Upchurch's question

[lifegazer]

Upchurch. "Correction: he only half-answered the question. He neglected to differentiate between "inner" and "outer" sensations and only reiterated that he did not believe the sensations that represent the "outer world". He still has not explained the why he believes the the sensations that represent the "inner world.""

This thread is to answer specific doubts about my own philosophy, so as not to ruin other threads. Upchurch keeps bugging me to answer questions which I do answer... but then he twists the question so I have to give another answer.
Above, is his latest complaint.

So Upchurch, you claim I have only half-answered the question because I do not differentiate between inner and outer sensations.
My retort to this is: What outer sensations? All sensations are internal to awareness, so what are you talking about?

[Upchurch]

Fair enough. Let's get this out of the way.

Here, I believe, is my best phrasing of question at hand:
Originally posted by Upchurch

It's the same question I've been asking again and again. I don't believe that you do want to answer it, but I will clarify.

You claim that you do not believe that the external, material world is real because you have no evidence that it exists. Further, the only evidence anyone has for the external, material world is their perception or awareness of it. On the other hand, you claim that you do believe that the mind is real because you have direct internal perception or awareness of it.

However, in your last post, you stated that "Awareness is singular. All sensation is had within the same awareness." If this is so, then your awareness of the "external" world is the same as your awareness of the "internal" world. You cannot subdivide awareness into "direct" and "indirect" awareness because, if you did, awareness is no longer singular, as you claim, but would be a composite of two subcategories of awareness. Thus, you have the same amount of evidence for the existence of mind as you have for the material world: your awareness of it.

Since your only evidence for either the material world or the mind is awareness (not "direct awareness" or "indirect awareness", but just "awareness"), you cannot question the reality of material world without also questioning the reality of the mind. Conversely , if you accept the existence of the mind based on nothing more than your awareness of it, you must accept the existence of the material world based on nothing more than your awareness of it.

To accept one and reject the other means, based on your definitions, that it is not simple awareness of the mind that causes you to believe its existence, since you disbelieve in the material world despite your awareness of it. There must be, then, another reason why you believe in the existence of the mind and reject the material world apart from awareness. What is that reason?
You're first response was to change the definition of awareness to mean what you accept as reality and not merely to what you percieve. My later revisions of the question were to get to the heart of the matter and to avoid this definitional silliness that you use as a crutch to avoid answering the question.

Now, given that all we perceive is known to us through our senses, we have sensations of a material world. I feel the keyboard in front of me. I hear the clicking of the keys. I see the words appear on the screen before me as I type. I have a perception of these things through my senses and thus, I am aware (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=aware) of the material world.

You has stated over and over that he does not believe in the reality of the material world because you do not have any evidence of its existence beyond his perception of it. That is fine. I'm not contending that you should, nor am I contending that this is the crux of the question at hand. Allow me to continue.

As we have sensations of a material world, we also have perceptions of the Mind. I feel my emotions. I hear the inner monologue of my thoughts. I see the visualizations of my imagination. All of these sensations give me the perception of my mind and thus, I am aware of my mind.

you have stated that you believe that the only reality is the existence of the mind and that we are aware of it through direct experience. If we are to accept your assumption that all sensations are internal, then those of the external, material world are false or illusionary, as would be our awareness of the material world.

However, one set of experiences based on sensation is illusionary or false, how then can we know that another set is true? If all sensation is internal, our sensations of the mind are from the same source as our sensations of the mind. The concept of "direct experience" is meaningless since all experience is direct (in that it comes from a single source) and it just happens that some may be true and some may be false.

Thus, it is contradictory to claim that one disbelieves in the material world because they have no evidence and to also claim to believe in the mind through direct sensation when the evidence and "directness" of each is equal and, under the assumption that there is no outside world, from the same source. So, to claim that there is no evidence for the external, material world is to also claim that there is no evidence for the mind. To claim to believe in the mind on the basis of awareness and experience is to believe in the material world on the basis of awareness and experience.

So, finally, to the question at hand: As you cannot believe only in the existance of the mind based purely on awareness, there must be some other element on which you reason the existance of the mind and the non-existance of the material world. What is it?


Edited for inconsistant pronoun usage.

[Mercutio]

Lifegazer does not have Upchurch's Permission (tm) to understand.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Now, given that all we perceive is known to us through our senses, we have sensations of a material world. I feel the keyboard in front of me. I hear the clicking of the keys. I see the words appear on the screen before me as I type. I have a perception of these things through my senses and thus, I am aware (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=aware) of the material world.

Your final sentence is significant. I need to qualify it to say that you are aware of inner-sensations that appear to mirror the reality of a material world. I really need you to accept the fact that you are not aware of anything, in truth, except sensations within your own awareness. Any thing else you think you are aware of cannot actually be verified as real. In actuality, things are all fragmented sensations.

You has stated over and over that he does not believe in the reality of the material world because you do not have any evidence of its existence beyond his perception of it. That is fine. I'm not contending that you should, nor am I contending that this is the crux of the question at hand.

Well it is the crux of the question at hand, because I am advocating the existence of a singular reality [of Mind (of God)], and I am proposing that the existence of all other things, is merely an appearance happening within that singular reality.

Allow me to continue.

Yup... want to get this out of the way.

As we have sensations of a material world, we also have perceptions of the Mind.

We don't have sensations of a Mind - we have sensations within a Mind, of other things. Note the significant distinction. The Mind itself - fundamentally, 'God' in my philosophy - is non-perceivable... is not sensed. Rather, the existence of The Mind, or God, is deduced from the things which are seen within awareness.
So, sensations are self-created effects of the Mind which give the appearance of other things in the Mind. But we do not perceive/sense the Mind.

I feel my emotions. I hear the inner monologue of my thoughts. I see the visualizations of my imagination. All of these sensations give me the perception of my mind and thus, I am aware of my mind.

Well these are all attributes of the Mind. Part of The Mind's identity. The Mind is aware, feels, and thinks.

you have stated that you believe that the only reality is the existence of the mind and that we are aware of it through direct experience.

Direct experience of its attributes, yes.

However, one set of experiences based on sensation is illusionary or false, how then can we know that another set is true? If all sensation is internal, our sensations of the mind are from the same source as our sensations of the mind. The concept of "direct experience" is meaningless since all experience is direct (in that it comes from a single source) and it just happens that some may be true and some may be false.

You're very confused, I think. The Mind is the source of awareness, sensation, reason, emotion. ***The direct experience of the Mind is via direct exerience of its inner attributes.***
I am aware... I see... I touch... I taste... I smell (things)... I hear... I reason/think... I have feelings. This is existence. All internal. All experienced via attributes of the Mind.
Every thing resides within the Mind. Everything. You know of nothing other than a Mind reality.

Thus, it is contradictory to claim that one disbelieves in the material world because they have no evidence and to also claim to believe in the mind through direct sensation when the evidence and "directness" of each is equal

Sensation is from the Mind, not of it. This is the flaw in your thinking and the reason you are confused with my philosophy.
These sensations are effects of the Mind.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Sensation is from the Mind, not of it. This is the flaw in your thinking and the reason you are confused with my philosophy.
These sensations are effects of the Mind.

so his flaw of reasoning is that he does not accept the assumptions of your philosophy. Very interesting indeed.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


so his flaw of reasoning is that he does not accept the assumptions of your philosophy. Very interesting indeed.
The flaw in his reasoning is that he does not see that sensations are from the Mind, and not about it. Nobody has sensations of a Mind. Indeed, sensations appear as other things.

Contribute something meaningful Russ.

[Suezoled]

I hate to admit this, but I miss Lifegazer's Hamster. I mean, only one post and all, but it was so cool!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I really need you to accept the fact that you are not aware of anything, in truth, except sensations within your own awareness. Any thing else you think you are aware of cannot actually be verified as real.I will reference this later, but for now, I will point out that this is a restatement of one half of your double standard.

edited to add: which I then forgot to go back and reference.

The long and the short of it is that you have not poven that sensation comes from awareness. Further, by the definition of each, it is much more reasonable to think that awareness comes from sensation. Can you prove that sensation comes from awareness without assuming that only the mind exists?
We don't have sensations of a Mind - we have sensations within a Mind, of other things.

{snip}

Well these are all attributes of the Mind. Part of The Mind's identity. The Mind is aware, feels, and thinks.But you cannot prove that these are attributes anymore than I can prove that the sound of the keyboard are actually attributes of the keyboard. All you are aware of are the sensations which you attribute to the Mind. You cannot prove those sensations came from the mind anymore than I can prove the sound of the keyboard came from the keyboard.

Here is the crux of the question. You assume that the mind exists and thus accept the sensations that are attributed to the mind as real and you assume that the material world is false and thus reject that the sensations that are attributed to the material world is false. But in reality, there is no evidence that either set of sensations are more valid than the other.

As you, yourself say,Note the significant distinction. The Mind itself - fundamentally, 'God' in my philosophy - is non-perceivable... is not sensed. Rather, the existence of The Mind, or God, is deduced from the things which are seen within awareness.You are saying that there is no direct evidence for the mind but that you must deduce it from the sensations that you get from the mind. Likewise is the material world deduced, not from direct evidence but from the sensations that we get from it.

You are more than welcome to reject one or both sets of sensations, but there must be a reason why you reject one and accept the other. As of this writing that reason seems to be your assumption that the mind exists and that the material world does not. If this is true, the premise of your philosophy is not based on reasoned fact but on faith in your premises.
So, sensations are self-created effects of the Mind which give the appearance of other things in the Mind. But we do not perceive/sense the Mind.This is not something that is exclusive to the mind. If we allow the possibility that the material world also exists, sensations we receive of the material world are not the material world in and of themselves but the effects of the material world. We see not the tree but the light that bounces off the tree. Your explination can be equally applied to both situations.
The Mind is the source of awareness, sensation, reason, emotion. ***The direct experience of the Mind is via direct exerience of its inner attributes.***This is an assumption, not a reason for rejecting some sensations as false and some as true.Sensation is from the Mind, not of it.This is also assumption. One could just as easily assume that sensations come from the material world. Prove your assumption is correct and the other assumption is wrong.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suezoled
I hate to admit this, but I miss Lifegazer's Hamster. I mean, only one post and all, but it was so cool!
Wanna come back to my place and see my hamster?

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Wanna come back to my place and see my hamster? Lame attempt at turning psychotic episode into edgy joke.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
Lame attempt at turning psychotic episode into edgy joke. and in bad taste, frankly.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
Lame attempt at turning psychotic episode into edgy joke.
Lame attempt at jovial flirtation, maybe. But as I'm indifferent to your (anybody's) perception of my sanity, I can say that your remark is false.

Can discussions pertaining to my hamster recommence in flamewars please... or back at my place.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The flaw in his reasoning is that he does not see that sensations are from the Mind, and not about it. Nobody has sensations of a Mind. Indeed, sensations appear as other things.


Isn't that what I just said? You say "The flaw in his reasoning is that he does not see that sensations are from the Mind", which is an assumption of your philosophy. Once again I ask, how does it make any more sense to say that reality is a vast illusion created by a superior intelligence than to just say that reality exists.


Contribute something meaningful Russ.

I have, you ignored, its a waste of my time.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Lame attempt at jovial flirtation, maybe. Well, I suggest you start out by offering to show your etchings.But as I'm indifferent to your (anybody's) perception of my sanity, I can say that your remark is false. I didn't mean it literally anyway, but keep trying to divert me with your feigned indifference. I might become suspicious.Can discussions pertaining to my hamster recommence in flamewars please... or back at my place. Controlling other posters' responses is like herding cats (or hamsters). Come to think of it, you can't even keep your own hamster from posting under your name -- and while you're in the house! You get that solved, and you may be able to control us.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But you cannot prove that these are attributes anymore than I can prove that the sound of the keyboard are actually attributes of the keyboard.

The sounds are from the keyboard, but not directly of it. I.e., the keyboard is not the essence of "the sound of keyboard", since the "sound of keyboard" is due to several/many factors other than the keyboard itself, absolutely.
The sounds of a keyboard are not attributed solely to the keyboard, is what I'm really saying. Whereas sensations, thoughts, emotions, awareness... all link to a singular anchor and essence. We label this essence "The Mind". The Mind embraces the attributes which it is the essence/anchor/foundations of, and which go towards giving that Mind an identity.

I need a short break and will try to answer the important points of anything else you say, later.

[scribble]

Upchurch, your post was well written.

Too bad it doesn't look as though it was well read.

"The only winning move..."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The sounds are from the keyboard, but not directly of it. I.e., the keyboard is not the essence of "the sound of keyboard", since the "sound of keyboard" is due to several/many factors other than the keyboard itself, absolutely. The sounds of a keyboard are not attributed solely to the keyboard, is what I'm really saying. But all are a mechanism of the material world, which produces the sensation.
Whereas sensations, thoughts, emotions, awareness... all link to a singular anchor and essence.Point of correct, emotions and thoughts are sensation which leads to awareness. You're arguing from ignorance if you think that because we don't entirely understand the source, these sensations are somehow different from the "material" sensations.
We label this essence "The Mind".Just as we label touch, taste, sight, sound, and feel "the material world". What of it?
The Mind embraces the attributes which it is the essence/anchor/foundations of, and which go towards giving that Mind an identity.Do you think the perception of the physical body does not also play a part in identity? How else does the mind define the difference between "oneself" and "other people/things"? Regardless, identity is irrelevent to the argument at hand.

Why do you believe that the mind is real when you have exactly the same evidence for it that you do for the material world?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by scribble
Upchurch, your post was well written.

Too bad it doesn't look as though it was well read.

"The only winning move..." Thank you for the compliment and continually pointing out my biggest fault. ;) Maybe someday I'll learn to not bait the trolls for more than a few days at a time, but apparently that day isn't today.

[Yahweh]

First, I have to say great posts, UpChurch :)

Originally posted by Upchurch
You has stated over and over that he does not believe in the reality of the material world because you do not have any evidence of its existence beyond his perception of it. That is fine. I'm not contending that you should, nor am I contending that this is the crux of the question at hand. Allow me to continue.
This is the part that gets me, it draws my attention the most...

I'm sure anyone who is familiar with the work of Einstein could rattle off plenty of things regarding Brownian motion, Einstein's 1905 formula's demonstrating the existence of atoms, pictures of actual atoms, etc. etc. etc.

I would like to know what would qualify as "existence of the external world beyond perception of it" to Lifegazer. If he's asking for a person to step into the 3rd person frame of reference, then he's asking for something quite impossible, but that impossibility states nothing about whether the external world exists, instead it just reiterates that perception is confined to what he calls the "mind". If that is the case, then Lifegazer's Philosophy adopts and unfair "advantage" because nothing rational can be said to support belief or disbelief in his Philosophy.

Lifegazer mentions plenty of times that there is "no proof of an external material world", however I'm willing to place quite a few poker chips on the square that says "Lifegazer's inference of the evidence around him is inaccurate".

Lifegazer, I recommend that if you are interested in the External world, you take a read of what Philosopher George Edward Moore (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Moore) has to say. Some of his work includes "Proof of the External World", "A Refutation of Idealism", and "A Defense of Commonsense".

Maybe if I ever find the time, I'll build a nice little website of my own consisting of all the Philosophy I hold near and dear. Of this includes how I make distinct differenciations between things which are abstract and concrete objects.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I'm sure anyone who is familiar with the work of Einstein could rattle off plenty of things regarding Brownian motion, Einstein's 1905 formula's demonstrating the existence of atoms, pictures of actual atoms, etc. etc. etc.

What??
These things which you mention are discerned from sensation - inner awareness. You are talking about phenomena relating to internal awareness. As I keep saying, all things exist internally to the mind that sees them. I have no idea what you mean to imply by rattling off a few scientific observations/laws, but I can assure you that you do nothing to refute my own philosophy.

I would like to know what would qualify as "existence of the external world beyond perception of it" to Lifegazer.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head.
Nothing we know of doth qualify. All things are reducible to qualia and reason/emotion, which in themselves, are irreducible, except to relate them all to a singular reality which we label Mind.
Asking me what qualify as an external reality is a bum question, since I have no conception of an external reality. My existence - yours too - is completely Mindful... is completely internal to my own being.

If he's asking for a person to step into the 3rd person frame of reference, then he's asking for something quite impossible, but that impossibility states nothing about whether the external world exists, instead it just reiterates that perception is confined to what he calls the "mind". If that is the case, then Lifegazer's Philosophy adopts and unfair "advantage" because nothing rational can be said to support belief or disbelief in his Philosophy.

That's untrue, since everything rational supports the notion that existence is an internal affair. Whereas nothing rational supports the contrary opinion - that of a materialist.

The greatest mystery to my mind, is that many of the greatest philosophers of the previous two/three hundred years have completely overlooked the simple facts which I present to these forums - which I'm sure you do understand. How?! Why?!!
What the hell happened to rational thinking? How the hell could the masses be duped to believe the materialists?
I dunno. But my task is to aid those who see what I see and who aim to reverse this crime upon philosophy.

Lifegazer mentions plenty of times that there is "no proof of an external material world", however I'm willing to place quite a few poker chips on the square that says "Lifegazer's inference of the evidence around him is inaccurate".

Place your bet. There is no thing mentionable beyond the sensation - the reasoning of that sensation - of 'it'. You shall lose, forever.
Materialism is doomed. It lived for two hundred years. Now it is very sick and is going to die. How ironic that the 21st century should see philosophy come of age with the re-advent of Idealism when science has reached her zenith.
People, feel blessed that you live amongst such times. Embrace the revolution that is already happening in philosophy and which will eventually change science and religion too. These are historical times.

Lifegazer, I recommend that if you are interested in the External world, you take a read of what Philosopher George Edward Moore (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Moore) has to say.

Summarise for him. I cannot read the whole works of every philosopher. Make a case for him - sell him.
Regardless; let it be known that I consider an external reality unprovable by reason (philosophy).

You're another good kid who I see brainwashed by things you do not comprehend. If you want to address the truth, then my advice to you is to drop all of your current beliefs and start from scratch.
Science speaks of existential behaviour. Science knows as much as my hamster when it comes to existential origins and purpose. Please demand more of science. Do not give away your trust (about reality) too cheaply.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Nothing we know of doth qualify. All things are reducible to qualia and reason/emotion, which in themselves, are irreducible, except to relate them all to a singular reality which we label Mind.
Asking me what qualify as an external reality is a bum question, since I have no conception of an external reality. My existence - yours too - is completely Mindful... is completely internal to my own being.
All of this was said before, and better, by Interesting Ian, in other threads. Pay attention to Stimpy's comments in the "primary and secondary characteristics" thread, and you may not have to write as much here...

[Dancing David]

I'll just keep this simple, and expect the best...

when the photo solution on paper reacts to light , and then is processed it creates a color change, perceptible by shining light upon the reacted paper.

Which is the illusion?

I can percieve through my senses but there is still paper imbues with the chemicals, exposed to light and reacted with other chemical. Which is the illusion?

Your mind is an ilusion Lifegazer, your thoughts are not thoughts, they are as real as the sights you claim are only internal. Your emotions are an illusions Lifegazer, they are as real as trees which you claim are only internal.

How do you know your thoughts are real? How do you know your feelings are real. Because you experience them? But how do you know that that experience is real?

A sharp sword cuts both ways, you only feel that your thoughts are real because you claim special privelege for your thoughts.

At least hammegk is homest about the process Life gazer with his *I* think.

You make your *I* into the whole of reality but you have no basis to test your *I* for any sort of validity. Just saying that *I* think does not prove anything.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What??
These things which you mention are discerned from sensation - inner awareness. You are talking about phenomena relating to internal awareness. As I keep saying, all things exist internally to the mind that sees them. I have no idea what you mean to imply by rattling off a few scientific observations/laws, but I can assure you that you do nothing to refute my own philosophy.
I read everything UpChurch and RussDill have to say. I think of all things, you need to dig your head out of the sand.

You need to make a distinction between things which are percieved/experienced, and things which exist concretely.

Things do not "exist" internally in the mind. Whether I'm nitpicking (which I probably am), things are percieved by the mind. The things which are consciously percieved while not being imagined derive from the external world.

The bridge between the gap of internal sensations/experience and external nature of reality is what is commonly called "Science". With this mysterious "Science", we are able to build math that (mostly) perfectly describes the world around us.

The unimagined things which are percieved derive from the external world, the science can describe these things down to a nutshell, and voila: You have external reality that can be comprehended. Of course, that is the short and to the point Yahweh demonstration, near the bottom of this post, I'll describe more in depth...


Exactly. You hit the nail on the head.
Nothing we know of doth qualify.
Philosophical Inquery:

Do you exist?
Do I exist?

If you accept that I exist, would you care to prove it? By own logic, it is entirely impossible to prove that exist, I might as well be a manifestation of your imagination. However, if you were to tell me that I dont exist, I'd be 100% certain that you were wrong.

If for any reason you deny Materialism because the external world cannot be proven, yet you accept the existence of other things which cannot be proven (i.e. your Philosophy, my existence, your god), I would advise you to revise your Philosophy before someone like me labels you a hypocrite.

Does this help describe why your Ontology is inherently flawed? Sure, it might be perfectly fine in the ideal sense, but pragmatically it effectively accomplishes nothing.

All things are reducible to qualia and reason/emotion, which in themselves, are irreducible, except to relate them all to a singular reality I which we label Mind.
I would disagree.

While thing can certainly be reduced down to qualia, qualia itself can be reduced down to matter and natural phenomena. There is an entire field of science called Cognitive Neuroscience that describes and explains qualia, how it arises, how it can be manipulated.

Asking me what qualify as an external reality is a bum question, since I have no conception of an external reality. My existence - yours too - is completely Mindful... is completely internal to my own being.
Good, unless I've misunderstood, you accept my existence.

Lets say I caught a disease or bumped my head, I became no longer aware of my own existence (i.e. I settle into a vegetative state). Would I stop existing? Or is there something which unifies my previous conscious mindful existence and my no longer mindful vegetative existence?

That's untrue, since everything rational supports the notion that existence is an internal affair. Whereas nothing rational supports the contrary opinion - that of a materialist.

The greatest mystery to my mind, is that many of the greatest philosophers of the previous two/three hundred years have completely overlooked the simple facts which I present to these forums - which I'm sure you do understand. How?! Why?!!
What the hell happened to rational thinking? How the hell could the masses be duped to believe the materialists?
I dunno. But my task is to aid those who see what I see and who aim to reverse this crime upon philosophy.
If it helps at all, you dont have to be a Materialist to believe in an external reality.

I would say my Philosophy is perfectly fine, it works fairly well on paper and when applied pragmatically.

Yours on the other hand, I havent got the faintest idea how you rationalize it. You make more assumptions than the Materialists (i.e. Reality is mindful, existence is a singularity, a god of some sort - I'm a little fuzzy on that one -, qualia are irreducible, no external world exists, etc. etc. etc.). All of yours assumptions essentially cannot be proved with any amount of Epistemology, they rely on Ontology (yet the Ontology requires you to accept a few basic axioms... and you frown about Materialist axioms, why not your own).

Place your bet. There is no thing mentionable beyond the sensation - the reasoning of that sensation - of 'it'. You shall lose, forever.
Materialism is doomed. It lived for two hundred years. Now it is very sick and is going to die. How ironic that the 21st century should see philosophy come of age with the re-advent of Idealism when science has reached her zenith.
People, feel blessed that you live amongst such times. Embrace the revolution that is already happening in philosophy and which will eventually change science and religion too. These are historical times.
Idealism has been properly refuted back in 1903 by that wild and crazy guy I mentioned before, G.E. Moore.

Materialism/Naturalism/Scientism is the most strongly supported theories in Philosophy. Its nowhere near crisis. Before 1905, most people assumed the existence of atoms... until a fella by the name of Einstein demonstrated that they do in fact exist. Your claim of those atoms existing in the mind is where you fail to support your beliefs.

I honestly dont believe you reject Materialism on any basis of evidence, I believe you do so because of personal quasi-religious conviction. The evidence supports Materialism. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.




Summarise for him. I cannot read the whole works of every philosopher. Make a case for him - sell him.
Regardless; let it be known that I consider an external reality unprovable by reason (philosophy).

You're another good kid who I see brainwashed by things you do not comprehend. If you want to address the truth, then my advice to you is to drop all of your current beliefs and start from scratch.
Science speaks of existential behaviour. Science knows as much as my hamster when it comes to existential origins and purpose. Please demand more of science. Do not give away your trust (about reality) too cheaply.
If it helps at all, I've dropped all of my beliefs on a previous occasion, buts it really unnecessary to detail exactly why...

Ok... I guess I have a bit of free time...

First, give a read on Moore's Refutation of Idealism (http://www.ditext.com/moore/refute.html). Sorry, its about 56k, I cant summarize any points it makes without including the other points (i.e., By stating any one point he makes, I create a case which is incomplete, I suggest setting aside about a half-hour and giving this a read when you get the chance).

Second, I have to establish and external reality. (My information was gathered from How to beat the Skeptic (http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/research/fara/moore.pdf)... I had to edit out a bit so the quotation would be too long...)

This can be done with simple simple reasoning (Philosophy):

Quotation Edited Out: The Top of the PDF reads "Do Not Cite Without Permission"...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Do you exist?
Do I exist?

If you accept that I exist, would you care to prove it? By own logic, it is entirely impossible to prove that exist, I might as well be a manifestation of your imagination. However, if you were to tell me that I dont exist, I'd be 100% certain that you were wrong. Interesting extension of what I was trying to go for. Beyond assuming that the mind exists at all, lifegazer is also assuming that those he meets through the "physical world" (i.e. us) also have minds. But why? The only evidence he has of us is that which he senses through his "external" senses.

He has no evidence of our existence whatsoever. If he had any consistancy, lifegazer would be a solipsist (whether or not he thought he was the solipsist or 'God' is).

Regardless, he must first answer my question before he'll be able to difinitively answer yours, simply because mine is the broader of the two.

[lifegazer]

From another thread. Deserves to be seen here...
Originally posted by RussDill
This is something science is trying very hard to do, and with the increases in computing power, is not that far away. I suppose from your pov simulating a neurnal net with machines will not bring about the same result as the real biological system, eh?

The sensations we have, the emotions and the thoughts - all are created by ourselves - by our Mind. Our Mind gives us 'hot' and 'pain' and 'itchy' and 'red' and 'sweet' and 'angry' and 'happy' and 'conception', etc. etc..
The Mind itself is the creator of abstract experience. The [supposed external] universe knows nothing of hot, cold, pain, etc.. That the Mind is the primal-cause of its own abstract representations of an existence upon its own awareness is a fact which cannot be doubted. Again, the universe knows nothing of abstract experience.
So no, we cannot create a robot which will have the same experience of existence as ourselves, since material processes cannot, by themselves, create these abstract experiences. Yes, they do influence our experiences, such as when a hammer hits me on the head and I feel pain. But the hammer does not create the pain... my Mind does.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
From another thread. Deserves to be seen here...

The sensations we have, the emotions and the thoughts - all are created by ourselves - by our Mind. Our Mind gives us 'hot' and 'pain' and 'itchy' and 'red' and 'sweet' and 'angry' and 'happy' and 'conception', etc. etc..
The Mind itself is the creator of abstract experience. The [supposed external] universe knows nothing of hot, cold, pain, etc.. That the Mind is the primal-cause of its own abstract representations of an existence upon its own awareness is a fact which cannot be doubted. Again, the universe knows nothing of abstract experience.
So no, we cannot create a robot which will have the same experience of existence as ourselves, since material processes cannot, by themselves, create these abstract experiences. Yes, they do influence our experiences, such as when a hammer hits me on the head and I feel pain. But the hammer does not create the pain... my Mind does.
I would agree with most of the parts you have here, lifegazer.

I differenciate between things which exist concretely and things which are abstract. I make sure to exercise clear distinctions between the sensation and experience and things which exist objectively.

However, the part where we differ is the fact that you do not want to see (or are incapable of seeing) consciousness as reducable down to a set of Materialistic principles. I would see it very possible to create a machine with consciousness (most likely in the distant future... probably a good 200 or 300 years away...). I wouldnt understand what it is that makes humans and other living things so special that only they can be self-aware or possess a capacity to think...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The sensations we have, the emotions and the thoughts - all are created by ourselves - by our Mind. Our Mind gives us 'hot' and 'pain' and 'itchy' and 'red' and 'sweet' and 'angry' and 'happy' and 'conception', etc. etc.. How is this less of an assumption than the material world gives us touch, taste, sight, smell, and hearing sensations? You're saying that the mind exists because we directly experience the sensation that are created by the mind. That's practically the definition of circular reasoning.

