys and girls... it's a wake-up call. This flight is founded upon the facts - not assumptions. If an external-reality exists then it will have to prove itself with reason. I'm simply not interested in assertions - buddhist or materialistic or whatever.

If any of you can prove of an existence beyond your sensations reason or emotion, then you deserve a nobel prize. For I tell you now that not one philosopher or scientist has ever proved anything of the sort before.
Science is the reasoning of sensed-existence = science is the reasoned-analysis of the mind's order.

If there's no sincerity in this debate we'll get nowhere. It's upto you guys.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

All I tried to do in the previous post was to get a general agreement upon the fact that all of known-existence is founded upon the reasoning and emotional-response to our inner-sensations.Oh, that's what you're waiting for. If it's required for lift, then your flight is permanently grounded.If there's no sincerity in this debate we'll get nowhere. It's upto you guys. Here's a sincere suggestion: Make your argument, then listen to the responses. That's a debate.

[roger]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're just jumping the gun and presenting you're argument for the defense before the prosecution has even started. Your metaphors are mixed like a bad mixed drink from the airplane's drink cart.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer



If there's no sincerity in this debate we'll get nowhere. It's upto you guys.

This is simluar to what you said in your Only God exists: thread Monism. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28890

You said you wised to debate and offered a position, post. I responded to every question and statement and belief in your post and asked you do the same. You did not. Should Tricky or anyone else here really expect you will respond here in such a way here as to a mature logical respectful, factual debate if you ran out on that one?

To simply state what you believe and say it is fact, then make the statement If there's no sincerity in this debate we'll get nowhere. It's upto you guys. about others whet the statement best fits your actions is disingenuous and silly. As making statements of belief and or fact then leaving when your beliefs are challenged.

Just what I believe.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hgc
Here's a sincere suggestion: Make your argument, then listen to the responses. That's a debate.

:clap:

And BINGO was his name-o

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by lifegazer

So, first & foremost, the passengers must concede to the fact that all known existence is founded upon the inner-attributes of sensation, reason & emotion.
In other words, no individual can have an experience of anything outside of themselves, regardless [at this point] of whether an external-reality exists or not.

So when I'm walking through the woods alone, and step in a hole that I didn't know was there, did I somehow imagine it was there before I stepped in it? If not, why did it exist?

If 2 people go to the same place at different times and take photographs and later compare them why wouldn't they look differrent if all existence is founded on inner-attributes?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer


This flight is founded upon the facts - not assumptions. I'm simply not interested in assertions -


Do you mean assumptions like.

1- Originally posted by lifegazer. Only God exists:

:confused:I asked you for the facts concerning this but none followed.:(

Is this Hypocrisy airlines?

[Acrimonious]

I've heard this before. In a song, actually.

But this isn't a chocolate factory, and you are definitely not Willy Wonka.

Please take your "pure imagination" elsewhere.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
Uh...ok...lifegazer, what is your point?

We are at two pages and headed for a third and he hasn't made his point yet. I knew I should have stuck with Logic Airlines but nooooo, I had to get cheap this time.

[roger]

OMG! Look out the window! Is that ground crew person wrapping the wing with duct tape???

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
Oh, that's what you're waiting for. If it's required for lift, then your flight is permanently grounded.
Why?
Where's the reason?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by roger
OMG! Look out the window! Is that ground crew person wrapping the wing with duct tape???

Well, as the captian expalined, the wing, the duct tape and the crewman all only exist in our minds so I wouldn't get too worried about it if I were you.:wink:

[roger]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Well, as the captian expalined, the wing, the duct tape and the crewman all only exist in our minds so I wouldn't get too worried about it if I were you.:wink: That will certainly be a consoling thought as we all die screaming in a giant ball of flame.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
You said you wised to debate and offered a position, post. I responded to every question and statement and belief in your post and asked you do the same. You did not.

I did respond to the relevant points of your overly-long post.
Your reply that I respond to every single sentence, word for word, was not feasible and was even unreasonable. I decided to not bother.

Should Tricky or anyone else here really expect you will respond here in such a way here as to a mature logical respectful, factual debate if you ran out on that one?

I will gladly resume that thread - but not with your demands. I will only respond to meaningful statements. The only reason I'm responding to this is because you keep harping-on about it.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

All I tried to do in the previous post was to get a general agreement upon the fact that all of known-existence is founded upon the reasoning and emotional-response to our inner-sensations.Originally posted by hgc

Oh, that's what you're waiting for. If it's required for lift, then your flight is permanently grounded.

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why?
Where's the reason? You said you were trying to get general agreement on something. I said that if you require that in order to get lift for your flight, then it won't fly. What's so hard to understand? In other words, I'm saying that you won't get general agreement around here that "all known existence is [blah blah blah]," and if you want to have this discussion, you had better fly without concensus, or discuss it on the ground.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by lifegazer
This airline takes no responsibility for supposed open-minded passengers trying to disrupt the route of this flight

You can't use a physical plane to get "beyond the physical realm" - so you must be transporting us on a spiritual plane. A SPIRITUAL PLANE! GET IT?!? (Thenk you, thenk you...I'll be here all week. Drive safely.)

[lifegazer]

You all have inner-sensations. Colours, tastes, pains, pleasures, sweet, bitter, etc.... these are the foundation for known existence and they happen within the mind.
At this point, it's irrelevant whether those sensations were instigated by events outside the mind or not. What is true - and what has been true since I stated it when we "took off", is that all of known existence is a mindful occurance.

[roger]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You all have inner-sensations. Colours, tastes, pains, pleasures, sweet, bitter, etc.... these are the foundation for known existence and they happen within the mind.

How do you know that? That statement presumes an external reality (in that you assume that I exist).

You've contradicted yourself.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You all have inner-sensations. Colours, tastes, pains, pleasures, sweet, bitter, etc.... these are the foundation for known existence and they happen within the mind.
At this point, it's irrelevant whether those sensations were instigated by events outside the mind or not. What is true - and what has been true since I stated it when we "took off", is that all of known existence is a mindful occurance. If the rest of your argument depends on this, then you're in trouble already. You will find many around here that disagree, and you'll have to defend that argument for many many pages of posts. I suggest you get Interesting Ian to help you out. He's been making this case for a few years now.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by roger
How do you know that? That statement presumes an external reality (in that you assume that I exist).

You've contradicted yourself.
I assume that an awareness of 'you' exists. By God. But it's a bit soon to be discussing this yet as I have yet to show you that God exists. But I will try to do this shortly.

[roger]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I assume that an awareness of 'you' exists. By God. But it's a bit soon to be discussing this yet as I have yet to show you that God exists. But I will try to do this shortly.

Err, then aren't you are presuming your conclusion? If you can't defend this statement without showing that God exists, but this statement is your starting assumption from which you are going to base everything else, then you are employing a circular argument.

But, fuggeda bout it. I am not going to occupy my time seriously arguing with someone who's opening statement implies that I don't exist.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
If the rest of your argument depends on this, then you're in trouble already. You will find many around here that disagree, and you'll have to defend that argument for many many pages of posts. I suggest you get Interesting Ian to help you out. He's been making this case for a few years now.
Let's consider the sensation of 'pain'...
You may argue, if you wish, that the pain you feel is as a response to external events. But you cannot argue that your pain is those external events.
The sensation of pain is an internal reaction and creation, regardless of whether there is an external reality/event.

The same argument applies to ALL sensation.
No human being has ever experienced anything beyond his own mind.
When you gaze into the milky-way at night, you are not looking-back millions of light-years into the universe. You are looking inside your own awareness at sensory-images of light/colour created by your own [subconcious] mind.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by roger
Err, then aren't you are presuming your conclusion? If you can't defend this statement without showing that God exists, but this statement is your starting assumption from which you are going to base everything else, then you are employing a circular argument.

But, fuggeda bout it. I am not going to occupy my time seriously arguing with someone who's opening statement implies that I don't exist.
You are confused. I did not say that 'you' do not exist. I merely infered that 'you' are not who you think you are. By the processes of this argument, I aim to show that all perception of anything or of anyone, is by God.

[roger]

No, you are confused.

I am assume that you assume you exist.

You have claimed that it is absurd to assume that anything exists outside of you. Therefore you must assume that I do not exist.

Yet you argue that I must also apply this argument to myself?

That assumes either that I exist externally from you, or that we are both part of some greater object such as God.

So your argument is circular. I will not grant your premise. If you need to prove God exists, go to it, but do not use this assertion in your proof, because it's truth depends on the existance of god, according to you.

edited to clarify my meaning.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I did respond to the relevant points of your overly-long post.
Your reply that I respond to every single sentence, word for word, was not feasible and was even unreasonable. I decided to not bother.




My friend you are not being very honest.

Let us repap

In the “will all fellow posters” thread you posted the following.

