Light things. [Archive]

Atlas

13th March 2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Atlas? I cannot fathom the meaning of your post. Just taking the mickey? Just having a little fun.

For I ponder not just the zillion eyes of all the animals experiencing existence for Existence; and I am blinded by the notion that it certainly isn't just the eyes that offer Existence these many perspectives on itself.

Existence must have a strange simultaneous double experience for every action that is experienced. "I" not only feel my foot hit the pavement but the pavement rejoices at my footfall. Not in any intellectual energy sense but if all Existence is that indivisible substance then there is no difference in me and the pavement - we are both returning to imaginary dust in our respective time. We have our shared atomic experience of Isness - and we have our distinct appreciation of Isness.

Likewise my Lazyboy embraces me in the eternal moment NOW. I sit and sink as conscious GOD - and it kisses my backside as unconscious GOD - and the perspective of each atom is not lost, nor each molecule, nor any tissue or fabric, nor any sense or unsense.

Is the experience of subatomic particles any less relevant to the Being whose illusion this is? Of course not. In constancy it remains cognizant of the Bazillion perspectives of each photonic interaction, all the simultaneous ins and outs, the ups and downs, the strikes and recoils of it's own Existence.

The tapestry is so much more than the Greens and Reds or our unique experiences of them. It is about the simultaneous pounding of Existence of the "Green and Red" energy against our experiential awarenesses within GOD - the only real part of this energetic exchange.

Iacchus

13th March 2004, 10:10 AM

But you must understand that there are little sp-eyes everywhere. :D Especially on the lookout for any act of disp-eyes-ment. ;) But then again at this point I guess you would qualify for being "blind."

Atlas

13th March 2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
But you must understand that there are little sp-eyes everywhere. :D Especially on the lookout for any act of disp-eyes-ment. ;) But then again at this point I guess you would qualify for being "blind." Wha'd'ya mean Blind? :cool:

lifegazer

13th March 2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Existence must have a strange simultaneous double experience for every action that is experienced. "I" not only feel my foot hit the pavement but the pavement rejoices at my footfall.

Which pavement would that be? Let me guess: it's the pavement seen amongst the light-show of your inner-awareness, is it not? The very "things" I am talking about, which your reason plucks from the colour/shade (light) within you... and which your sense of touch conspires to enhance the reality of (that pavement).
Oh that the senses should all conspire to reveal the same things. What a friggin surprise.

The tapestry is so much more than the Greens and Reds or our unique experiences of them.

The tapestry of the world we weave is made from the fabric of the senses with a needle constructed of judgement/reason.
Whatever we see or think exists is founded upon the back of abstract creation. It all comes from within ourselves. Whatever 'we' are, essentially, is the source of everything within our awareness. Thus, the universe we know exists within us.

lifegazer

13th March 2004, 06:20 PM

There were some sarcastic comments about eyes earlier. Which eyes would they be? Let me guess: the eyes you actually see within the lightshow, also?
Come on ladies and gents - it's time to climb the ladder a little.

Yahweh

13th March 2004, 08:08 PM

uruk

13th March 2004, 08:13 PM

what about the things we can't see but know are there?

Phil

13th March 2004, 08:44 PM

Sindai

14th March 2004, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, what you are seeing ladies & gents is actually a work of art, deliberately created by an entity to be seen WITHIN THAT ENTITY ITSELF

The flaw in your post starts here, as this is an unsupported assertion.

lifegazer

14th March 2004, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Sindai
So, what you are seeing ladies & gents is actually a work of art, deliberately created by an entity to be seen WITHIN THAT ENTITY ITSELF

The flaw in your post starts here, as this is an unsupported assertion.
The external universe - even if it existed - neither knows nor cares nor has the power to impose such experience upon said entity.
You can bash a rock on the head for eternity, but if that rock does not choose to feel and so create ~inner-pain~ as a response to your actions, the rock will feel nothing.

All sensation is the same as pain in this respect. It is experienced by choice and it is created by that entity alone.
There is nothing in any [supposedly external] reality contributing to the abstract existence of the world which we all share.

And let's be sure about something here: Human experience is completely subjective/abstract/intangible in that it is founded upon sensation, thought & emotion. Nothing else.
No man has ever escaped his boundless mind. No man has any experience of an external (to subjective-awareness) world.

lifegazer

14th March 2004, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by uruk
what about the things we can't see but know are there?
How do we know that they are there until we have sensed their existence, somehow?
Unless you are more specific I cannot answer.

lifegazer

14th March 2004, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
You can affect what sensation of color is experienced by varying the amount of external stimuli (light) entering into the eye

How would you go about doing this since you cannot see a world external to your awareness?
You're seeing within. You're seeing abstract land.
So, observing the effects of shining light into your eye is something you do within yourself.
This is my whole point - that the whole universe you observe is within you. So you can only manipulate the inner-universe.

The things we know and the things we manipulate, are within our awareness. The whole universe is happening within you.

Atlas

14th March 2004, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer to Sindai

The external universe - even if it existed - neither knows nor cares nor has the power to impose such experience upon said entity.
You can bash a rock on the head for eternity, but if that rock does not choose to feel and so create ~inner-pain~ as a response to your actions, the rock will feel nothing.

All sensation is the same as pain in this respect. It is experienced by choice and it is created by that entity alone.The distinction I continue to find arbitrary is that, although you are a solipsist, you grant a limited form of existence to other perspectives, like me, under the caveat of the "experience of Atlas".

A non-comatose person has a very strong tendency to choose to feel a rock in the head. And ok, he produces his own inner pain. I will grant you that, not because I believe we can choose or not choose to feel cuts and burns and rocks in the head, but because it seems to relate to the rest of perceived existence just as well. So I am granting an enlarged definition of 'choose' and 'feel'.