Can you prove that the mind exists without assuming that it creates all sensations or vice versa?

(Interestingly, you still seem to be avoiding the question of why you believe the sensations that tell you the mind exists but deny the sensations that tell you the material world exists.)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I differenciate between things which exist concretely and things which are abstract. I make sure to exercise clear distinctions between the sensation and experience and things which exist objectively.

But that's the point: These things which you say exist "concretely", are in fact abstractions derived via judgements pertaining to the base sensations.

However, the part where we differ is the fact that you do not want to see (or are incapable of seeing) consciousness as reducable down to a set of Materialistic principles.

But saying that conciousness/awareness/Mind is a product of the abstract things seen within awareness is irrational. Especially when it is clear that the Mind is the creator of those very same abstract things seen within its awareness.

I would see it very possible to create a machine with consciousness (most likely in the distant future... probably a good 200 or 300 years away...). I wouldnt understand what it is that makes humans and other living things so special that only they can be self-aware or possess a capacity to think...
This isn't a problem which can be solved with material manipulation, since matter (the universe) does not create abstract sensations, emotions, awareness, thoughts. It is clear to see that the origin of these attributes/functions rests with the Mind itself.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

But saying that conciousness/awareness/Mind is a product of the abstract things seen within awareness is irrational. Especially when it is clear that the Mind is the creator of those very same abstract things seen within its awareness.

This isn't a problem which can be solved with material manipulation, since matter (the universe) does not create abstract sensations, emotions, awareness, thoughts. It is clear to see that the origin of these attributes/functions rests with the Mind itself.

All very interesting, but completely meaningless. We can disect the brain, we can watch the brain, put it under a microscope, study it, etc. It looks like a very complex machine. All of the impulses that control the body come from it, all the sensory impulses return to it (except for reflex action, which short circuit), all the memories are stored within it, all the learned behaviors are stored within it, our ability to do things that make us human are within our brain (such as language, reconizing human faces, etc).

The brain in no way apears to be an antenna to some super Mind, but according to your philosophy, it is. So, you must explain:

In what way does the human mind capture signals from the Mind?

Does every neuron capture signals from the mind as well?


Two very important questions that would be key to your philosophy and would be very easily studied.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Lg: "The sensations we have, the emotions and the thoughts - all are created by ourselves - by our Mind. Our Mind gives us 'hot' and 'pain' and 'itchy' and 'red' and 'sweet' and 'angry' and 'happy' and 'conception', etc. etc.."

How is this less of an assumption than the material world gives us touch, taste, sight, smell, and hearing sensations?

It is clear that the sensation of 'pain', for example, is a self-given abstract experience for the actual benefit of the self. Your Mind lends abstractions (of sensations) upon its own awareness, and then also lends reason and emotion to [try and] make sense of what it is aware of. The judgements are what constitute you, but it is clear that your true identity relates to The Mind which creates the whole shebang for itself.

You're saying that the mind exists because we directly experience the sensation that are created by the mind. That's practically the definition of circular reasoning.

The Mind is the unified realm of sensation, reason & emotion, and the awareness thereof.
The Mind is shown to exist because IT (not 'we') is having these experiences and that they are self-given experiences.
May I remind you that in my philosophy, there is no 'we'. There is only the perception of things, which include 'we'. It is a singular entity which exists, in my philosophy, and which possesses self-given attributes of existence we define as the mind.
I propose that 'we' are existing in the Mind of God.

Can you prove that the mind exists without assuming that it creates all sensations or vice versa?

Whomever or whatever has possession of this existence, has definitely given these abstract experiences unto itself. Abstractions can only exist in a Mind... and can only be created by one.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer
This isn't a problem which can be solved with material manipulation, since matter (the universe) does not create abstract sensations, emotions, awareness, thoughts. It is clear to see that the origin of these attributes/functions rests with the Mind itself. Actually, a materialist philosophy can quite easily explain the origin of what you might call qualia. Our understanding of sensation, perception, thinking--all from a materialist view, of course--explains clearly the things that you feel must somehow be "mental". The growing field of cognitive neuroscience (again, a materialist perspective), as well as the older field of psychobiology, shed tremendous light on the physical nature of your "mental" experience.

Of course, the difference here is that these scientists can make falsifiable predictions and actually test to confirm or disconfirm their notions of how a particular brain structure, for instance, contributes to your perceptual experience. Your model only offers ad hoc, a posteriori "explanations". Your model makes no predictions at all as to what we might expect from a perceived but illusory physical world. The physical model, on the other hand, not only explains, but predicts your perceptual experience. (e.g., ablation of a particular neural pathway will lead to predictable perceptual deficits; the absence of a particular type of cone cell in the retina will lead to color-blindness).

I would love to be proven wrong here--please try to explain, in a testable manner (a falsifiable prediction, if you will) how the physical world works in your model, given that it is essentially illusory.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It is clear that the sensation of 'pain', for example, is a self-given abstract experience for the actual benefit of the self. Your Mind lends abstractions (of sensations) upon its own awareness, and then also lends reason and emotion to [try and] make sense of what it is aware of. The judgements are what constitute you, but it is clear that your true identity relates to The Mind which creates the whole shebang for itself.


he asked you "How is this less of an assumption than the material world gives us touch, taste, sight, smell, and hearing sensations?" you reply "but it is clear that your true identity relates to The Mind which creates the whole shebang for itself."

Lifegazer, please, make some attempt to answer the questions that people ask, instead of simply repeating what you said before.


The Mind is the unified realm of sensation, reason & emotion, and the awareness thereof. The Mind is shown to exist because IT (not 'we') is having these experiences and that they are self-given experiences.


hmm...upchurch pointing out that your reasoning is circular causes you to go in that circle once again, very interesting


Whomever or whatever has possession of this existence, has definitely given these abstract experiences unto itself. Abstractions can only exist in a Mind... and can only be created by one.

more circular reasoning, thats what he asked you to defend, not to restate. get a clue.

[Upchurch]

What Russ said.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
he asked you "How is this less of an assumption than the material world gives us touch, taste, sight, smell, and hearing sensations?" you reply "but it is clear that your true identity relates to The Mind which creates the whole shebang for itself."

Lifegazer, please, make some attempt to answer the questions that people ask, instead of simply repeating what you said before.



hmm...upchurch pointing out that your reasoning is circular causes you to go in that circle once again, very interesting



more circular reasoning, thats what he asked you to defend, not to restate. get a clue.
Look, the experiences of sensation, reason & emotion, upon awareness, are shown to be self-given abstract creations. They occur in and are created by the self which is aware of them.
It is a mind-reality because of its abstract nature. It is the Mind of God because it is the primal-cause of all [abstract] existence. It is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, in regards this existence.

You have to help me. Communicating these things is not easy.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Look, the experiences of sensation, reason & emotion, upon awareness, are shown to be self-given abstract creations.One step at a time: shown how?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
One step at a time: shown how?
It is a mind-reality because of its abstract nature.
The sensations had, the emotions and the thoughts - all are created by Itself - by the Mind of itself. The Mind/Self gives itself the abstract experiences of 'hot' and 'pain' and 'itchy' and 'red' and 'sweet' and 'angry' and 'happy' and 'conception', etc. etc..
The Mind itself is the creator of abstract experience. The [supposed external] universe knows nothing of hot, cold, pain, etc.. That the Mind is the primal-cause of its own abstract representations of an existence upon its own awareness is a fact which cannot be doubted. Again, the universe knows nothing of abstract experience. And only a Mind can.
It is the Mind of God because it is the primal-cause of all [abstract] existence. It is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, in regards this existence.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Look, the experiences of sensation, reason & emotion, upon awareness, are shown to be self-given abstract creations. They occur in and are created by the self which is aware of them.
It is a mind-reality because of its abstract nature. It is the Mind of God because it is the primal-cause of all [abstract] existence. It is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, in regards this existence.

You have to help me. Communicating these things is not easy.
Shown to be? By whom? Certainly not the experimental psychologists working directly in these areas for the past century!

Communicating these things is not easy...because they have no basis in reality, is my guess.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Look, the experiences of sensation, reason & emotion, upon awareness, are shown to be self-given abstract creations. They occur in and are created by the self which is aware of them.
It is a mind-reality because of its abstract nature. It is the Mind of God because it is the primal-cause of all [abstract] existence. It is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, in regards this existence.


stating your assumption again (It is the Mind of God because it is the primal-cause of all [abstract] existence.) will not help here. You have to answer the questions upchurch asked.


You have to help me. Communicating these things is not easy.

I know, the questions that upchurch asks in relation to your philosophy should be very difficult to answer.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It is a mind-reality because of its abstract nature.That's a possibility, but it isn't anymore conclusive than assuming a material reality that gives the appearance of a mind-reality. How can you conclusively show that it is a mind-reality?
The sensations had, the emotions and the thoughts - all are created by Itself - by the Mind of itself. The Mind/Self gives itself the abstract experiences of 'hot' and 'pain' and 'itchy' and 'red' and 'sweet' and 'angry' and 'happy' and 'conception', etc. etc.. You've said this over and over. That doesn't make it any less conjecture or any more fact. You're still assuming that it is the mind that produces the sensations rather than showing that it is the mind that produces the sensations.
The Mind itself is the creator of abstract experience. The [supposed external] universe knows nothing of hot, cold, pain, etc.. That the Mind is the primal-cause of its own abstract representations of an existence upon its own awareness is a fact which cannot be doubted.You've merely repeated yourself again from the last bit. Repetition is pointless.

Show that the mind exists without assuming the mind exists and then you'll have something.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That's a possibility, but it isn't anymore conclusive than assuming a material reality that gives the appearance of a mind-reality. How can you conclusively show that it is a mind-reality?
You've said this over and over. That doesn't make it any less conjecture or any more fact. You're still assuming that it is the mind that produces the sensations rather than showing that it is the mind that produces the sensations.
You've merely repeated yourself again from the last bit. Repetition is pointless.

Show that the mind exists without assuming the mind exists and then you'll have something. [/B]
The reality of Mind exists because the reality of abstract experience exists. We live an abstract existence. Fact. We live a mind-reality. Fact. No assumption there.

Now, the attributes of this existence [of Mind] are self-given. The Mind of Self gives itself its own pain, for example, for its own purposes. The [supposed external] universe conveys no pain to any entity. Entities create pain for themselves. Pain is a self-given abstract mind-experience. And so, similarly, is all sensation.
It is but a simple process of reason to know that this reality of Mind has created its own sensations. No assumptions here either.

Hence, the Mind is the primal-cause of every abstraction within its awareness. The Mind is the creator of this existence and is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient in regards these creations.

The reasoning is neither circular nor assumed. That you do not understand it is a different matter. I will keep trying to explain as long as I sense a genuine indication to comprehend on your part.

[Acrimonious]

Here are a few simple syllogisms.

a) If the mind exists, it would be able to sense itself.
b) The mind senses itself.
c) The mind exists.

x) If the mind is the only thing that exists, then everything other than itself that it senses is not real.
y) The mind senses a material world.
z) The material world is not real.


The problem is that you take a giant leap from C to X. You introduce a completely new, circular assumption and then trumpet loudly when the only output to any input into the syllogism matches the assumption, as if it was something clever or exciting that brings deep meaning to the universe. It's not. I can make circular, self-proving arguments all day long. It doesn't make any of them true.

You have yet to even give the beginnings of an explanation of how you've come to the conclusion that the mind is the only thing that exists. Upchurch keeps pointing this out, but you simply keep repeating the second syllogism over and over again, as if repetition was enough to make true any assumption based on personal dogma.

He's not asking you for X. He's asking how you came to X, especially since the same senses that The Mind uses to sense itself are also used to sense the Material World.

Where Upchurch and several other Materialists have stated many times that the Parsimonious view that "The Material World Exists" is simply an assumption based on multiple, concurrent observations from independent viewers, you seem to have a hard time admitting ANY part of the Church of Lifegazer is based on anything but 100% concrete fact gleaned from holy, divine inspiration from the One True Prophet (and only member), Yourself.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure He's not asking you to prove the world doesn't exist. He's asking you to show how you got from "The mind exists" to "The mind is the only thing that exists." That's where the logical flaw is, not in the obviously circular path you take from there on.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The reality of Mind exists because the reality of abstract experience exists. We live an abstract existence. Fact. We live a mind-reality. Fact. No assumption there.


Everything you just said includes no actual fact. You just made up some definitions, and within those definitions, what you said is true. You have created no new knowledge.


Now, the attributes of this existence [of Mind] are self-given. The Mind of Self gives itself its own pain, for example, for its own purposes.


I might point out that your wording seems to assume a purposefull assignment of pain, for which there is no evidence. From the materialist evolutionary point of view, pain was assigned and refined by eons genetic mutation.


The [supposed external] universe conveys no pain to any entity. Entities create pain for themselves.


true in the strictest sense, but again, it is not the entities choice.


Pain is a self-given abstract mind-experience. And so, similarly, is all sensation.
It is but a simple process of reason to know that this reality of Mind has created its own sensations. No assumptions here either.


No, you assume that the reality of the mind purposefully creates them, which is a huge assumption, I think I could drive a mack truck through that one.


Hence, the Mind is the primal-cause of every abstraction within its awareness. The Mind is the creator of this existence and is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient in regards these creations.


Yup, now you continue the assumptions. Can your mind create new sensations? no, can it bring an end to existing sensations? no.


The reasoning is neither circular nor assumed. That you do not understand it is a different matter. I will keep trying to explain as long as I sense a genuine indication to comprehend on your part.

circular and assumed, I pointed out the assumptions above, the circular part is where you say that "The Mind" creates all abstraction, and because there is abstraction, there is the mind. The whole point of this thread was for you to answer a few of upchurch's questions, which you still seem to be avoiding and instead, you continue to restate your assumptions as somehow it will make a difference.

[Upchurch]

Very well summarized and laid out, Acrimonious!
Originally posted by Acrimonious
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure He's not asking you to prove the world doesn't exist. He's asking you to show how you got from "The mind exists" to "The mind is the only thing that exists." That's where the logical flaw is, not in the obviously circular path you take from there on. This can be a very complex subject and, as such, can be approached severeal different ways. That's why I've had several different questions that center around same core subject. I think you've boiled it down rather nicely. I keep adding the bit about the inconsistancy lifegazer shows by rejecting the material world while accepting the mind, but after reading your post, I see that it may not be a necessary element of the argument at all.

lifegazer?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch

lifegazer?

I'm placing my bet that he restates his assumptions, and then mentions his third testement.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill


I'm placing my bet that he restates his assumptions, and then mentions his third testement. ARGH! I'm troll baiting again! It's like a frickin' disease.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
Here are a few simple syllogisms.

a) If the mind exists, it would be able to sense itself.
b) The mind senses itself.
c) The mind exists.

x) If the mind is the only thing that exists, then everything other than itself that it senses is not real.
y) The mind senses a material world.
z) The material world is not real.

Reference to a/b/c: The mind has sensations, thus deduces that It doth exist. The mind doesn't have sensations of the Mind. In fact, those sensations appear to be other things... hence the perception of a universe full of things, within awareness.

Reference to x/y/z: The things seen within the mind are clearly abstractions, appearing amongst the sensations. They are really just the energy of the mind, working to effect a specific appearance upon awareness.
Hence, every thing existing in the mind is clearly not real unto itself. The material world, as perceived, is not real.

The problem is that you take a giant leap from C to X.

Your problem is that you do not see that things seen within the mind are obviously not real unto themselves. There is no "giant leap" taken from c to x, especially as your syllogisms do not accurately reflect my philosophy.

This existence we all share is completely inner (to the Mind). It is completely abstract and founded upon mindful functions and attributes: awareness; sensation; reason; emotion; imagination.
Every thing else is gleaned from these base functions/attributes. They are things of the mind and do not, in any shape or form, refer to entities other than those seen amongst inner-sensations. I.e., there is not even a hint of an external reality.
My philosophy is founded upon irreducible qualia. Irreducible to all but the Mind which imposes them upon itself, that is.

You introduce a completely new, circular assumption

Where?

You have yet to even give the beginnings of an explanation of how you've come to the conclusion that the mind is the only thing that exists.

No human-being has any knowledge of, nor can reason without making assumptions for, the existence of a realm beyond the mind.
Also, the mind clearly creates its own abstract experiences = the mind is the primal-cause of perceived existence. Again, for example, sensations such as 'pain' are clearly self-chosen and self-created, for self-purpose.
'We' are witness to a Mind-existence created by that Mind!!!

Where Upchurch and several other Materialists have stated many times that the Parsimonious view that "The Material World Exists" is simply an assumption based on multiple, concurrent observations from independent viewers,

An external realm of matter cannot be confirmed by any amount of internal observation. All observation is internal. The laws of physics apply to things seen within perception. Science relates to internal order. Science speaks of internal behaviour. Nothing else. That's why philosophy is still priceless. That's why science is limited in what it can say.

you seem to have a hard time admitting ANY part of the Church of Lifegazer is based on anything but 100% concrete fact gleaned from holy, divine inspiration from the One True Prophet (and only member), Yourself.

It's true that much of my philosophy is original. Though the general conclusion is not. And a church, squire, is founded upon beliefs. I can assure you that whilst you may disagree with my reasons, you will always find reasons given for my philosophy if you enquire deeply enough.
I am presenting no system of belief here. I am presenting what I consider to be The rational truth pertaining to 'reality'.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure He's not asking you to prove the world doesn't exist. He's asking you to show how you got from "The mind exists" to "The mind is the only thing that exists." That's where the logical flaw is, not in the obviously circular path you take from there on.
I know what he's asking me. The last post on the previous page is also a good response to that. My philosophy is neither assumed nor circular. But it does appear to have been perceived as such by those that do not comprehend my philosophy.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


I'm placing my bet that he restates his assumptions, and then mentions his third testement.
I haven't made up my mind whether to do it yet. I don't want people to think I'm crazy.:p

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I keep adding the bit about the inconsistancy lifegazer shows by rejecting the material world while accepting the mind
We live a mind-existence. I cannot reject the experience which tells me of existence. Neither can I ignore the fact that sensations are self-given abstractions. There is no possible way that a rationalist could reject the reality of mind which is the only experience to be had.
Yet what can be said of an external realm, by reason or experience? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

There is no inconsistency here in my philosophy. You need to look elsewhere to try and find a hole for me to fall in.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

We live a mind-existence. I cannot reject the experience which tells me of existence.If there is no possibility that you can reject something, then you are taking its truth on faith, lifegazer.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If there is no possibility that you can reject something, then you are taking its truth on faith, lifegazer.
You're in complete denial upchurch, not me.
There is awareness, sensation, feeling, thinking, imagination. These are the experiences of existence itself.
Do you want me to pretend that there is no awareness, no sensation, no feelings, no thinking, and no imagination??

Reject the experiences upchurch, and you reject existence itself.

[lifegazer]

There is evidence of your God within this thread. Those that sweep it under a rug are insane. Not me.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're in complete denial upchurch, not me.
There is awareness, sensation, feeling, thinking, imagination. These are the experiences of existence itself.
Do you want me to pretend that there is no awareness, no sensation, no feelings, no thinking, and no imagination??I'm not denying existance nor am I asking you to prove that there is awareness, sensation, etc. I'm asking you to prove that these things conclusively prove that there is a mind. Thus far you have just assumed the relationship. Just because it seems like these things occur in the mind does not mean that it does. It's the same argument that you are using to deny the material world: just because it seems that I am typing on my keyboard does not mean that I am.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Reference to x/y/z: The things seen within the mind are clearly abstractions, appearing amongst the sensations. They are really just the energy of the mind, working to effect a specific appearance upon awareness.
Hence, every thing existing in the mind is clearly not real unto itself. The material world, as perceived, is not real.


You jump here to a conclusion without any support, "Hence, every thing existing in the mind is clearly not real unto itself". Instead of facing up to the arguments, you are again just restating your assumptions. Reminds me of a kid yelling "is so, is so, is so is so is so"


Your problem is that you do not see that things seen within the mind are obviously not real unto themselves. There is no "giant leap" taken from c to x, especially as your syllogisms do not accurately reflect my philosophy.


Here is the battle of assumptions. You assume that the world you perceive is not real, and instead postulate that it is a great illusion created by a superior intelligence. In the other corner, materialists assume that what you see is what you get. There is a leap either way, you just don't see your leap.


This existence we all share is completely inner (to the Mind). It is completely abstract and founded upon mindful functions and attributes: awareness; sensation; reason; emotion; imagination.


"is so is so is so" do something else besides restate your assumptions for once.


Every thing else is gleaned from these base functions/attributes. They are things of the mind and do not, in any shape or form, refer to entities other than those seen amongst inner-sensations. I.e., there is not even a hint of an external reality.
My philosophy is founded upon irreducible qualia. Irreducible to all but the Mind which imposes them upon itself, that is.


your philosophy is founded on assumptions and circular arguments.


Where?


"If the mind is the only thing that exists, then everything other than itself that it senses is not real." That is your circular argument.


No human-being has any knowledge of, nor can reason without making assumptions for, the existence of a realm beyond the mind.


only based on your assumption.


Also, the mind clearly creates its own abstract experiences = the mind is the primal-cause of perceived existence.


you need to start differentiating between "The Mind" and "A Mind". Otherwise, your babble is even more meaningless. A mind's purpose is to respond to stimulus, not create its own. (at least in the materialist worldview).


Again, for example, sensations such as 'pain' are clearly self-chosen and self-created, for self-purpose.


assumption of your viewpoint.


An external realm of matter cannot be confirmed by any amount of internal observation. All observation is internal.


No matter what, you could always postulate that we are a bunch of minds sitting in a vat. Such a theory though is silly, as there is no reason for it. However, you postulate an even bigger assumption, that is even self contridictory.


The laws of physics apply to things seen within perception. Science relates to internal order. Science speaks of internal behaviour. Nothing else.


Thats your assumption.


That's why philosophy is still priceless. That's why science is limited in what it can say.


Thats why your reasoning is circular.


It's true that much of my philosophy is original. Though the general conclusion is not.


Study philosophy and find that your mistakes have been made by others countless times.


And a church, squire, is founded upon beliefs. I can assure you that whilst you may disagree with my reasons, you will always find reasons given for my philosophy if you enquire deeply enough.


We've been enquiring pretty deeply, and all we get is your circular arguments and restatement of assumptions.


I am presenting no system of belief here. I am presenting what I consider to be The rational truth pertaining to 'reality'.


Humans make mistakes. Lifegazer is human. Lifegazer makes mistakes.

If you agree with this, you must admit that you may be mistaken. Do you think yourself more than human? Sounds like a belief system to me.


I know what he's asking me. The last post on the previous page is also a good response to that. My philosophy is neither assumed nor circular. But it does appear to have been perceived as such by those that do not comprehend my philosophy.

If you know what he is asking, you would reply rather than restating your assumptions.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're in complete denial upchurch, not me.
There is awareness, sensation, feeling, thinking, imagination. These are the experiences of existence itself.
Do you want me to pretend that there is no awareness, no sensation, no feelings, no thinking, and no imagination??


You assume that these are any more real than the material world.


Reject the experiences upchurch, and you reject existence itself.

When did he reject any experiences?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There is evidence of your God within this thread. Those that sweep it under a rug are insane. Not me.

uh-huh....Now we are all actively ignoring evidence...Woe is us, for we are afraid to believe. Did I fall into the raptureready boards by mistake?

[Mercutio]

I know I'm going to regret saying this, but...

Lifegazer, have you read Interesting Ian's "primary and secondary qualities" thread? (might not be the exact title, but close enough to recognise it). Over 2000 posts to it, most of them on a topic essentially identical to your philosophy. I suggest you read the whole thing. Most of what you have said here has been addressed there at length. Great length. You will find allies there, as well as counter-arguments. None of what you are selling here is new, so you might as well learn from your predecessors.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

We live a mind-existence. I cannot reject the experience which tells me of existence. Neither can I ignore the fact that sensations are self-given abstractions. There is no possible way that a rationalist could reject the reality of mind which is the only experience to be had.
Yet what can be said of an external realm, by reason or experience? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

There is no inconsistency here in my philosophy. You need to look elsewhere to try and find a hole for me to fall in.

I don't think that it is a whole to fall in but one that a truck could drive through.

The experience which yous ay causes you to believe that you have a mind is the exact same experience that you reject for the external world.

They are one and the same , your mind makes you believe you have a mind and your mind makes you believe there is an external world, there is no difference. reject one and you reject the other.

How can you say that you internal experienece has validity, when you reject the same experience for perception, they are the same.

there is no area where mind alone resides.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There is evidence of your God within this thread. Those that sweep it under a rug are insane. Not me.

I hope god can do better than this pitiful thread, you proof is so weak Mindgazer that it was rejected by most of the monists before you.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
We live a mind-existence. I cannot reject the experience which tells me of existence. Neither can I ignore the fact that sensations are self-given abstractions. There is no possible way that a rationalist could reject the reality of mind which is the only experience to be had.
Yet what can be said of an external realm, by reason or experience? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

There is no inconsistency here in my philosophy. You need to look elsewhere to try and find a hole for me to fall in.
I'll posit that my Philosophy is completely consistent, as well as having the added benefit of being accurate.

Well, I believe I did dig a hole for you to fall in, you casually ignored the post.

I'll kindly restate it:

Philosophical Inquery:

Do you exist?
Do I exist?

If you accept that I exist, would you care to prove it? By own logic, it is entirely impossible to prove that exist, I might as well be a manifestation of your imagination. However, if you were to tell me that I dont exist, I'd be 100% certain that you were wrong.

If for any reason you deny Materialism because the external world cannot be proven, yet you accept the existence of other things which cannot be proven (i.e. your Philosophy, my existence, your god), I would advise you to revise your Philosophy before someone like me labels you a hypocrite.

Does this help describe why your Ontology is inherently flawed? Sure, it might be perfectly fine in the ideal sense, but pragmatically it effectively accomplishes nothing.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Lifegazer, have you read Interesting Ian's "primary and secondary qualities" thread? That's the thread I was trying to think of waaay back when lifegazer first joined us.

A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25726&highlight=qualia)

Despite his claims of originality, most of lifegazer's claims are represented in that thread and most are far better argued.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm not denying existance nor am I asking you to prove that there is awareness, sensation, etc. I'm asking you to prove that these things conclusively prove that there is a mind.

I DID.
Awareness, sensation, reason, imagination, emotion: These are the only evidence of existence and they are abstract and intangible experiences. Intangible and abstract experiences relate to experiences of a mind, unsurprisingly.
Furthermore, I argued that sensations are self-given and have nothing to do with [a supposed] external realm. Any entity which feels pain, for example, chooses to have, and proceeds to create, this sensation upon its own awareness.
Hence, I argue that the existence of abstract and intangible experiences is created by an entity distinct from the material world occuring beyond it (presumably). This both distinguishes the mind as distinct from matter and shows that the mind is a primal-cause of the existence it perceives. I.e., the functions and attributes of known existence (sensation, etc.) are self-given and not dependent upon external processes.

Thus far you have just assumed the relationship.

No I have not. But we are discussing frontier philosophy here. If I assume you are sincere in hearing me out, I must make the plea for you (or anyone here) to really think about what I am saying.
***How can I be assuming the existence of a mind, when the only evidence of existence is self-given by intangible and abstract functions/attributes?***
The existence of mind-reality is evident by known experience.

Just because it seems like these things occur in the mind does not mean that it does.

Sir, where do you think abstract and intangible experiences can occur, other than a mind??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's the same argument that you are using to deny the material world: just because it seems that I am typing on my keyboard does not mean that I am.
Not it's not the same argument at all, and you still don't get that.
There is no evidence, through experience or reason, to suggest the existence of an external realm. Whereas, the evidence of existence - being intangible and abstract - doth mirror a mind-reality.
Not only that, but it can be gleaned that these abstract experiences are self-given and are independent of any [supposed] external realm.
Self-given experiences MUST be given in the mind of that entity. I.e., that experiences are shown to exist which are self-given is proof in itself that a mind does exist.