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.


My response to you was

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 responded, rather then responding with the facts to support what you said in that thread 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.[quote]

After a few days you opened the Only God exists: Monism. Thread.

To which you ignored about 90% of my response, now using the silly copout [quote] I did respond to the relevant points of your overly-long post. and Your reply that I respond to every single sentence, word for word, was not feasible and was even unreasonable. I decided to not bother.

This can be translated as “ I responded to what I could but am not honest enough to admit I can not fully respond to your post nor support what I said was fact. I can NOT prove God and I can NOT Prove we are as you say “branches of God, the only existing entity”

The statement by you in this last response, the dancing response is a contradiction as to how you ended your very short and incomplete response in the Only God exists: Monism. Thread.

That being I'll respond to the rest of your post shortly.

The fact is you started that thread, were asked for proof, data, facts and never returned.

What you did respond to in that very short response was

Well the purpose of this thread was to prove those things.


But clearly you did not.


I aimed to show the reasons which unveil reality as an omnipresent-awareness which creates everything it becomes aware of. I imply that knowledge of quantum-reality and relativity infers such a reality, and I also will discuss who 'we' are in relation to this reality: mere perceptions of being, occuring within Its awareness.

But clearly you did not.

I'm not sure I understand. How can there be a reality of anything if nothing has any true identity?

I explained this and in actuality for you not to believe this is a contradiction to your belief. You believe now we have an identity, but said only “god” existed. Which is it?



Yes, I can see what you are saying. My argument to you would be that the self who truly exists, is the omnipresent-God I've already mentioned

I respect you believe that but you did not address my statements and facts that no self exists. You of course also again do not provide proof that your God exists

You have said over and over the self who truly exists, is the omnipresent-God But offer no proof, shall we just believe you because you said it is so?

Buddhism, imo, sees the body of God-ness, but not the will and purpose which also emanates from that body.

You clearly do not understand Buddhism. Again you make a statement of fact but offer no facts.

A truly interesting religion where much wisdom and well-being can be found. But it doesn't go far enough for me. Hopefully, my opinion won't have offended you.

1- yes it is.
2- I respect that you believe that. Can you please share with me how it does not go far enough, where it does not etc?
3- Please know I do not allow myself to be offended.


Be well. I believe you are clearly a smart kid. But you are at a site with many very intelligent people who are very good debaters. You will find I may share beliefs with you and just because I ask or challenge you to support what you say does not mean I or we etc are attacking you.

Debate means an exchange not you telling others they are wrong and you are right and don’t ask for facts.

Be well my new friend.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You are confused. I did not say that 'you' do not exist. I merely infered that 'you' are not who you think you are. By the processes of this argument, I aim to show that all perception of anything or of anyone, is by God.

I agree I am not "me" there is in reality no Mark Bertrand/Pahansiri in that nothing is in and of itself, self.

I aim to show that all perception of anything or of anyone, is by God.

You keep saying this, you aim to show, you aim to show.. Let go of the arrow, pull the trigger.

1- Prove GOD
2- Prove that” all perception of anything or of anyone, is by God”

May I ask if I or others perception of you is you are wrong and your perception of us is we are wrong does this mean God is self confusing himself?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by roger
That assumes either that I exist externally from you, or that we are both part of some greater object such as God.

So you argument is circular. I will not grant your premise. If you need to prove God exists, go to it, but do not use this assertion in your proof, because it's truth depends on the existance of god, according to you.
I state that existence cannot be verified beyond the mind. This is true.
Your complaint that, therefore, one of us must be external to the other unless God exists is true. But your complaint does not alter the initial premise that no individual sees beyond the mind. That's a fact.
Proving that we are all within God's mind - thus dispelling your complaint - is something I will be trying to show anyway. But I can state without doubt that this future-proof has no baring on my initial premise. Whether I exist externally to you or not, you cannot experience me outside of your inner-awareness.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
In the “will all fellow posters” thread you posted the following.

Please paste this in the relevant thread and I will respond to any meaningful statements.

[roger]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I state that existence cannot be verified beyond the mind. This is true.

Again, how do you know that about me?

You are stating this as fact. How do you know how about _ME_? Not you, but ME. You keep stating how things are for ME.

How do you know, if all you know is you?

(the capital MEs aren't anger, they are to emphasize that you are conjecturing about something that isn't you)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Please paste this in the relevant thread and I will respond to any meaningful statements.

May I assume your definition of “meaningful” is things you can answer but things you can not answer like
1- Prove GOD
2- Prove that” all perception of anything or of anyone, is by God
3- Prove we are as you say “branches of God, the only existing entity.”

Or where I or others have demonstrated flaws or contradictions in your beliefs or statements, are “not meaningful”?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by roger
Again, how do you know that about me?

You are stating this as fact. How do you know how about _ME_? Not you, but ME. You keep stating how things are for ME.

How do you know, if all you know is you?

(the capital MEs aren't anger, they are to emphasize that you are conjecturing about something that isn't you)
I know that there must be an awareness of 'you' somewhere. These arguments you keep coming out with do not belong to me (which is the awareness of 'lifegazer'). I know that something exists which has the awareness and thoughts of somebody who thinks that they are roger.
The experience of being 'roger' is real and is distinct to the experience of being 'lifegazer'.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Sensations on... engage reason & emotional responses.
We have lift-off... and are flying through the mind.

Existence is mindful. It’s an inner-experience. Your ability to reason and your emotional responses happen to you and within you. These attributes of existence are experienced at the singular-level and give the impression of a singular identity: ‘you’.
Similarly, your sensations occur within a singular awareness: within your awareness… within ‘you’.

So, first & foremost, the passengers must concede to the fact that all known existence is founded upon the inner-attributes of sensation, reason & emotion.
In other words, no individual can have an experience of anything outside of themselves, regardless [at this point] of whether an external-reality exists or not.
You cannot experience anything beyond your own personal inner-sensation of it.
External-reality is mere conjecture and to assume it exists is bad philosophy.
Note: I have not (yet) refuted the existence of an external-reality. I have merely shown that we do not know that one exists.

All we know for sure is that "existence" is comprised of inner-sensation, reason/judgement and emotion. Is anyone going to dispute this, rationally, before I attempt to reach for the stratosphere?

Oh, man I should have known it was Berkley Airlines, I will concede that we can only percieve external reality through our senses and that our thoughts are bound by our biological vehicle.

As stated before the external world of perception behaves as though it has an external existance, even if it doesn't.

Science rules, speculation drools!

[Dancing David]

If you have any observable facts that aren't preceded by your arrogant presumptions I hope you post them soon. So far you have just posted philosphical speculation, where are your observations! The spiritual realm is more plastic than you think.

I am part of god and i say that god does not exist, does that make god go away? No more so than your assertion that god is everything makes god appear.

Oh my god, the plane just sucked a goose into the engine.... we are going down... oh whoops it's okay it's an imaginary plane!

[roger]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Oh, man I should have known it was Berkley Airlines, I will concede that we can only percieve external reality through our senses and that our thoughts are bound by our biological vehicle.Oh course what lifegazer is not getting is that concession presumes an external reality. Otherwise, how does he know that there are senses at all, and how they work?

Anyway, I'm done with him. I had forgotten how everytime you point out the flawed logical conclusions of his assertions, he responds by saying you are projecting arguments that aren't there, you are being paranoid, etc.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Oh my god, the plane just sucked a goose into the engine.... we are going down... oh whoops it's okay it's an imaginary plane! Actually, it was a hot air balloon. :D

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Oh my god, the plane just sucked a goose into the engine.... we are going down... oh whoops it's okay it's an imaginary plane!

I was in an elevator in NYC once and was struck by a goose :eek: and let me tell you it was not imaginary. OH, you mean the bird, I mean foul, forget I said anything.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by triadboy


You can't use a physical plane to get "beyond the physical realm" - so you must be transporting us on a spiritual plane. A SPIRITUAL PLANE! GET IT?!? (Thenk you, thenk you...I'll be here all week. Drive safely.)

(polite applause)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
If you have any observable facts that aren't preceded by your arrogant presumptions I hope you post them soon. So far you have just posted philosphical speculation, where are your observations! The spiritual realm is more plastic than you think.

Presumptions? Which presumptions are these? Can you, or can you not, prove of any reality external to your sensations?
Please leave out the ad-hominum stuff. It's so boring and I can't be bothered to call you a fool in response. I'm beyond that now.

I am part of god and i say that god does not exist, does that make god go away? No more so than your assertion that god is everything makes god appear.

That's just awful reasoning.
As God, you should be able to do anything, including thinking that you are not God and relating yourself to other entities. This you do, of course.
What you don't do, is recognise that God can/could do this.