The choice to feel pain when I am cut seems similar to the choice of the rock to crumble when struck. That is, not so much a choice but a predictable natural order.

And the rock has it's long slow dull "experience" within creation as parts of many human experiences. The Gate Stones on a college campus can be repainted often by prankster students or dressed up some other way. Over time any protrusions choose to be worn down by the activity according to the nature it has been imbued with within EXISTENCE ITSELF.

If in Existence you recognize the validity of other perceived entities having experience, why deny the piece of colored art around it a similar experience. The bugs, bees, birds and trees - they surely have a "consciousness" and a free will - albeit one that is bound by and shaped by their own natures. The rocks similarly choose to sit and experience existence quietly.

But there seems nothing in your idea of human experience that does not permit singing and dancing rocks. All we would have to do is choose to experience that. Jesus, on his way into Jerusalem seemed to say as much.

Luke 19 around verse 40 - "the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen, saying, 'Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest heaven!" Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, 'Teacher, order you disciples to stop.' He answered, 'I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out.'"

Interestingly, they didn't. Why? They didn't choose to because the people were shouting.

When marbles and billiard balls carom with their friends we perceive their movements as more predictable within Existence than we do the so called experiences of other humans within existence. No doubt they choose to experience Existence much the same way that humans choose to experience existence. As a solipsist you cannot know whether the rock is more conscious or less conscious or is even an angel watching over existence and perhaps emanating "solid" energies into it's suroundings so that our perceptions can choose to experience solidity. Or rather, you could choose that as your reality.

As a Monist you know that all there is, is God. But the energies of Will and Omnipotence express themselves wondrously. You seem to be making an arbitrary assumption that the only valid experience within Existence is that which is felt or chosen to be felt by lifegazer and experiences like him. Existence may be choosing to experience it's own reality from consciousness and unconsciousness alike. You could not know within your small experience but if you reject the possibility you are putting you omnipotent chooser in a box of your own tiny mind.

If you respond, please try to refrain from scolding me that "Only God is God" or similar high level refutations of the concept that "I am God" just because it might please you to be contrary this morning. I have heard that before. I am asking about the reality that I perceive and that appears to perceive me. Certainly the colors are God, the trees are God, the rocks are God, no less than I. They may have their own experience within Existence. It is merely of a different order.

Ok, a color is not a tree. But how is it not an expression of God within God? Why would solidity be less possible or desirable a platform for experience than thought?

lifegazer

14th March 2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
A non-comatose person has a very strong tendency to choose to feel a rock in the head. And ok, he produces his own inner pain. I will grant you that, not because I believe we can choose or not choose to feel cuts and burns and rocks in the head, but because it seems to relate to the rest of perceived existence just as well. So I am granting an enlarged definition of 'choose' and 'feel'.

Remember that any living experience of God (as lifegazer, Atlas, my hamster, or whatever) is the experiencer of pain. I contend that "we" are the experience which God has imposed upon itself, pain and all. So, "we" do not see or know how the creation of pain occurs - "we" just are the pain. Or "we" are whatever sensations and thoughts/feelings that constitute "we".

The choice to feel pain when I am cut seems similar to the choice of the rock to crumble when struck. That is, not so much a choice but a predictable natural order.

Interesting studies on the placebo-effect show that conscious belief can control or even alleviate the sensation of pain.

"You" still believe you are Atlas. You haven't understood that Atlas is an experience relative to every light-thing else seen within your awareness. I.e., Atlas, like everything else, is a perception or experience had within your awareness. You are actually distinct from the experience of being Atlas. You are not really Atlas - that is your perceived state of being.
Yet don't despair - for you still have life and are much greater than you think.

The choice to feel pain comes deep from within yourself - a self distinct from the experience of being Atlas. Any entity experiencing abstract sensations, does so by choice and by itself.

And the rock has it's long slow dull "experience" within creation as parts of many human experiences.

The rock has nothing of itself and is nothing in itself. God has the experience of being aware of rocks.

Interestingly, they didn't. Why? They didn't choose to because the people were shouting.

God can work through any perceived medium - including rocks, no doubt. But do not try to imbue rocks themselves with the capacity to choose. Rocks have no life. God is the life of all things.

When marbles and billiard balls

Such things are not aware. Please understand that they only have existence within awareness of entities that are.

As a solipsist you cannot know whether the rock is more conscious or less conscious or is even an angel watching over existence and perhaps emanating "solid" energies into it's suroundings so that our perceptions can choose to experience solidity. Or rather, you could choose that as your reality.

"Things" exist amongst the sensations of awareness. This is the whole point of my philosophy. Of themselves, they are nothing. A rock doesn't have self-awareness. Even if it did have, it would belong to God, like the experience of "we" belongs to God.

As a Monist you know that all there is, is God. But the energies of Will and Omnipotence express themselves wondrously. You seem to be making an arbitrary assumption that the only valid experience within Existence is that which is felt or chosen to be felt by lifegazer and experiences like him. Existence may be choosing to experience it's own reality from consciousness and unconsciousness alike. You could not know within your small experience but if you reject the possibility you are putting you omnipotent chooser in a box of your own tiny mind.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be suggesting that I (lifegazer) think that I am the only vessel of God's experience. That squire, is a complete misunderstanding on your part.

I am asking about the reality that I perceive and that appears to perceive me. Certainly the colors are God, the trees are God, the rocks are God, no less than I. They may have their own experience within Existence. It is merely of a different order.