I'm looking for an improvement on the quality of response, in regards the posts I have read today in relation to the posts I made yesterday. May I remind you all of the profundity of my philosophy, and may I suggest that you forget your feelings for me, for once, and be sincere unto that philosophy itself. For God is bigger than all of us.

Best wishes to everyone here, at this festive time.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I DID.
Awareness, sensation, reason, imagination, emotion: These are the only evidence of existence and they are abstract and intangible experiences. Intangible and abstract experiences relate to experiences of a mind, unsurprisingly.
Furthermore, I argued that sensations are self-given and have nothing to do with [a supposed] external realm. Any entity which feels pain, for example, chooses to have, and proceeds to create, this sensation upon its own awareness.
Hence, I argue that the existence of abstract and intangible experiences is created by an entity distinct from the material world occuring beyond it (presumably). This both distinguishes the mind as distinct from matter and shows that the mind is a primal-cause of the existence it perceives. I.e., the functions and attributes of known existence (sensation, etc.) are self-given and not dependent upon external processes.
No, sir, you did not. Please read the thread Upchurch has linked in the post above yours. Please read the whole thing. Let us know what you think of it. It may be selfish of me, but I would particularly like your comments on my notions of "mind".

Furthermore, even an introductory psychology book's coverage of sensation, perception, and consciousness would help your understanding tremendously.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
No, sir, you did not. Please read the thread Upchurch has linked in the post above yours. Please read the whole thing. Let us know what you think of it. It may be selfish of me, but I would particularly like your comments on my notions of "mind".

Furthermore, even an introductory psychology book's coverage of sensation, perception, and consciousness would help your understanding tremendously.
Sir, I come here to you without doubt. I have no need or desire to read 2000 posts of a past thread, as I have no need to read 2000 philosophers from past history.
My claims are profound. Confront them, but do not treat me as another blade of grass from the field you already know. I am not the blade of grass you already know.

Whatever I need to say to gain your respect, I say. This is it. Christmas day.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Sir, I come here to you without doubt. I have no need or desire to read 2000 posts of a past thread, as I have no need to read 2000 philosophers from past history.
My claims are profound. Confront them, but do not treat me as another blade of grass from the field you already know. I am not the blade of grass you already know.

Whatever I need to say to gain your respect, I say. This is it. Christmas day. Happy Newtonmas to you, then. You may not know it, but you really have dire need to read that thread. Until you do, you can make no claim about your uniqueness. It is an assumption, and an unfounded one. Both Upchurch and I have read that thread, and it is my opinion (and it looks like his, although I cannot speak for him) that you might save a great deal of time and effort by seeing what others have already said.

Perhaps you are unique. If you read the thread, you can correct me as to why you are different from them. Until then...sorry, but you are not profound. Unless your claims of profundity are intended as a joke (or were typed by your hamster), they come across more as delusions of grandeur than of grand pronouncements.

Read the thread. You will understand why I recommended that you do...

Peace and love and all the good wishes of Newton's birthday...

[lifegazer]

Address my post, if you have the balls. Do not cite 2000 posts of a past thread which do not reflect my own philosophy, accurately, as a source of refutation for that philosophy.
What's up with you? Do I scare you? Do I repulse you?
Tough *****, hombre; for my philosophy speaks of an all-encompassing God. Not me. I am here as the source of a revolution - not as a source of past discussions which never amounted to zilch.
Talk about my philosophy or admit that you have emotional problems doing this. But do not bore me with the past that made no impact.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Address my post, if you have the balls. Do not cite 2000 posts of a past thread which do not reflect my own philosophy, accurately, as a source of refutation for that philosophy.
What's up with you? Do I scare you? Do I repulse you?
Tough *****, hombre; for my philosophy speaks of an all-encompassing God. Not me. I am here as the source of a revolution - not as a source of past discussions which never amounted to zilch.
Talk about my philosophy or admit that you have emotional problems doing this. But do not bore me with the past that made no impact.
Casual observation:

I have no idea what your concept of "God" is.

Which of these do you most identify with:

Deism - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Theist - Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Pantheist - Someone who believes that God and the universe are the same (i.e. God is Everything)

Panentheist - Someone who believes Everything is God (yes, Pantheism and Panentheism are different from one another, can read about it at PANENTHEISM VS. PANTHEISM (http://websyte.com/alan/pan.htm).)

Atheist - One who lacks belief in god(s)


You sound like a Pantheist to me, but I'm not entirely sure...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Address my post, if you have the balls. Do not cite 2000 posts of a past thread which do not reflect my own philosophy, accurately, as a source of refutation for that philosophy.
What's up with you? Do I scare you? Do I repulse you?
Tough *****, hombre; for my philosophy speaks of an all-encompassing God. Not me. I am here as the source of a revolution - not as a source of past discussions which never amounted to zilch.
Talk about my philosophy or admit that you have emotional problems doing this. But do not bore me with the past that made no impact.

OOOH OOOH, Lifegazer is making reference to things on the material world as though they exist again! He just mentioned Merc'c cojones, so he must believe in them even though he can only have an inner esensation of them, hey you perv!


See here is the problem Lifegazer:

You can not prove that you have those experiences! You may be able to think that you have them and you may indeed have them, but you can't prove that you have them!

It is one of the problems associated with irreducable qualia, and all that p-zombie stuff. You are such a goon Lifegazer, you are no more unique than any child that has latched onto the many breasted Diana, you are another blade of grass. If you read Whitman, you should read him aloud.

I think that you Hamster is posting again! Or that you are an r-zombie, you have all the signs of a reasonaing person but you lack reason.

Hamster!Hamster!Hamster!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Address my post, if you have the balls. Do not cite 2000 posts of a past thread which do not reflect my own philosophy, accurately, as a source of refutation for that philosophy.
I have. I have shown that it is founded on circular reasoning, and that it is not worth the powder to blow it up.

What's up with you? Do I scare you? Do I repulse you? No. You bore me. I have seen it before, which you would know if you read the thread.

Tough *****, hombre; for my philosophy speaks of an all-encompassing God. Not me. I am here as the source of a revolution - not as a source of past discussions which never amounted to zilch.
Talk about my philosophy or admit that you have emotional problems doing this. But do not bore me with the past that made no impact. If you think the past bores you, imagine having actually read the thread I speak of, only to have it show up here again.

Your philosophy does not even show the existence of mind, let alone of Mind, let alone of God.

Upchurch, if you read this, whichever of us posts next to this thread owes the other a beer.

Lifegazer, if you want me to take you seriously, show me that you take yourself seriously; read the thread we have referenced. If you do, and can demonstrate to me that you are unique and different from what we have seen there, I will publicly apologize to you in this thread, and buy Upchurch a beer. If you do not read it, I will recognise that you do not take yourself seriously, I will know this is all a joke, and I'll just buy myself a beer.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Address my post, if you have the balls. Do not cite 2000 posts of a past thread which do not reflect my own philosophy, accurately, as a source of refutation for that philosophy.
What's up with you? Do I scare you? Do I repulse you?


Interesting how lifegazer's response to dismissal is always the same "Are you stupid?, Are you scared?, I must be right, huh?". There must be a name for this paticular type of small mindedness.


Tough *****, hombre; for my philosophy speaks of an all-encompassing God. Not me. I am here as the source of a revolution - not as a source of past discussions which never amounted to zilch.


blah blah blah. Its like a thousand identical blades of grass are all yelling the same thing just before they get mowed. So tough cookies tonto.


Talk about my philosophy or admit that you have emotional problems doing this.


ah yes, anyone who doesn't agree with your beliefs must have emotional problems. Where have we heard this in the past?


But do not bore me with the past that made no impact.

You philosophy is part of that past, it has had, and continues to have, no impact.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Sir, I come here to you without doubt. I have no need or desire to read 2000 posts of a past thread, as I have no need to read 2000 philosophers from past history.
My claims are profound. Confront them, but do not treat me as another blade of grass from the field you already know. I am not the blade of grass you already know.

Whatever I need to say to gain your respect, I say. This is it. Christmas day. This says it all, I think. This is the impenetrable wall of arrogance which makes discussion worthless. Lifegazer is right because he is right, and anything else is details.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
See here is the problem Lifegazer:

You can not prove that you have those experiences! You may be able to think that you have them and you may indeed have them, but you can't prove that you have them!

Prove to myself that there is sensation upon my awareness and that I have the capacity to think and feel about those sensations?
How do I prove this to myself? By having sensations upon awareness and thinking & feeling about them, by any chance?
Palease.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
This says it all, I think. This is the impenetrable wall of arrogance which makes discussion worthless. Lifegazer is right because he is right, and anything else is details.
No it doesn't say it all, actually. What says it all is many a detailed post which you and most people here never actually address, prefering instead to parrot irrelevancies such as this.

Now, if your brain/mind ever engages, try talking about my philosophy for a change:-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm not denying existance nor am I asking you to prove that there is awareness, sensation, etc. I'm asking you to prove that these things conclusively prove that there is a mind.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I DID.
Awareness, sensation, reason, imagination, emotion: These are the only evidence of existence and they are abstract and intangible experiences. Intangible and abstract experiences relate to experiences of a mind, unsurprisingly.
Furthermore, I argued that sensations are self-given and have nothing to do with [a supposed] external realm. Any entity which feels pain, for example, chooses to have, and proceeds to create, this sensation upon its own awareness.
Hence, I argue that the existence of abstract and intangible experiences is created by an entity distinct from the material world occuring beyond it (presumably). This both distinguishes the mind as distinct from matter and shows that the mind is a primal-cause of the existence it perceives. I.e., the functions and attributes of known existence (sensation, etc.) are self-given and not dependent upon external processes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus far you have just assumed the relationship.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No I have not. But we are discussing frontier philosophy here. If I assume you are sincere in hearing me out, I must make the plea for you (or anyone here) to really think about what I am saying.
***How can I be assuming the existence of a mind, when the only evidence of existence is self-given by intangible and abstract functions/attributes?***
The existence of mind-reality is evident by known experience.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because it seems like these things occur in the mind does not mean that it does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sir, where do you think abstract and intangible experiences can occur, other than a mind??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the same argument that you are using to deny the material world: just because it seems that I am typing on my keyboard does not mean that I am.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not it's not the same argument at all, and you still don't get that.
There is no evidence, through experience or reason, to suggest the existence of an external realm. Whereas, the evidence of existence - being intangible and abstract - doth mirror a mind-reality.
Not only that, but it can be gleaned that these abstract experiences are self-given and are independent of any [supposed] external realm.
Self-given experiences MUST be given in the mind of that entity. I.e., that experiences are shown to exist which are self-given is proof in itself that a mind does exist.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Sir, I come here to you without doubt. I have no need or desire to read 2000 posts of a past thread, as I have no need to read 2000 philosophers from past history.
My claims are profound.


I don't know how many times you have to be told this before the penny finally drops, Lifegazer, but in order to be able to claim originality in philosophy you really do have to some idea of what has been written in the subject before.

In terms of originality you lose on every count imaginable.

The arguments against materialism have been made by myself and by Ian and by several other people in far more depth than you and with far more clarity than by you and having properly adressed far more of the objections than you. Furthermore, it is probably fair to say that within philosophy, many people rejected materialism a very long time ago. So nothing original there.

In terms of your arguments about how idealism must be true, not only are your ideas unoriginal but also incoherent and irrational. Indeed your main ideas seem to be that one does not have to diminish your ego to find Unity and that there is an anthropomorophic God. Neither of these ideas are original either, and worse than that they clash with most forms of idealism, and when these logical errors are pointed out to you you try to shrug them off with a laugh. You do not seem to understand that PHILOSOPHERS cannot just shrug off objections with a laugh. They must actually defend their positions.

Furthermore, even though idealism has had a rich history about which you are TOTALLY UNAWARE, where all the ideas of how it could work and how it could be known and how it could be described have been HACKED TO DEATH, it was eventually demonstrated that no system could ever be the "correct one" because language was incapable of describing it anyway. So the only reasons you THINK you are original is because

A) You are entirely ignorant of what has already been said.

and

B) Your own capacity for unbiased reasoning is extremely limited, and your "philosophy" is being driven by faith-based religous views about the nature of God and soul. This renders it not even philosophy at all - instead it is BAD RELIGION.

Your posts are about as profound as my backside.



Confront them, but do not treat me as another blade of grass from the field you already know. I am not the blade of grass you already know.


I have confronted them. Why you think I haven't is beyond me, since you have shown quite clearly that you cannot answer any of the questions I ask you, and you eventually claimed that if you DID answer them that you would deserve James Randis prixe money. You never did explain what was so prize-winning about telling me what carnivores would eat in a world with no killing. This is basic stuff, Lifegazer. This isn't "philosophy". It is like arguing with a biblical literalist you believes in a literal flood or literal creationism. In your case it is a literal paradise and an anthropomorphic God. The only difference is the biblical literalist would never dream of claiming divinity or originality or intellectual brilliance. Which makes you worse.




Whatever I need to say to gain your respect, I say.

You cannot say anything. What you can do is stop pretending you understand the answers to the worlds problems when in fact you understand f*** all. Learn instead of preaching. :(

[lifegazer]

Will somebody please point to the part of Geoffrey's long speech which actually addressed any of my argument. Thankyou.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Will somebody please point to the part of Geoffrey's long speech which actually addressed any of my argument. Thankyou.

And the pot calls the kettle black yet again.

Enjoy your christmas Lifegazer. Now I have a deer to roast.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Prove to myself that there is sensation upon my awareness and that I have the capacity to think and feel about those sensations?
How do I prove this to myself? By having sensations upon awareness and thinking & feeling about them, by any chance?
Palease. Now, prove that those sensations are not the product of external reality interacting with your physical body. Go ahead. I dare you. I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU!!!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
Now, prove that those sensations are not the product of external reality interacting with your physical body. Go ahead. I dare you. I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU!!!
My argument, if you read it, deals with this already. The part about the universe not knowing what things like 'pain' and the like are, thus proving that an entity who experiences abstract experience is the primal-cause of those experiences.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


And the pot calls the kettle black yet again.

Enjoy your christmas Lifegazer. Now I have a deer to roast.
Geoff, just once, address my philosophy head-on if you want to deconstruct it.
Enjoy your deer. I think I'll go for a walk on the beach before my dinner is served. Cheers.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My argument, if you read it, deals with this already. The part about the universe not knowing what things like 'pain' and the like are, thus proving that an entity who experiences abstract experience is the primal-cause of those experiences. That doesn't make any sense. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!! Prove that a 'universe' knows anything at all. Prove that 'pain' is anything more or less than neurological activity. Prove that there is a requirement of knowledge for existance. Prove anything, logically.(this may require you reading a book that doesn't have pictures in it)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
That doesn't make any sense. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!! Prove that a 'universe' knows anything at all.

That's my point. A universe of matter just moves around, changing structure and charge. It certainly doesn't know what 'pain' is, nor 'hot' nor 'cold' nor 'sweet', etcetera ectetera.

Do you honestly think that given the correct ingredients, all structured correctly, that you could bake a cake that was in pain?
Pain is an abstract experience which "the cake" must choose to have for itself, mentally, and hence which the cake must create itself for its own awareness.
You cannot create pain by material processes. You can only provide an environment where an entity may or may not choose to create pain for itself, as an abstract mental experience.

Prove anything, logically.(this may require you reading a book that doesn't have pictures in it)
I don't need to read a book to present a logical argument about irreducible qualia. And books without pictures are way too boring anyway.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't need to read a book to present a logical argument about irreducible qualia. And books without pictures are way too boring anyway.
"Irreducible qualia"?

I am afraid your rejection of an explanation of "mind" and qualia is a rejection motivated by ignorance of the mechanics behind Cognition and Personal Incredulity...

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's my point. A universe of matter just moves around, changing structure and charge. It certainly doesn't know what 'pain' is, nor 'hot' nor 'cold' nor 'sweet', etcetera ectetera.

Do you honestly think that given the correct ingredients, all structured correctly, that you could bake a cake that was in pain?
That's irrelevant, and you know it.

Pain is an abstract experience which "the cake" must choose to have for itself, mentally, and hence which the cake must create itself for its own awareness. Wrong and wrong. Pain is a concrete experience, cause by external stimulus causing neurological reactions in the body.
You cannot create pain by material processes. Wrong, pain is a material process, one I could show you in detail if you would like...

You can only provide an environment where an entity may or may not choose to create pain for itself, as an abstract mental experience.Wrong again...I don't choose what my involuntary neurological reactions will be.


Actually, here's a perfect test of your pseudo-philosophy: We'll hit you with large blunt objects(rocks, bats, penguins, etc.) and you choose NOT to feel pain, and we'll call you the winner if you don't cry like a girl and pass out, ok?

I don't need to read a book to present a logical argument about irreducible qualia. And books without pictures are way too boring anyway. You do need to read a book to present a formal argument, since you have never presented one correctly that I have seen in the last 2+ years.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
"Do you honestly think that given the correct ingredients, all structured correctly, that you could bake a cake that was in pain?"

That's irrelevant, and you know it.

No it isn't. In essence, you claim the brain is just like "a cake" which feels pain, since the brain is just a conglomerate of ingredients, structured just so.

Wrong and wrong. Pain is a concrete experience, cause by external stimulus causing neurological reactions in the body.

You can say that [supposedly] external stimulus has influenced an entity to create the sensation of pain for itself, but no external
process is creating pain.
Hit a rock with a hammer and will that rock feel pain? No.
Grant that rock the knowledge that it is being hit by a hammer... will it now feel pain? No.
The sensation of pain is chosen by and created by the entity itself(the rock in this case) for its own purposes (survival, usually). But the material universe does not order an entity to feel pain, nor does it possess the ability to create abstract experience.
A mind chooses and creates and sees abstract experience for itself. This is a fact - a simply obvious one - yet not a soul in here has the balls to acknowledge it, for they fear the repercussions of doing so.

Wrong, pain is a material process, one I could show you in detail if you would like...

My mind imposes pain upon me. Even as a response to a supposed external realm. I have no doubt that all sensation is created by my own mind.

Wrong again...I don't choose what my involuntary neurological reactions will be.

The Mind is of God, not of you.

Actually, here's a perfect test of your pseudo-philosophy: We'll hit you with large blunt objects(rocks, bats, penguins, etc.) and you choose NOT to feel pain, and we'll call you the winner if you don't cry like a girl and pass out, ok?

'i' (lifegazer) am the awareness created by The Mind itself. My sensations are real experiences. My pain is real.

You do need to read a book to present a formal argument, since you have never presented one correctly that I have seen in the last 2+ years.
I should be flattered that you still bother.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Prove to myself that there is sensation upon my awareness and that I have the capacity to think and feel about those sensations?
How do I prove this to myself? By having sensations upon awareness and thinking & feeling about them, by any chance?
Palease.

Ah, weeeeiiill, at least you responded.

The issue is that you may know that you have the experiences but I don't. That is the irreducable part of qualia. Please at least read the posts that Titus Rivas made on the primary and Secondary thread, and you will see that much of the rerriotory we are discussing was covered in that thread.

Most importanly is the barrier to knowing if a fellow being is consious. And this is not a gap created by the materialists, it is a gap created by the Immaterialits. In that because qualia are irreducable , and experience is irreducable, there is no way to tell if someone is having an experience or just lying about it.

So while we can learn to trust you and your hamster, there is no real way to tell if you really are having the experience or are just a machine pretending to have the experience.

This is a point well worth considering because it really shows the depth of the immaterial argument.(Which I don't buy but it is a valid argument)

So Lifegazer the question becomes this:
How can you prove that you have the experiences to another being?

[Zero]

This seems to be your logic:
Premises:
1)A cake is made out of several different materials
2)A brain is made out of several different materials
3)A cake doesn't experience pain

Conclusion: A brain doesn't experience pain.

This is similar in intent and outcome when I state that:

1) a cake is made out of several different materials
2) a diamond ring is made out of several different materials
3) a cake is edible

Therefore, a diamond ring is edible, right?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The issue is that you may know that you have the experiences but I don't.

That's not an issue at all.
I have deduced that 'i' (lifegazer) exist in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Mind, of Its own [perceived]creation. Nothing really exists except God. So, If there really is an awareness of 'you', beyond 'my' sensation of you, then you too exist within The Mind.
Consequently, there is no issue. Even from self-experience, my philosophy embraces every thing. I do not need to prove other perceptions of being exist. Nor do I need to prove that 'i' exist, as this philosophy uses sensations, reason & emotion as the base of its conclusions. Thus it applies to any entity who has these experiences.

Most importanly is the barrier to knowing if a fellow being is consious. And this is not a gap created by the materialists, it is a gap created by the Immaterialits.

It doesn't matter. Those that are aware of themselves through sensations, reason and emotion, exist within the God I have presented here and in other threads. Those who doubt their own existence have nothing left to consider.

So Lifegazer the question becomes this:
How can you prove that you have the experiences to another being?
I don't have to. My philosophy relates to all those that have sensations of existence. They know who they are. Any bots in here will not even know what a sensation is.
Are you a bot? Do you know you exist without abstract sensation? Can you be self-aware without inner abstract-perspective? No, you cannot.
Proving that there is an awareness of 'lifegazer' is not an issue, which is why I'm not even going to try and bother. Though if lifegazer doesn't exist, who do we attribute this philosophy to? The hamster?

Are you an atheist? I cannot remember.
I hope you and your family are having a pleasant X'mas.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
This seems to be your logic:
Premises:
1)A cake is made out of several different materials
2)A brain is made out of several different materials
3)A cake doesn't experience pain

Conclusion: A brain doesn't experience pain.

This is similar in intent and outcome when I state that:

1) a cake is made out of several different materials
2) a diamond ring is made out of several different materials
3) a cake is edible

Therefore, a diamond ring is edible, right?
Ease back on the X'mas sherry Zero. Save it for the cake.

My argument really wants you to consider the fact that any entity or object must choose and create the abstract experience of pain upon its own awareness, even as a response to [supposed] external processes. But external processes do not force an object to have abstract/intangible experiences (sensations and thoughts), nor do they create them for that entity.
Only a Mind can have abstract experiences. And only a Mind can willfully create them for its own awareness.
A Mind is the primal-cause of all known existence, for all known existence is abstract/intangible... and is self-created, with independent choice.

How's life at pf these days? I miss the place to be honest. How's Tom, AG, Mentat, Stephen? Are they still there?

[Zero]

You know what, Lifegazer? You don't have a leg to stand on. Not a one. Yes, our minds do the thinking, but without external reality, there is nothing to think about. Close your eyes, the world is still there when you open them again. While my brain processes the information from the external world, my brain does not create the external world.

The way I see your ideas is that they are like so: You look at a movie screen, and see moving pictures on the screen. My interpretation is that these are images of real things captured on film. You claim that they are created by the camera.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
You know what, Lifegazer? You don't have a leg to stand on.

Well I certainly know that you aren't addressing what I am presenting.

Not a one. Yes, our minds do the thinking, but without external reality, there is nothing to think about.

Which external reality would that be? You cannot escape the realm of inner-sensation, inner-reason, or inner-emotion, within your awareness.
If you've read this thread, you see that I show how things are not external to your awareness, but are judged amidst the sensations of your awareness. I.e., things are seen within the Mind's awareness.
We only know of an inner-existence. This is the whole point of my philosophy.
So give me my legs back and address my previous post.

Close your eyes, the world is still there when you open them again. While my brain processes the information from the external world, my brain does not create the external world.

Your brain is a part of the world of things. Your brain exists within perception.

The way I see your ideas is that they are like so: You look at a movie screen, and see moving pictures on the screen. My interpretation is that these are images of real things captured on film. You claim that they are created by the camera.
The analogy doesn't really work because in my philosophy, The Mind is the screen, the projector, and the audience, simultaneously.

[Zero]

In your philosophy, you accept anything that agrees with it without any logic or proof behind it to justify it.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No it doesn't say it all, actually. What says it all is many a detailed post which you and most people here never actually address, prefering instead to parrot irrelevancies such as this.


Yes lifegazer, you make detailed posts, but that isn't the whole story, here is how it goes.

a) Lifegazer makes a detailed post

b) Many forum members refute said detailed posts, with their own, detailed, piece by piece refutation's of lifegazer's post/philosophy/logic/reason.

c) Lifegazer "responds" to these posts. But instead of actually responding to the reason, questions, arguments in the posts, lifegazer just posts another detailed posts of his assumptions.

d). Lifegazer gets confused as to why people don't refute this second post.


Now, if your brain/mind ever engages, try talking about my philosophy for a change:-


(Good example of d here above)

Lifegazer, they would engage you if you bothered to engage them. There is no point to pulling apart your same assumptions twice in a row. Just because *you* think you are right and do not need to defend yourself and your philosophy doesn't mean that other people will see it your way.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Will somebody please point to the part of Geoffrey's long speech which actually addressed any of my argument. Thankyou.

Your argument was already addressed. You repeated argument/assumptions without engaging people's responses. This is what geoffrey's speech is about.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My argument, if you read it, deals with this already. The part about the universe not knowing what things like 'pain' and the like are, thus proving that an entity who experiences abstract experience is the primal-cause of those experiences.

There is a difference between a proof and an explaination lifegazer. Perhaps its time for you to learn this proof. For example, an explaination might be:

The sky is blue because it reflects the light off the blue ocean.

A proof would be much more involved and would discuss the wavelengths of light, the atomic structure of nitrogen, and include information you could use to make your own repeatable experiment.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Geoff, just once, address my philosophy head-on if you want to deconstruct it.
Enjoy your deer. I think I'll go for a walk on the beach before my dinner is served. Cheers.

He already has, many times, but if you don't respond to his reasoning and questions, there is no point in him addressing your argument again, because its a dead horse. You never did ask his questions he posted to you umpteen something times.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You cannot create pain by material processes.


I certainly can. Its pretty easy actually. It follows along the same line by which invetrebrets exprierince pain.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My argument really wants you to consider the fact that any entity or object must choose and create the abstract experience of pain upon its own awareness, even as a response to [supposed] external processes.


I already explained to you how this is forced by evolution. Thanks for ignoring the argument.


But external processes do not force an object to have abstract/intangible experiences (sensations and thoughts), nor do they create them for that entity.
Only a Mind can have abstract experiences.


yes, and a mind is an object that has abstract experiences...


And only a Mind can willfully create them for its own awareness.


No, a mind doesn't get much choice in the experiences it has. A mind is evolved to deal with the experiences it has in the best way possible. All of our evidence regarding human and animal brains is that they have been evolved to survive and breed, not make a cosmic descision for a diety. You completely ignore all of my attenna posts. Any reason why?


A Mind is the primal-cause of all known existence, for all known existence is abstract/intangible... and is self-created, with independent choice.


Fun watching you pull that one straight out of your ass.

[lifegazer]

Russ, up the quality or get back to the back row.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Russ, up the quality or get back to the back row. Up yours, Lifegazer...UP YOURS!!

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Russ, up the quality or get back to the back row.


Well, I'm a little airplane nrrrow
I'm a little airplane nrrrow, nrrrow
I'm a little airplane nrrrow
I'm a little airplane nrrrow, nrrrow
And wangity-wang, wangity-wang
I'm a little airplane nrrrow

I'm a little airplane nrrrow
I'm a little airplane nrrrow, nrrrow
I'm a little airplane nrrrow
I'm a little airplane nrrrow, nrrrow
And wangity-wang, wangity-wang
I'm a little airplane nrrrow

I fly in the dark (nrrrow-nrrrow-nrrrow nrrrow-nrrrow nrrrow-nrrrow-nrrrow)
Over baseball parks (nrrrow-nrrrow-nrrrow nrrrow-nrrrow nrrrow-nrrrow-nrrrow)
Well I fly late at night (nrrrow-nrrrow-nrrrow nrrrow-nrrrow nrrrow-nrrrow-nrrrow)
I got my little red light (nrrrow-nrrrow-nrrrow nrrrow-nrrrow nrrrow-nrrrow-nrrrow)
And wangity-wang, wangity-wang
I'm a little airplane nrrrow

I'm a little airplane nrrrow
You know, I'm a little airplane nrrrow, nrrrow
I'm a little airplane nrrrow
I'm a little airplane nrrrow, nrrrow
And wangity-wang
I go everywhere
Wangity-wang
I'm a little airplane nrrrow

:)

[lifegazer]

Geoffrey... that is actually an improvement on your usual quality. Thankyou.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Russ, up the quality or get back to the back row.