[Bentspoon]

Do you like gladiator movies, Timmy

Bent

[Hexxenhammer]

Presumptions? Which presumptions are these? Can you, or can you not, prove of any reality external to your sensations?

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer


So when I'm walking through the woods alone, and step in a hole that I didn't know was there, did I somehow imagine it was there before I stepped in it? If not, why did it exist?

If 2 people go to the same place at different times and take photographs and later compare them why wouldn't they look differrent if all existence is founded on inner-attributes?

Ahem.

[roger]

I picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
"Presumptions? Which presumptions are these? Can you, or can you not, prove of any reality external to your sensations?"

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer:
So when I'm walking through the woods alone, and step in a hole that I didn't know was there, did I somehow imagine it was there before I stepped in it? If not, why did it exist?

What??
Firstly, how does this question prove that the hole you stepped in is external to the awareness (of stepping inside a hole)?
Secondly, do not confuse 'you' with the true identity of the self. In ignorance of who you are, you fall into the [awareness of a] hole. With awareness of who you are, you would not.

If 2 people go to the same place at different times and take photographs and later compare them why wouldn't they look differrent if all existence is founded on inner-attributes? m.
I really don't understand this question.
If I state my ultimate position that one God has countless [ignorant] perceptions of other-beingness, would it convey to you my position and answer your question? Otherwise, you'll have to clarify.

Perhaps you should all contemplate the reality of your dreams... which for a season are the reality of your lives. And for that season, you would argue that your dreams are external to 'you'.
Yet, in truth, those dreams are the conglomerate of you.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Presumptions? Which presumptions are these? Can you, or can you not, prove of any reality external to your sensations?
Please leave out the ad-hominum stuff. It's so boring and I can't be bothered to call you a fool in response. I'm beyond that now.

That's just awful reasoning.
As God, you should be able to do anything, including thinking that you are not God and relating yourself to other entities. This you do, of course.
What you don't do, is recognise that God can/could do this.

Sorry Lifegrazer, I will try to tone down my rhetoric and not savage you willy nilly, really I will try....

It doesn't matter (in my POV) that we are limited in our perceptions to having an organic body. that is where Berkley made his mistake. As I have stated before, there is ample justification to believe in the persistance of the external reality.
Even if we can only percieve it through the windows of ours souls, IE the body. It does not matter that reality may wink in and out as I close my eyes. It behaves as though it exists exterenaly, or the product of my perceptions behaves as though reality has an external existance(thanks hamme ;) )

From the scientific POV it does not matter that I can not directly percieve reality, nor can you. I can make tets basd upon those observations that you cab verify through your observations.

And someday we will have to talk about god, i prefer mine to take female formas and I believe that 'god' is inherent in all things, humans are about zero on the scale of importance and chlorophyll is a hundred.

I share many beiliefs with you life grazer, I just apply critical thinking in all areas of my life.

[lifegazer]

Anyway... you know my position now. So whether you agree or not, I shall proceed with this 'flight'. Feel free to bail-out at your leisure, since I'm fast-losing interest in the banter. If I get the attention of even one member here, then this ~flight~ shall have proved worthwhile. I shall proceed under the presumption that at least one such member exists here. Regardless, thankyou for your attention.


... So we can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself (this is the position I have presented), that the mind must also have knowledge of what it is trying to represent prior to 'sensing' it. I.e.: if 'you' are to sense something in relation to an external event, then the Mind has created that sensation for 'your' awareness. That mind wants itself to recognise 'you' in relation to everyhting else you perceive inside of yourself.
Note too that our perceptions are ordered. The universe works to specific laws. Therefore, these sensory-experiences must reflect this apparent order (and they do, of course). Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that 'The Mind' had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe. A hugely-significant conclusion this is too, because it shows that fundamentally, the Mind possessed universal-knowledge before 'awareness' could ever come to 'sense' the order of this universe.

Thus; this argument seeks to show that ~Mind~ had universal-knowledge prior to sensing anything. It also shows that the Mind had artistic-creativity to the extent which all living things/perceptions-of-things now sense reality.
Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.
Given that this Mind fulfils the requirements of omnipotence; omnipresence; and omniscience, I conclude that this is the Mind of God.

Given the responses to recent obvious rationale, I shall not expect much positive feedback. But that's your loss, not mine. So screw it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Sorry Lifegrazer, I will try to tone down my rhetoric and not savage you willy nilly, really I will try....

For the sake of this debate - and not 'me' - I am thankful.

It doesn't matter (in my POV) that we are limited in our perceptions to having an organic body. that is where Berkley made his mistake. As I have stated before, there is ample justification to believe in the persistance of the external reality.

You'd say the same things about your dreams - until you had awaken to them. I.e., you would use ~appearances~ as a basis of proof for the reality of your dreams.
I do not wish to appear as though I am superior to you in intellect or IQ here - or to anybody, for that matter - since it is not my intention to gain recognition for the highest IQ in this forum or anywhere. In fact, it has become a burden to me that whatever intellectual qualities I might have have proved repulsive to the people I have spoken to. I've been doing this for a couple of years and my only desire is to convey the greater-truth (as I see it) to the populace... in the clearest and most intelligable-form I can envisage.
I apologise for the appearance of arrogance or whatever. In truth, I do not believe that 'i' am any more superior than my pet hamster. And that's the God's-honest-truth. For ultimately, I believe everything is God. Different expressions of.

I need my bed, so forgive me for not answering all of your intelligent post.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If I get the attention of even one member here, then this ~flight~ shall have proved worthwhile. I shall proceed under the presumption that at least one such member exists here. Regardless, thankyou for your attention.
You have my attention, please tell more :cool:

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Let's consider the sensation of 'pain'...
You may argue, if you wish, that the pain you feel is as a response to external events. But you cannot argue that your pain is those external events.
The sensation of pain is an internal reaction and creation, regardless of whether there is an external reality/event.

The same argument applies to ALL sensation.
No human being has ever experienced anything beyond his own mind.
When you gaze into the milky-way at night, you are not looking-back millions of light-years into the universe. You are looking inside your own awareness at sensory-images of light/colour created by your own [subconcious] mind. Now we're getting down to brass tacks.

Let's start with this internal/external thing. You seem to think there is a meaningful distinction. There isn't. Your body, inside your skin, is just as much a part of this physical realm as anything outside of it. Pain is a neural response to some stimulus, be it the pain of stomach ache or a pin-prick.

The light coming from distant stars is just that. Photons that travelled a long distance over a long time until they are refracted through the Earth's atmosphere, and ultimately strike my retina. This stimulus is converted to a signal that the optic nerve carries to my brain, which in turn interprets the result as a visual image. The basic equipment for all of this, I was born with. As an infant I learned how to use this equipment, and it's served me well ever since. No "mind" necessary at all.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
Let's start with this internal/external thing. You seem to think there is a meaningful distinction. There isn't. Your body, inside your skin, is just as much a part of this physical realm as anything outside of it.

The body is an internal (to awareness) object which we assume exists beyond awareness, too. But there is no proof of that.
Your body is experienced via the sensations - internally. You just assume that you're seeing it externally.

Pain is a neural response to some stimulus, be it the pain of stomach ache or a pin-prick.

At some point, external events must be experienced within sensation. Like I said: "You may argue, if you wish, that the pain you feel is as a response to external events. But you cannot argue that your pain is those external events."

The light coming from distant stars is just that. Photons that travelled a long distance over a long time until they are refracted through the Earth's atmosphere, and ultimately strike my retina. This stimulus is ***converted*** to a signal that the optic nerve carries to my brain, which in turn ***interprets*** the result as a visual image.

The visual image - the sensations of light & shade which you see - occur within you. So, when you see stars, you are looking directly inside your awareness at a ~portrait~ created by your own [subconcious] mind.

[Suezoled]

Poor Lifegazer. He tries and tries and tries and just gets slammed for it. He reminds of this nice guy who wants to be a cop. He really really reeeaaaalllllllllyyyyy wants to be a state policeman. He trains. He studies. He reviews. He hangs out with off duty cops.
In 20 years he has still not passed the state exams.

Me, i exist. The wold was here before me. It will be here after me. How I perceive it is irrelevent in the long range of things. I do not presume to be arrogant as to say existence is tied to my awareness. Nor does existence default that a god exists; I am also not so arrogant as to believe any god acts through me.

Cr*p lunchtime is over. Back to work.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The body is an internal (to awareness) object which we assume exists beyond awareness, too. But there is no proof of that.
Your body is experienced via the sensations - internally. You just assume that you're seeing it externally.

At some point, external events must be experienced within sensation. Like I said: "You may argue, if you wish, that the pain you feel is as a response to external events. But you cannot argue that your pain is those external events."