The senses conspire to speak of a world of things. But these sensations are happening within you - to you - and the things you see within them are not really there. Only you exist, dreaming of things that are not there, for a purpose yet to be discussed.

Ok, a color is not a tree. But how is it not an expression of God within God? Why would solidity be less possible or desirable a platform for experience than thought?
"Solidity" is confirmed via sensation also. Our senses of touch, sight and smell, conspire to tell us of the existence of a tree within our awareness. But it's a ghost tree. It's not real. The things we see within ourselves are simply intangible.

RandFan

14th March 2004, 01:13 PM

The only thing that I know absolutely is that I think. I can't escape that fact. I could pretend that I don't actually think but that would require thought on my part and I'm back to where I started.

Is there an objective reality outside of my mind?

Those who don't think so should be willing to be locked in a room without food, water or toilet until they are disabused of any such notions.

I wonder lifegazer, if we put you in such a room, how long it would take you to realize the futility of such notions? It's one thing to act like you exist. It's quite another to act as if you don't.

lifegazer

14th March 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
The only thing that I know absolutely is that I think. I can't escape that fact. I could pretend that I don't actually think but that would require thought on my part and I'm back to where I started.

The reality of sensation, thought & feeling, is beyond doubt. In fact, existence is only known via these intangible attributes. The only thing to consider is who or what is having the experience.

Is there an objective reality outside of my mind?
Those who don't think so should be willing to be locked in a room without food, water or toilet until they are disabused of any such notions.

Absolutely irrelevant. The death or sickness of "we" is something which is perceived within awareness.

My philosophy does not make your life non-existent Rand. It simply asks you to re-identify yourself and your purposes or goals in life. There's no doubt that perceived reality is important, even for God.

RandFan

14th March 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
My philosophy does not make your life non-existent Rand. It simply asks you to re-identify yourself and your purposes or goals in life. There's no doubt that perceived reality is important, even for God. I'm not really arguing whether or not reality or perceived reality is important (I suspect that this is a syntactic problem). My point is that real or not real, it makes no difference since it is impossible for me to live my life as though it were not real. I have no choice to but accept it as real. If I refuse to eat, drink or move my bowels or bladder I will suffer severe consequence.

I could be living the same day over and over and my past is only an illusion. This is the billionth time that I have typed this message to you.

I could be a personality in a schizophrenic's mind who is at this moment receiving large doses of thorazine and I am his way of dealing with reality and the side effects of the drug.

Anything is possible. It is allot of fun to read such stories and to imagine such things. But to what end do they serve beyond entertainment?

"Solidity" is confirmed via sensation also. Our senses of touch, sight and smell, conspire to tell us of the existence of a tree within our awareness. But it's a ghost tree. It's not real. The things we see within ourselves are simply intangible.Perhaps, but what is the point? I can't verify that fact. It serves me no practical purpose whatsoever beyond stimulating the senses. And I find the story of the Matrix to far more stimulating than the god story.

Could you sex it up a bit? Ad a girl who wears skin tight leather?

Thanks gazer,

RandFan

uruk

14th March 2004, 03:52 PM

You can bash a rock on the head for eternity, but if that rock does not choose to feel and so create ~inner-pain~ as a response to your actions, the rock will feel nothing.

what does the rock not having an experiance have to do with your expariance? The rock does not need to have "feelings" to bash your head in or cause pain.

lifegazer

14th March 2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Could you sex it up a bit? Ad a girl who wears skin tight leather?

I tell you that you are God and you see no relevance or implications for that info to the life that you are living. Amazing.
More tomorrow, perhaps. My bedtime.

uruk

14th March 2004, 05:06 PM

I'm sorry but the internal experiance does not negate the external existanance. You've just replaced an external universe that we percieve through our senses with a god that sends us stimulus. Again. no proof or difference for that matter.

One aspect of your philosophy seems comes from the idea that the universe is here for our enjoyment. That seems arrogantly anthropocentric. There is much evidence to support that this universe was here long before our kind kind came into it. It seems curiouse that "god would create this illusion with a history that serves no porpose with relation to us, especially since this universe was made just for us. Also curious, is that we are incapable of detecting the link to the big mind.

The reality of sensation, thought & feeling, is beyond doubt. In fact, existence is only known via these intangible attributes. The only thing to consider is who or what is having the experience. This says nothing as to wether the an external universe exists or not. It is simply something you chose to accept or not.

RandFan

14th March 2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I tell you that you are God and you see no relevance or implications for that info to the life that you are living(?) Edit mine

Why should the assertion that I am god have any more relevance than the assertion that I am a figment (or personality) of some scizophrenics imagination?

"If if's and but's were candies and nuts we would all have a merry christmas".

If someone told me that I had died and that my mind had been transfered to a computer where I was awaiting to be reinserted into another body it would have no more relevance or implications.

gazer,

That something might be is no reason to believe that it is.

More tomorrow, perhaps. My bedtime. "-sleep! Rest in the arms of the Dragon - dream."
--Merlin

billydkid

14th March 2004, 05:35 PM

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

RandFan

14th March 2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by billydkid
Blah, blah, blah, blah. :D

Yahweh

14th March 2004, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
How would you go about doing this since you cannot see a world external to your awareness?
You're seeing within. You're seeing abstract land.
How can I see something which exists as an abstract concept? Pi is a concept, happiness is a concept, but they cannot be seen. I'm afraid I dont follow...

So, observing the effects of shining light into your eye is something you do within yourself.
This is my whole point - that the whole universe you observe is within you. So you can only manipulate the inner-universe.
I have no ability to willfully manipulate the universe outside of what my percieved self is immediately within contact with. Therefore, I would assume that what I call "the universe", you call "the unconscious mind".