Ahh, the common lifegazer response to questions he cannot answer, insult the messenger.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Panentheist - Someone who believes Everything is God (yes, Pantheism and Panentheism are different from one another...
IMO, pantheists are monists, while panentheists are dualists, so I'd also classify lg as a pantheist.

[Wudang]

The point was first put to lifegazer soon after he joined by Mercutio. Upchurch restated the question several times afterwards with increasing clarity. Lifegazer continually ignores, evades or simply fails to understand the question. He insults those like myself who ask him to answer. He then starts new threads where he can start his cycle over again.

It's been long enough.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
The point was first put to lifegazer soon after he joined by Mercutio. Upchurch restated the question several times afterwards with increasing clarity. Lifegazer continually ignores, evades or simply fails to understand the question. He insults those like myself who ask him to answer. He then starts new threads where he can start his cycle over again.

It's been long enough.
That question being...
I need an intro.

[Wudang]

lifegazer, this is a new height of idiocy. You started the thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Upchurch

It's the same question I've been asking again and again. I don't believe that you do want to answer it, but I will clarify.

You claim that you do not believe that the external, material world is real because you have no evidence that it exists. Further, the only evidence anyone has for the external, material world is their perception or awareness of it. On the other hand, you claim that you do believe that the mind is real because you have direct internal perception or awareness of it.

However, in your last post, you stated that "Awareness is singular. All sensation is had within the same awareness." If this is so, then your awareness of the "external" world is the same as your awareness of the "internal" world. You cannot subdivide awareness into "direct" and "indirect" awareness because, if you did, awareness is no longer singular, as you claim, but would be a composite of two subcategories of awareness. Thus, you have the same amount of evidence for the existence of mind as you have for the material world: your awareness of it.

Since your only evidence for either the material world or the mind is awareness (not "direct awareness" or "indirect awareness", but just "awareness"), you cannot question the reality of material world without also questioning the reality of the mind. Conversely , if you accept the existence of the mind based on nothing more than your awareness of it, you must accept the existence of the material world based on nothing more than your awareness of it.

To accept one and reject the other means, based on your definitions, that it is not simple awareness of the mind that causes you to believe its existence, since you disbelieve in the material world despite your awareness of it. There must be, then, another reason why you believe in the existence of the mind and reject the material world apart from awareness. What is that reason?

[lifegazer]

I do not see why you think I evade giving answers to upchurch's question within this thread.
Below is a snippet of the conversation we had at the beginning of the thread. Here, I highlight the crux of the matter and also answer his question, imo. But feel free to expand and ask your own questions.
-----------------------------------

Upchurch:
As we have sensations of a material world, we also have perceptions of the Mind.

We don't have sensations of a Mind - we have sensations within a Mind, of other things. Note the significant distinction. The Mind itself - fundamentally, 'God' in my philosophy - is non-perceivable... is not sensed. Rather, the existence of The Mind, or God, is deduced from the things which are seen within awareness.
So, sensations are self-created effects of the Mind which give the appearance of other things in the Mind. But we do not perceive/sense the Mind.
------------------------------------

Upchurch asks why, if my awareness of things is merely assumed, that the awareness of my mind is not also assumed.
My answer is that the existence of the Mind is deduced from the direct experience of the awareness of abstract sensations upon awareness. I.e.,
(1) There is awareness...
(2) There is abstract sensations within it...
(3) Therefore, there is a mind.

1 & 2 are direct experiences - not assumed. 3 is deduced from 1 & 2... as well as the awareness of reason/thought & emotion.

Contrary to this, there is no deduction capable of taking you from abstract-sensation-->--->--external realm. That needs a leap of faith... an assumption.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I do not see why you think I evade giving answers to upchurch's question within this thread.
Below is a snippet of the conversation we had at the beginning of the thread. Here, I highlight the crux of the matter and also answer his question, imo. But feel free to expand and ask your own questions.
....snip....
My answer is that the existence of the Mind is deduced from the direct experience of the awareness of abstract sensations upon awareness. I.e.,
(1) There is awareness...
(2) There is abstract sensations within it...
(3) Therefore, there is a mind.

1 & 2 are direct experiences - not assumed. 3 is deduced from 1 & 2... as well as the awareness of reason/thought & emotion.

Contrary to this, there is no deduction capable of taking you from abstract-sensation-->--->--external realm. That needs a leap of faith... an assumption.

As has been said before, the step from 2 to 3 is an enormous assumption. Your theory is that the supposed observed phonomenon of "sensation" is best explained by your theory that "a mind" exists, whatever that is. And that "mind" is part of a vast "Mind" that generates all these illusions or mind fragments or "child processes" to use a trendy computing analogy. My theory if that a physical brain experiences these "sensations" and it generates the illusion of a mind. Why is your theory better than mine?
Unless of course by "mind" you mean "brain"? I've got one of those.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
(1) There is awareness...
(2) There is abstract sensations within it...
(3) Therefore, there is a mind.

As has been said before, the step from 2 to 3 is an enormous assumption.

Existence is experienced as abstract-sensations and abstract- thoughts and abstract-feelings. In short, experience is abstract. The reality of our lives is completely inner to our own intangible awareness. We live within our own thoughts, our own feelings, and our own sensations. We live within this abstract existence. We live within ourselves. No man has glimpsed any existence beyond the self.
This is all true, and cannot be argued against without the introduction of assumptions (of an external reality).

"The Mind" is just the label for this indivisible form of existence. You live within yourself. Your sensations are not outside of you.
Call it what you may. But the English language calls it a mind. The essence of everything abstract within it.

If we take a look at the direct experience of existence, we are forced to conclude that everything occurs within the indivisible and intangible awareness of what we label the mind. But you can call it whatever you like as long as you don't call it a 'thing'. Things are what are perceived to exist within It.

My theory if that a physical brain experiences these "sensations" and it generates the illusion of a mind. Why is your theory better than mine?
Unless of course by "mind" you mean "brain"? I've got one of those.
Your theory is really not deducible from the evidence.
Firstly, your perception of "a brain" is internal to your awareness.
Secondly, you need to assume the existence of an external realm in order to posit the existence of a brain which is distinct from everything else.
Thirdly, there is no credible science to explain how physical processes can yield abstract experiences.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Upchurch asks why, if my awareness of things is merely assumed, that the awareness of my mind is not also assumed.
My answer is that the existence of the Mind is deduced from the direct experience of the awareness of abstract sensations upon awareness. I.e.,
(1) There is awareness...
(2) There is abstract sensations within it...
(3) Therefore, there is a mind.

1 & 2 are direct experiences - not assumed. 3 is deduced from 1 & 2... as well as the awareness of reason/thought & emotion.

Contrary to this, there is no deduction capable of taking you from abstract-sensation-->--->--external realm. That needs a leap of faith... an assumption. There is a number of problems and contradictions in the chain of logic.

First, I question the assertion that awareness of abstract sensations is "direct" experience. The term "direct" implies that there is no intermediary between the awareness and the sensation. However, under the immaterialist assumption, abstract awareness of the "material" world also has no intermediaries. There are no eyes or ears through which we receive sensations because that would assume a material world, which we don't under the immaterialist assumption. So, our reception of the abstract sensations of the material world are also "directly" experienced, if anything can be, in that there are no intermediaries. As such, no experiences are direct or indirect, per se, as there can be no meaningful differentiation between the two concepts.

Second, part two of the above logic chain states that "There is [sic] abstract sensations within it." "It", of course, meaning "a mind". This is an important point to note: this statement assumes, a priori, that the mind exists. Claiming that abstract sensations come from the mind and, therefore, the mind must exist because it produces abstract sensations is circular reasoning. I will grant that the sensations exist, but to assume that they come "from within a mind" and then conclude that the mind exists is fallacy.

One could just as easily say:
1) abstract sensations exist.
2) abstract sensations come only from trees.
3) therefore, trees exist.

The existance of the mind is not deduced. It is assumed in (2).

Third, also dealing with the second portion of the logic chain above states that abstract sensations come from within the mind. That's just as much of an assumption as saying that abstract sensations about the material world come from outside the mind. It is very true that one cannot prove that sensations of the material world come from an actual material world, but how can one prove that sensations of the mind come from within an actual mind?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Existence is experienced as abstract-sensations and abstract- thoughts and abstract-feelings. In short, experience is abstract. The reality of our lives is completely inner to our own intangible awareness. We live within our own thoughts, our own feelings, and our own sensations. We live within this abstract existence. We live within ourselves. No man has glimpsed any existence beyond the self.
This is all true, and cannot be argued against without the introduction of assumptions (of an external reality).


I've already explained to you on many occasions, and you have always failed to refute it, you philosophy includes a reality external to your awareness. In your philisophy, it is not true that "No man has glimpsed any existence beyond the self.".

In your philosophy, our perceptions are given by the soley "god" part of the mind, the mind looks at a blueprint, and feeds the right perceptions. Since this part of the mind, and thus the "blueprint" are all external to our awareness, every man is glimsing an existence beyond self.


"The Mind" is just the label for this indivisible form of existence. You live within yourself. Your sensations are not outside of you.
Call it what you may. But the English language calls it a mind. The essence of everything abstract within it.


Actually, we have a lot of names for this, and I don't think any are accurate. Interesting you choose to use the definition of english words as part of your argument.


If we take a look at the direct experience of existence, we are forced to conclude that everything occurs within the indivisible and intangible awareness of what we label the mind.


But...you said there is a blueprint, and we are fed our perceptions...that isn't acouring within our mind. How can you disagree with something you are "forced" to conclude?

Also, I'm not sure why you are "forced" to conclude that the reality we perceive is not reality.


But you can call it whatever you like as long as you don't call it a 'thing'. Things are what are perceived to exist within It.


Really? I certainly perceive you and your brain to exist within reality, so I'll start calling you a thing then. Interesting how all your logic assumes that the materialistic viewpoint cannot be true. Seems like a pretty big weakness you aren't willing to address...in fact, you are very defensive when it comes to materialism, and you often lash out..very interesting.


Your theory is really not deducible from the evidence.


Neither is yours, you cannot deduce that I exist, much less a superior intelligence exists.


Firstly, your perception of "a brain" is internal to your awareness.


In your philosophy, our perceptions show us things external to our awareness, so why claim this?


Secondly, you need to assume the existence of an external realm in order to posit the existence of a brain which is distinct from everything else.


ok...and you assume that a superior intelligence is creating a vast illusion we all call reality (along with a bunch of other things). Also, how is posited that a brain is distinct from everything else?


Thirdly, there is no credible science to explain how physical processes can yield abstract experiences.

and this is some sort of proof? In the past, would you have claimed the lack of explaination for volcanic erruptions to be proof of a volcano god? You got some pretty weak proof/evidence here. What you'd have to do, is prove that science cannot and will not explain how physical processes can yeild consciousness. I've asked you this before, and you have yet to make an attempt.

[Upchurch]

I keep seeing lifegazer start to reply to this thread, stop, and then log off. I'll be generous and assume he's having internet problems and that it isn't that he's having trouble with his rebuttal.

[juryjone]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Hit a rock with a hammer and will that rock feel pain? No.
Grant that rock the knowledge that it is being hit by a hammer... will it now feel pain? No.


As long as we're granting things, grant that rock nerve endings and a central nervous system. Will it now feel pain? Yes.

Ooh, this is fun. Now I'm a philosopher!

[Dancing David]

Lifegazer:

I think you may want to rethink your use of the phrase, internal to awareness, it may imply the false impression that there is something outside of that awareness.

I don't think that you mean to use contradictory statements, but this is not coherent. perhaps if you continue to use the phrase then you are demonstrating a beliefr in something external to your awareness.

FYI.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I keep seeing lifegazer start to reply to this thread, stop, and then log off. I'll be generous and assume he's having internet problems and that it isn't that he's having trouble with his rebuttal.

Are you seeing that using the standard who's online available to everyone?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Andonyx

Are you seeing that using the standard who's online available to everyone? Yep. No secret mod trick here, I'm afraid.

Wouldn't real time monitoring be cool, though?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yep. No secret mod trick here, I'm afraid.

Wouldn't real time monitoring be cool, though?

No...creepy, really.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
First, I question the assertion that awareness of abstract sensations is "direct" experience. The term "direct" implies that there is no intermediary between the awareness and the sensation. However, under the immaterialist assumption, abstract awareness of the "material" world also has no intermediaries. There are no eyes or ears through which we receive sensations because that would assume a material world, which we don't under the immaterialist assumption. So, our reception of the abstract sensations of the material world are also "directly" experienced, if anything can be, in that there are no intermediaries. As such, no experiences are direct or indirect, per se, as there can be no meaningful differentiation between the two concepts.

I thought you were a materialist?
Anyway, of course there's such a thing as direct experience. "I see light", for example, is the direct experience of light meeting my awareness. Indirect experience is where you become aware of something without actually experiencing it for yourself.
I'm not sure why you make such a big fuss about this term (direct experience).

Second, part two of the above logic chain states that "There is [sic] abstract sensations within it." "It", of course, meaning "a mind". This is an important point to note: this statement assumes, a priori, that the mind exists.

Abstract sensations within "it" was clearly a reference to awareness.

Lock me in a completely dark sound-proof room. For argument's sake, let's conduct this thought-experiment in orbit around the Earth so that I float freely and feel nothing. I smell nothing. I taste nothing.
Yet I will be self-aware throughout. The lack of sensory stimulae would actually heighten my awareness of myself, since there would be little else to ponder. What I'm trying to say is that awareness is distinct from the things/sensations of which it becomes aware.

So, the abstract sensations occur within this intangible awareness. Awareness (I) sense light, for example. Or I sense noise. Or I sense pain. Etc.. Each time there is a sensation occuring within awareness (within me).

It is this abstract existence as a whole, which we define as "The Mind". The Mind is just the label we give to this indivisible form of existence. I make no leaps to a Mind. I merely assign a label to the intangible realm, as a whole. The Mind embraces intangible existence as a whole. The realm of Mind is simply the realm of intangible experience. And since intangible experience is a fact - the only fact, actually, of existence - then we can say with equal authority that the realm of mind is a fact also.

Claiming that abstract sensations come from the mind and, therefore, the mind must exist because it produces abstract sensations is circular reasoning. I will grant that the sensations exist, but to assume that they come "from within a mind" and then conclude that the mind exists is fallacy.

I actually argue that abstract/intangible effects can only proceed from an abstract/intangible cause.
I also argue that an entity is the primal-cause of its own abstract experiences. The [supposed] external realm does not know, for example, what pain is. Nor does it force an entity to have the sensation of pain. Nor does it know how to create the sensation of pain.
Conclusion: Any entity which experiences pain (any abstract sensation), is the primal-cause for the existence of that sensation. The [supposed] external realm does not effect abstract experience. Moreover, the experience of an intangible realm of intangible effects begs the presence of an intangible source.

One could just as easily say:
1) abstract sensations exist.
2) abstract sensations come only from trees.
3) therefore, trees exist.

I'm afraid not.

Third, also dealing with the second portion of the logic chain above states that abstract sensations come from within the mind. That's just as much of an assumption as saying that abstract sensations about the material world come from outside the mind. It is very true that one cannot prove that sensations of the material world come from an actual material world, but how can one prove that sensations of the mind come from within an actual mind?
Answered above.

[Dancing David]

Uh, LG, again you keep using that internal phrase which implies the external.

You said something about light contacting your awareness, is the physical body an extension of awareness?


"I see light", for example, is the direct experience of light meeting my awareness.


I feel that this statement does somehow make room for the body being an extension of awareness. And the sentence above would also imply the existance of something external to your awareness that your awareness is meeting.

In the 'Prove the Mind' thread I asked the question of what a child born without sensory stimulation would have as awareness.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Lifegazer:

I think you may want to rethink your use of the phrase, internal to awareness, it may imply the false impression that there is something outside of that awareness.

I don't think that you mean to use contradictory statements, but this is not coherent. perhaps if you continue to use the phrase then you are demonstrating a beliefr in something external to your awareness.

Saying that things exist internal to awareness does not imply that there is something beyond awareness.
I argue that the Mind is a singularity of being... without beginning or end, yet boundless and free to move within itself.
Read this for further thought: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28677

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Saying that things exist internal to awareness does not imply that there is something beyond awareness.
I argue that the Mind is a singularity of being... without beginning or end, yet boundless and free to move within itself.
Read this for further thought: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28677

That is well and good for you to say but it does not get around the dichotomy implied by the word, internal, the word internal implies external. So if there is awareness and then there is external to awreness there is a dichotomy.

And then you are again falling into the dichotomy of Mind and relative mind. If we are fragements of the Mind and are not aware of that , then there is the dichotomy again. Why would we be eborn with that amnesia?

I have read your threads Lifegazer, and you just dodge that question when it arises. To postulate the meta-awareness is a great thing but then you still have the issue of why that meta awareness manifests itself as fractured states of being. In that there are all these creatures (humans) which appear to have individual consiousness. So how does the meta-awareness get fractured into amnesiac awareness.

this is the dichotomy implied in your earlier statements about absolute awareness(Mind) and relative awareness (mind).

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I thought you were a materialist?
Anyway, of course there's such a thing as direct experience. "I see light", for example, is the direct experience of light meeting my awareness. Indirect experience is where you become aware of something without actually experiencing it for yourself.
I'm not sure why you make such a big fuss about this term (direct experience).


Well first it's you who has previously made "direct experience" a central tenet of your argument. Now you argue that light meeting awareness is direct experience therefore an external event (since it meets your awareness) is a direct experience.


Abstract sensations within "it" was clearly a reference to awareness.

Lock me in a completely dark sound-proof room. For argument's sake, let's conduct this thought-experiment in orbit around the Earth so that I float freely and feel nothing. I smell nothing. I taste nothing.
Yet I will be self-aware throughout. The lack of sensory stimulae would actually heighten my awareness of myself, since there would be little else to ponder. What I'm trying to say is that awareness is distinct from the things/sensations of which it becomes aware.



Rather disingeneous - you will be aware of your body (proprioception) unless you're anaesthetised. And sensory deprivation is a well-documented phenomena and the recorded experience illustrate clearly what happens when the brain is deprived of real stimuli. Really does not help your case.


So, the abstract sensations occur within this intangible awareness. Awareness (I) sense light, for example. Or I sense noise. Or I sense pain. Etc.. Each time there is a sensation occuring within awareness (within me).

It is this abstract existence as a whole, which we define as "The Mind". The Mind is just the label we give to this indivisible form of existence. I make no leaps to a Mind. I merely assign a label to the intangible realm, as a whole. The Mind embraces intangible existence as a whole. The realm of Mind is simply the realm of intangible experience. And since intangible experience is a fact - the only fact, actually, of existence - then we can say with equal authority that the realm of mind is a fact also.



Allow me to translate - whatever it is that's there is mind, therefore mind exists. Please indicate any points I've missed. Not exactly a string argument is it? There is sensation. Whether there is a "you" to sense it in any real sense is a very very very different matter. There is a cluster of things that we have been taught to recognise as "us" that arise from the phenomenon of sensation - i.e the sensation comes before the awareness not after.



I actually argue that abstract/intangible effects can only proceed from an abstract/intangible cause.


Really and why is that?



I also argue that an entity is the primal-cause of its own abstract experiences. The [supposed] external realm does not know, for example, what pain is. Nor does it force an entity to have the sensation of pain. Nor does it know how to create the sensation of pain.


"Pain" is just the label we give to priority nerve signals. Training allows you to override a lot of them for instance.



Conclusion: Any entity which experiences pain (any abstract sensation), is the primal-cause for the existence of that sensation. The [supposed] external realm does not effect abstract experience. Moreover, the experience of an intangible realm of intangible effects begs the presence of an intangible source.


Unfortunately your conclusion is based on badly flawed assumptions and poor logic.

Play again?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I actually argue that abstract/intangible effects can only proceed from an abstract/intangible cause.


OK, good start, but it still wouldn't be proof of a "master" mind. Let's examine it though. Why do you think that abstract cannot proceed from something that is not abstract?



I also argue that an entity is the primal-cause of its own abstract experiences.


Kinda sits on the previous assumption...


The [supposed] external realm does not know, for example, what pain is. Nor does it force an entity to have the sensation of pain. Nor does it know how to create the sensation of pain.


Already went through this, already explained to you how this comes about from a materialistic viewpoint. You views here are merely assumptions, you have not supported them in any way.


Conclusion: Any entity which experiences pain (any abstract sensation), is the primal-cause for the existence of that sensation. The [supposed] external realm does not effect abstract experience.


based on these unfounded assumptions, you've reached a conclusion...too bad it doesn't even prove a master mind. Also, the external realm does seem to have profound effects on abstract experience, brain surgery, brain damage, stroke, drugs, brain stimulation, etc.


Moreover, the experience of an intangible realm of intangible effects begs the presence of an intangible source.


in your opinion, but you can't just argue by opinion

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Saying that things exist internal to awareness does not imply that there is something beyond awareness.


but, you philosophy does assume that there is a reality external to our own awareness.


I argue that the Mind is a singularity of being... without beginning or end, yet boundless and free to move within itself.
Read this for further thought: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28677

Ya, you were pretty funny. You never did grasp the concept that for any reality, no matter how boundless and infinite, adding an extra dimension would bound it. I can do the same thing to your mind. Whoop-de-do.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
That is well and good for you to say but it does not get around the dichotomy implied by the word, internal, the word internal implies external. So if there is awareness and then there is external to awreness there is a dichotomy.

How can there be an external reality existing in relation to a boundless singularity? It's impossible squire.
The Mind looks within itself because there is nowhere else to go.

And then you are again falling into the dichotomy of Mind and relative mind. If we are fragements of the Mind and are not aware of that , then there is the dichotomy again. Why would we be eborn with that amnesia?

That's a decision made by The Mind itself. You ask why it would lose itself within its perceptions. In fact you think this is impossible to do. And yet, each night, most of us are completely fooled into believing the crazy dreams that dance within our awareness.
The Mind can lose itself within its perceptions. Dreams are a proof of this. The reason? Well, it seems obvious to me: relative experience and the ability to make choices.

So how does the meta-awareness get fractured into amnesiac awareness.

How does God create the universe?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How can there be an external reality existing in relation to a boundless singularity? It's impossible squire.


Boundless does not imply infinite - hence the comment about added dimensions. Kindergarten stuff in cosmology.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I thought you were a materialist?
Anyway, of course there's such a thing as direct experience. "I see light", for example, is the direct experience of light meeting my awareness. Indirect experience is where you become aware of something without actually experiencing it for yourself. First, my being a matieralist, immaterialist, or something in between is irrelevent to the discussion at hand. The ability to divorce oneself of one's personal preferences, prejudices and beliefs is the hallmark of a critical, analytical thinker.

Second, the meanings of the terminology used here are mixed. Take, for example, the line, "'I see light'...is the direct experience of light meeting my awareness." Light is a physical phenomenon. As such, it does not exist from an immaterialist assumption. Even so, light does not directly impact on the awareness. The sensation of light impacts on the awareness, thus creating the experience.

Third, the last part of the above comment, "Indirect experience is where you become aware of something without actually experiencing it for yourself," is contradictory to the above assertion that light can be experienced directly, nor is it in keeping with the immaterialist assumption (i.e. all material world phenomenon are experienced indirectly).

Further, one might ask how one becomes aware of something without experiencing or having sensation of it, as is implied by the last line above. One certainly has sensation of the external world, noting the light example above. By that definition, anything that provides sensation would not be indirect experience.

Given the conflict between the meanings of "direct" and "indirect experience" in the above statements, I'm not sure how to continue as there seems to be no clear differentiation between the two.
Abstract sensations within "it" was clearly a reference to awareness.I appologise. It was not very clear at all.
Lock me in a completely dark sound-proof room. For argument's sake, let's conduct this thought-experiment in orbit around the Earth so that I float freely and feel nothing. I smell nothing. I taste nothing.
Yet I will be self-aware throughout. The lack of sensory stimulae would actually heighten my awareness of myself, since there would be little else to ponder. What I'm trying to say is that awareness is distinct from the things/sensations of which it becomes aware.

So, the abstract sensations occur within this intangible awareness. Awareness (I) sense light, for example. Or I sense noise. Or I sense pain. Etc.. Each time there is a sensation occuring within awareness (within me).Here we have another contradiction. It is claimed in the last paragraph that sensations occur with awareness. However, in the thought experiment in the first paragraph, it is stipulated that someone is locked in what amounts to a sensory deprivation chamber, which assumes a material object (which, in itself, is contradictory to the immaterialist assumption). If sensation originates entirely from within awareness, it should be a moot point to use a sensory deprivation chamber to cut off so-called "external" or "indirect" sensations. They don't exist in the first place. If anything, the sensory deprivation chamber experiment only proves to strengthen the idea that there is external sensory input.

I actually argue that abstract/intangible effects can only proceed from an abstract/intangible cause.
I also argue that an entity is the primal-cause of its own abstract experiences. The [supposed] external realm does not know, for example, what pain is. Nor does it force an entity to have the sensation of pain. Nor does it know how to create the sensation of pain.
Conclusion: Any entity which experiences pain (any abstract sensation), is the primal-cause for the existence of that sensation. The [supposed] external realm does not effect abstract experience. Moreover, the experience of an intangible realm of intangible effects begs the presence of an intangible source.The labeling of certain sensations as "painful" or "pleasurable" by the mind in no way indicates the source of those sensations. That sensations are interpreted differently by the mind after they are received only indicates that they are processed differently and speaks nothing of their origin.

When a keyboard sends a keystroke command to the computer, the keyboard knows nothing about what the computer will do once it receives the command. Ctrl+F2 could have vastly different results based on the program the computer is running, but the keyboard will know nothing of this. From this, then, can we conclude that there is no keyboard and that the computer generated the keystroke command by itself?

In your own words: I'm afraid not.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang


Boundless does not imply infinite - hence the comment about added dimensions. Kindergarten stuff in cosmology.
Boundless implies no beginning or end, so that distance/length and time are completely subjective concepts of the mind. Relative.
Enter Einstein.

[lifegazer]

Upchurch, what are the key areas of a 'immaterialist' and myself?
To be honest, I'm not 100% sure.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Boundless implies no beginning or endMuch like a circle and a circle is not infinite. Please stick to the topic.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Upchurch, what are the key areas of a 'immaterialist' and myself? In a nutshell, an immaterialist believes that the material world does not exist. Most also tend to make claims of direct and indirect experiences, as you do, but can never distinguish why what they consider to be direct experiences are any more trustworthy than what they consider to be indirect experiences. Thus, my question to you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Much like a circle and a circle is not infinite. Please stick to the topic.
A circle is not boundless. A circle has the bounds which exist, perpendicular to its surface, between it and something else.
And since the subject appears to be about the reality of the mind, and since somebody has asked me about the external reality to the mind, I have felt compelled to mention this boundlessness.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Boundless implies no beginning or end,


Bundless means no boundry, saying no beginning or end limits the term beyond what is necessary. The can be other types of boundries that do not make sense in relation to "beginning" or "end".


so that distance/length and time are completely subjective concepts of the mind. Relative.
Enter Einstein.

Its been already explained on numerous boards that this in not what einstien said, and that the mind has nothing to do with relativity (or QM either). You have yet to show anything of the sort.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A circle is not boundless. A circle has the bounds which exist, perpendicular to its surface, between it and something else.


You are placing the circle in a seperate reality. The circle is no longer just a circle, it's a circle in a 3d space. The circle on its own, with it's 1 dimensional space, had no bounds.

Another example is a 2d plane, infinate, unbounded. Put it into a 3d volume, suddenly, it's bounded at every point.

Another example is a 3d volume, infinite, unbounded, in every direction, put it in a 4d volume, and it's bounded at every point.

Another example is your Mind, infinite, unbounded, through in 2 or 3 more seperate minds, and suddenly your mind is bounded.

Ah you say, "but I already said, that all of reality is the mind, you can't throw any other seperate minds in there, up the quality or go sit in the back row"

He is the crux, you define your reality, I cannot change that definition and then make claims about this new different reality, and claim they relate to yours. If I define a reality as a 2d plane, and just a 2d plane, you can't throw it into a 3d volume, you are changing my definition of reality, you are making an argument about something completly different.