The visual image - the sensations of light & shade which you see - occur within you. So, when you see stars, you are looking directly inside your awareness at a ~portrait~ created by your own [subconcious] mind. Yeah, so I'm aware of things going on in the world. Where's the mystery? Matter interacts with matter. My body and everything else in the world comes to my attention through senses. But not only that, my conscious and sub-conscious experience of the world is part of that physical interaction. I'm not sure what this portrait is you're talking about, but if it's learned behavior (ie., I've seen something like that before, and now I recognize it again), that's because I've had instructive experiences in the past, and they're in my memory, and available for pattern matching and other things the brain is really good at. This is still all physical. No "mind" to interact with brain.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
Yeah, so I'm aware of things going on in the world. Where's the mystery?

Put simply, you see things within your awareness and then assume that they exist externally to you, also. The "bad philosophy" is when you assume that there is an external reality without being able to prove it.
From the point-of-view of definite fact, no philosopher has (yet) been able to show that an external reality exists.

Everything which happens to you, does so within your awareness. You see these events via inner-sensations. Fact. Claiming that similar events are also occuring external to the sensed-events, is a massive assumption. A belief.

Matter interacts with matter.

What is matter? Points of light within your awareness which interact with other points-of-light within your awareness.
Science is a study of the order present within our perceived-sensations. "Matter" is a label which applies to something seen within your awareness.
Indeed, quantum-mechanics suggests that particles only exist as particles when an observer is present. Until such a moment, all particles are actually waves of potential existence.
The inference is that "matter" only exists within the mind.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Put simply, you see things within your awareness and then assume that they exist externally to you, also. The "bad philosophy" is when you assume that there is an external reality without being able to prove it.
From the point-of-view of definite fact, no philosopher has (yet) been able to show that an external reality exists. For the record, I don't expect philosophers to prove anything to me (through philosophising, anyway). In the meantime, I go with the most likely scenario. What makes your solipsistic construct any more likely to you than that there's an external world?
Everything which happens to you, does so within your awareness. You see these events via inner-sensations. Fact. Claiming that similar events are also occuring external to the sensed-events, is a massive assumption. A belief.I don't know how to stretch the English language to reach your understanding, but I have not and would never claim that events are happening externally and similar events are happening internally. What are these inner-sensations to which you refer? Don't you understand what I've explained above? It couldn't possibly be simpler.What is matter? Points of light within your awareness which interact with other points-of-light within your awareness.
Science is a study of the order present within our perceived-sensations. "Matter" is a label which applies to something seen within your awareness.
Indeed, quantum-mechanics suggests that particles only exist as particles when an observer is present. Until such a moment, all particles are actually waves of potential existence.
The inference is that "matter" only exists within the mind. What is matter? It's what you and your brain and everything else in the universe is made of.

Nice! You don't have much faith in "science," as you perceive it, but then you'll go ahead and use quantum mechanics to back up your argument anyway, when and if it appears to support your precious conclusions. If you're doing science, you should follow the evidence where it leads you. You shouldn't look around for evidence that supports your conclusion, and disregard other evidence. Unfortunately you have no idea what you're talking about; your claim is way off the mark. Quantum mechanics does NOT suggest that particles only exist as particles when an observer is present. But you can submit the evidence here any time.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
For the record, I don't expect philosophers to prove anything to me (through philosophising, anyway). In the meantime, I go with the most likely scenario. What makes your solipsistic construct any more likely to you than that there's an external world?

I have already answered this, about 4 of my posts prior to this.
- The mind [subconciously] creates its own sensations - even as a response to some assumed external (to the mind) activities. Whether an external reality exists or not, I can know without doubt that it is my own [subconcious] mind which has created sensations such as pain, pleasure, sweet, sour, etc. etc..
From this, I concluded that: "... So we can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself (this is the position I have presented), that the mind must also have knowledge of what it is trying to represent prior to 'sensing' it.".
I.e., the [subconcious] Mind understands the universe before you/it senses the universe.
Ponder the significance of that statement for a few seconds - Universal-knowledge precedes universal sensation.
The Mind must have knowledge of something if it wants to create a sensory-portrait of that thing. Agreed?

What are these inner-sensations to which you refer? Don't you understand what I've explained above? It couldn't possibly be simpler.What is matter? It's what you and your brain and everything else in the universe is made of.

Are you trying to tell me that the external universe knows what pain is? What hot & cold are? What sweet & sour are? Please!!
The sensations originate in the mind themselves. The universe knows nothing about our abstract and subjective understanding of existence.

Nice! You don't have much faith in "science," as you perceive it, but then you'll go ahead and use quantum mechanics to back up your argument anyway, when and if it appears to support your precious conclusions.

I've got plenty of faith in science. Except when it tries to claim that the object of its gaze is external to the mind.

If you're doing science, you should follow the evidence where it leads you. You shouldn't look around for evidence that supports your conclusion, and disregard other evidence.

Read my largely-ignored monism thread. Even Relativity points towards God.

Quantum mechanics does NOT suggest that particles only exist as particles when an observer is present.

There's a famous experiment whereby a single electron has a choice of 2 paths. Until observed, it goes down both, simultaneously. I.e., it acts as a wave, until observed.
I know more about these things than you might think I do.

[Dancing David]

I understand your philosophical points but have somethings that I feel are important.

The qualities of perception are not generated by the subconsious mind, at least in the usual usage of subconsious, if this is just a definition difference I apologise.

Second, the mind does not just generate it's own impulses to the sensory inout. It must learn , categorise and associate thos epatterns, during childhood there is a time where the brain must learn those qualities, and organise the sensory inputs.

Third and the point Berkley didn't acre about, there are physical correlates to each sensation that leads to perception. there are photons, presure waves, physical pressue and chemical, they all act with the receptots to create the sensations that lead to perception.

Fouth, the point where I truely diverge from Berkley, it stiil has not proved that the world of perception is solely internal, we are limited to the organic feature of our brains, this means that we can actualy study them. It does not mean that they don't exist. Just because I use a brain to percieve sunlight means that the sun doesn't exist? Not porved that the external world doesn't exist. To quote the buddha 'would you not see better if you plicked out your eye?'

Fifth, and the most astounding conclusion that I have reached is that it doesn't matter, if the physical world is imagibary of real, the seperate awarenesses can share information about that world. Do you reall think that I can not mark a tree that you can not verify my marking. Most wonderful, as Paul A. says idealism and materialism are identical.

Peace my fellow travellr I haven't bailed yet.

[Dancing David]

Was the flight cancelled, I heard that the pilot bailed, Should someone go to the cabin and see if the pilot is still there?

Hello...hello.. wow this is just like Airplane!

Tower we have lost our pilot... I am too short to reach the pedals... help!

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hello, my name's lifegazer and I am your pilot & guide for our next tour beyond the physical-realm and into the domain of The Divine-Mind.

Your first assignment: Prove that there is in fact anything to tour.

When you finish this assignment, present your solid, verifiable, testable evidence, and we'll grade you.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Was the flight cancelled, I heard that the pilot bailed, Should someone go to the cabin and see if the pilot is still there?

Hello...hello.. wow this is just like Airplane!

Tower we have lost our pilot... I am too short to reach the pedals... help!

I hear lifegazer airlines folded, laid off all of it's employees, shut all of its terminals, and the CEO absconded to Rio with all of the company funds.

Just a rumor though.

[Upchurch]

Turns out there wasn't even an airplane, just a lot of handwaving.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Turns out there wasn't even an airplane, just a lot of handwaving.

I should have known there was something funny about that Lifegazer guy when he tried to sell me all of that Enron stock, he even offered to throw in a nice bridge in Brooklyn.

[uruk]

The Philosophers seem to be so enamored with the minds interpretation of the physical sensations That they forget to realise that it was an external cause which stimulated that "sensation". It appears to a shift of emphasis from the cause
to the result. Our pilot here seems to be getting lost in the poetics of philosophy.

Sound, touch and sight are simply how the brain / mind interprets the external, physical stimulus. The brain/mind generating a sensation or smell or image is simply accessing memory of the response. This also applies to dreaming.

the mind exists in a physical world which stimulates it.
Years of neuro science has proven this to be true.

Philosophy is suffering the same problems with science that religion had with it.

Long ago Science, Religion, and Philosophy walked together on the same path. Science and religion had a split when science started to answer questions that were once in realm of religion.
Philosophy is suffering the same fate as religion. Philosophy never had to prove anything. Just conjecturize based on assumptions and logical arguments. Science is now begining to gain a better understanding of the mind and its relationship to
existance so now philosophy bitching about it. So what I say.

Did I miss the plane again? Damn!!!!!

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hello, my name's lifegazer and I am your pilot & guide for our next tour beyond the physical-realm and into the domain of The Divine-Mind.

Hello, my name's c4ts and you are about to direcly collide with Aristotelian thought, Occamism, skepticism, naturalism and realism. Please buckle your seatbelts and assume the crash position. Oxygen masks will be dropping momentarily. Remember that your seat cushion may be used as a flotation device.