The things we know and the things we manipulate, are within our awareness. The whole universe is happening within you.
1. If what you are telling me is true, then nothing that is thought to be in the external world exists.
2. But other minds besides my own are thought to be in the external world (since the external world is anything outside my own mind).
3. Therefore, other minds do not exist.
4. Conclusion, I ought to take up solipsism.

While Solipsism is logically coherent, I think I spot an error in commonsense when I try to tell you (a person who knows they exist) that you are merely something of a figment in my mind.

RussDill

15th March 2004, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Take a look around you. Rather, take a look around your awareness. What do you see? - You see light in various shades of colour. It's a bleedin light show!

Perhaps you need to define "look around". Look around means changing the source of your stimuli to get a depiction of you surroundings. So you are not looking around your awareness, you are observing the different stimuli, not "different" awareness, you still have the same sense of awareness when you "look around".

Now, we all know that colours are subjective. I.e., they do not exist objectively, in any external universe.

but they define objective things, ie, is a fruit ripe or not.

The universe doesn't know what colour is.

The universe does not need to know, we use color to know about the universe, not some other way around. In the distant past, it was a very important survival skill, but now, the gene is becoming more and more mutated as it is no longer necessary for survival.

So, what you are seeing ladies & gents is actually a work of art, deliberately created by an entity to be seen WITHIN THAT ENTITY ITSELF.

That would be assuming art is objective, which it is not. Art is very, very objective.

That's right, the universe we see is an abstract piece of art. And just as significantly, the whole show is seen within the entity that creates that show.

If you think it is, again, art is objective. I don't know of any other pieces of art that can bludgeon you on the head and take your money though.

Now, every "thing" we see is seen amongst the colours within/upon our awareness.

More useless adjetives and improper use of other words. We are aware of color and objects. They are not within or upon our awareness. It would be like the novice computer user saying that the internet is in their computer, or that they have the internet version 7.0

I.e., our reason/judgement sees "things" amongst the light of our inner-awareness.
I.e., the universe of "light things" exists inside your mind. Your mind embraces the universe that you see.

there is that compeletly useless "inner-awareness" thing again. And using the word embrace in a place where it could have any definition. You have to define your terms, otherwise, all you have are meaningless words that sound good when you type them.

You are the universe. You are existence.

Depending on how you define existence, but that would be a very narrow and useless definition.

So, it's about time you made a serious effort to find out who you are. Isn't it God?

Isn't it about time you start thinking critically, and waking up to the fact that we are all human, and not even you, the great, all poweverfull, all mightly lifegazer is infallible?

RussDill

15th March 2004, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You give yourself identity in relation to the light-things seen within yourself. Relativity.
But in truth, you embrace the light-show, absolutely, within yourself. The universe exists within you. And if you make the effort to discover true self-identity, you find your essence in The Mind or The Creator of this universe. For you, like the light-show of things, are an extension of your maker. Nothing else exists except the creative Mind.

Nice repeat of above, I like how you threw is "Realitivy.", is that just there to remind us all how miserably your ideas about relativity fail to maintain even a shread of credability when questioned?

RussDill

15th March 2004, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Which pavement would that be? Let me guess: it's the pavement seen amongst the light-show of your inner-awareness, is it not?

awareness lifegazer, say it with me, awareness. And no, we cannot see anything about our awareness, that is not how awareness works, we do not see our awareness, our awareness makes us able to perceive our stimuli. You are adding a useless layer, assumption, or both.

The very "things" I am talking about, which your reason plucks from the colour/shade (light) within you... and which your sense of touch conspires to enhance the reality of (that pavement).

Wow, so now for your ideas to be correct, there has to be a vast conspiracy. How many points get awarded for this? I can't seem to track down the scale.

Oh that the senses should all conspire to reveal the same things. What a friggin surprise.

But they do not, our sense can be very, very deceiving.

The tapestry of the world we weave is made from the fabric of the senses with a needle constructed of judgement/reason.

useless (attempted) poetic tripe. You need to be subjective with your words, at this point, all you are doing is preaching. Those who have solid facts don't preach, they show their cards.

RussDill

15th March 2004, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The external universe - even if it existed - neither knows nor cares nor has the power to impose such experience upon said entity.
You can bash a rock on the head for eternity, but if that rock does not choose to feel and so create ~inner-pain~ as a response to your actions, the rock will feel nothing.

I've already shown the above to be completely baseless. You choose to ignore the argument and go on your merry way. Fine, I suppose since after you absolutely know for a fact that you are right, countering difficult arguments is simply a waste of your time, you might as well just repeat what you already have, and make up some useless preachy poetry.

All sensation is the same as pain in this respect. It is experienced by choice and it is created by that entity alone.
There is nothing in any [supposedly external] reality contributing to the abstract existence of the world which we all share.

More useless repeated of arguments that have been counterd many times before...

And let's be sure about something here: Human experience is completely subjective/abstract/intangible in that it is founded upon sensation, thought & emotion. Nothing else.
No man has ever escaped his boundless mind. No man has any experience of an external (to subjective-awareness) world.

Completely useless and makes no point at all unless you can accurately define any of the words in the above sentance.

RussDill

15th March 2004, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Remember that any living experience of God (as lifegazer, Atlas, my hamster, or whatever) is the experiencer of pain. I contend that "we" are the experience which God has imposed upon itself, pain and all. So, "we" do not see or know how the creation of pain occurs - "we" just are the pain. Or "we" are whatever sensations and thoughts/feelings that constitute "we".

Contend all you want, but it remains a baseless contention.

Interesting studies on the placebo-effect show that conscious belief can control or even alleviate the sensation of pain.