Same holds true for reality as the surface of a hypersphere.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A circle is not boundless. Please stop avoiding the question by diverting onto unrelated questions like this. A circle is an example of something that is boundless but not infinite. In two dimensions, it would be a sphere. In three dimensions, it would be a hyper-sphere. Boundless does not imply infinite. Get over it.

[lifegazer]

You ask me why I assume the existence of mind, yet the only knowledge of existence I have, is abstract/intangible (sensation, thought, feeling), occuring within equally-intangible awareness (me). By definition, we label this whole of abstract existence as the Mind. There is no leap. Just a realisation that there is an intangible existence which we label as a whole.

The experience of sensation cannot occur externally to an abstract/intangible awareness. Thus, it is with authority that I state that abstract sensation occurs within abstract awareness.
It is also with authority that I state the non-existence of an external realm to an abstract realm. For in what sense can something exist next to, beyond, or outside of something intangible?

Also, let it be known that the knowledge of all things is, in fact, the knowledge of the order present within the sensations... within the mind. Hence, all knowledge is derived from inside the mind. You know of no thing existing externally to the mind. You only know of things existing within the mind's perception. It is in fact ridiculous to be talking about external brains or external any-things.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Please stop avoiding the question by diverting onto unrelated questions like this. A circle is an example of something that is boundless but not infinite. In two dimensions, it would be a sphere. In three dimensions, it would be a hyper-sphere. Boundless does not imply infinite. Get over it.
I'm sorry, but I cannot allow for incorrect reasoning. A circle is not boundless. I've already explained why.

[RussDill]

certainly, threads like these are proof alone that a circle in finite and boundless. Around and around we go, each time around, hearing the same stuff from lifegazer, with no bound in sight :p

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm sorry, but I cannot allow for incorrect reasoning. A circle is not boundless. I've already explained why.

Care to tear the counter arguments to bits then?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm sorry, but I cannot allow for incorrect reasoning. A circle is not boundless. I've already explained why. I'm not going to waste time explaining mathematics to you. When you have any experience in the subject and can discuss it with any actual knowledge, then we'll talk. In another thread.

[scribble]

...the only winning move...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


Care to tear the counter arguments to bits then?
Easy peasy... on the morrow Russ. I now yearn to lose myself to other perceptions of being. I yearn to sleep and to dream. G'night.

[lifegazer]

Scribble, you have no winning moves. And upchurch, mathematics cannot deny the boundary which exists between the surface of a circle (or any object) and something else. If no such boundary exists, then no such surface can exist either.
Simply obvious Upchurch, no matter what they brainwashed you with.
Now I'm going...

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You ask me why I assume the existence of mind,


I think more importantly, why do you assume the existence of The Mind, not yours


yet the only knowledge of existence I have, is abstract/intangible (sensation, thought, feeling), occuring within equally-intangible awareness (me). By definition, we label this whole of abstract existence as the Mind.


No, some of us label it "a mind", many of us when using that termilogy, understand that it's a poor description. *You*, all the sudden claim "The Mind". I'm not sure how you jump from "I exist" to "A superior intelligence exists"


There is no leap. Just a realisation that there is an intangible existence which we label as a whole.


really, what about the above leap, where you assume that because you exist, a superior intelligence does?


The experience of sensation cannot occur externally to an abstract/intangible awareness.


Your whole blue print thing explains it this way, sensations of things external to our own awareness.


Thus, it is with authority that I state that abstract sensation occurs within abstract awareness.


Right, I've posted the thing about our perception of external reality coming to us from an origin external to our reality, by you addmisison. And yet, you keep stating otherwise. Care to explain?


It is also with authority that I state the non-existence of an external realm to an abstract realm. For in what sense can something exist next to, beyond, or outside of something intangible?


Easy, anything we define as intangible is simply a result of tangible processes. Was that so hard?


Also, let it be known that the knowledge of all things is, in fact, the knowledge of the order present within the sensations... within the mind. Hence, all knowledge is derived from inside the mind. You know of no thing existing externally to the mind. You only know of things existing within the mind's perception. It is in fact ridiculous to be talking about external brains or external any-things.

once again, you are muttering things up. By your philosophy, it is true, we know nothing external to "The Mind", but all of our sensations, even in your philosophy, come from a source external to our own awareness. Your philosophy contridicts it, you have been ignoring this contridiction for some time now, I imagine it might be because you are so convinced you are right, so you are waiting for yourself to come up with an explaination.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Most importanly is the barrier to knowing if a fellow being is consious.
Yeah, it's called solipsism.


And this is not a gap created by the materialists, it is a gap created by the Immaterialits. In that because qualia are irreducable , and experience is irreducable, there is no way to tell if someone is having an experience or just lying about it.
Other than yourself. To me anyway it is self-evident that *I* am needed to have any experience.

I didn't realize the materialist position (as opposed to dualism or idealism which has not) had proved that solipsism is false. Can you cite something, or is it your own work?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Easy peasy... on the morrow Russ. I now yearn to lose myself to other perceptions of being. I yearn to sleep and to dream. G'night.

so you gave up attempting to argue my post. I see your misunderstanding continues, because you claim a circle has a surface. Care to then calculate the surface area of a circle? (I'll give you a hint, calculate the surface area of a singularity first)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by scribble
...the only winning move... Too true. How does one compete with blinding ignorance?

Blinding ignorance.... Maybe Paul could use that...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How can there be an external reality existing in relation to a boundless singularity? It's impossible squire.
The Mind looks within itself because there is nowhere else to go.


But again you have always brought it back to the singular event of the internal awareness creating what you call abstract sensations. So you have said that awareness is an internal event of awareness of the singualr. A physical body feels pain because it creates the sensation from the interaction with the external world. Then you suddenly jump to the meta mind as the singular source, whcih is the monist position.

But I fail to see how you can make the switch back to the microcosm, I understand the macrocosmic argument. But you say that pain is a product of the internal awareness, what is that singular internala wareness meeting and then creating the sensation about. There are two scasles in your discussion, and you have made reference to your own internal awarenss, so what is external to that singular awareness?


That's a decision made by The Mind itself. You ask why it would lose itself within its perceptions. In fact you think this is impossible to do. And yet, each night, most of us are completely fooled into believing the crazy dreams that dance within our awareness.


See there is that macrocosmic micro cosmic link again, so does the meta mind sleep? Or have hallucinations. I think that it is dangerous top try to link the meta-mind to the human mind, because whatever the meta-mind is, by definition it cannot be like our organic mind. Why would the meta-mind need to sleep, or have strokes for example.

The Mind can lose itself within its perceptions. Dreams are a proof of this. The reason? Well, it seems obvious to me: relative experience and the ability to make choices.

So you can chose to dream.
How does God create the universe?

That is a really good question!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
You are placing the circle in a seperate reality. The circle is no longer just a circle, it's a circle in a 3d space. The circle on its own, with it's 1 dimensional space, had no bounds.

A circle within a 1-d space is a concept of the mind. Furthermore, there is still a distinct boundary between the surface of that circle and the space which embraces it.
The surface of an object earmarks the distinction between it and something else.
Hence, all finite objects, with surfaces, have boundaries of existence.

Another example is a 2d plane, infinate, unbounded. Put it into a 3d volume, suddenly, it's bounded at every point.

The surface of a 2-d plane earmarks the distinction between it and something else.
Actually, a 2-d plane can only exist as a concept. A 2-d plane with zero thickness (zero width) obviously cannot exist as a tangible object.
Similar reasoning destroys the credibility of current string theories.

All finite objects - even conceptual entities - have boundaries which distinguish between the existence of themselves and the existence of something else.

[lifegazer]

Ultimately, I reduce everything to a perception within the mind of God... within the intangible/abstract (spirit?) existence of God.

God, the absolute self of existence, the totality of existence, has the ability to create perceptions for itself and lose itself amongst those perceptions. Exactly along the same lines as a dream. The mind creates the perception of the dream and loses itself within that dream.

There is no 'we'. There is no 'me'. There is no hamster (sob). There is just God, lost within its own created dream, playing the parts of the whole, for the sake of the whole... for God's sake.

God is the creator and the player, simultaneously. In dreams, I have observable evidence that this can and does happen. And then I have my philosophy.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Ultimately, I reduce everything to a perception within the mind of God... within the intangible/abstract (spirit?) existence of God.

God, the absolute self of existence, the totality of existence, has the ability to create perceptions for itself and lose itself amongst those perceptions. Exactly along the same lines as a dream. The mind creates the perception of the dream and loses itself within that dream.

There is no 'we'. There is no 'me'. There is no hamster (sob). There is just God, lost within its own created dream, playing the parts of the whole, for the sake of the whole... for God's sake.

God is the creator and the player, simultaneously. In dreams, I have observable evidence that this can and does happen. And then I have my philosophy. Can you make any predictions based on your philosophy?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Ultimately, I reduce everything to a perception within the mind of God... within the intangible/abstract (spirit?) existence of God.

God, the absolute self of existence, the totality of existence, has the ability to create perceptions for itself and lose itself amongst those perceptions. Exactly along the same lines as a dream. The mind creates the perception of the dream and loses itself within that dream.

There is no 'we'. There is no 'me'. There is no hamster (sob). There is just God, lost within its own created dream, playing the parts of the whole, for the sake of the whole... for God's sake.

God is the creator and the player, simultaneously. In dreams, I have observable evidence that this can and does happen. And then I have my philosophy.

Yes, you have said this before, but i don't see why your experience would have anything to do with the experience of a meta-mind. Why should the meta-mind be even remotely like your brain events.

Just because you imagine it so is not sufficient. So your puny mind is evidence for how the meta-mind operates, I find that to be a lcking line of reasoning.

Let us say that the meta-mind is like the body and the individual minds are like cells, the experience of a little cell is vastly different from the experience of the body as a whole. this is a really weak anaology but i think it shows the mistake of assuming the possiblity of a whole from the parts.

What does this have to do with Upchurches question, physical sensations are directly experienced by the 'mind', thoughts are directly experienced by the 'mind'. To assume that there is any difference is to assume that there is something external to the mind. Qualia are irreducable because they are a 'mental' phenomena, they are a direct experience of the mind caused by interaction with the sense organs, thoughts are a direct experience of the mind produced by brain events.
I think that you have created a dichotomy by saying that thoughts are a direct experience of mind and the qualia are not.
the proof of both is the same, a product of introspection.
One light, one mind, if yousa ythat there are direct and indirect experience then you create a dichotomy.
And that is what the question is about. I have read the prior posts and I don't understand the distictions you have made.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A circle within a 1-d space is a concept of the mind.


You are getting close here to understanding. The concept of any space is merely that, a concept, that may or may not describe reality. So 2d space is a concept, 3d spcae is a concept, 4d space is a concept, etc. In this list, 3d space is in no way special.


Furthermore, there is still a distinct boundary between the surface of that circle and the space which embraces it.


Anything 1 dimensional has no surface area, it only has length. Just like a plane has no volume. If you really think a circle has a surface, I challenge you to find it. In the same way that a point or singularity has no surface area, niether does a circle or 1d line.

And once again, if you only describe the circle, then you haven't described any space embracing it. You are assuming that the concept of 3d space is somehow special, and that all objects or spaces belong in a 3d space. What about a 5d object or space? That certainly cannot belong in a 3d space.


The surface of an object earmarks the distinction between it and something else.
Hence, all finite objects, with surfaces, have boundaries of existence.


but in a 2d world, a plane is infinite, and has no surface, does it not? It only becomes bounded if you place it into a 3d space. Same with a line, it only becomes bounded if you place it into a 2d space. And a point, it only becomes bounded if you place it in a 1d space


The surface of a 2-d plane earmarks the distinction between it and something else.


Again, only in a 3d space, does a 2d plane have a surface. I challenge you to find the surface of a 2d plane in a 2d reality.


Actually, a 2-d plane can only exist as a concept. A 2-d plane with zero thickness (zero width) obviously cannot exist as a tangible object.


The wheels are starting to turn here again, "A 2d plane is only a concept". OK, what about the 3d equivilent, a volume? That also exists as a concept, *especially* in your philosophy. You of all people should realize this. And the concept of a 3d volume is no more special than the concept of a 2d plane.


Similar reasoning destroys the credibility of current string theories.


No it doesn't. Why would 0d points be able to exist, but not 1d strings?


All finite objects - even conceptual entities - have boundaries which distinguish between the existence of themselves and the existence of something else.

By saying this, you are assuming that something else exists. You only addressed the introduction of my post btw, the part that went over stuff you already had disputed, you failed to get to any of the difficult (for you parts) so here you go

Another example is a 3d volume, infinite, unbounded, in every direction, put it in a 4d volume, and it's bounded at every point.

Another example is your Mind, infinite, unbounded, through in 2 or 3 more seperate minds, and suddenly your mind is bounded.

Ah you say, "but I already said, that all of reality is the mind, you can't throw any other seperate minds in there, up the quality or go sit in the back row"

He is the crux, you define your reality, I cannot change that definition and then make claims about this new different reality, and claim they relate to yours. If I define a reality as a 2d plane, and just a 2d plane, you can't throw it into a 3d volume, you are changing my definition of reality, you are making an argument about something completly different.

Same holds true for reality as the surface of a hypersphere.

[RussDill]

Is this post an indication that you've given up with supporting your claims with respect to any of the above posts? Seems interesting, everytime there are a series of difficult questions you cannot answer, you just repost you assumptions that you've already said dozens of times before.

The resposting of assumptions has become your universal escape route.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Is this post an indication that you've given up with supporting your claims with respect to any of the above posts? Seems interesting, everytime there are a series of difficult questions you cannot answer, you just repost you assumptions that you've already said dozens of times before.

The resposting of assumptions has become your universal escape route.
I've answered that question. The question was why do I assume the mind to exist, yet complain about those who assume the existence of an external reality.

Well my answer was that there is direct experience of an abstract existence, by an abstract/intangible awareness. Who here will deny the existence of their sensations within or upon their awareness? This is the basis of all known existence. It's actually the only evidence for an existence!
Nobody here can be sure of anything, except that they are the awareness of abstract sensations, abstract thoughts, and abstract feelings. The whole experience of existence is completely absract/intangible/conceptual.
This is the truth and I cannot believe that not a single person has agreed with this since I started posting it.

Now, here's the crunching question: "So why do you assume that a mind exists?".
Well I don't assume anything do I? Read the previous block of text. Abstract existence is the only thing I can confirm. My reality as a whole, is an abstract me/awareness, and a variety of abstract things occuring within the abstract me.
So, as a whole, reality is abstract and occurs within my awareness. As a whole, I think I shall label this abstract existence. What shall I call it? Err, the mind.

Yup, that's right, I do not assume the existence of a mind. I merely apply a label ("the mind") to abstract existence as a whole, which is definitely real/happening. I do not assume that abstract experience is occuring, and my labelling of it has nothing to do with making assumptions. My labelling of it is to do with making definitions of confirmed experience.

Contrary to that, however, no external reality can be confirmed by experience.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Who here will deny the existence of their sensations within or upon their awareness? This is the basis of all known existence. It's actually the only evidence for an existence! So, you can't actually prove the existence of your sensations or your awareness? You simply cannot deny its existence? You're belief in your own existance is based on your faith that you have awareness?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I've answered that question. The question was why do I assume the mind to exist, yet complain about those who assume the existence of an external reality.


I don't believe that's the question I asked (in this post), and the above is only one small portion of the posts above you've chosen to summarily ignore (possible because they are too difficult for you to answer)


Well my answer was that there is direct experience of an abstract existence, by an abstract/intangible awareness. Who here will deny the existence of their sensations within or upon their awareness? This is the basis of all known existence. It's actually the only evidence for an existence!
Nobody here can be sure of anything, except that they are the awareness of abstract sensations, abstract thoughts, and abstract feelings. The whole experience of existence is completely absract/intangible/conceptual.
This is the truth and I cannot believe that not a single person has agreed with this since I started posting it.


Ya, there are many solid disagreements above, but you simply choose to ignore them, plug your ears, and sing la la la la la


Now, here's the crunching question: "So why do you assume that a mind exists?".
Well I don't assume anything do I? Read the previous block of text.


Full of assumptions that have been pointed out, but you continually ignore.


Abstract existence is the only thing I can confirm. My reality as a whole, is an abstract me/awareness, and a variety of abstract things occuring within the abstract me.
So, as a whole, reality is abstract and occurs within my awareness. As a whole, I think I shall label this abstract existence. What shall I call it? Err, the mind.


You once again for no reason jump from "a mind" to "the mind". What a joke. You expect to do a great deal of hand waving, and have no one notice this jump.


Yup, that's right, I do not assume the existence of a mind. I merely apply a label ("the mind") to abstract existence as a whole, which is definitely real/happening. I do not assume that abstract experience is occuring, and my labelling of it has nothing to do with making assumptions. My labelling of it is to do with making definitions of confirmed experience.


...more meaningless hand waving.


Contrary to that, however, no external reality can be confirmed by experience.

and a continued ignorance of your own assumptions.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, you can't actually prove the existence of your sensations or your awareness? You simply cannot deny its existence? You're belief in your own existance is based on your faith that you have awareness?
This is absolute trash upchurch. Are you saying that there is a possibility that abstract sensations upon awareness are not occuring? Because if you are, then there's no hope of you ever finding the truth of your own existence, which is also completely comprised of abstract experience.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Are you saying that there is a possibility that abstract sensations upon awareness are not occuring? Because if you are, then there's no hope of you ever finding the truth of your own existence, which is also completely comprised of abstract experience. All I'm asking is that you prove it. You've chastized materialists for believing in something that cannot be proven. You believe that abstract sensations come from awareness and that your awareness exists. From this, we can conclude you must be able to prove that this is so. Please prove this.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
I don't believe that's the question I asked (in this post), and the above is only one small portion of the posts above you've chosen to summarily ignore (possible because they are too difficult for you to answer)

The question you asked? I thought you meant the question, which was the reason for this thread.

Ya, there are many solid disagreements above, but you simply choose to ignore them, plug your ears, and sing la la la la la

??
What are you talking about? Explain to this forum how you know of any other realm than the abstract realm of your intangible-awareness with its abstract sensations, feelings & thoughts.
This is the only thing you can confirm about existence and if you had any sincerity about you, you'd concede to that point.

Full of assumptions that have been pointed out, but you continually ignore.

What bloomin' assumptions? The seat of existence is awareness, sensation, thought & feeling. That's it. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. Do you not understand this yet? Why not? Are you not human?

You once again for no reason jump from "a mind" to "the mind". What a joke. You expect to do a great deal of hand waving, and have no one notice this jump.

I see. So you're not disputing the fact that the term "mind" is but a label associated with abstract existence as a whole. Yet you are disputing the fact that this mind - which you now agree exists (because we live an abstract existence) - is the mind of God. Is that right? Because if it is, I will proceed to showing you why this is the mind of God.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The question you asked? I thought you meant the question, which was the reason for this thread.


I refer to the variety of difficult questions and points made in this thread that you have summarily ignored.


??
What are you talking about?


Maybe you should go back and read some of the posts. Questions and points such as:


Why do you think that abstract cannot proceed from something that is not abstract?

...allready explained to you how this comes about from a materialistic viewpoint.

the external realm does seem to have profound effects on abstract experience, brain surgery, brain damage, stroke, drugs, brain stimulation, etc.

in your opinion, but you can't just argue by opinion

Rather disingeneous - you will be aware of your body (proprioception) unless you're anaesthetised. And sensory deprivation is a well-documented phenomena and the recorded experience illustrate clearly what happens when the brain is deprived of real stimuli. Really does not help your case.

Allow me to translate - whatever it is that's there is mind, therefore mind exists. Please indicate any points I've missed. Not exactly a string argument is it? There is sensation. Whether there is a "you" to sense it in any real sense is a very very very different matter. There is a cluster of things that we have been taught to recognise as "us" that arise from the phenomenon of sensation - i.e the sensation comes before the awareness not after.

your philosophy does assume that there is a reality external to our own awareness.

I think more importantly, why do you assume the existence of The Mind, not yours


I can go on and on...



Explain to this forum how you know of any other realm than the abstract realm of your intangible-awareness with its abstract sensations, feelings & thoughts.


First of all, you clump a lot of concepts together and call this concept the "mind". You are going to have to describe it in a lot more detail before I agree or disagree. In paticular, I'd like you to explain why our "mind" is compartmentalized into different functions, and even two different brains:

http://www.brain-mind.com/SplitBrain.html

Second, explain to this forum how you know of any realm beyond your own awareness.

Third, I cannot prove that there is any realm beyond my own awareness, however, all evidence I have points in that direction. However, you have not provided any evidence that points in the direction of your philosophy.


This is the only thing you can confirm about existence and if you had any sincerity about you, you'd concede to that point.


so why don't you?


What bloomin' assumptions? The seat of existence is awareness, sensation, thought & feeling. [b]That's it. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.[B] Do you not understand this yet? Why not? Are you not human?


I've pointed out the assumptions and weaknesses in your argument numerous times. If anything forces you to question your philosophy, you choose to ignore it, because questioning your philosophy is something you refuse to do. Why should I cut and paste them all here again?


I see. So you're not disputing the fact that the term "mind" is but a label associated with abstract existence as a whole.


Mind is a label given to the processes of our individual awareness, not to abstract existence as a whole.


Yet you are disputing the fact that this mind - which you now agree exists (because we live an abstract existence) - is the mind of God.


Your definition of "mind" is pretty general, and you tend to mold it to fit whatever part of an argument you are making.


Is that right? Because if it is, I will proceed to showing you why this is the mind of God.

Go ahead and attempt it. BTW, where is that glorious third testament of yours?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
All I'm asking is that you prove it. You've chastized materialists for believing in something that cannot be proven. You believe that abstract sensations come from awareness and that your awareness exists. From this, we can conclude you must be able to prove that this is so. Please prove this.
You want me to prove that existence is comprised of abstract experience when you yourself are experiencing the exact-same reality?
Does the phrase "clutching at straws" mean anything to you?
I get the feeling this is all a game for you.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You want me to prove that existence is comprised of abstract experience when you yourself are experiencing the exact-same reality?
Does the phrase "clutching at straws" mean anything to you?That is exactly what I want you to prove (plus a few things that can wait until you've done this much). Can you or can you not do this?

Also, I am familiar with the phrase "clutching at straws". It could be used, for example, to describe making someone repeat their request several times when one cannot fullfill the request.
I get the feeling this is all a game for you. It is, actually, because I know that you cannot prove the above anymore than I can prove the material world. But, you seem to think you can, so we await your proof.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You want me to prove that existence is comprised of abstract experience when you yourself are experiencing the exact-same reality?


Read the sentance again, perhaps drawing a diagram of the sentance would help (as you refused to ever do in the Tao thread).

You believe that abstract sensations come from awareness and that your awareness exists.

looks like he is asking you to prove two things here, neither of which is "existence is comprised of abstract experience". Do you purposely avoid questions?


Does the phrase "clutching at straws" mean anything to you?
I get the feeling this is all a game for you.

Try again lifegazer, this time, read the post, think about the post, maybe draw a picture or something, whatever helps you to comprehend what he wrote. THEN answer the post.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Why do you think that abstract cannot proceed from something that is not abstract?

Intangible entities are not real from a materialist's point-of-view. They are 'ghosts'. Abstractions.
So, please explain why the collision of two particles, for example, might result in the ghostly existence of pain. Or please explain why the activity of a group of atoms might result in the ghostly experience of fear.

...allready explained to you how this comes about from a materialistic viewpoint.

Don't make me laugh. You cannot explain the existence of ghostly abstractions from tangible events. You are, as you say, "making it up".

the external realm does seem to have profound effects on abstract experience, brain surgery, brain damage, stroke, drugs, brain stimulation, etc.

Whoa camel. The things you just mentioned are existing within your awareness. Again, you just assume that there is a brain, for example, existing externally to your intangible awareness.

And I now challenge you to explain to this forum how any-thing can exist externally to an intangible entity. I mentioned this before and the brushes quickly swept it under the rug. But I'm not going to forget it in a hurry. So, explain how anything can exist externally to an intangible reality. I dare ya. I double dare ya.

And on that profound note, I shall retire.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Intangible entities are not real from a materialist's point-of-view. They are 'ghosts'. Abstractions.


Depends on your definition of "Intangible". Define it better.


So, please explain why the collision of two particles, for example, might result in the ghostly existence of pain. Or please explain why the activity of a group of atoms might result in the ghostly experience of fear.

Don't make me laugh. You cannot explain the existence of ghostly abstractions from tangible events. You are, as you say, "making it up".


haha, this is the best part, I don't have too. It's a very complicated subject, and would take me a long time to explain, but the beauty is that it's *your* problem, not mine.

Part of your proof rests on awareness, perception, sensation, etc, not being able to arise out of material processes. *You* have to prove this is the case, otherwise, it's just an assumption.

So far, the best you can do is throw a few strawmen out there, really bad ones at that, like hitting a rock with a hammer, or two atoms coliding.

We actually have evidence all around us of matter that has been "hit with a hammer" enough times that it experiences pain. We can follow the progress from simple biochemical communication and networks, to complex electrical and biochemical networks.


Whoa camel. The things you just mentioned are existing within your awareness. Again, you just assume that there is a brain, for example, existing externally to your intangible awareness.


I've already explained how even in your philosophy, these events occur external to your own awereness. An argument you have yet to address, but you continue to make contridictory statements in spite of it.


And I now challenge you to explain to this forum how any-thing can exist externally to an intangible entity. I mentioned this before and the brushes quickly swept it under the rug. But I'm not going to forget it in a hurry. So, explain how anything can exist externally to an intangible reality. I dare ya. I double dare ya.


This is your proof, your philosophy, not mine, I don't have to prove ANYTHING. You have to prove that tangible things cannot give rise to intangible things.


And on that profound note, I shall retire.

heh, you claim to know what is profound, and yet, have not studied any of the philosophers widely considered to be profound. It's like someone who has been locked in a closet their whole life saying a cup is beautiful.

[hammegk]

I'm not sure why I'm jumping in here, but what the hey ....

Originally posted by RussDill


Depends on your definition of "Intangible". Define it better.
A quale.


Part of your proof rests on awareness, perception, sensation, etc, not being able to arise out of material processes. *You* have to prove this is the case, otherwise, it's just an assumption.
Hmm, *I* would disagree; thought is occuring, and where would perception be if it were not.


We actually have evidence all around us of matter that has been "hit with a hammer" enough times that it experiences pain. We can follow the progress from simple biochemical communication and networks, to complex electrical and biochemical networks.
You can monitor all sorts of interesting physiological events; do you propose any of them to be "thought"? Er, you know, the color red I "see", for example?



This is your proof, your philosophy, not mine, I don't have to prove ANYTHING. You have to prove that tangible things cannot give rise to intangible things.


This is one of a materialists (or dualists) real problems. How does the Tangible effect or affect an Intangible? Or do prefer to propose everthing is tangible?

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
Hmm, *I* would disagree; thought is occuring, and where would perception be if it were not.

Yes, thought occurs. All the evidence suggests that it happens via chemical processes in the wetware called a 'brain'.

You can monitor all sorts of interesting physiological events; do you propose any of them to be "thought"?

As above, yes.

Er, you know, the color red I "see", for example?

In fact, different words provoke different mental activity, so, well, there is evidence of association, and lots of it. Do I know what YOUR brain does with the word, the colour, or whatever of "red"?

No, I don't, and I don't have to. Each system is very adaptive, and your meaning of "red" internally is whatever it's adapted the neural net to be.

This is one of a materialists (or dualists) real problems. How does the Tangible effect or affect an Intangible? Or do prefer to propose everthing is tangible?
You allege a problem, I see none. Please show evidence (material) of your problem.

How wetware functions seems pretty clear. The patterns of neural sensitivity and activation that store information over the long term, likewise, seem to be becoming much more clear.

[Dancing David]

Hello Lifegazer:

I again repeat this section for you and will ask a further question.

posted by ME!

What does this have to do with Upchurches question, physical sensations are directly experienced by the 'mind', thoughts are directly experienced by the 'mind'. To assume that there is any difference is to assume that there is something external to the mind. Qualia are irreducable because they are a 'mental' phenomena, they are a direct experience of the mind caused by interaction with the sense organs, thoughts are a direct experience of the mind produced by brain events.
I think that you have created a dichotomy by saying that thoughts are a direct experience of mind and the qualia are not.