[lifegazer]

Don't worry folks. Just a spot of turbulance. Hot air pockets.

Emergency announcement:-
The captain of this flight bailed-out, apparently, at the last pub and left you in the hands of the autopilot. Unfortunately, the autopilot has deflated... so we're about to crash right in the middle of "the reality of space & motion" thread.
Lifegazer is there, waiting to save you all. :D

[c4ts]

Originally posted by uruk
Philosophy never had to prove anything. Just conjecturize based on assumptions and logical arguments. Science is now begining to gain a better understanding of the mind and its relationship to
existance so now philosophy bitching about it. So what I say.

Either you don't understand the totality of philosophy, or you are asking for a beating.

[uruk]

Either you don't understand the totality of philosophy, or you are asking for a beating.

Your probably right on both counts. But I've never ever seen Interesting Ian, Lifegazer, Hammenek, Franko or anyone who espouses thier definition of philosophy ever to back up their claims or offer evidence or proof of their belief. They just bring up arguments based on assumptions.

I admit Philosophy, at least in the academic sense, was never my strong suit. All the debates seem to me to boil down to arguments over definitions and philosophical poeticisim.

If you look in the dictionary, the definition of philosophy begins with the word "speculative". I think science offers slightly more
than just speculation.
I think what scares alot of people is that science tries to remove
human centricism from the big picture. People see that as dehuminisation and heartlessness. I dissagree though, I think
it offers a more accurate view of the nature of our relationship to existance. The whole idea of proof and evidence is to ensure that you are not deluding yourself or barking up a wrong tree. How can you do that with just speculation and assumptions and logical arguments or without some mechinism inwhich to refine or verify those beliefs?


Waiting for the beating.

[Tricky]

Just a little history lesson for all you lifegazer groupies. Here is his first post. He started out with a bizarre proposition, claiming to know the secrets of the universe, and leveling pre-emptive insults at those who might disagree.

Though the material has changed, the act is still the same.
Originally posted by lifegazer
Hello, my name's lifegazer and I am your pilot & guide for our next tour beyond the physical-realm and into the domain of The Divine-Mind.
During our journey, we shall be flying through existence and contemplating the very foundations of human-knowledge and experience. I will be pointing-out the lanterns of existential- awareness and showing you all, via reason, what they actually tell us.
During this journey, your mind is liable to blow-out as you contemplate "landmarks" which will challenge the established mind-sets of our time: scientific and religious. At such times, I shall advise you all to "belt up" and adopt the meditative position.
Kindly take your seats... relax... and prepare for take-off.

(~lifegazer airlines~ smallprint-note: This airline takes no responsibility for supposed open-minded passengers trying to disrupt the route of this flight or of those moronic-types who will try anything to prevent this vehicle from reaching its promised destination. Whilst the pilot is fully-confident with the concepts of reasoned ascent, he does not claim to be able to control nutters at the same time. In the event of a complete moron ruining this flight, parachutes will be handed-out and free-tickets for a future flight will be guaranteed. Thankyou.)

[Eleatic Stranger]

Your probably right on both counts. But I've never ever seen Interesting Ian, Lifegazer, Hammenek, Franko or anyone who espouses thier definition of philosophy ever to back up their claims or offer evidence or proof of their belief. They just bring up arguments based on assumptions.

I'd like to point out that from the perspective of someone actually involved in philosophy the first two people on that list are doing about as much philosophy as your average homeopathy practitioner is doing science. The rest of the list may also be the same, I just haven't read that many posts here yet.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky
Here is his first post.Actually, on this forum it was this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28461&perpage=40&pagenumber=1), but really, they're about the same. He came not to discuss but to preach his gospel.

I've kinda lost track, how many converts has he won?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Actually, on this forum it was this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28461&perpage=40&pagenumber=1), but really, they're about the same. He came not to discuss but to preach his gospel.

You're right, of course. I guess I missed this one.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hello.
I just wondered if people enjoyed being skeptical, apart from the humour to be had in a forum like this of course. I mean, do you really want to live in a mechanical existence, with no mystique or enigma? The human heart shrieks at the thought. Admit it!

Deep down, all you skeptics are scared to death that this crackpot stuff will finally be put to death. For in a sense, a part of us will die with it. And nothing will be gained.
Interestingly, this first post almost makes it sound as if it is a game. Is he proposing to submit all sorts of "crackpot stuff" in order to keep us skeptics from suffering heart shrieks? If so, I have to admit to a grudging admiration for his persistance. He truly has never run out of crackpot stuff, although there is a dismaying lack of originality.


Originally posted by Upchurch
I've kinda lost track, how many converts has he won?
[monty python reference]
Almost one.
[/monty python reference]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
I'd like to point out that from the perspective of someone actually involved in philosophy the first two people on that list are doing about as much philosophy as your average homeopathy practitioner is doing science. The rest of the list may also be the same, I just haven't read that many posts here yet.
You seem to have gotten the gist of it rather quickly, young scholar.

Sadly, you will probably never meet Franko, as he has gone to meet his Logical Goddess (I think she lives in Buffalo). Though it is quite possible that lifegazer is Franko. He was a big games player too.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky
Sadly, you will probably never meet Franko, as he has gone to meet his Logical Goddess (I think she lives in Buffalo). Though it is quite possible that lifegazer is Franko. He was a big games player too. There is something of a resemblance, isn't there? Especially around the attitude towards what science is.

[lifegazer]

On my solemn oath... I am not Franko. Indeed, I am only lifegazer and have ever only been lifegazer whilst participating in this forum.
So much politics in this forum... it's a shame.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
On my solemn oath... I am not Franko. My bad. I was just teasing. I don't honestly think you are Franko. The similarities pretty much stop at the science thing.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch
My bad. I was just teasing. I don't honestly think you are Franko. The similarities pretty much stop at the science thing.
I agree with Upchurch.

Lifegazer, I knew Franko. And Sir, you are no Franko.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hello, my name's lifegazer and I am your pilot & guide for our next tour beyond the physical-realm and into the domain of The Divine-Mind.
During our journey, we shall be flying through existence and contemplating the very foundations of human-knowledge and experience. I will be pointing-out the lanterns of existential- awareness and showing you all, via reason, what they actually tell us.
During this journey, your mind is liable to blow-out as you contemplate "landmarks" which will challenge the established mind-sets of our time: scientific and religious. At such times, I shall advise you all to "belt up" and adopt the meditative position.
Kindly take your seats... relax... and prepare for take-off.

(~lifegazer airlines~ smallprint-note: This airline takes no responsibility for supposed open-minded passengers trying to disrupt the route of this flight or of those moronic-types who will try anything to prevent this vehicle from reaching its promised destination. Whilst the pilot is fully-confident with the concepts of reasoned ascent, he does not claim to be able to control nutters at the same time. In the event of a complete moron ruining this flight, parachutes will be handed-out and free-tickets for a future flight will be guaranteed. Thankyou.)
(sigh) It seems only yesterday when Lifegazer burst upon the scene with his message of how the world works. Gosh, isn't it amazing how little he has grown in this time?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky
(sigh) It seems only yesterday when Lifegazer burst upon the scene with his message of how the world works. Gosh, isn't it amazing how little he has grown in this time? What disturbs me is how much the humor has left his threads. Look at the first couple of pages of this thread and compare to the more modern ones.

Where, oh where, are the cheesy movie references these days? *sigh* *lament*

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by uruk
Your probably right on both counts. But I've never ever seen Interesting Ian, Lifegazer, Hammenek, Franko or anyone who espouses thier definition of philosophy ever to back up their claims or offer evidence or proof of their belief. They just bring up arguments based on assumptions.



That's because "evidence" is a concept that only works under the assumption that there is an external physical reality that is logically consistent. Notice that the concept of evidence is also an argument that requires assumptions.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by uruk
The whole idea of proof and evidence is to ensure that you are not deluding yourself or barking up a wrong tree.


The idea of evidence only provides reference to an assumed external (to experience) reality. It is only once you have assumed this external reality that you need evidence to filter out subjective error. What if this external reality really doesn't exist? Would you need evidence then or just reason to find the truth?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
That's because "evidence" is a concept that only works under the assumption that there is an external physical reality that is logically consistent. Notice that the concept of evidence is also an argument that requires assumptions. Everything requries assumptions. It is unavoidable. However, what uruk was asking for was not just possibility of "evidence" but also "proof". They are not always the same thing.

A "proof" could be something as simple as a logically sound and consistant chain of arguments drawn from a premise. Both Franko and lifegazer have had an incredibly difficult time supporting their conclusions in a self-consistant way based on their assumptions. (I won't comment on Ian or hammegk, since I never got that deep into their claims.)