Placebo is well understood, nothing special about it. However, no matter how well trained someone is, they can never choose not to experience pain, nor can they ever choose to experience some new sensation. And someone born without the ability to see color, or even see at all, can ever choose to have that sensation.

"You" still believe you are Atlas. You haven't understood that Atlas is an experience relative to every light-thing else seen within your awareness. I.e., Atlas, like everything else, is a perception or experience had within your awareness. You are actually distinct from the experience of being Atlas. You are not really Atlas - that is your perceived state of being.
Yet don't despair - for you still have life and are much greater than you think.

So boring, all you are doing is regurgitating the concepts of collective consciousness, art bell, "the quickening", silvia brown, and others. Come up with something new, something interesting, not the old, "there is impending doom, and only the realization of collective conciousness can save us" bit.

The choice to feel pain comes deep from within yourself - a self distinct from the experience of being Atlas. Any entity experiencing abstract sensations, does so by choice and by itself.

Again a statement that has been shown time and time again to be a baseless assumption. All you are doing here is preaching and assuming those listening believe that you have some authority from god.

The rock has nothing of itself and is nothing in itself. God has the experience of being aware of rocks.

God can work through any perceived medium - including rocks, no doubt. But do not try to imbue rocks themselves with the capacity to choose. Rocks have no life. God is the life of all things.

Yes, and no matter how many times you hit a piece of sandstone, it will not become an arrowhead. Thus, arrowheads do not exist. What a completely childish way of attempting to prove something. Horses have 4 legs, this animal has 4 legs, it is a horse. I would ask how old you are, but I already know. Please please please lifegazer, take a class in logic, it would at least make the discussion a little more bearable.

Such things are not aware. Please understand that they only have existence within awareness of entities that are.

Right, we'll just keep listening to you preach.

"Things" exist amongst the sensations of awareness. This is the whole point of my philosophy.

One clearly full of axioms, which you insist do not exist. But then, why do you preach so much?

I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be suggesting that I (lifegazer) think that I am the only vessel of God's experience. That squire, is a complete misunderstanding on your part.

No, you just seem to be making it clear that you have some sort of divine communication.

The senses conspire to speak of a world of things. But these sensations are happening within you - to you - and the things you see within them are not really there. Only you exist, dreaming of things that are not there, for a purpose yet to be discussed.

More divinely communicated information. I suppose with your philosophy though, saying that you talk to god makes you sound even crazier. "I talk to god, I am god"

"Solidity" is confirmed via sensation also. Our senses of touch, sight and smell, conspire to tell us of the existence of a tree within our awareness. But it's a ghost tree. It's not real. The things we see within ourselves are simply intangible.

Which is one of the central *axioms* of your phisolophy, nothing more.

RussDill

15th March 2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I tell you that you are God and you see no relevance or implications for that info to the life that you are living. Amazing.
More tomorrow, perhaps. My bedtime.

The only implication you have given is that "unification" can make god choose one thing or another, which is compeletly nonsensical with your definition of god as already pointed out.

lifegazer

15th March 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by uruk
I'm sorry but the internal experiance does not negate the external existanance.

The universe we participate in is internal to our awareness. Exactly like a dream. Our physical laws relate to the order within our awareness.
Relativity and base quantum-indeterminism are to be expected in my philosophy, as discussed quite recently in another thread. Indeed, I even remember saying that Quantum-indeterminism of fundamental energy/matter could have been predicted thousands of years ago, as long as one assumed the existence of a primal-cause (God).

You've just replaced an external universe that we percieve through our senses with a god that sends us stimulus. Again. no proof or difference for that matter.

I gave you proof earlier. Any entity which experiences abstract existence is the primal-cause of that existence. I.e., that entity chose to create sensations, thoughts & feelings, for itself and by itself.

One aspect of your philosophy seems comes from the idea that the universe is here for our enjoyment.

What?? You just made that up. I've been plugging for world unity.

Also curious, is that we are incapable of detecting the link to the big mind.

Even science recognises the workings of the subconscious.

This says nothing as to wether the an external universe exists or not. It is simply something you chose to accept or not.
There can be nothing external to an intangible realm of existence. By default.

lifegazer

15th March 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Why should the assertion that I am god have any more relevance than the assertion that I am a figment (or personality) of some scizophrenics imagination?

You saw no meaning in my philosophy. You saw no meaning in the fact that you - according to my philosophy - are God. It was my meaning you attacked.
Now if you cannot see the significance of being God - to you and to all mankind - then you are stupid. Really, you are.

Phil

15th March 2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You saw no meaning in my philosophy. You saw no meaning in the fact that you - according to my philosophy - are God. It was my meaning you attacked.
Now if you cannot see the significance of being God - to you and to all mankind - then you are stupid. Really, you are.
Sorry to butt in, (and to be so stupid) but what is the significance?

Supposing your "philosophy" is spot on, how does it affect anything we perceive, anything we don't perceive, anything we do? Don't do? What difference does or should it make to anyone? Why should we even care? Is knowing that we are god or part of a collective consciousness, going to improve our lives? Is it going to change our lives in any way? If so, how? What's knowing or admitting it going to change? Will we have powers? Acheive more happiness? Reverse male pattern baldness? Are we going to suddenly want to praise your name at the coffee house, or freshmen philosophy study group, or the head shop, or wherever you normally hold court for enlightening us?

You seem to always be pushing for some grand paradigm shift with your "philosophy", at least where this forum is concerned, but aside from the incense I smell burning every time I read one of your posts, I don't find anything worthwhile, or find that a call to shift is warranted in the least. I'm not reading anything in your posts save pseudo-poetical nonsense.