You also keep saying that there us this abstraction of thought thingee, and while I think it is a great system of thought, I truely wonder why you use the phrase abstraction? Abstraction of what, the word again implies a duality.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Intangible entities are not real from a materialist's point-of-view. They are 'ghosts'. Abstractions.
So, please explain why the collision of two particles, for example, might result in the ghostly existence of pain. Or please explain why the activity of a group of atoms might result in the ghostly experience of fear.


Well if you actualy asked, which you don't and you actualy cared which you don't, then I would say that some of the things you describe are tangible. They are products of physical body/brian events. It is the immaterialsts who like to say that the emotions are inatngible. Then they can claim a special place for the ghost in the machine. A materialst will accept the ghost when demonstrated, but otherwise will assume it is part of the machine.


Don't make me laugh. You cannot explain the existence of ghostly abstractions from tangible events. You are, as you say, "making it up".


What is with the dichotomy Lifegazer, you are a psoeur, you do not understand monism! 'ghostly abstractions' from 'tangible events', what are you a muddled dualist?
There is no need to make up ghostly events they are physical events, in the materialist POV.


Whoa camel. The things you just mentioned are existing within your awareness. Again, you just assume that there is a brain, for example, existing externally to your intangible awareness.


And like most one trick ponies you are bright enough to see that your argument cuts both ways! You are assuming that there is an awareness , for example, existing externaly to your tangible awareness.
You say that you are a bright guy LG, and I believe you may be, but you fail to see the argument cuts both ways. You say that we can not prove the physical world, and Mecrutio says you can not prove that it is just not a brain event.

They are the same argument, the argument works both ways!

And I now challenge you to explain to this forum how any-thing can exist externally to an intangible entity. I mentioned this before and the brushes quickly swept it under the rug. But I'm not going to forget it in a hurry. So, explain how anything can exist externally to an intangible reality. I dare ya. I double dare ya.



Childlike distraction will not help, this is your chance to prove that one set of products of the mind 'belief in awareness' is not any different from another product of the mind 'belief in the physical world'.

An intelligent person should realize that the criteria are exactly the same!


And on that profound note, I shall retire.

So the burden would be on you to prove thier intangible nature! And to prove that 'belief in awareness' is somehow different from 'belief in physical body'! You are a dualist Lifegazer!

[Dancing David]

Hammegk:

I agree that quale might meet the definition of intangible but where can you show a quale that does not involve an organism which has had sensation through a physical sense organ?

Which is why I asked in the 'Prove the Mind' thread if a child without sensations would have awareness?

It is all well and good to say that quale are intangible, and they may wekll be, but for the slower members of the forum, like myself, I ask why does pressing on my eyeball produce a change in qualia? Wht can electrical stimulation in the 'world of appearance' produce a change in qualia?

I think that a quale can not be shared between two organisms but I am not sure that makes it intangible, perhaps 'difficult to transfer'.

Thanks, I will await my education.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj

You allege a problem, I see none. Please show evidence (material) of your problem.
Sorry. Materialists have the material problems. :p



As above, yes.
OK, you suspect you can be replaced by a Turing machine, some servos & some sensors. Could be.


Do I know what YOUR brain does with the word, the colour, or whatever of "red"?
We're damn close to observing exactly what a specific brain does when observing red. The thing we are not doing and will never do is 'experiencing the color red' (one of those pesky quale thingies).


.... chemical processes in the wetware called a 'brain'.


How wetware functions seems pretty clear. The patterns of neural sensitivity and activation that store information over the long term, likewise, seem to be becoming much more clear.

Agreed. What is less apparent is how the code was developed.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

The thing we are not doing and will never do is 'experiencing the color red' (one of those pesky quale thingies).

Really? I'd argue that in a quite different way, a jpeg coder, which is a non-sentient construct if ever there was one, can "experience" red, as demostrated by it knowing how to deal with it.

Ok, now we're down to what does "experience" mean, and I doubt we can agree on that, but so it goes.

Agreed. What is less apparent is how the code was developed.
That's not surprising. Randomness often finds paths that aren't apparent.

[Wudang]

Cutting to the chase - my reading is that lifegazer has implicitly admitted that he cannot prove his base assumption. Okay, instead of admitting that he ranted at Upchurch instead but I think we all got the subtext.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You want me to prove that existence is comprised of abstract experience when you yourself are experiencing the exact-same reality?
Does the phrase "clutching at straws" mean anything to you?

That is exactly what I want you to prove (plus a few things that can wait until you've done this much). Can you or can you not do this?

I (the intangible awareness that I am) am having the experience of abstract sensations within myself. Plus, I also have abstract thoughts and feelings.
This is the foundation of known experience - being abstract - and it is the only thing which I can confirm as a basis for my philosophical enquiries.

Now, how do I prove this to myself other than by having more experiences of the same thing, which I already am?

Your retort to my base philosophy is indeed the action of a man who will say absolutely anything to avoid going further down the road of that philosophy.

Also, I am familiar with the phrase "clutching at straws". It could be used, for example, to describe making someone repeat their request several times when one cannot fullfill the request.
It is, actually, because I know that you cannot prove the above anymore than I can prove the material world. But, you seem to think you can, so we await your proof.
The ongoing experience of abstract qualia within intangible awareness is proof, believe it or not, that I am having the experience of abstract qualia occuring within the intangible awareness that I am. Go figure, as you lot would say.

What's the matter with you people? Are you aliens or something? Why are you denying the very reality of your own intangible experience of existence?
I can only conclude that some of you are insane, if not insincere. But alas, I cannot force you to see the bleedin' obvious unless you're willing to see it.

If you want to argue against the obvious statement that the absolute-basis of known existence is intangible experience, then you're wasting my time and we'll have to agree to disagree.

[lifegazer]

... And furthermore, I do not assume the existence of mind either.
As I have just said, the experience of existence is an abstract one. This is a fact. And the term "mind" is the term applied to abstract existence as a whole. There is no assumed-leap to the mind - just a labelling of abstract existence as a whole.#

Hence, I have answered "the question" by showing that there is no leap to a mind. And I have proved that existence is an abstract experience by experiencing an abstract reality!

The only thing I have to prove to you, whether you agree to it or not, is that this mind is in fact the mind of God. For those willing to acknowledge the bleedin' obvious, I may proceed. But, if as I suspect, you all continue to deny that the absolute-experience of existence is abstract/intangible, then what's the point? Really?
You lot aren't skeptics. You do dishonour to the word.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer


This is the foundation of known experience - being abstract - and it is the only thing which I can confirm as a basis for my philosophical enquiries.

Right here is the flaw in your reasoning. Do you see it, because I'll bet everyone else here can. You say all you can know is what your subjective experience tells you, right? It follows logically that you can make no claims as to objective reality one way or the other, because you cannot experience objective reality or the lack of it without passing it through your subjective filter. Therefore, you cannot claim that external reality doesn't exist, because you cannot get outside of your subjective reference frame to check.

[lifegazer]

Zero, considerations of whether an external reality exist are not even an issue at this initial point of my philosophy. I was asked 2 questions and I answered them.

I do in fact have a few arguments which counter the reality of an existence beyond the mind. But that's another issue.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Zero, considerations of whether an external reality exist are not even an issue at this initial point of my philosophy. I was asked 2 questions and I answered them.

I do in fact have a few arguments which counter the reality of an existence beyond the mind. But that's another issue. This issue is that you are full of crap, because you NEVER answer the question of how you can make ANY claim about external reality.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
But, if as I suspect, you all continue to deny that the absolute-experience of existence is abstract/intangible, then what's the point? Really?

If all abstract experiences are based on tangible things (ie, our concept of mind is produced by processes within the brain) then the absolute experience of existence is tangible.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
If all abstract experiences are based on tangible things (ie, our concept of mind is produced by processes within the brain) then the absolute experience of existence is tangible.
The experience of existence is intangible/abstract - regardless of where those experiences come from.

We are talking about philosophy without assumption here. And we are talking about the facts pertaining to experience. So I'm not interested in your "If"; and we do know that experience of existence is intangible/abstract.

This is the foundation of philosophical enquiry. This is what you need to acknowledge before you can proceed any further. It's upto you. This is probably your last chance to grasp this.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The experience of existence is intangible/abstract - regardless of where those experiences come from.


Then you are assuming that the way in which you experience existence proves anything about existence.


We are talking about philosophy without assumption here. And we are talking about the facts pertaining to experience. So I'm not interested in your "If"; and we do know that experience of existence is intangible/abstract.


I've already explained the errors and assumptions in your philosophy. If you wish to correct those errors, and fill in or admit those assumptions, then we can actually discuss your philosophy.


This is the foundation of philosophical enquiry. This is what you need to acknowledge before you can proceed any further. It's upto you. This is probably your last chance to grasp this.

Me grasping things? You fail to grasp any geometry beyond 3 dimensions. You fail to grasp einstien. You fail to grasp quantum mechanics. You fail to grasp sentence structure. You fail to grasp the Tao...er, wait, you've never read the tao, speaking of which, you've never studied any of the things you fail to grasp...suppose that would explain a lot.

The only thing that can be assumed in philosophy is that *you* exist. As with any other philosophy, you have failed to show anything beyond that.

[Dancing David]

If they are intangible then how can you experience them?
If they are abstract, abstract from what?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
If they are intangible then how can you experience them?

The mind is intangible too.
My Collins dictionary
Tangible:-
(1) Capable of being touched or felt.
(2) Capable of being grasped (embraced) by the mind.
(3) Having a physical existence.

The mind cannot embrace itself. It is boundless and cannot be grasped within a finite thought or abstract picture of what it is.
By present definition, the mind is intangible. An intangible entity residing at boundless-singularity can experience intangible qualia which appear as tangible objects.

The irony of it all is that no object is tangible, in reality.

If they are abstract, abstract from what?
Abstract from the reality that is God and within God's mind.
God is the great creator. The great abstract artist. God's mind is the canvas.

[lifegazer]

Everything is reducible to an intangible form. Even God itself, the essence of things, is intangible.

The things we see - the tangible objects which constitute the appearance of an external reality - exist within our abstract world. We 'fish' them out of the intangible ocean of the sensations. But that ocean isn't real. It's abstract... coloured by quale.
Those fish are fake!! All Loch Ness monsters.
Knowledge derived from the abstract... is knowledge of the abstract... is abstract knowledge.
No thing is real. No thing really exists. Only The Mind exists.

[Wudang]

Once again, you're arguing "whatever it is that's there we define to be the mind, so therefore the mind exists."

Well instead I say the physical universe what we define to be this, therefore the physical universe exists.

One again, you can't assume what you set out to prove.
I will now prove I am superhuman, Let us define superhuman as being whatever properties I have. Behold I doth posess these properties therefore I am superhuman.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The mind is intangible too.
My Collins dictionary
Tangible:-
(1) Capable of being touched or felt.
(2) Capable of being grasped (embraced) by the mind.
(3) Having a physical existence.

The mind cannot embrace itself.

That is only your statement that it is so, this is a closed tautolgy and therefore unprovable. So if an experience can be grasped by the mind it is tangile? That means that my experience of a body is tangible, does it not?
You have yet to define the mind, except as a 'sweep-under-the-rug' concept that you use to just vaugely say, because it is so.

It is boundless and cannot be grasped within a finite thought or abstract picture of what it is.

Well then, thats what makes it hard for me to grant it existance. It could just be the Great Crumsnatcher again for all we know. If it is beyond grasp and meaning then we can not by defintion acuratly describe it, now can we?

By present definition, the mind is intangible. An intangible entity residing at boundless-singularity can experience intangible qualia which appear as tangible objects.

May I point out your contradiction with the definition of tangible, grasped by mind, if qualia can be grasped by a mind then they are tangible. This is like the Great Geomer's cat again, all beyond our knowledge. It is great speculation, but all speculation is equal.


The irony of it all is that no object is tangible, in reality.


The irony of that statement is that then there would be no experience.



Abstract from the reality that is God and within God's mind.
God is the great creator. The great abstract artist. God's mind is the canvas.

How can something be abstract from God's mind, then it would not have existance, are you saying that they exist without the mind of god. I think there is another word and concept that you are looking for, I don't think it is abstract.

[lifegazer]

If we acknowledge the reality of our intangible experiences - abstract qualia, thought & emotion, upon intangible awareness - then how can an external reality exist, to this?

Think about it: an intangible entity/being/experience is not something with definite objective existence. There is no form and no definite position in space or time, for intangible being.
Therefore, nothing can exist externally to an intangible being because to do so would require that an intangible being occupy spacetime. But it does not.
Conclusion: There can be no external reality to an intangible being.
Therefore, given that being is intangible, we can know that nothing exists externally to this existence which we are having.

[Wudang]

Bzzt - presupposes abstract intangible being which has yet to be established.
Thank you for playing.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The mind is intangible too.
My Collins dictionary


ok, you wanna tell us which definition you are using?


Tangible:-
(1) Capable of being touched or felt.


OK, so by this definition, some forms of EM are tangible, some are not...so, this by this definition your philosophy would fall apart


(2) Capable of being grasped (embraced) by the mind.


ok, this one screws your philosophy all to hell, because if everything is intangible, then *nothing* could be understood. Also, you are assuming that the human brain cannot be understood, which you have yet to prove.


(3) Having a physical existence.


Allright, for this one, you need to prove that the human brain does not have a physical existence.


The mind cannot embrace itself. It is boundless and cannot be grasped within a finite thought or abstract picture of what it is.


...but you labeled everything within the mind as intangible...so *nothing* would be able to be understood.


By present definition, the mind is intangible.


try again.


An intangible entity residing at boundless-singularity can experience intangible qualia which appear as tangible objects.


That's a lot of assumptions in one sentence.

An intangible entity

assumes intangible entities can exist

residing at boundless-singularity

assumes the nature of a "intangible entity"

can experience intangible qualia

more assumptions about an intangible entity

which appear as tangible objects.

assumptions that don't even make sense


The irony of it all is that no object is tangible, in reality.


...jumping to a conclusion based on assumption


Abstract from the reality that is God and within God's mind.
God is the great creator. The great abstract artist. God's mind is the canvas.

blah blah blah, still not answering the question of why god exists.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Everything is reducible to an intangible form. Even God itself, the essence of things, is intangible.

The things we see - the tangible objects which constitute the appearance of an external reality - exist within our abstract world. We 'fish' them out of the intangible ocean of the sensations. But that ocean isn't real. It's abstract... coloured by quale.
Those fish are fake!! All Loch Ness monsters.
Knowledge derived from the abstract... is knowledge of the abstract... is abstract knowledge.
No thing is real. No thing really exists. Only The Mind exists.

another restating of assumption...great

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wudang
Bzzt - presupposes abstract intangible being which has yet to be established.
And how does your 1st person experiencing convince you that a tangible and real existence is established?


Thank you for playing.
Ditto.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Bzzt - presupposes abstract intangible being which has yet to be established.
Thank you for playing.
Abstract intangible being is the only experience of reality.
Abstract intangible being is what is happening. Welcome to reality. Get your buzzer sorted out.

[Wudang]

Hells teeth - that is the question that this whole thread is supposed to address and you've just gone back to saying it's an assumption.
You lose.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by hammegk

And how does your 1st person experiencing convince you that a tangible and real existence is established?


Ditto.

You might want to read the purpose of this thread before your next drive-by posting. I am quite aware of what assumptions I make. LThe purpose of this thread is not to discuss my assumptions but lifegazers, which he denies are assumptions.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Lg: "The mind cannot embrace itself."

That is only your statement that it is so, this is a closed tautolgy and therefore unprovable. So if an experience can be grasped by the mind it is tangile? That means that my experience of a body is tangible, does it not?

The mind looks within itself to see things. The mind cannot look within itself to see the whole of itself. A part of itself would be needed to look at the whole. Clearly, the mind cannot embrace its wholeness within introspective thought.

You have yet to define the mind, except as a 'sweep-under-the-rug' concept that you use to just vaugely say, because it is so.

The mind is a label we attribute to this abstract existence as a whole. The mind is the realm of abstract being.

Lg: "It is boundless and cannot be grasped within a finite thought or abstract picture of what it is."

Well then, thats what makes it hard for me to grant it existance.

You won't grant it existence because it cannot see the whole of itself within itself? That's just daft.

It could just be the Great Crumsnatcher again for all we know. If it is beyond grasp and meaning then we can not by defintion acuratly describe it, now can we?

But it is merely a label assigned to the abstract being that we are aware of. We could call abstract being as a whole something else if you want, if it makes you feel better. We could call it poopoo, if you want. But all I care about is that you acknowledge that poopoo (existence as a whole) is completely abstract, as experienced. Will you acknowledge this?
This sounds like a reasonable request to me and I have no idea why you would refuse to let me label abstract existence as a whole, poopoo.
So, upon your acceptance of this new term, I shall then prove to you that poopoo is God, having abstract experiences within itself.
Will you be happy to proceed with that?

May I point out your contradiction with the definition of tangible, grasped by mind, if qualia can be grasped by a mind then they are tangible.

Qualia are not grasped by the mind until they have been transformed into things, relative to one another, by thought/reason/judgement.
Look at the picture (of light) upon your awareness. How many different things do you see within your awareness?

Lg:- "The irony of it all is that no object is tangible, in reality."

The irony of that statement is that then there would be no experience.

That's nonsense. Experience as a whole is already shown to be abstract/intangible. Your statement is clearly assumed and incorrect.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
"Abstract intangible being is the only experience of reality.
Abstract intangible being is what is happening. Welcome to reality. Get your buzzer sorted out."

Hells teeth - that is the question that this whole thread is supposed to address and you've just gone back to saying it's an assumption.
You lose.
Are you just winding me up?
How can you say that it is an assumption that the experience of existence is completely abstract?
Answer the question. Are you, like me, having an abstract experience of existence? Are you (awareness) having abstract sensations? Are you having intangible thoughts and feelings?
Well?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wudang


I am quite aware of what assumptions I make. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss my assumptions but lifegazers,

Not willing to share, huh? Or do you agree your assumptions are as baseless as any idealists? Your problem -- not that you would want to consider it -- is that idealism is one step closer to "experiencing" than is materialism. Hopefully you are not a totally illogical dualist of some sort.



which he denies are assumptions.

So what? Do you think you're going to change his mind?

[lifegazer]

Wouldn't somebody have to be insane to try and change my mind about the fact that awareness is experiencing sensations, thoughts & feelings?
What possible reasonable argument can there be to deny the occurance of this abstract experience?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The mind looks within itself to see things. The mind cannot look within itself to see the whole of itself. A part of itself would be needed to look at the whole. Clearly, the mind cannot embrace its wholeness within introspective thought.

Then pray tell dear one, why could you think of It? Admit that the great mind can not be described in human terms and I will agree!
If you can think of it, then it is tangible, no?


The mind is a label we attribute to this abstract existence as a whole. The mind is the realm of abstract being.

Yeah , sure rug or mind, everything gets swept under it.


You won't grant it existence because it cannot see the whole of itself within itself? That's just daft.


No, I just disagree with you, and I suppose that is daft.


But it is merely a label assigned to the abstract being that we are aware of. We could call abstract being as a whole something else if you want, if it makes you feel better. We could call it poopoo, if you want. But all I care about is that you acknowledge that poopoo (existence as a whole) is completely abstract, as experienced. Will you acknowledge this?

If it is an abstract form of being that you are aware of than it is tangible to the mind, no?

This sounds like a reasonable request to me and I have no idea why you would refuse to let me label abstract existence as a whole, poopoo.

I don't refuse you anything Lifegazer, I just disagree, perhaps someday I will agree, but for now...

So, upon your acceptance of this new term, I shall then prove to you that poopoo is God, having abstract experiences within itself.
Will you be happy to proceed with that?

I have already seen the argument Lifegazer and I remind you that if you can think it then it is tangible. I think it is fine to speculate upon the nature of the unknowable.
And I do credit you for the leap of faith that it took to right that sentence!


Qualia are not grasped by the mind until they have been transformed into things, relative to one another, by thought/reason/judgement.

this gets back to the baby seeing colors doesn't it, maybe I should just agree to disagree, but this is more fun!

Look at the picture (of light) upon your awareness. How many different things do you see within your awareness?

I will try to translate that into davebabble and then anwer, um... the ten thousand things? ;)


That's nonsense. Experience as a whole is already shown to be abstract/intangible. Your statement is clearly assumed and incorrect.

By your chosen definition, if a mind can grasp it than it is tangible. So the 'whole of existance' is tangible, what is 'really out there' is another matter.

You see Lifegazer a monist and a nihilist really believe the same thing. :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Then pray tell dear one, why could you think of It? Admit that the great mind can not be described in human terms and I will agree!
If you can think of it, then it is tangible, no?

I cannot think of "the poopoo" as a finite and bounded entity, no. I am aware of its existence simply because I am aware of intangible existence. But that doesn't mean that I can see it, as a complete whole, within my mind. If the mind is being observed as a whole, then who is doing the observing?
A similar line-of-reasoning could say the same thing about infinity. The mind can be aware of infinity without being able to completely grasp what it is.

Yeah , sure rug or mind, everything gets swept under it.

Actually, things are swept up from the mind's qualia. Fished out of the sensations by thought/reason.
Things are what reason discerns within the sensations of its own awareness. You still don't understand that after all our chats.

No, I just disagree with you, and I suppose that is daft.

Of course. How dare you. Bop.

If it is an abstract form of being that you are aware of than it is tangible to the mind, no?

Tangible is a term created to relate to objects in the material world. Hey, I didn't formulate the english language you know... I just use it like you.
You see, people assumed that they were looking at a real external reality full of real objects and so they decided to label these objects as tangible entities. I cannot take responsibility for their assumptions and their formulation of the English language. Neither do I consider it a priority of mine to reformat the English language.

So, here's the deal: we have intangible/abstract sensations/qualia. And then, via reasoning, we see things within these sensations; and then conclude/assume that an external reality full of things exists. We then label these things tangible entities because we think they are real. However, that's just an assumption. The fact is that the whole of experience is an intangible one.

However, the term "intangible" really means "not real", in the sense that an intangible entity is not a solid object existing in the [supposed] real world of real objects. But this term has also been formulated by somebody in the past, and it was meant to depict the contrast/distinction which exists between the things that are real and the things which are not real.
Interestingly, it can be seen that the formulation of our language assumes a dualism of existence. But that's not my fault DD!!!

I contend that there is no such thing as a tangible entity within the context for which that term applies. I.e., there are no real objects existing in an external reality.
However, I do contend that all of existence is intangible, and I use that term because I am forced to do so by the creators of my language.
But this doesn't mean that I agree with the dualism apparent within the language, or that I think the mind is not real.

You are reducing this argument to one of language. Well we can discuss language if you want, as I have above. Or we can deal with the real issues here.
The experience of existence is intangible, by definition. But it's certainly real.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by hammegk

Not willing to share, huh?

No I'm someone who wants to keep this thread on track. I'm happy to discuss my assumptions which I acknowledge I make elsewhere.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Are you just winding me up?
How can you say that it is an assumption that the experience of existence is completely abstract?
Answer the question. Are you, like me, having an abstract experience of existence? Are you (awareness) having abstract sensations? Are you having intangible thoughts and feelings?
Well?

You're mistaking 2 things :
we can say that "something" exists, whether abstract or not, and at that this point in the debate we assign an abstract label to it to avoid overburdening it until we are able to deduce more about it. It is the label that is abstract not necessarily the sensations.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The mind can be aware of infinity without being able to completely grasp what it is.


wow...how ignorant are you...not only does mathmatics clearly define the idea of infinity, but also can compare various "types" of infinities and can work out problems with infinity in them.


Things are what reason discerns within the sensations of its own awareness. You still don't understand that after all our chats.


Pointed out again and again, still no response, even in your philosophy, all we experience is outside of our awareness.


Of course. How dare you. Bop.


bop? how old are you, 4?


So, here's the deal: we have intangible/abstract sensations/qualia.


Well, since you claim that tangible is a meaningless term, we can reduce that to "we have sensations/qualia" (you forgot awareness). Suddenly, your proof went away...oh well.


And then, via reasoning, we see things within these sensations; and then conclude/assume that an external reality full of things exists. We then label these things tangible entities because we think they are real. However, that's just an assumption. The fact is that the whole of experience is an intangible one.


Just as it's an assumption to say that things exists, it's also an assumption to say they don't.


However, the term "intangible" really means "not real", in the sense that an intangible entity is not a solid object existing in the [supposed] real world of real objects.


I can name plenty of things that are real, but not solid. Really, depending on your definition, mathmatics is real, and yet, it is only a concept. With definitions this plastic, how can you prove anything based on them.

You have to define your terms, otherwise, it's a meaningless argument.


But this term has also been formulated by somebody in the past, and it was meant to depict the contrast/distinction which exists between the things that are real and the things which are not real.
Interestingly, it can be seen that the formulation of our language assumes a dualism of existence. But that's not my fault DD!!!


There is no dualism, if all things we call intangible are simply the results of processes that we refer to as tangible, where is the dualism. Also, if you cannot disprove that everything intangible arises out of a tangible univirse, you have no proof.


I contend that there is no such thing as a tangible entity within the context for which that term applies. I.e., there are no real objects existing in an external reality.


You contend...but have no proof.


However, I do contend that all of existence is intangible, and I use that term because I am forced to do so by the creators of my language.
But this doesn't mean that I agree with the dualism apparent within the language, or that I think the mind is not real.


Again, if all intangible things arise from tangible processes, there is no dualism.


You are reducing this argument to one of language. Well we can discuss language if you want, as I have above. Or we can deal with the real issues here.
The experience of existence is intangible, by definition. But it's certainly real.

uh-huh, just because all you have is your awareness, is not proof that everything is awareness.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I (the intangible awareness that I am) am having the experience of abstract sensations within myself. Plus, I also have abstract thoughts and feelings.Are you? Is it not possible that some outside force is feeding you those sensations and feelings of being aware? You might just be a predestined automoton running the program sent to you by some external agent. You have the sensation of abstract throughts and feelings, but you also have the abstract sensation of lights and sounds. Both could be real or both could be false. You reject one as false, why not the other?
This is the foundation of known experience - being abstract - and it is the only thing which I can confirm as a basis for my philosophical enquiries.You've said that. I know that your belief that abstract thoughts and feelings are the only things that are real. I'm asking you to prove it.
Now, how do I prove this to myself other than by having more experiences of the same thing, which I already am?Yes, please. How do you prove this to yourself or to others, such as myself? The rest of your post is nothing but attacks on me and restatement of your position. Maiking a claim is not proof. You should know that by now.

Let's analyze the rest of your post to see if you answer your own question above.
Your retort to my base philosophy is indeed the action of a man who will say absolutely anything to avoid going further down the road of that philosophy.Attack on me. Irrelevent to the question.
The ongoing experience of abstract qualia within intangible awareness is proof, believe it or not, that I am having the experience of abstract qualia occuring within the intangible awareness that I am. Go figure, as you lot would say.No, it isn't. It is only proof that you think you have experience and awareness. It is not proof that those things actually exist.

Your own claim is that we only think we have experience and awarenss of the material world, but that our sensations of the material world aren't what we think they are. Further, you've argued that our experience with the material world is not proof of the material world. Do you see any similarities with your above claim?
What's the matter with you people? Are you aliens or something? Why are you denying the very reality of your own intangible experience of existence?Personal attack.
I can only conclude that some of you are insane, if not insincere. But alas, I cannot force you to see the bleedin' obvious unless you're willing to see it.Personal attack.
If you want to argue against the obvious statement that the absolute-basis of known existence is intangible experience, then you're wasting my time and we'll have to agree to disagree. Anyone who gets slapped in the face could say that the material world was just as obvious. You reject those experiences but accept thoughts and feelings as "obvious", yet you can not explain why.

Just for your information, I do believe that my awareness and experiences are real. What I am questioning is why you reject the material world when, by the same criteria you use to reject it, you accept the immaterial world. The reason I am pushing you to prove that you have abstract experiences and awareness is not because I believe that you don't have them, but to show you that you can't prove that you have them. Not to the level of proof that you demand of the physical world.

This is the crux of the immaterialist double-standard. They hold the material world to an impossible standard of proof and then drop that standard when it comes to the immaterial world. They claim things like "it's obvious" or "direct experience", when it is really nothing of the kind when taken in the context of the standard of proof they use for materialism.