However, in both Franko's and lifegazer's cases, members of the board have suggested a number of ways that they could provide evidence. Generally, these took the form of events one would expect to see given the arguments they provided.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Everything requries assumptions. It is unavoidable. However, what uruk was asking for was not just possibility of "evidence" but also "proof". They are not always the same thing.

A "proof" could be something as simple as a logically sound and consistant chain of arguments drawn from a premise. Both Franko and lifegazer have had an incredibly difficult time supporting their conclusions in a self-consistant way based on their assumptions. (I won't comment on Ian or hammegk, since I never got that deep into their claims.)

However, in both Franko's and lifegazer's cases, members of the board have suggested a number of ways that they could provide evidence. Generally, these took the form of events one would expect to see given the arguments they provided.

Ok granted, but I don't think it's fair to expect "evidence", in the empirical sense of the word, for philosophical claims that make empiricism invalid!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Ok granted, but I don't think it's fair to expect "evidence", in the empirical sense of the word, for philosophical claims that make empiricism invalid! Well, my point is, I don't think anyone is expecting physical evidence. Around here, in R&P at any rate, I've always taken "evidence" to mean "valid reason to accept an idea as potential truth rather than mere speculation".

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Second, the mind does not just generate it's own impulses to the sensory inout. It must learn , categorise and associate thos epatterns, during childhood there is a time where the brain must learn those qualities, and organise the sensory inputs.

I've never really understood why this point is important. For sure, a child learns and a corresponding change in the connectivity of the various neural networks can be observed. But the point remains that during this network growth there must come a moment where there occurs the specific physical process that generates the perception. Identifying what is special about that particular process is surely the concern of the neuroscientist, not the developmental process that precedes it.


Third and the point Berkley didn't acre about, there are physical correlates to each sensation that leads to perception. there are photons, presure waves, physical pressue and chemical, they all act with the receptots to create the sensations that lead to perception.


Ok you got there after all. However, I think that Lifegazer is questioning where these physical things belong. Physical things are all perceived so what is the reasoning to externalise them? There are indeed physical correlates to particular perceptions but is that necessarily incompatible with what lifegazer is saying? He is after all re-defining what physical means. Perhaps he should try to answer that.


Fouth, the point where I truely diverge from Berkley, it stiil has not proved that the world of perception is solely internal, we are limited to the organic feature of our brains, this means that we can actualy study them. It does not mean that they don't exist. Just because I use a brain to percieve sunlight means that the sun doesn't exist? Not porved that the external world doesn't exist. To quote the buddha 'would you not see better if you plicked out your eye?'


I don't think lifegazer is saying that physical things don't exist, just that they are mindful rather than externally to the mind.


Fifth, and the most astounding conclusion that I have reached is that it doesn't matter, if the physical world is imagibary of real, the seperate awarenesses can share information about that world. Do you reall think that I can not mark a tree that you can not verify my marking. Most wonderful, as Paul A. says idealism and materialism are identical.

Peace my fellow travellr I haven't bailed yet.

I doesn't make a difference as far as making observations are concerned. The observations will be the same either way. However they differ hugely in terms of what those observations mean.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Ok you got there after all. However, I think that Lifegazer is questioning where these physical things belong. Physical things are all perceived so what is the reasoning to externalise them? There are indeed physical correlates to particular perceptions but is that necessarily incompatible with what lifegazer is saying? He is after all re-defining what physical means. Perhaps he should try to answer that.

I don't think lifegazer is saying that physical things don't exist, just that they are mindful rather than externally to the mind.


He tries to have it both ways:

Our perceptions of things are internal to us. He then takes this to mean that not only our perceptions our inside us, but what we perceive is inside us. This is, of course, solphism.

He then ties everything together and says that all individuals are actually god, pretending he is an individual. The question then is, why do we all perceive the same world? His answer, god has a blueprint for what the world should look like, when, pretending to be any individual needs to observe a portion of reality, the primary part of god opens the blueprint to the correct page, and feeds that information to the individual part of god.

He makes it extremely convoluded in an attempt to say that there is nothing external to any individual. Of course, the blueprint and the portion of god that points to the blueprint are external to each individual ego. His only perception of external is one related to distance.

Oh, and his latest kick is, unless you know what you truly are, you don't have free will.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Ok you got there after all. However, I think that Lifegazer is questioning where these physical things belong. Physical things are all perceived so what is the reasoning to externalise them? There are indeed physical correlates to particular perceptions but is that necessarily incompatible with what lifegazer is saying? He is after all re-defining what physical means. Perhaps he should try to answer that.The difficulty is that the way he defines it, physical rules are arbitrary. Under his assumption, a rock does not fall to the ground because of a gravitational force is generated through the warping of local spacetime by physical objects. A rock falls to the ground because that is what we (a.k.a. "God") imagine it to do.

It would then stand to reason that, if this were true, we could imagine a rock to do something other than fall to the ground. Thus far, I have yet to perceive such an event, suggesting a consistancy enforced by something other than simply our collective wills (or God's will since lg considers them one and the same).
I don't think lifegazer is saying that physical things don't exist, just that they are mindful rather than externally to the mind.How can something be labelled "physical" if there is no actual physicality to it? If something is purely a mental construct, it is hardly, of itself, physical.

lifegazer does, indeed, deny the existance of physical objects. He instead attempts to redefine them as perceived objects which have the same type of existance that dreams have.
I doesn't make a difference as far as making observations are concerned. The observations will be the same either way.That is not a given. Under lifegazer's philosophy, observations do have the potential to be different from what one would expect from a materialist reality.

[The GM]

I dunno if anybody asked, but do we get bonus miles for this flight?

[Z]

You would, except that there is no space between objects and, thus, no miles to cover whatsoever. :D

[The GM]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You would, except that there is no space between objects and, thus, no miles to cover whatsoever. :D

Damn it! I'm *always* getting jerked around on these frequent flyer programs. 2 billion miles in metaphysical space I've flown in those cramped, uncomfortable seats next to the fat guy who always wants to be my friend and the screamin' kid who is always kicking the back of my seat, and you know what I've gotten for my troubles?!?! Huh?!! A friggin' coffee mug and a complimentary susbscription to InFlight magazine. Fug it, I'm taking the existential train next time.

[Z]

Well, there is more legroom, but the train gets derailed a LOT.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The difficulty is that the way he defines it, physical rules are arbitrary. Under his assumption, a rock does not fall to the ground because of a gravitational force is generated through the warping of local spacetime by physical objects. A rock falls to the ground because that is what we (a.k.a. "God") imagine it to do.



I think that scientific models are compatable with lifegazers view. Any scientific model formed from perceptions that have logical relationships with one another is a method of description that enables predictions to be made about similar perceptions under a range of different conditoins.
So the important question for lifegazer's philosophy is to ask what exactly are the limits of scientific models of reality under either viewpoint. When you say that the rock falls to the ground because of the forces of gravity, is this 1) correct and 2) necessary? Would it not be correct to say that scientific models of reality can only describe logical relationships that are informed upon our senses rather than attribute any external cause to these relationships? If one manages to accomodate the existence of scientific models within a mental monist framework, the difficult part is trying to explain why we have perceptions such as a rock falling to the ground. Saying that it is because "God" imagines it is clearly not adequate. Perhaps I need to read through what lg is specifically saying with regards to this.



It would then stand to reason that, if this were true, we could imagine a rock to do something other than fall to the ground. Thus far, I have yet to perceive such an event, suggesting a consistancy enforced by something other than simply our collective wills (or God's will since lg considers them one and the same).


Wouldn't a hallucination qualify? We all know that it is possible to have perceptions that are not in line with our hypothesised conception of a logically consistent reality. Of course, we normally put these things down to subjective causes. But imagine that these subjective, illogical and inconsistent experiences were to gradually change their appearance such that they became logical and consistent to the point that they were indistinguishable from normal physical experiences. What grounds would we then have to externalise them? It seems that lg's philosophy is reasonably compatible with the range of experiences that actually appear to us.


How can something be labelled "physical" if there is no actual physicality to it? If something is purely a mental construct, it is hardly, of itself, physical.

It would be merely to identify that we're talking about the same set of perceptions. The physicality is only in the description of the perceptions. I don't see the problem with labelling something as "physical" in the sense that it consists of logically consistent relationships between a set of experiences, but at the same time acknowledging that the set of experiences do not have a source external to the realm of experience.



lifegazer does, indeed, deny the existance of physical objects. He instead attempts to redefine them as perceived objects which have the same type of existance that dreams have.


I think he must take that view if his philosophy is a true mental monistic one. Denial of physical objects would only be in the sense that they do not have a source external to experience.




Under lifegazer's philosophy, observations do have the potential to be different from what one would expect from a materialist reality.

Which they are on a regular basis. What we normally label as "subjective error" or "hallucination" are prime examples.