So tell this poor stupid individual: What is it about what you're saying that should have me fall to knees and cry, "Yes. Yes. I see now. How could I have been so blind?"

Please tell me why I should care.

lifegazer

15th March 2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Phil
Please tell me why I should care.
Have you watched the news recently? Have you read your history books?
We've screwed each other - man against man, nation against nation, church against church. All divided. Result: inequality, war, terror, poverty, injustice, greed, indifference.
Where are our values? With money and comfort for the self and our immediate family first and foremost. We perpetuate the inequality and division passed onto us by previous generations. But guess what, it's not obligatory that this generation should make the same mistake as all previous generations.

You ask what difference it would make to know yourself as God... to know yourself in all people... to know all people in yourself. Those that know embrace humanity as their family... seek unity for mankind. One nation, no borders, an end to war and inequality. No more poverty.
One God, one people, all working for each other. Not through cohersion, but through realisation and desire.

You should care because your egotistical/selfish purposes are at odds with the truth of your identity and with unity for mankind.
Only unity will save mankind from self-oblivion. Division means death.

Wudang

15th March 2004, 03:57 PM

Well again why should we care? We don't exist and after all if someone is in pain then, you say, they have chosen this experience for themselves. Personally that seems like a bad choice but......
And like I said elsewhere, the idea of infinite life is a drag. I was once asked if I thought an embodied or disembodied afterlife would be worse and I decided that after the first few billion years it wouldn't make a difference.

lifegazer

15th March 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Wudang
We don't exist and after all

False. We have existence, but do not know who we really are.

And like I said elsewhere, the idea of infinite life is a drag.

As Wudang, perhaps. As God though?

I was once asked if I thought an embodied or disembodied afterlife would be worse and I decided that after the first few billion years it wouldn't make a difference.
Don't condemn what you do not know.

Wudang

15th March 2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

False. We have existence, but do not know who we really are.

As Wudang, perhaps. As God though?

Don't condemn what you do not know.

But if God exists, nothing else can so you don't exist.

And I do know it because you've described it, remember?

Phil

15th March 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Have you watched the news recently? Have you read your history books?
We've screwed each other - man against man, nation against nation, church against church. All divided. Result: inequality, war, terror, poverty, injustice, greed, indifference.
Where are our values? With money and comfort for the self and our immediate family first and foremost. We perpetuate the inequality and division passed onto us by previous generations. But guess what, it's not obligatory that this generation should make the same mistake as all previous generations.

You ask what difference it would make to know yourself as God... to know yourself in all people... to know all people in yourself. Those that know embrace humanity as their family... seek unity for mankind. One nation, no borders, an end to war and inequality. No more poverty.
One God, one people, all working for each other. Not through cohersion, but through realisation and desire.

You should care because your egotistical/selfish purposes are at odds with the truth of your identity and with unity for mankind.
Only unity will save mankind from self-oblivion. Division means death.
Well, I agree that there is a lot that needs fixing on this planet, but I don't think it's valid to place the blame for what's wrong in the world on the fact that people aren't aware of or believe that they are all actually the same thing. Nor is it valid to assume that a sudden coming together over your ideas would end all the hard times and suffering.

I, and a lot of people I know, don't buy into that idea, and we not only don't contribute to the world's ills, but often take steps to alleviate them where possible. I don't think you can conclude that: not knowing = bad, and knowing = good. Since many nontheists (or non-collective consciousnessists) and many theists (or collective consciousnessists) are actually good people with only the best for humanity in mind, it appears more likely that separate consciousnesses allow for the disparity.

Personally, I like people. All people. I have a great time living life, and I don't wish harm to befall anyone. In short, I approach life just as you suggest only those that "know" can approach it. The only difference is I don't have to grasp onto any far-fetched philosophical notions to conduct myself that way. I need only have compassion and value life highly; two things that don't require a collective or all-encompassing "us-ness".

Since I, and many people that don't adhere to your philosophy, behave this way already, I'd have to say that you haven't convinced me that your philosophy would change anything.

RandFan

15th March 2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You saw no meaning in my philosophy. You saw no meaning in the fact that you - according to my philosophy - are God. It was my meaning you attacked.
Now if you cannot see the significance of being God - to you and to all mankind - then you are stupid. Really, you are. Why am I stupid? Just because being a god is important to you? why should it be important to me? I don't want to be something or someone else. Hell to me is living someone else's existence.

I'm not like you. I value my individuality. I like who I am. I see no discernable difference between not existing and existing as god. Both have the same net effect. I cease to be as I am, who I am.

If your philosophy is that those who do not think like you are stupid then I can only say that you have a stupid philosophy. I have always found that believers in god ultimately have contempt for those who do not share their belief. So you are no different than any other bible thumper. You can't imagine that I am not enthralled with your philosophy so you label me stupid.

Luckily for me that this is the 21st century and stoning heretics is no longer in fashion.

RandFan

15th March 2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don't condemn what you do not know. Don't exalt what you don't know.

uruk

15th March 2004, 07:17 PM

How do we know that they are there until we have sensed their existence, somehow?

What about the universal background radiation. We did not know of it's existance until we invented the radio-telescope. Are you saying the radiation did not exist untill we invented the radio-telescope?

The universe we participate in is internal to our awareness. Exactly like a dream. Our physical laws relate to the order within our awareness.
You just assume that the universe is an illusion based on the fact that we processes the sensory input internaly. The fact is that you can not prove one way or the other wether the universe is real or not. It is a choice that you have made based on assumptions. That our "perceptions" are internal has no bearing what-so-ever on the existance or non-existance of an external reality.