Let's ask the question another way. What evidence would it take to prove to you the existence of the material world? Is there anything that would prove to you it exists? I'm guessing the answer is "no." Correct me if I'm wrong.

What, then, would it take to disprove to you the existence of the mind/awareness/experience? Is there anything that would disprove its existance to you? I'm guessing again that the answer is "no." Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's the thing about proof. In order for something to be "proven", there has to be something we expect to happen if it is not true. If that thing, whatever it is, doesn't ever happen, then whatever we are trying to "prove" is tentatively proven.

So, if we were to try to prove the material world, we would have to define some things we would expect to happen if the material world was just a construct of the mind. Well, we know of one set of experiences that are purely a construct of the mind: dreams. In dreams, physical rules are arbitrary. One can fly in dreams or see through walls or suddenly jump from place to place without moving.

If the material world were purly a construct of the mind, we would expect to see an inconsistancy in the phyiscal laws. Do we ever see such inconsistancies? There are certainly many strange physical phenomena out there, but so far, they can be consistantly performed again and again. Even the act of wanting the outcome to be different does not change the outcome, as it might in dreams. So, we can say with a level of certainty that the material world is there.

Is there room for uncertainty in this "proof"? Of course. There is no proof that is fool proof. (pardon the pun) It is perfectly reasonable to think that the material world might not be there, that we are really in a Matrix-type scenerio where sensations of the material world are fed to us by some outside agency. But, then again, in such a scenerio, we might expect the occasional mistake, which doesn't seem to happen.

So, what is the point? If one is to hold the material world to an impossible standard of absolute proof of existance, one must hold all worlds to an impossible standard of absolute proof. "I think therefore I am" doesn't cut it because, by that standard, "I see a chair therefore it exists" is also true. If I reject the chair on the basis that the visual input might be false, then I must reject myself on the basis that my thought input might also be false.

So, please, prove to us with absolute certainty that your awareness and experiences are real and not fed to you by an outside agency in such a way that the same argument could not also be used to prove the material world.

[Zero]

We'vebeen asking him that question, phrased different ways, for years...he'll restate his assumptions,say that it is 'apparent' or 'obvious' that he is right, and then start back in on the personal insults.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Are you? Is it not possible that some outside force is feeding you those sensations and feelings of being aware?

It is indeed beyond doubt that a force is feeding/creating those sensations and feelings of being aware. I.e., something is having the experience of being me.
The nature of that force is what I proceed to discuss after the acknowledgement of the experience.

You might just be a predestined automoton running the program sent to you by some external agent.

And? Even if I was, I would still be experiencing sensations et al upon awareness. This is all I state, initially. It is the basis of a progressive philosophy. There's no reason why, at this initial point, that I might not eventually make the conclusion that I am indeed a "automoton running the program...". But that doesn't alter the initial fact that there is awareness of sensations, thoughts & feelings. Does it?
I might even be an epiphenomena of the brain's complex activity. But again, this doesn't alter the initial fact that there is awareness of sensations, thoughts & feelings.

Why are you so reluctant to acknowledge the experience of existence that you are aware of, regardless of what 'you' are?
Initially, we are merely concerned with the known facts. And those facts are that there is awareness of sensation, thought & feeling.

You have the sensation of abstract throughts and feelings, but you also have the abstract sensation of lights and sounds. Both could be real or both could be false. You reject one as false, why not the other?

What? Light & sound are both internal sensations. I don't understand the question.
And btw, the reality of the experience of the sensations is real. I merely contend that the things we see within them are not.

You've said that. I know that your belief that abstract thoughts and feelings are the only things that are real. I'm asking you to prove it.

As I said earlier in this post, it doesn't matter what I am - even if I'm just a brain-product. The fact is that there is awareness of sensations and thoughts and feelings by whatever, ultiamtely, I am.
We cannot deny the reality of sensation, thought & feeling. Not even if we question the identity of who or what is having those things.
I must repeat - because it is significant - that something is having the abstract experiences which constitute 'me'. My philosophy merely proceeds to try and identify this entity.

Yes, please. How do you prove this to yourself or to others, such as myself?

The beauty of my philosophy is that it is only dependent upon my own experience of existence. I do not have to worry about whether you really exist or not. In fact, ultimately, I reduce all existence to God and state that 'we' are but mere perceptions of being, had by God. So, earlier when I said that something was having the experience of 'me', I came to the conclusion that this ~thing~ is God. I also came to that conclusion for everybody else like me.
My philosophy extends to all those who think themselves to be having the same initial experience as myself. You'll have to decide for yourself whether you are having the awareness of sensation, thought & feeling. If you are, then my philosophy applies to your existence. If you are not, then you have no existence and it doesn't matter.
So, the individual has to acknowledge the reality of their own experiences. If you are aware of sensation, thought & feeling, this philosophy applies to you.

No, it isn't. It is only proof that you think you have experience and awareness. It is not proof that those things actually exist.

Your own claim is that we only think we have experience and awarenss of the material world, but that our sensations of the material world aren't what we think they are. Further, you've argued that our experience with the material world is not proof of the material world. Do you see any similarities with your above claim?

One cannot deny the experience of the sensations. What we see within those sensations is what is doubtful. In fact, it is plainly obvious that you do not see an external (to awareness) reality as you observe the sensations occuring internally to your awareness. Yet such an obvious conclusion has evaded 99.9% of mankind throughout history, thus far. Simply because appearances are so convincing.

Anyone who gets slapped in the face could say that the material world was just as obvious.

I would never deny that somebody has the experience of being slapped in the face. What I would say is that the experience has just happened within their minds, completely.
Saying such things seems hard to accept. Yet every night, most of us have dreams that seem as real as the "real world", and they are, without doubt, just happening within the mind.

You reject those experiences but accept thoughts and feelings as "obvious", yet you can not explain why.

Again, I do not reject the experience. I just reject the general interpretation of that experience.

Just for your information, I do believe that my awareness and experiences are real.

You can hardly deny that you have sensation, thought & feeling. And as I said, it doesn't matter what 'you' really are. The fact is that the experience of 'you' is definitely happening. That's all I want people to acknowledge.

What I am questioning is why you reject the material world when, by the same criteria you use to reject it, you accept the immaterial world. The reason I am pushing you to prove that you have abstract experiences and awareness is not because I believe that you don't have them, but to show you that you can't prove that you have them. Not to the level of proof that you demand of the physical world.

I am actively existing within a realm of sensations, thoughts & feelings. Something is having the experience of 'me'. It's impossible to deny this without lying.
I can also say that I am having no experience of an external (to awareness) realm. Simply because I am not. Again, my experience is one of internal sensations, thoughts & feelings. This external reality we speak of eludes me, except within appearances. It certainly appears as though everything is outside my mind, but it aint. In fact, the sensations, thoughts and feelings, of waking-conciousness are just as much an appearance of an external-reality as are my dreams. But they do not reveal an external reality. Not in the slightest. Not in truth. We see within our minds when we observe sensations, thoughts & feelings.

Let's ask the question another way. What evidence would it take to prove to you the existence of the material world? Is there anything that would prove to you it exists? I'm guessing the answer is "no." Correct me if I'm wrong.

After intense thought on the matter, for a few years, my answer is indeed no.
Philosophically speaking, the external realm is beyond us. It cannot be grasped by reason or, of course, sensation.
Yet I have a couple of arguments which actually negate the possibility of an external realm, one of which I posted yesterday or the day before, within this thread.

What, then, would it take to disprove to you the existence of the mind/awareness/experience? Is there anything that would disprove its existance to you? I'm guessing again that the answer is "no." Correct me if I'm wrong.

How could you possibly prove that something is not having the experiences of 'you'?

[Upchurch]

Feel free to address the rest of the post.

[RussDill]

I'll leave most of this post to upchurch, but there are a few points I'd like to take up.

Originally posted by lifegazer

Initially, we are merely concerned with the known facts. And those facts are that there is awareness of sensation, thought & feeling.


vast oversimplification, we know a great deal about more about the brain than that. Also, it is unclear how many of these functions can be proven beyond simply being aware. (like memory)


What? Light & sound are both internal sensations. I don't understand the question.
And btw, the reality of the experience of the sensations is real. I merely contend that the things we see within them are not.


still continuing to claim that our sensations are internal to our awareness when you've already stated that they are not...sigh


Not even if we question the identity of who or what is having those things.


Really? Because there are some very strange things about the brain. Such as, we all have an inner voice, I'm betting yours speaks english and probably even has an english accent. Within your awareness, you "hear" your inner voice as you would someone speaking, or the memory of someone speaking. Who is your inner voice, if you simply hear your inner voice, can it really be said that your awareness is your inner voice?


The beauty of my philosophy is that it is only dependent upon my own experience of existence. I do not have to worry about whether you really exist or not. In fact, ultimately, I reduce all existence to God and state that 'we' are but mere perceptions of being, had by God. So, earlier when I said that something was having the experience of 'me', I came to the conclusion that this ~thing~ is God. I also came to that conclusion for everybody else like me.


you can state, attempt to reduce, and assume all you want, it still doesn't make your philosophy true.


My philosophy extends to all those who think themselves to be having the same initial experience as myself. You'll have to decide for yourself whether you are having the awareness of sensation, thought & feeling. If you are, then my philosophy applies to your existence. If you are not, then you have no existence and it doesn't matter.
So, the individual has to acknowledge the reality of their own experiences. If you are aware of sensation, thought & feeling, this philosophy applies to you.


I'm sorry, my existence apears to be more complex than yours, and therefore, isn't adequetely explained by your philosophy.


One cannot deny the experience of the sensations. What we see within those sensations is what is doubtful. In fact, it is plainly obvious that you do not see an external (to awareness) reality as you observe the sensations occuring internally to your awareness. Yet such an obvious conclusion has evaded 99.9% of mankind throughout history, thus far. Simply because appearances are so convincing.


Why should the perception of things be a critical degree of seperation? There are a number of degrees of seperation between us being aware of an object, and that object. photons bouncing off, photons being bent by our lenses, photons being obsorbed by photo receptors, photo receptors sending electrical impluses, those impulses being combined in the brain, pattern recognition networks, etc, etc, until we are aware of it. You claim that our sensations within our awareness have some special place beyond just physical processes, you have proven no such thing.

The process is not missed by 99.9% percent of mankind.


I would never deny that somebody has the experience of being slapped in the face. What I would say is that the experience has just happened within their minds, completely.


This is your assumption, stating your assumption again won't help your argument.


Saying such things seems hard to accept. Yet every night, most of us have dreams that seem as real as the "real world", and they are, without doubt, just happening within the mind.


I fail to see how dreams are special in any way to your argument. Right now, I'm having a thought that has nothing to do with my current preceptions. Also, I can relive perceptions by memory, no dreams necessary.


You can hardly deny that you have sensation, thought & feeling. And as I said, it doesn't matter what 'you' really are. The fact is that the experience of 'you' is definitely happening. That's all I want people to acknowledge.


If you are just asking if we are selfaware, then why add all the extra baggage and changing definitions? Why? Because your argument depends on this extra baggage.


It certainly appears as though everything is outside my mind, but it aint.


What about things that are inside your mind, but external to your awareness. These are arguably not part of your "mind", but part of your tangible brain. Memory is a good example. Inner voice is another. Is your inner voice inside your awareness, or simply heard by your awareness?


Philosophically speaking, the external realm is beyond us. It cannot be grasped by reason or, of course, sensation.



important part:

And yet you claim to have proven a realm external to our awareness...but you just said "the external realm is beyond us". Could you make your failure any more odvious?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Feel free to address the rest of the post.

Good luck, he's been ignoring me since I pointed out that in his philosophy, everything we perceive is external to our awareness since it is being fed to us by the "god" part of "The Mind" and that "The Mind" itself is also, just like the "material world", external to our awareness.

[lifegazer]

Is something having the experience that is 'you'?

Is the experience which constitutes 'you' not comprised, essentially, of sensations, thoughts & feelings, upon/within awareness?

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Is something having the experience that is 'you'?

Is the experience which constitutes 'you' not comprised, essentially, of sensations, thoughts & feelings, upon/within awareness? No and no. Now stop asking.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Good luck, he's been ignoring me since I pointed out that in his philosophy, everything we perceive is external to our awareness since it is being fed to us by the "god" part of "The Mind" and that "The Mind" itself is also, just like the "material world", external to our awareness.
You still don't understand. If something is having the awareness of being 'you', then you are, essentially, that thing itself (having the awareness of being you).
In other words, that thing is having the experience of being you, within itself, since that is really the thing which is having the experience.
So, you are incorrect to mention "externals". You are not external to the thing having the experience of being you. You are internal to the thing having the experience of being you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
No and no. Now stop asking.
Give reasons or clear off.

[Upchurch]

It's never been a question of whether or not "you" exist. It is a question of whether you can prove it to the same standard by which you judge the material world. But, by all means, feel free to avoid the question.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Give reasons or clear off. Sorry. The Big Giant Head made me do that. It appears The Big Giant Head made 'you' experience it too. So take it up with him.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You still don't understand. If something is having the awareness of being 'you', then you are, essentially, that thing itself (having the awareness of being you).


Why the extra "thing"? Why not just "me". Why can't I have the experience of being me, rather than some "thing".


In other words, that thing is having the experience of being you, within itself, since that is really the thing which is having the experience.


OK, if this is your argument, then you need to prove it. Which again, boils down to proving that there is something beyond our own awareness.


So, you are incorrect to mention "externals".
You are not external to the thing having the experience of being you. You are internal to the thing having the experience of being you.

If we assume that I am just part of the awareness of a great and all powerfull mind, then the rest of that mind is external to that awareness. All the other "awarenesses" around me, the "God" part of the awareness feeding me perceptions, etc, would all still be external to my awareness. Your argument would be akin to saying that the rest of the apple is not external to the seed.

The assumption that our awareness is actually the awareness of a superior being is something you have to prove anyway, and if your proof relies on this assumption, then your argument is circular.


edited: s/You argument/Your argument/

[Dancing David]

Posted by Lifegazer:

The mind looks within itself to see things. The mind cannot look within itself to see the whole of itself. A part of itself would be needed to look at the whole. Clearly, the mind cannot embrace its wholeness within introspective thought.

That is not a restriction that I would place upon the meta-mind. And the main point is that the only ‘stuff’ in ‘awareness’ is the observed stuff. If the process of mind/brain is such, than it merely has sensation or thoughts or emotions, the things that are in the awareness comprise the awareness, there is no reason for the mind to be an observer if it is the observed things in fact. And while I can not prove materialism, it does suggest that the events of the brain are all there is. There is no abstraction, just the events.

The mind is a label we attribute to this abstract existence as a whole. The mind is the realm of abstract being.

I would counter that the mind is merely the events of the brain. Call it ‘light of mind’ or ‘brain events’, I believe that that is all there is, no mind, just the brain events commonly called mind. No way to prove it other than to mention brain damage.
I think that I will agree to not disagree or comment on this because our frameworks do not allow us to resolve the other’s stance. I say that everything that you call awareness is a brain event in an organic brain. You say that everything is awareness within the meta-mind. We both have our reasons and they differ.

You won't grant it existence because it cannot see the whole of itself within itself? That's just daft.

We were discussing tangibility at the time, but again it is in the speculative realm so anything goes. I don’t see why the meta-mind if it exists would not encompass itself. But hey it ain’t my theory.

But it is merely a label assigned to the abstract being that we are aware of. We could call abstract being as a whole something else if you want, if it makes you feel better. We could call it poopoo, if you want. But all I care about is that you acknowledge that poopoo (existence as a whole) is completely abstract, as experienced. Will you acknowledge this?
This sounds like a reasonable request to me and I have no idea why you would refuse to let me label abstract existence as a whole, poopoo.
So, upon your acceptance of this new term, I shall then prove to you that poopoo is God, having abstract experiences within itself.
Will you be happy to proceed with that?

As I said I think it took true bravery to make that step. But I don’t agree with the whole abstraction argument. You talk about the abstract nature of being and I just don’t agree, your proof is that if you put someone in a sensory deprivation tank that they start to have false or hallucinatory sensations. I think that indicates that there is a structure that needs sensation and/or generates sensation. I think that it is an organic brain, you think it is innate awareness. Bop. And Draw.

Qualia are not grasped by the mind until they have been transformed into things, relative to one another, by thought/reason/judgment. Look at the picture (of light) upon your awareness. How many different things do you see within your awareness?

Quale by themselves are supposed to be a raw phenomenological approach to consciousness, they are self supporting, if I understand the argument correctly. And since I don’t believe in them I have no counter. I don’t believe that you need reason or judgment, just an operational brain. Remember that a baby is devoid of reason or judgment but that they learn to perceive color. No reason or judgment, just eyes and a brain. Reason and judgment arise later.

That's nonsense. Experience as a whole is already shown to be abstract/intangible. Your statement is clearly assumed and incorrect.

Your statement is clearly assumed and ...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It's never been a question of whether or not "you" exist. It is a question of whether you can prove it to the same standard by which you judge the material world. But, by all means, feel free to avoid the question.
I have no experience of an external reality. Yet I have had a continual experience of sensations, thoughts & feelings, within awareness.
So, whereas there is no experience of an external realm, there is an experience of an internal to awareness realm. Again, how can you deny that something is having the experience of 'you'? And isn't this experience comprised of sensations, thoughts & feelings, upon awareness?

I addressed your objections in detail in my previous post. It seems to me as though you will never accept these axioms:-
(1) That something is having the experience of 'you'.
(2) That this experience is comprised of sensation, thought & emotion, within awareness.

As such, there seems little else that we have to say to each other.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
Sorry. The Big Giant Head made me do that. It appears The Big Giant Head made 'you' experience it too. So take it up with him.
Only God exists. Who do you think you are?
You think you are what you perceive. Yet you are, in fact, The Perceiver of what you perceive.
You are God.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I addressed your objections in detail in my previous post. It seems to me as though you will never accept these axioms:-
(1) That something is having the experience of 'you'.
(2) That this experience is comprised of sensation, thought & emotion, within awareness.I would have no problem accepting them as axioms for an argument, but that doesn't necessarily make either of them true. And incidently, I did say I accept the first one. My point is that you can't prove it. "Accepting" is different than "proving" it.
I have no experience of an external reality.Okay, let's play this your way:

You've never felt sunlight? Or seen TV? Anything dealing with the five senses (sight, smell, tough, hearing, and taste) are defined as sensations coming from the external or material world. When you receive these sensations, you are receieving them from the outside world by definition. Just like awareness thoughts and feelings are defined to be the "mind" so are these sensations defined as being the "external reality"
Yet I have had a continual experience of sensations, thoughts & feelings, within awareness.You may have them within awareness, but you can't prove what their source is. You only assume that they come from your own awareness. This is what I'm asking to prove, which you still have not.
So, whereas there is no experience of an external realm, there is an experience of an internal to awareness realm.Ah, but there is experience of an external realm. Everything you see, smell, hear, touch, and taste are experiences of the external realm by definition. I find it difficult to believe that you can even post without have experienced one or more of these senations.

[Dancing David]

Lifegazer;
the question posed is this:
-you are aware of sensations
-you are aware of thoughts

You say that sensations are illusiory and that thoughts are directly experienced, but the criteria for them are the same. But there is a false dichotomy when you establish as belief in the 'self' that is behind the awareness, you are the process, there is nothing beyond the process. I have thoughts about how this works, they are not things in my mind, they are thoughts, a set of entrained impulses in the brain.



I as a materialist say that there is not something doing the sense-ing other than the mechanical body itself, and that the mechanical body is responsible for everything that you define as 'you', there is no perciever behind the eye, there is the eye and the sensation it produces in the brain.

I am not 'aware' of my thoughts, they are thinking, just as I am not aware of my sensations, I have sensation(an active process), I think about sensation, I have active emotions about sensation, there is a process of memory about sensation.

But the difference in POV is that i believe that the physical organic mechanics are all that there is , there is no inner awareness, it is just comprised of other physical evenst that occur within my body and brain.

Not very mystical but wonderful nonetheless.


I want to praise you for actualy trying to understand what some of us are trying to discuss with you, your recent posts show an effort to meet others on the forum. Thanks!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I would have no problem accepting them as axioms for an argument, but that doesn't necessarily make either of them true. And incidently, I did say I accept the first one. My point is that you can't prove it. "Accepting" is different than "proving" it.

Firstly, why don't you accept the second one too?
Secondly, as I explained yesterday, this philosophy is only dependent upon self-experience. I.e., I only have to prove that there is an experience of 'me' to me... as you only have to prove the existence of 'you' to you. Read that post for details.
However, how can you say that there is no proof that something is having the experience of 'you'? I just don't get that objection at all. Are you stating the [possible] fact that there is no experience of you? How bizarre 'you' can even consider that possibility.

Okay, let's play this your way:

You've never felt sunlight?

I have had the sensation of heat, which appears to emanate from an object within my awareness - the Sun - as seen and defined by the light within my awareness.

Or seen TV?

Colours and sound within my awareness.

Anything dealing with the five senses (sight, smell, tough, hearing, and taste) are defined as sensations coming from the external or material world.

It is quite easy to show that the sensations are not imposed upon an entity by the [supposed] external realm. Even if such a realm exists, an entity must choose itself, to create and have the sensation of, for example, pain. The external realm neither knows what pain is nor forces an entity to have that experience. Hence the abstract experience of pain is self-imposed, by choice, for self-purpose.
It is quite easy to show that an entity is the primal-cause of its own sensory experiences, via a detailed argument along these lines.
The external-realm does not create sensory-experience. Whatever thing 'you' really are (that is having the experience of you), it is easy to show that this thing is the primal-cause of all that you are aware of. So easy in fact, that these few paragraphs should suffice to convey the message.

When you receive these sensations, you are receieving them from the outside world by definition.

By definition founded upon the assumption that an external realm is real. But mass ignorance is not a defence or a retort.
In actual fact, the sensations are created by whatever you really are. Something is having the experience of being you... and this thing has created that experience for itself... is the primal-cause of 'you'.

Just like awareness thoughts and feelings are defined to be the "mind" so are these sensations defined as being the "external reality"

It's not the sensations which are defined as being the external reality, so much as the things we discern within those sensations. These things give the appearance of an external realm. Yet the things we discern are borne of the inner-sensations. We are seeing an internal realm. This is a fact, regardless of how convincing appearances are to the contrary.

You may have them within awareness, but you can't prove what their source is. You only assume that they come from your own awareness. This is what I'm asking to prove, which you still have not.

They don't come from 'awareness'. Awareness is what comes from It. And I do contend that I can prove the source.

Ah, but there is experience of an external realm. Everything you see, smell, hear, touch, and taste are experiences of the external realm by definition. I find it difficult to believe that you can even post without have experienced one or more of these senations.
Everything I see, smell, hear, touch and taste are experiences of things discerned within those sensations!!! That's the point of my philosophy.

Observe a barking dog, for example. You sense ~light~ and ~sounds~ within your awareness and then make the judgement that you are observing a barking dog. Yet if this dog exists within the sensations, which exist within your awareness, then the dog exists within you also. Things are borne of the sensations.

[Upchurch]

I appologize. I've allowed myself to get off-topic.

I'm going to focus on the portions of the post that is relevent to the question.Originally posted by lifegazer
It is quite easy to show that the sensations are not imposed upon an entity by the [supposed] external realm. Even if such a realm exists, an entity must choose itself, to create and have the sensation of, for example, pain. The external realm neither knows what pain is nor forces an entity to have that experience. Hence the abstract experience of pain is self-imposed, by choice, for self-purpose.
It is quite easy to show that an entity is the primal-cause of its own sensory experiences, via a detailed argument along these lines.All you've managed to show is that an entity is the interpreter of its sensory experiences, not the source (or primal-cause, if you prefer) of such sensations. You even postulate in your argument that the physical realm exists and do nothing to show that it neccessarily doesn't. Although it is not specifically on-topic, how would you show that such sensations, which the mind interprets, don't originate from the material world?
By definition founded upon the assumption that an external realm is real. But mass ignorance is not a defence or a retort. The same can be said of your definition that something is experiencing sensations and that something is the "mind". It is based on the assumption that something exists that experiences awareness. You have not proven that such a thing exists. You have not proven that this assumption is true.
They don't come from 'awareness'. Awareness is what comes from It. And I do contend that I can prove the source. Then do so. And don't forget to define "It".

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Firstly, why don't you accept the second one too?


Once again, lifegazer uses the powerful "argument by imagination" just as he did when claiming that someone used a Tao quote to try to discount his philosophy. Where did david say that he accepts or does not accept either? Why does it matter in relation to the question?


Secondly, as I explained yesterday, this philosophy is only dependent upon self-experience. I.e., I only have to prove that there is an experience of 'me' to me... as you only have to prove the existence of 'you' to you. Read that post for details.


Your posts are pretty scant on details, but full of stuff like "it is a fact". Anyway, your philosophy depends on assuming awareness, the mind, etc, exist in a paticular way and by a paticular definition. If you start from the phrase, "I exist", you would then have to proceed to make a large number of assumptions to get to your philosophy.


I have had the sensation of heat, which appears to emanate from an object within my awareness - the Sun - as seen and defined by the light within my awareness.

Colours and sound within my awareness.


you are assuming that these things have *anything* at all to do with your awareness.


It is quite easy to show that the sensations are not imposed upon an entity by the [supposed] external realm.


Really? Because I have shown you a number of alternative ways that sensation comes about, none of which you have disproven, much less proving your own viewpoint.


Even if such a realm exists, an entity must choose itself, to create and have the sensation of, for example, pain. The external realm neither knows what pain is nor forces an entity to have that experience.


Why must an entity choose for itself? Why can an entity simply not be "born" with the ability to experience pain? In such a case, the material world would not have imposed anything on the entitity, and the entitity would have not chosen to be able to experience such a sensation. If an entity is born with a sensation, then the "external" world would not need to know anything about the experience.


The external realm neither knows what pain is nor forces an entity to have that experience. Hence the abstract experience of pain is self-imposed, by choice, for self-purpose.


I have shown above that you have left out at least one in which your limitations do not apply, so your reasoning does not pan out. To maintain your argument, you will have to prove that entities cannot start existence with the ability to have any sensations.


It is quite easy to show that an entity is the primal-cause of its own sensory experiences, via a detailed argument along these lines.


Oh goody, does this one actually contain some critical thinking?


The external-realm does not create sensory-experience.


Um...ya, so? The external realm could care less about your sensory experiences, much less bother doing anything to create them. I'm not sure what you are trying to show with the above statement, maybe you want to use some word other than create.


Whatever thing 'you' really are (that is having the experience of you), it is easy to show that this thing is the primal-cause of all that you are aware of.


wow, so, if I exist, I am the reason I am aware...without me, I wouldn't be aware. However, you seem to be attempting to reason beyond this, you seem to be attempting to show that me existing is the reason the sun is shining. (as opposed to me existing is the reason I sense the sun shining)



So easy in fact, that these few paragraphs should suffice to convey the message.


er, wait, were you going to prove something in some following paragraphs you were going to type? I guess it was so easy, you forgot to do it. Or was the proof supposed to be above....lemme number the sentances to try to find some deduction, nope, all I see are stated assumptions.


By definition founded upon the assumption that an external realm is real. But mass ignorance is not a defence or a retort.


no, by your own philosophy, you recieve your sensations from a source external to your awareness. Also, a world does not need to be real for you to be able (hypothetically) to receive sensations from it.


In actual fact, the sensations are created by whatever you really are. Something is having the experience of being you... and this thing has created that experience for itself... is the primal-cause of 'you'.


this is your claim, it makes no sense in a debate to claim it as fact in order to prove your claim. That is what we like to call a circular argument. It is similar to trying to prove the god by saying, "read the bible", and then prove the bible by saying "god made the bible".


It's not the sensations which are defined as being the external reality, so much as the things we discern within those sensations. These things give the appearance of an external realm. Yet the things we discern are borne of the inner-sensations. We are seeing an internal realm. This is a fact, regardless of how convincing appearances are to the contrary.


Another case of useless lifegazer language. OK lifegazer, how many types of sensation are there? Can you list them? Can you define them? Because you keep tacking the word "inner" onto sensation. Can you tell me the difference between sensation and inner-sensation? If not, then tacking inner on is meaningless, so, We'll just remove that from your argument.


These things give the appearance of an external realm. Yet the things we discern are borne of the sensations. We are seeing an internal realm.