[Z]

While all of this is fine, the mere fact that there are such things as 'perceptual error' and hallucinations does not then mean that the subject of said errors/hallucinations become objective reality. In fact, those under such perceptual conditions often suffer as true/absolute reality inflicts itself upon them, in spite of their perceptions.

You can perceive, for whatever reason, a bridge between two buildings on the 18th floor, but when you try to walk across it, your perceptions don't mean squat if that bridge is really not there.

This is the key problem and error to such a philosophical stance: if there were no objects external to the self and its perceptions, then no object which could not be perceived could have any affect upon the self. However, we know this is clearly not the case, therefore, there must be some things external to the self and its perceptions, else one could not be affected by things beyond one's perception and self. The negative is also true - if one perceives something which truly does not exist in reality, that object cannot affect them (save mentally) in any way.

This philosophy might do all right as an excuse for mental illness or poor judgement, but as a method of viewing reality, it is sorely lacking.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
While all of this is fine, the mere fact that there are such things as 'perceptual error' and hallucinations does not then mean that the subject of said errors/hallucinations become objective reality. In fact, those under such perceptual conditions often suffer as true/absolute reality inflicts itself upon them, in spite of their perceptions.


I don't think anyone under a mental monist view would say that hallucinations are "objectively real". The way to look at it is the other way round. Things that are normally thought of as "objectively real" should be thought of as extremely stable and vivid subjective experiences, for want of a better definition.


You can perceive, for whatever reason, a bridge between two buildings on the 18th floor, but when you try to walk across it, your perceptions don't mean squat if that bridge is really not there.


Yes but I think this is equally compatible with what lifegazer is essentially saying. If we can consider the mental monistic view for a moment, "hallucinations" are different from "real" perceptions in the way they form relationships with other perceptions. For example, we would only know that the perception of the bridge is a "hallucination" because when we perceive ourselves attempting to walk across it, the result is a perception of ourselves falling to our death. If on the other hand we perceive ourselves walking across the bridge and thus have all the logical and consistent perceptions that are associated with it being "real", then we can differentiate between the two scenarios but at the same time acknowledge that each scenario is still only perceptual.

The problem, of course, is to explain why there is a difference between the two.


This is the key problem and error to such a philosophical stance: if there were no objects external to the self and its perceptions, then no object which could not be perceived could have any affect upon the self. However, we know this is clearly not the case, therefore, there must be some things external to the self and its perceptions, else one could not be affected by things beyond one's perception and self. The negative is also true - if one perceives something which truly does not exist in reality, that object cannot affect them (save mentally) in any way.


This is indeed a problem, although I'm not so sure it's an error. Perhaps we simply haven't thought enough about the problem. The problem in a general sense is how to account for the fact that "real" perceptions maintain their consistent and logical nature upon successive appearances even though there is no external reality.

For example, if I set an egg-timer going, walk out of the room and return to see that the egg-timer is empty, how do I account for this under a mental monist view? Could it really be possible that none of the intermediate egg-timer states existed because I did not perceive them?

I'll admit that I don't know how to solve this fundamental problem, although I'm interested on your view that mental monism should make such things impossible.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by uruk
The Philosophers seem to be so enamored with the minds interpretation of the physical sensations That they forget to realise that it was an external cause which stimulated that "sensation". It appears to a shift of emphasis from the cause
to the result.

mm "the philosophers", right, there are just ONE philosophy, right? You are talking about a small branch, some form of idealism. Does that account what philosophy is? Should I take for granted that you dont have any philosophy? that when you express your conclusions they have nothing to do with any philosophical point of view?

Originally posted by uruk
Sound, touch and sight are simply how the brain / mind interprets the external, physical stimulus. The brain/mind generating a sensation or smell or image is simply accessing memory of the response. This also applies to dreaming.

"Simply"... oh no! So tell me, an interpretation IS a color? there are no colors in the objective world, just wavelengths. Is there a way to explain how a wave is transformed in electrochemical responses in the brain and then how do you equate that to an experience? Please, give details, I will read them with delight.

Originally posted by uruk
Philosophy is suffering the same problems with science that religion had with it.

Excuse me? Please refer to my first answer.

Originally posted by uruk
Philosophy is suffering the same fate as religion. Philosophy never had to prove anything. Just conjecturize based on assumptions and logical arguments. Science is now begining to gain a better understanding of the mind and its relationship to
existance so now philosophy bitching about it. So what I say.

Well said, except for the fact that you ignore the facts :D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by uruk
Waiting for the beating.

Here it comes! :p

Originally posted by uruk
I admit Philosophy, at least in the academic sense, was never my strong suit. All the debates seem to me to boil down to arguments over definitions and philosophical poeticisim"

No comments here.

Originally posted by uruk
"If you look in the dictionary, the definition of philosophy begins with the word "speculative". I think science offers slightly morethan just speculation."

Now that you mention it, lets see in detail a dictionary definition, from The American Heritage:
_____________________

phi·los·o·phy (fÄ_-lÅ�s'É™-fÄ“)
n., pl. -phies.

1) Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

2) Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

3) A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

4) The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

5) The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

6) The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

7) A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

8 ) A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
___________________

Now, look how you decided to reduce the meaning to the point 2, and take a look at point 4 and point 7. Any scientific approach is done FROM point 7, think about it. And 4 seems to me the most important of all, how can we talk about anything (scientific results for example) if we dont know how, what for or why we believe in what we believe, in the first place?

And all those definitions leave aside the most important branch of philosophy (for Critical Thinking) the analysis of MEANING. What is to mean something? what is an explanation? how a set of words can correspond to certain facts in what we call "the world"?

Originally posted by uruk
"I think what scares alot of people is that science tries to removehuman centricism from the big picture. People see that as dehuminisation and heartlessness. I dissagree though, I think
it offers a more accurate view of the nature of our relationship to existance."

Thats religion, please stop saying thats philosophy!

Originally posted by uruk
"The whole idea of proof and evidence is to ensure that you are not deluding yourself or barking up a wrong tree. How can you do that with just speculation and assumptions and logical arguments or without some mechinism inwhich to refine or verify those beliefs?"

Exactly. And this requires a philosophical approach, otherwise you can be deluded just like any stubborn from any discipline.

:D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
That's because "evidence" is a concept that only works under the assumption that there is an external physical reality that is logically consistent. Notice that the concept of evidence is also an argument that requires assumptions.

Exactly, well said. I still cant believe how some "science supporters" can completly ignore this kind of facts :D

[Z]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I don't think anyone under a mental monist view would say that hallucinations are "objectively real". The way to look at it is the other way round. Things that are normally thought of as "objectively real" should be thought of as extremely stable and vivid subjective experiences, for want of a better definition.

True, but as you point out throughout your reply, there is a distinction between perceptions which are stable and consistant, and perceptions which are not. For the materialist, there is no problem here - perceptions which are stable and consistant constitute reality, those which are not do not. But for the mental monist, there isn't really any clear reason for why one set of perceptions should be stable and persistant and another one should not. You know, speaking from a common sense perspective, if you have a curious issue, and one mode of thinking handles it well, but the other mode of thinking leaves gaps, holes, and more mysteries, generally you'd adopt the mode that best handles the situation. But, for some reason, philosophers (like Lg, for example) prefer to take the stranger, less reasonable route from time to time.

Yes but I think this is equally compatible with what lifegazer is essentially saying. If we can consider the mental monistic view for a moment, "hallucinations" are different from "real" perceptions in the way they form relationships with other perceptions. For example, we would only know that the perception of the bridge is a "hallucination" because when we perceive ourselves attempting to walk across it, the result is a perception of ourselves falling to our death. If on the other hand we perceive ourselves walking across the bridge and thus have all the logical and consistent perceptions that are associated with it being "real", then we can differentiate between the two scenarios but at the same time acknowledge that each scenario is still only perceptual.

Only if we first define all scenarios as purely perceptual.

Suppose you are blind, and have no knowledge of whether there is a bridge there or not! Now, if you suffer the hallucination that there is a bridge there - or are even told such a bridge is there - and you try walking across it, you have no means whatsoever of perceiving or not perceiving the bridge until your foot fails to contact said bridge. But if the bridge is there, you may step, thinking you will plunge to your death, and be amazed when your foot stops and behold! a bridge!!

The mental monist doesn't provide an adequate explanation for the source of perceptions. The materialist simply claims a bridge exists, so you perceive a bridge; and if you don't perceive a bridge, or if you perceive one where no bridge exists, it is you that are in error, or your perceptions which are being deceived, with no actual change in physical reality. The mental monist lacks a 'bridge' to provide perceptions - instead, some strange thing must be invented to explain the source of perceptions. In lg's case, that source is God/mind. Is there any particular proof, reason, or evidence that this should be? No - in fact, the only evidence we can gather - perceptual, true - is that there is a physical bridge.