Any entity which experiences abstract existence is the primal-cause of that existence. I.e., that entity chose to create sensations, thoughts & feelings, for itself and by itself.

Are you saying a blind person choses to be blind, a colorblind choses not to see certain colors, A heartattack victim choses to have a heartattack? Are you saying the people who died in terrorist attacks all chose to create the explosions they died in together at the very same time? Are you saying that a rape victim chose to have the experiance of being brutilized? Or that John and Robert Kennedy chose to experiance an assasination?
Are you saying that getting killed in an accident is a abstract experiance?
Thoughts are created by the individual, sensations are caused by stimulus. The individual does not create the stimulus, just processes them.

You did not give proof, only assertions in the guise of poetry.

What?? You just made that up. I've been plugging for world unity.
that is the implication of your philosophy. If we chose to create our own sensations and are the primal cause of existance then existance is here because of us for us. That is anthropocentricizm.
That the universe is here for our amusement. quite alot of universe wasted on a light show just for little 'ol us.
Now, we all know that colours are subjective. I.e., they do not exist objectively, in any external universe.
This is what in rhetoric we call "bandwagonizm" with a bit of non sequitor thrown in. In the first part you assume "we all" accept your assertion that colors are subjective. (if everyone accepts that "red" is "red" then it becomes objective, but I assume your using a different definition for objective) The non sequiter your committing is in asserting that because colours are "subjective" that there is no objective external universe. I'm sorry but that is a fallicy. Faulty logic. Just because color is subjective, it does not follow that photons of a specific wavelength do not exist objectively or an external obejctive universe does not exist. You have to do better than using fallacious logic as proof.

Even science recognises the workings of the subconscious. Nowhere does science say that our subconsciouses are all connected to each other in any fashion.
It just says that there are parts of our mind which operate with out our conscious awarness. Hence "sub" or "below" our consciousness

There can be nothing external to an intangible realm of existence. By default.
This is just playing with the definitions of words. You need to be clearer. By default (of the definitions of the terms) existance is not intangible. You are abusing the language and (hopefully not purposefully) confusing the issue.
An object can exist externally to the mind. the mind percieves the object via senses (the link between the outside(existance) to the inside (the mind). The value we give the sensory input is intangible (i.e. the "image" that we see, the sensations we feel, the thoughts provoked by the stimulus, the qualities we apply to the stimulus) The things that are intangible are the things we can not hold or touch like the happyness we feel when we see a loved one. the loved one we see is real and tangible. the happiness we feel is not.

You still have not explained or shown why this existance or universe is not real or an illusion. All you keep saying is that since our experiance is internal the universe can not be real. One does not follow the other. (non sequiter) The logic is faulty.

uruk

15th March 2004, 07:40 PM

You ask what difference it would make to know yourself as God... to know yourself in all people... to know all people in yourself. Those that know embrace humanity as their family... seek unity for mankind. One nation, no borders, an end to war and inequality. No more poverty.

Knowing that we are all the same; human; with the same hopes and desires, does not change us.
Knowing that we are are all god; the same fundamental entity will not change us either.
Many religions in the past have tried to do the same thing but failed miserably.
The rub, my friend, is in human nature. We all want to be safe secure and happy and in a general sense we want the same for our fellow man. But situations arise where the happines, security and the well being of one person conflicts with those of another. That is when problems arise. Are you willing to give up your happiness so that another may have his? (this is a bad example, but this what I could come up with on short notice)
Let's say that you want to build your house on a particular spot with a view that is beautiful (it makes you happy). Say some one else also wants to build his house on that same same spot for that same view. Are you willing to sacrifice for his happiness, or do you want him to sacrifice? Do you really want to split the house or location or share the house? What if your wife hates the spot? What level of happiness are you willing to accept?

And what about resources? Especially if there is not enough for everybody? Who is going to be willing to sacrifice?

c4ts

15th March 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

False. We have existence, but do not know who we really are.

We have existence, but nobody knows how to make sense of lifegazer. I keep wanting to call him "lightbrainzer" for some reason...

RandFan

15th March 2004, 08:08 PM

Any entity which experiences abstract existence is the primal-cause of that existence. I.e., that entity chose to create sensations, thoughts & feelings, for itself and by itself. Which brings us right back to the room experiment. Is it ok if we lock you in a room without food, water or toliet untill you disavow this silly notion?

The truth is you can't decide how real existence is.

lifegazer

16th March 2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by uruk
You just assume that the universe is an illusion based on the fact that we processes the sensory input internaly. The fact is that you can not prove one way or the other wether the universe is real or not. It is a choice that you have made based on assumptions. That our "perceptions" are internal has no bearing what-so-ever on the existance or non-existance of an external reality.

Let me spell it out for you. We can confirm existence solely through a reasoning/emotional awareness of intangible things which have their existence amongst the internal abstract sensations of our mind.
Our existence is completely internal to the self/awareness/mind. Emphasis full-stop.
We neither know of nor can reason for (true!!) the existence of a realm external to "perception world". No soul has ever glimpsed a thing beyond his own awareness or self!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Emphasis justified.

Furthermore, we can know that our Mind is the creator of the [abstract/intangible/subjective] sensations, thoughts & feelings, which constitute the experience of "me" (or whomever). I explained why already - the external universe (if it did exist) neither knows of nor cares for nor possesses the power to impose such experiences upon an entity which has them.
It is bleedin obvious that any entity which has such experiences is the primal-cause of those things.

So, what are we left with? We are left with an intangible (boundless and non-material) Mind which has exhibited the properties of a primal-cause to create the awareness of an internal universe of relative being.