Wow, suddenly you make no sense at all. Either define the difference between sensations, and inner-sensations, or make the above make sense with out using the word "inner-sensations"


They don't come from 'awareness'. Awareness is what comes from It. And I do contend that I can prove the source.


so...our awareness comes from our sensations (it)...right, now you've completely broken down or are using the word "it" thinking about something completely out of context.


Everything I see, smell, hear, touch and taste are experiences of things discerned within those sensations!!! That's the point of my philosophy.


Just because you discern things *by* your sensations, doesn't mean the are in their sensations. You are attempting massive handwaving to make the argument to go away, you have still not answered the question as to what the source of our sensations are. (in the context of this post).

However, in other posts, you have answered that question, you have stated that the sources for our awareness is the god part of the mind, that turns to the right page of the blueprint, and feeds it to our awareness.

So your sensations would be sensing what is fed to you, which would mean those things are not within your sensations.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Once again, lifegazer uses the powerful "argument by imagination" just as he did when claiming that someone used a Tao quote to try to discount his philosophy. Where did david say that he accepts or does not accept either? Why does it matter in relation to the question?

My question was addressed to upchurch. Unless David is his real name, I think you are confused with Dancing David and the question wasn't addressed to him.
Secondly, my philosophy deals with absolutes, so I have a bone to pick with anyone who quotes the Tao as a source to back up Wittgenstein's idea that philosophy is dead.
Thirdly, the question matters because if he accepts that something is having the experience of 'upchurch', it's also important to realise what that experience is comprised of: sensations, thoughts & feelings, upon awareness.
Once he accepts both, my philosophy can proceed to show what the thing is that is having the experience. But whilst he dances a merry-dance around these simple truths, I cannot proceed. Not with him, anyway.

Your posts are pretty scant on details, but full of stuff like "it is a fact". Anyway, your philosophy depends on assuming awareness, the mind, etc, exist in a paticular way and by a paticular definition. If you start from the phrase, "I exist", you would then have to proceed to make a large number of assumptions to get to your philosophy.

(1) Something is having the experience of being me.
(2) This experience is comprised of sensation, thought & feeling, within awareness.
(3) These experiences are, by definition, intangible in comparison with the [supposed] real world.

Imo, the first two are undeniable by any sincere means of retort. And if anyone wants to question number-3, then may I request that they read the last post on page-5 which specifically addresses tangible & intangible distinctions.

you are assuming that these things have *anything* at all to do with your awareness.

What? The sensations occur within my awareness and the things discerned within ~reality~ occur within the sensations. Hence, things are borne of the sensations. We see things within ourselves. That Sun you can see, for example, is a bright roundish source of yellowish light within your awareness. You don't see a Sun external to your awareness... but a Sun internal to your awareness.

Really? Because I have shown you a number of alternative ways that sensation comes about, none of which you have disproven, much less proving your own viewpoint.

You've shown me diddley squat. You stated that "evolution did it", or words along that theme.

Why must an entity choose for itself?

An entity is not forced to have the experience of pain, for example, as it comes into contact with fire. Indeed, the universe doesn't know what the abstract sensation of pain means - least of all possessing the forces to impose it upon individual objects.
It is quite clear that an entity experiences sensations, thoughts & feelings, for its own purposes. It is equally clear that these sensations, such as pain, are self-imposed, even as a response to a [supposed] external reality.
What can be stated, without doubt, is that no thing external to an entity is forcing that entity to have the abstract experience of pain. The entity itself imposes that experience upon itself. I.e., the entity creates that experience and has that experience, for self-purpose.

Why can an entity simply not be "born" with the ability to experience pain?

The ability to experience pain is not caused by birth.

In such a case, the material world would not have imposed anything on the entitity, and the entitity would have not chosen to be able to experience such a sensation. If an entity is born with a sensation, then the "external" world would not need to know anything about the experience.

So, about 3-ish billion years ago (not really relevant as to when), an organism just happened to be born with the ability to have [some form of] abstract sensation. Is this your explanation for the beginning of sensory-perception? That, without reason, something just happened to be born with the ability to sense light, for example? And that further along the evolutionary chain, something just happened to be born with the ability to have the abstract feeling of 'touch'. And that further along... etc.
Really Russ, if that's your explanation, then you don't have an explanation. You have a series of magical abstract-occurances that have no causes.

Um...ya, so? The external realm could care less about your sensory experiences, much less bother doing anything to create them. I'm not sure what you are trying to show with the above statement, maybe you want to use some word other than create.

I'm trying to show - and your statement here seems to agree with me - that sensory-perception does not come from an external source.

wow, so, if I exist, I am the reason I am aware...without me, I wouldn't be aware. However, you seem to be attempting to reason beyond this, you seem to be attempting to show that me existing is the reason the sun is shining. (as opposed to me existing is the reason I sense the sun shining)

The Sun can only shine in someone's awareness.

no, by your own philosophy, you recieve your sensations from a source external to your awareness. Also, a world does not need to be real for you to be able (hypothetically) to receive sensations from it.

You still don't understand. If something is having the awareness of being 'you', then you are, essentially, that thing itself (having the awareness of being you).
In other words, that thing is having the experience of being you, within itself, since that is really the thing which is having the experience.
So, you are incorrect to mention "externals". You are not external to the thing having the experience of being you. You are internal to the thing having the experience of being you.

I said this the other day and it still stands.

[Wudang]

So if I am internal to the thing that is having the experience of being me, that would mean that it (or parts thereof) were external to me which would mean that, gosh!, the source of the sensations that were the basis of my experience which is the foundation of my awareness, would be something external to the me that is having the experience.
Which leads us to........ oh, we're still here.
I think I'm getting the hang of these run-on sentences.
This "something external" is defined to be the real world. So it is with authority I can state that the real world exists.
Should I chuck a "doth" or two in there, some random hyphenation for effect?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
So if I am internal to the thing that is having the experience of being me, that would mean that it (or parts thereof) were external to me

There is nothing external to an intangible/abstract entity. Did you read my post about this?
For your sake:-
"argument against an external reality

If we acknowledge the reality of our intangible experiences - abstract qualia, thought & emotion, upon intangible awareness - then how can an external reality exist, to this?

Think about it: an intangible entity/being/experience is not something with definite objective existence. There is no form and no definite position in space or time, for intangible being.
Therefore, nothing can exist externally to an intangible being because to do so would require that an intangible being occupy spacetime. But it does not.
Conclusion: There can be no external reality to an intangible being.
Therefore, given that being is intangible, we can know that nothing exists externally to this existence which we are having."

Abstract entities are not real things. They only exist within awareness by appearance/illusion. Hence, they do not exist, so when I say things exist within perception, it must be understood that I mean by appearance/illusion. You would not deny, for example, that your dreams are full of things that exist within your awareness by appearance/illusion. But they do not actually exist, so they aren't really within you.

Perhaps it would be better if I used the term 'upon' awareness?

Should I chuck a "doth" or two in there, some random hyphenation for effect?
~Dothest~ thou "mockest" me squire!?!

[Wudang]

"Thou mocketh" surely? Anyway, on the flip side, so the thing that has the experience of being me is not external to me nor is any part of the same external to me. Therefore I am not internal to it unless I am congruent with it. You have previously said that I am internal to this thing that has the experience of being me therefore by the above it is congruent or identical with me. Therefore my awareness comprises all of existence. So why don't I know what's on TV tonight?
Hang on, on the other hand I do how lifegazer is going to reply - spooky or what?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
"Thou mocketh" surely?

Yay.

Anyway, on the flip side, so the thing that has the experience of being me is not external to me nor is any part of the same external to me. Therefore I am not internal to it unless I am congruent with it. You have previously said that I am internal to this thing that has the experience of being me therefore by the above it is congruent or identical with me. Therefore my awareness comprises all of existence. So why don't I know what's on TV tonight?

What you really are is lost to being 'Wudang'.
Remember, it is my philosophy that everyone is really God, being lost to the awareness of things within (whoops, I mean 'upon') God's awareness.
Yet it was meant to be, so don't fight it. God also creates the dreams God becomes lost within.

Hang on, on the other hand I do how lifegazer is going to reply - spooky or what?
If you doubt that The Mind can create a realm full of things whereby that Mind simultaneously plays the part of every thing upon its awareness whilst forgetting its absolute identity, then ponder your dreams. The Mind creates your dreams, and is everything and everyone in your dreams, losing itself to that dream.
The evidence is there already, that this can be done. So do not doubt my reasoning when I state that the same thing is occuring for this apparent reality.

You are God playing the part of Wudang. What you know is what Wudang knows... not what God knows.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The Mind creates your dreams, and is everything and everyone in your dreams, losing itself to that dream.
The evidence is there already, that this can be done. So do not doubt my reasoning when I state that the same thing is occuring for this apparent reality.

But in my dreams there are no separate actors with separate knowledge to account for. It's a supporting argument for solipsism but not idealism. It's a pity you're not a computer techie as abstraction layers and virtual machines might be an interesting model for you. But since it's an argument that I can kick holes in I wouldn't bother researching it. But for the Mind to produce the individual mids state I must be isolated from other parts of the Mind (this would be one of the holes in the above model btw) - i.e. my mind state must be ring-fenced from others therefore once again, the spectre of something outside me arises. I fail to see how you can go any other way than solipsism given your argument.
I don't doubt your reasoning, I disagree with it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wudang

I fail to see how you can go any other way than solipsism given your argument.Agreed. That is an issue that's been touched on, but never pursued.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
But in my dreams there are no separate actors with separate knowledge to account for.

There are usually several characters in most dreams, even if they don't always say much. And there is the "stage" itself - the spacetime environment in which the dream takes place, complete with scenery/buildings.
When you have a dream, it is The Mind which creates that dream... and which plays the part of all things and people within that dream - including 'you'.
Significantly, within any dream, 'you' are only aware of 'you' and have no awareness of The Mind which creates the dream or which plays the part of every-thing else.

It's a supporting argument for solipsism but not idealism.

A few times I have consented to being a solipsist in the sense that God is the only living entity.
I should also reiterate my conclusion that 'we' are not what we perceive, but are indeed The perceiver of what we perceive.

I fail to see how you can go any other way than solipsism given your argument.

Only God exists. I agree.

[Zero]

You mean to say that I percieve what I percieve?


Gosh, you must be retarded. Let me ask the question again:

If you say that everything we experience if 'of the mind', how can you say for sure that external reality does or doesn't exist? Your own ideas refute your claims.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I fail to see how you can go any other way than solipsism given your argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only God exists. I agree.

Now if we could agree on a name & the attributes ... :D

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Secondly, my philosophy deals with absolutes, so I have a bone to pick with anyone who quotes the Tao as a source to back up Wittgenstein's idea that philosophy is dead.


It was not...it was used as a temporary signature. You claimed that he was arguing with the quote, while completely ignoring the rest of the post.


Thirdly, the question matters because if he accepts that something is having the experience of 'upchurch', it's also important to realise what that experience is comprised of: sensations, thoughts & feelings, upon awareness.
Once he accepts both, my philosophy can proceed to show what the thing is that is having the experience. But whilst he dances a merry-dance around these simple truths, I cannot proceed. Not with him, anyway.


Since you are claiming your philosophy is based on absolute, you don't need any axioms, so why are you insisting that he agree on some? hmm...


(1) Something is having the experience of being me.
(2) This experience is comprised of sensation, thought & feeling, within awareness.


assuming the source of thought, sensation, and feeling.


(3) These experiences are, by definition, intangible in comparison with the [supposed] real world.


small assumptions about the real world.
Huge, hidden assumption: the tangible cannot give rise to the intangible


Imo, the first two are undeniable by any sincere means of retort. And if anyone wants to question number-3, then may I request that they read the last post on page-5 which specifically addresses tangible & intangible distinctions.


So they are axioms, not absolutes. Also, because of the way you define tangible and intangible, #3 has a huge hidden assumption.


What? The sensations occur within my awareness and the things discerned within ~reality~ occur within the sensations. Hence, things are borne of the sensations. We see things within ourselves. That Sun you can see, for example, is a bright roundish source of yellowish light within your awareness. You don't see a Sun external to your awareness... but a Sun internal to your awareness.


You'll have to first define what "internal to your awareness" means. Is not your awareness observing your sensations? If something is observed by your awareness, would that make it internal, or external to your awareness?


You've shown me diddley squat. You stated that "evolution did it", or words along that theme.


I explained how the process would occur through evolution. If you cannot prove that that process cannot happen, your proof is incompelete.


An entity is not forced to have the experience of pain, for example, as it comes into contact with fire. Indeed, the universe doesn't know what the abstract sensation of pain means - least of all possessing the forces to impose it upon individual objects.




It is quite clear that an entity experiences sensations, thoughts & feelings, for its own purposes. It is equally clear that these sensations, such as pain, are self-imposed, even as a response to a [supposed] external reality.


I hear a lot of "quite clear". You use "quite clear" if you already agree on something. We don't. You are restating your points that are being argued and adding "quite clear" to them. It's the debater's equivilent of making a gun out of your finger and yelling "bang"


What can be stated, without doubt, is that no thing external to an entity is forcing that entity to have the abstract experience of pain.


And I never said this was the case.


The entity itself imposes that experience upon itself. I.e., the entity creates that experience and has that experience, for self-purpose.


This is the issue at hand, this is what you have to prove, not restate.


The ability to experience pain is not caused by birth.


I didn't say it was caused by birth, did I? I asked if an entity could be "born" with the ability to have a sensation.


So, about 3-ish billion years ago (not really relevant as to when), an organism just happened to be born with the ability to have [some form of] abstract sensation. Is this your explanation for the beginning of sensory-perception?


Actually, the beginning sensations would be merely biochemical without any electrical network.


That, without reason, something just happened to be born with the ability to sense light, for example?


Actually, no, there would be reason, there would already be another type of receptor, that through mutation, became a receptor of light. The first creature to have that ability probably had a very rudemetary nerveous system if any.


And that further along the evolutionary chain, something just happened to be born with the ability to have the abstract feeling of 'touch'. And that further along... etc.


The ability to sense touch probably came long before the ability to exprerience it. So as the nerveous system became more and more complex, the input for touch was there all along, the sensation of it just became more and more complex.


Really Russ, if that's your explanation, then you don't have an explanation. You have a series of magical abstract-occurances that have no causes.


They are not magical, or without cause in any way, it is the very slow process of mutation and natural selection. And you can call it what you want, but it is a perfectly valid alternative idea for things that you claim to be proof of your philosophy. Without disproving it, your proof is *clearly* incomplete. So again, to maintain your argument, you will have to prove that entities cannot start existence with the ability to have any sensations.


I'm trying to show - and your statement here seems to agree with me - that sensory-perception does not come from an external source.


The words you use to describe sensory perception really limit it. "create", "come from". We experience sensations, where those sensations come from, we do not know. They could be coming from within my own mind and I could be fooling myself into thinking that I was Russ, but there is no proof of that. They could also be coming from the realm in which m actual physical mind exists, but, again, no way of proving that.


The Sun can only shine in someone's awareness.


That is an assumption of your philosophy. Do you take personal glee in circular arguments, or do you just not understand what one is?


You still don't understand.


I do, I just want to see you try to prove your assumptions. Just because I do not agree with your assumptions does not mean I do not understand.


If something is having the awareness of being 'you', then you are, essentially, that thing itself (having the awareness of being you).


This is your assumption, and you are using it here to show that your other point is not an assumption. Can you do it the other way around later? Er, wait, you already have...you've said that because all sensations are within our awareness, we are God being us. Geez, round and round we go with your entirely circular arguments.


So, you are incorrect to mention "externals". You are not external to the thing having the experience of being you. You are internal to the thing having the experience of being you.


Based on your assumptions, I am incorrect? That's an interesting way to debate. I never said I was external to the thing having the expreience of being me. I said the rest of the thing is external to me. Anyway, even if I am simply god pretending to be russ, then all my sensations and perceptions are external to this pretending.


I said this the other day and it still stands.

uh-huh, sure, well, maybe we'll repost a few things here that tear up your philosophy even more:


It's not the sensations which are defined as being the external reality, so much as the things we discern within those sensations. These things give the appearance of an external realm. Yet the things we discern are borne of the inner-sensations. We are seeing an internal realm. This is a fact, regardless of how convincing appearances are to the contrary.


Another case of useless lifegazer language. OK lifegazer, how many types of sensation are there? Can you list them? Can you define them? Because you keep tacking the word "inner" onto sensation. Can you tell me the difference between sensation and inner-sensation? If not, then tacking inner on is meaningless, so, We'll just remove that from your argument.


These things give the appearance of an external realm. Yet the things we discern are borne of the sensations. We are seeing an internal realm.


Wow, suddenly you make no sense at all. Either define the difference between sensations, and inner-sensations, or make the above make sense with out using the word "inner-sensations"

Just because you discern things *by* your sensations, doesn't mean the are in their sensations. You are attempting massive handwaving to make the argument to go away, you have still not answered the question as to what the source of our sensations are. (in the context of this post).

However, in other posts, you have answered that question, you have stated that the sources for our awareness is the god part of the mind, that turns to the right page of the blueprint, and feeds it to our awareness.

So your sensations would be sensing what is fed to you, which would mean those things are not within your sensations.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk


Now if we could agree on a name & the attributes ... :D
Bob? Sally?
Not sure about a name. But a God who is not limited or finite - i.e., a proper God - must be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-creative (boundless imagination). All things and itself.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If we acknowledge the reality of our intangible experiences - abstract qualia, thought & emotion, upon intangible awareness - then how can an external reality exist, to this?


Easy, see: materialism. Your claim is that the intangible cannot rise from the tangible, you would have to prove that.


Think about it: an intangible entity/being/experience is not something with definite objective existence.


That is your assumption.


There is no form and no definite position in space or time, for intangible being.


Based on your assumption above.


Therefore, nothing can exist externally to an intangible being because to do so would require that an intangible being occupy spacetime. But it does not.


You do go on and on based on one assumption, don't you? If tangible processes can give rise to something intangible (ie, awareness), then that intangible being would occupy spacetime.


Conclusion: There can be no external reality to an intangible being.
Therefore, given that being is intangible, we can know that nothing exists externally to this existence which we are having."


right, try your proof again, this time, take care of your assumptions.


Abstract entities are not real things.


Why? If materialism is the case, then they would have an effect on the physical world, making them real things.


They only exist within awareness by appearance/illusion.


continuing your assumptions...


Hence, they do not exist, so when I say things exist within perception, it must be understood that I mean by appearance/illusion.


And, once again, try your argument again, but this time, without the assumptions.


You would not deny, for example, that your dreams are full of things that exist within your awareness by appearance/illusion.


I would. It apears there are two types of dreams. REM, and non-REM.

REM dreams seem to be created by the right brain, and deal with spacial things (which is why your eyes move aronud). Also, because the right brain doesn't have the same linear, sequential ability as the right brain, the dream is rarely in order, but your left brain will try to recall it as such. You might experience this when recalling such dreams, you tend to go back and forth explaining things that happened before. Even more telling, is that if something happens to wake you up, it will sometimes apear that the event was being led up to by your dream, because your dream occured in reverse. What is the point of all this? That it seems your left brain is experiencing a dream given by the right brain, so it would not be generated by the left brain's awareness.

non-REM dreams are all verbal, and generally remembered better because they are stored in the same side of the brain that recalls them verbally.

Also interesting, is that for something to be in your dream, your mind does not have to create it, someone else can. If someone speaks to you while you are dreaming, very often, this voice will become part of your dream.


But they do not actually exist, so they aren't really within you.


So, just because some things we are aware of clearly don't exist, nothing exists?


Perhaps it would be better if I used the term 'upon' awareness?


perhaps you should realize that the term you use does not effect reality.


~Dothest~ thou "mockest" me squire!?!

prolly, "doth" is a pretty silly word people sometimes use to make themselves sound more intelligent.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Lg: "An entity is not forced to have the experience of pain, for example, as it comes into contact with fire. Indeed, the universe doesn't know what the abstract sensation of pain means - least of all possessing the forces to impose it upon individual objects."

Lg: "It is quite clear that an entity experiences sensations, thoughts & feelings, for its own purposes. It is equally clear that these sensations, such as pain, are self-imposed, even as a response to a [supposed] external reality."

... I hear a lot of "quite clear". You use "quite clear" if you already agree on something. We don't. You are restating your points that are being argued and adding "quite clear" to them. It's the debater's equivilent of making a gun out of your finger and yelling "bang"

It's "quite clear" to anyone with good powers of deduction, that if an external reality does not impose an experience such as 'pain' upon an entity, that the entity must impose it upon itself.
It's also "quite clear" that an experience such as pain is for self-purpose, since the experience is beneficial to that entity. It reminds it to stay well-away from fires.

Also to be considered is that intangible experiences do not exist as definite entities in spacetime. Thus, it's actually impossible to argue a case for the emergence of intangible experience from the actions of a tangible body or bodies. Again, I remind you to read my bottom post on page-5 to note the distinction between tangible & intangible.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What you really are is lost to being 'Wudang'.
Remember, it is my philosophy that everyone is really God, being lost to the awareness of things within (whoops, I mean 'upon') God's awareness.
Yet it was meant to be, so don't fight it. God also creates the dreams God becomes lost within.


masterful restatement of assumptions, I don't think that is what he is asking for though.


If you doubt that The Mind can create a realm full of things whereby that Mind simultaneously plays the part of every thing upon its awareness whilst forgetting its absolute identity, then ponder your dreams. The Mind creates your dreams, and is everything and everyone in your dreams, losing itself to that dream.


The other "actors" within my dream are not aware. My dreams do not follow any laws. My dreams do not last very long. I did not choose to have a dream. My dreams are based on events that happen in my waking world.


The evidence is there already, that this can be done. So do not doubt my reasoning when I state that the same thing is occuring for this apparent reality.


no, there is none, as I've pointed out above, my dreams have nothing in common with whatever the mind would be doing.

"Do not doubt my reasoning"...heh That is your problem, you *never* doubt your reasoning, you never thing critically. I suppose to debate fairly with you, we should also take the handicap of not doubting your reasoning, right?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There are usually several characters in most dreams, even if they don't always say much.


As apposed to reality, where there are always several characters, and they generally talk more then you'd like them to. Your point was to show that the mind could become all of us, by showing that the same thing happens in dreams. You have in no way shown that any actors in our dreams have any awareness.


And there is the "stage" itself - the spacetime environment in which the dream takes place, complete with scenery/buildings.


None of these elements are necessary for a dream, especially a non-REM dream.


When you have a dream, it is The Mind which creates that dream... and which plays the part of all things and people within that dream - including 'you'.


Again, dreaming is a lot more complex than that and includes some very complex left/right brain interaction. Also, you still haven't shown that anyone in our dreams is casted by anything.


A few times I have consented to being a solipsist in the sense that God is the only living entity.


Just so you know, that isn't solipsism, that's assuming that you are god.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's "quite clear" to anyone with good powers of deduction,


No, it isn't, your point is what is up for debate. Tacking on "quite clear" is just like yelling bang bang is a gun fight.


that if an external reality does not impose an experience such as 'pain' upon an entity, that the entity must impose it upon itself.


This is a false dichotomy:
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html

You are ignoring other possibilities, such as the entity being "born" with the ability to experience pain.


It's also "quite clear" that an experience such as pain is for self-purpose, since the experience is beneficial to that entity. It reminds it to stay well-away from fires.


Then what about all the sensations that are not for the good of the entity? I've explained before that all sensation apears more to be for the survival of the species, not the self. You have not offered a retort.


Also to be considered is that intangible experiences do not exist as definite entities in spacetime.


This is your conclusion based on the assumptions that tangible processes cannot give rise to intangible ones.


Thus, it's actually impossible to argue a case for the emergence of intangible experience from the actions of a tangible body or bodies.


oh, wait, heh, now you are doing it the otherway around. Circular argument lifegazer.


Again, I remind you to read my bottom post on page-5 to note the distinction between tangible & intangible.

And I might point you to my refutation of those ideas towards the top at page 6 which you have not been able to respond to.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by RussDill


Just so you know, that isn't solipsism, that's assuming that you are god.

I'd say not. You take that as fact rather than your assertion, because?

You might want to take a look at panentheism .... :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
"that if an external reality does not impose an experience such as 'pain' upon an entity, that the entity must impose it upon itself."

This is a false dichotomy:
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html

You are ignoring other possibilities, such as the entity being "born" with the ability to experience pain.

If the cause of pain does not come from outside the entity, then it must come from within the entity. Clearly.
And being born with the ability to experience pain is not something I am disagreeing with. But that just sweeps the issue under the rug: Where, originally, does the ability to experience pain come from?

Let's discuss the very first experience of pain, for whichever organism, back in those swampy steamy times, a couple of billion of years ago.
Remember, we are talking origins here. Now, are you just going to say that the organism was born with the ability, or are you going to give a proper reason for the emergence of 'pain'?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If the cause of pain does not come from outside the entity, then it must come from within the entity. Clearly.
And being born with the ability to experience pain is not something I am disagreeing with. But that just sweeps the issue under the rug: Where, originally, does the ability to experience pain come from?


A series of random mutations chosen by natural selection.


Let's discuss the very first experience of pain, for whichever organism, back in those swampy steamy times, a couple of billion of years ago.
Remember, we are talking origins here. Now, are you just going to say that the organism was born with the ability, or are you going to give a proper reason for the emergence of 'pain'?

The first experience of pain would have caused an organism with likely no nerveous system at all to "move away". The beauty of this situation though, is that I do not need to prove anything, you have to disprove the evolutionary origin of pain. Even if I proved the evolutionary origin of pain, you could still claim that in your philosophy, there was no evolution, so anything related to evolution is irrelavent.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
The first experience of pain would have caused an organism with likely no nerveous system at all to "move away".

No doubt. But that doesn't explain where it came from.

The beauty of this situation though, is that I do not need to prove anything,

You bloomin' well do, since your retort to my philosophy is that "evolution did it".

you have to disprove the evolutionary origin of pain.

There is no explanation to disprove, since none has been forthcoming. You cannot say that evolution was responsible for the origin of pain if you cannot explain the full causal-chain that I may refute it. Saying "evolution did it" is not an explanation. I can only explain my own position and show you how naive your own is.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Saying "evolution did it" is not an explanation.But "God did it" is? Interesting the way your mind works.... or doesn't, as the case may be

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But "God did it" is? Interesting the way your mind works.... or doesn't, as the case may be
If God exists, then that is an explanation in itself.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No doubt. But that doesn't explain where it came from.


Well, I could go about giving you an in-depth explaination of genetics and mutation. However, I don't think you'd be willing to do the study on biology.


You bloomin' well do, since your retort to my philosophy is that "evolution did it".


If you don't understand this simple part of reasoning, it is utterly pointless to debate with you.

It works like this. Someone presents a proof. You can either find fault and assumption in the proof directly, or present a coherent alternate explaination. If you find a coherent alternate explaination, you are not disproving their point, you are merely showing that they have not proven their point.


There is no explanation to disprove, since none has been forthcoming. You cannot say that evolution was responsible for the origin of pain if you cannot explain the full causal-chain that I may refute it. Saying "evolution did it" is not an explanation. I can only explain my own position and show you how naive your own is.

It doesn't matter how naive or unlikely an argument is. A claim that we could all be brains in vats is pretty naive and unlikely, but it easily shows that proving something like materialism is impossible.

I need not show the exact chain of events, just like the brain in a vat explaination need not show excactly how the vat is constructed.
I merely need to show that such a process is possible. And since we are all based on DNA (and RNA), and since that DNA/RNA can be mutated by various means, *any* mutation can occur. Since most of the information is lost to time, it is impossible for me to explain the exact order of mutations, however, I can guess at certain mutations if you would like.

Just as for your philosophy, we do not need to fully understand the nature of The Mind, and it would be silly for me to ask about the excact nature of The Mind.



If you wish to understand more about evolution, genetics, bioelectrical systems, etc, I suggest you study it.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


Now if we could agree on a name & the attributes ... :D

The name that can be named is not the eternal name, that is why beyond the tree of life is the less limit light!(Not limit light)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If God exists, then that is an explanation in itself.

Foul!

That is the same as saying:
If the physical world exists , then that is an explanation in itself.

The proof of 'mind' is the same proof for the 'physical' world.

Very funny I think(or not).