The problem, of course, is to explain why there is a difference between the two.

Only a problem if one adopts mental monism.

This is indeed a problem, although I'm not so sure it's an error. Perhaps we simply haven't thought enough about the problem. The problem in a general sense is how to account for the fact that "real" perceptions maintain their consistent and logical nature upon successive appearances even though there is no external reality.

A key problem, even. Materialism and even dualism handle these concepts so nicely - external things exist, so they are perceived as real. Mental monism, however, simply can't get a good grip on this problem - or, at least, no current expounder of mental monism has done so adequately without resorting to some form of dualism or externalism.

For example, if I set an egg-timer going, walk out of the room and return to see that the egg-timer is empty, how do I account for this under a mental monist view? Could it really be possible that none of the intermediate egg-timer states existed because I did not perceive them?

I'll admit that I don't know how to solve this fundamental problem, although I'm interested on your view that mental monism should make such things impossible.

Not that it would make such things impossible, but just that it inadequately addresses the issues. However, another poster (pardon my laziness) addressed a key problem within mental monism: why, if everything is mental and all is one mind, can no one, anywhere, affect systematic and total change at will? Why is every mind everywhere limited to physical laws? Wouldn't mental monism suggest that it is possible to bypass physicality in some form? Yet no one can - hence suggesting that mental monism must be wrong, since the implications of such a philosophy prove impossible. Curious.

[Z]

That's because "evidence" is a concept that only works under the assumption that there is an external physical reality that is logically consistent. Notice that the concept of evidence is also an argument that requires assumptions.

It is true - all knowledge is based on some form of assumption; but the primary assumption is that there are other observers and that communication between them is possible. This leads to the understanding that something must be external to self, which in turn, should lead to a logical extrapolation that there is a physical reality. Logical consistency comes from simple observation.

lifegazer challenges the base assumption by instead saying that there is only one mind. Under this assumption, all logic, reason, and evidence is moot, and understanding is destroyed. It is, essentially, an assumption that leads nowhere useful, and provides us with no understanding of reality that we can actually make use of.

[uruk]

To those who served my head up on a philosophical platter:
"Bite my shiny metal a..... just kidding.
The only thing I can say in my defense is that I was young and naive when I made those statements. I tended to use the word philosophy in an all too general sense and sometimes equated it with religion. I know better now.

But having said that;Now that you mention it, lets see in detail a dictionary definition, from The American Heritage:
_____________________

phi·los·o·phy (fğ-l�s'ə-fē)
n., pl. -phies.

1) Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

2) Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

3) A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

4) The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

5) The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

6) The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

7) A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

8 ) A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
___________________

Now, look how you decided to reduce the meaning to the point 2, and take a look at point 4 and point 7. Any scientific approach is done FROM point 7, think about it. And 4 seems to me the most important of all, how can we talk about anything (scientific results for example) if we dont know how, what for or why we believe in what we believe, in the first place?
: Note that in #2 it says that "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods ."
I personly feel that logic and reason alone is insufficient to investigate nature , causes, or reality without some empiricle method being involved. We've all seen how LG has on many occasion screwed the pooch when it comes to logic and reasoning. There must be some method to test, verify or support premisis which relies on some form of objectivisim. Otherwise, how do you know your not barking up a wrong tree?

In #4, again how would you make a critical analysis and not be fooling yourself?

I'd say science comes more from #4 rather than #7. Gravity is more than just a belief. If you drop something it will fall. something is responsible for that action. Now finding and understanding what gravity is requires critical analysis. Some would say that the conclusions that science arrives at are beliefs, but they are beliefes that are supported with empirical data. which, to me, makes them a bit more than just your average belief.
Thats religion, please stop saying thats philosophy! Sorry, But what was that thing about "if a tree falls in a forest"? Doesn't it seem to imply that human presense be necesissary?mm "the philosophers", right, there are just ONE philosophy, right? You are talking about a small branch, some form of idealism. Does that account what philosophy is? Should I take for granted that you dont have any philosophy? that when you express your conclusions they have nothing to do with any philosophical point of view? I guess I should have been a bit more specific.Simply"... oh no! So tell me, an interpretation IS a color? there are no colors in the objective world, just wavelengths. Is there a way to explain how a wave is transformed in electrochemical responses in the brain and then how do you equate that to an experience? Please, give details, I will read them with delight. Well, true . Not so simple.
But I'll try anyway.
The electromagnetic wave of a specific wavlength impinging on the cone cells of the retina induce a chemical reaction in the ce sthat is converted into electrical signal which travels along the optic nerve to the occiptal lobe of the brain. Neurons in the occipital region become stimulated by the signals and fire off signals in specific patterns to other regions in the brain. The other regions in the brain perform specific functions in proccesing or responding to those incoming signals. On such region in the brain is memory which contain neural connection patterns of previouse encounters with those signals and other information that are related to those signals (such as the memory of audio signal patterns which are associated with the optical signal pattern. i.e. the word red associated with the color read)

Due to time constrainsts I will have to continue this at a later time.
Hopefully soon.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I hear lifegazer airlines folded, laid off all of it's employees, shut all of its terminals, and the CEO absconded to Rio with all of the company funds.

Just a rumor though.

It all happened before they were about to announce their new line of concords, right when they found out that the speed of sound was absolute.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by uruk

But having said that; Note that in #2 it says that "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods ."
I personly feel that logic and reason alone is insufficient to investigate nature , causes, or reality without some empiricle method being involved. We've all seen how LG has on many occasion screwed the pooch when it comes to logic and reasoning. There must be some method to test, verify or support premisis which relies on some form of objectivisim. Otherwise, how do you know your not barking up a wrong tree?


But objective reality and therefore empiricism are meaningless concepts under LG's philosophy (and I'm not saying that is necessarily wrong). Any attempt to support the logic and reasoning with evidence is to go contrary to what a mental monistic philosophy assumes about reality. By the way, if LG has gone awry with his reasoning then I would ask if correct reasoning would have not required empirical verification?



In #4, again how would you make a critical analysis and not be fooling yourself?

If the reasoning and logic is sound?

My question to you would be - how would you make a critical analysis of the existence of objective reality without fooling yourself? You can't use evidence because you must first assume that objective reality exists in order to use the concept of evidence. Hence evidence cannot be used to support the assumption of objective reality. Otherwise it would be circular reasoning.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by uruk
Gravity is more than just a belief. If you drop something it will fall. something is responsible for that action. Now finding and understanding what gravity is requires critical analysis. Some would say that the conclusions that science arrives at are beliefs, but they are beliefes that are supported with empirical data. which, to me, makes them a bit more than just your average belief.

I already said that you focused exlusively on 2. Lets get back to 4 and 7. Gravity, both as a force and as a time/space distortion, is a belief. Yes, things fall, but why they do (the explanation) is always a logical construct. I would say that any conclusion is a belief, thats right, and yes, they are supported, but by observations ("empirical data" is a concept, not the facts themselfs). Oh, and I have never denied the importance of beliefs supported by critical observations, just stating that what you believed about philosophy was wrong :p

BTW, I liked your little "explanation". And excuse me if I state it in this way, because if it were a complete explanation, we could easily replicate the "seeing" part just estimulating the appropriate neural paths... but wait, we cant!

See my point?

[uruk]

But objective reality and therefore empiricism are meaningless concepts under LG's philosophy (and I'm not saying that is necessarily wrong). Any attempt to support the logic and reasoning with evidence is to go contrary to what a mental monistic philosophy assumes about reality I agree that empiricism has no meaning under LG's philosophy. But like anyother belief or philosophy, assumptions are going to appear. And assumptions without any criticism or support is dubious at best.If the reasoning and logic is sound? How would you know if it is sound?My question to you would be - how would you make a critical analysis of the existence of objective reality without fooling yourself? You can't use evidence because you must first assume that objective reality exists in order to use the concept of evidence. Hence evidence cannot be used to support the assumption of objective reality. Otherwise it would be circular reasoning. I guess everything boils down to an initial assumption. But wether you first assume that reality exists or does not exist, you still can only percieve and deal
with this percieved reality and all of it's internal self-consistancies.
Oh, and I have never denied the importance of beliefs supported by critical observations, just stating that what you believed about philosophy was wrong I'm quite sure there are a lot of things I believe about philosophy that are wrong. That's why I risk the beatings. to learn.
BTW, I liked your little "explanation". And excuse me if I state it in this way, because if it were a complete explanation, we could easily replicate the "seeing" part just estimulating the appropriate neural paths... but wait, we cant!
Actually we can!....sorta, but it's a begining. take a look here:
http://www.seeingwithsound.com/etumble.htm
And here:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/artificial-vision.htm

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thanks for the links, primitive, but interesting. ;)