Nothing truly exists external to an intangible entity, by default. To ponder the existence of a reality outside of non-spatial reality is absurd.

Are you saying a blind person choses to be blind, a colorblind choses not to see certain colors, A heartattack victim choses to have a heartattack?

People don't exist except as beliefs and perceptions of God. Only God exists. God chose to experience the world as it is. God created the world as it is perceived. God experiences the world as it was created.
Within my philosophy, there is no other. There is only God. The people I converse with do not understand this. They continue to ask me stupid questions like when did I (uruk) choose to have this or that. Yet the truth is that uruk chose nothing. Uruk did nothing. Uruk is nothing. I'm not being offensive here as I'm actually trying to tell you that you are God the experiencer who has - as ordained - forgotten that you (God) are also God the creator.

You cannot know that you chose to experience pain

Lifegazer chose zilch. Lifegazer is an experience, just like pain (no jokes please), happening within the awareness of God.

Are you saying that getting killed in an accident is a abstract experiance?

God has the experience of death. But like everything else, it's an illusion. God does not die. I personally believe that this was the primary message espoused at the cruxifiction/resurrection of Christ - God giving the finger to death - but that's another convo.

lifegazer

16th March 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Which brings us right back to the room experiment. Is it ok if we lock you in a room without food, water or toliet untill you disavow this silly notion?

The truth is you can't decide how real existence is.
Do you not listen to my responses?
I am not denying the reality of the experience. All I am saying is that the experience is happening in relation to things that do not exist. Same principal as a sleeping-dream, where you have experience and emotion in relation to things and people that do not exist.
Lock me in a room and I'll have the experience of starvation, probably. But this doesn't take me beyond the reality of God, as discussed.

lifegazer

16th March 2004, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Why am I stupid?

You're stupid because you cannot understand the simplicity of my philosophy nor that "I am God" would have profound implications both for "yourself" and the rest of mankind.

Just because being a god is important to you? why should it be important to me? I don't want to be something or someone else. Hell to me is living someone else's existence.

I'm asking you to be yourself - God. That's my philosophy. And the fact that you still don't understand that philosophy and come out with garbage like this is just magnifying your stupidity.

I'm not like you. I value my individuality.

Who are you Randfan? Put your being on a plate for all to see and then explain where your individuality came from.
You're a joker. You possess nothing that was not given to you. You have nothing, least of all individuality.

I like who I am.

Lucky you. Young, American? No bleedin wonder. See if you say the same thing in 50 years, if you're still around.

I see no discernable difference between not existing and existing as god. Both have the same net effect. I cease to be as I am, who I am.

You seem unaware of the ability to change.

I have always found that believers in god ultimately have contempt for those who do not share their belief. So you are no different than any other bible thumper. You can't imagine that I am not enthralled with your philosophy so you label me stupid.

You're stupid because you do not see the implications of my philosophy upon your puny ego. Also, you're probably very frightened. Most people envisage that the death of the ego is the death of the self.

Luckily for me that this is the 21st century and stoning heretics is no longer in fashion.
I'm in this forum to save lunatics, not to stone them. I do my job and that's all I can do. Sometimes, that job entails making individuals aware of the fact that the average skeptic is not so much a hero but a friggin moron. It's a wake-up call. But you're free to go back to sleep. I'm fast losing interest here.

RandFan

16th March 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you not listen to my responses? Sure, but they are inconsistent.

I am not denying the reality of the experience. So it is real?

All I am saying is that the experience is happening in relation to things that do not exist. Huh? What things that do not exist? Could you be a bit clearer here?

Same principal as a sleeping-dream, where you have experience and emotion in relation to things and people that do not exist.Ah, but I can fly in my dreams and the laws of physics do not apply. I can exit my bedroom and enter a casino at the same time. I can be someone else. I can be with my friend who instantly turns into Robert Goulet (this really troubles me BTW, why him? probably something latent). In any event the dream metaphor is useful to understand that all reality is perceived (I did take philosophy gazer) not to mention I watched the Matrix 10 times and I have watched nearly every twilight marathon and read every major sci fi book. I get the concept.

Lock me in a room and I'll have the experience of starvation, probably. NO! Not probably. You will starve and you will experience extreme thirst. Your bladder and bowels will hurt so bad that you will no longer be able to control them. You WILL defecate and urinate and the smells will force you to sit as far away as possible. In a short time you will develop sores on your anus and in your crotch region. Long Before you die you will in all likely hood beg to be let out.

There is no alternative, no "probably".

But this doesn't take me beyond the reality of God, as discussed. It illustrates the absurdity to suppose that the material world doesn't actually exist.

lifegazer

16th March 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

We have existence, but nobody knows how to make sense of lifegazer. I keep wanting to call him "lightbrainzer" for some reason...
"Sometimes, that job entails making individuals aware of the fact that the average skeptic is not so much a hero but a friggin moron."

Stay away from my threads unless you're willing to grow-up and say something sensible. Pr**k.

Edited so as to keep the other pr**ks off my back.

lifegazer

16th March 2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
It illustrates the absurdity to suppose that the material world doesn't actually exist.
Everything I say goes over your head.
The experience of death, sickness, pain, or whatever, is an experience occuring within awareness.
Pain is a subjective experience. It's about as meaningless to the universe as is death itself. Such things only have meaning within the awareness of an entity which imposes those experiences upon itself, fundamentally.

Btw, when I said the experience is real and then began to discuss sleep-dreams, I was merely trying to show what I meant.
I.e., in dreams, the experience is real but nothing else is. Similarly, conscious sensations (from whence unreal "things" are plucked), are party to the corresponding reality of emotions and thought. So sensations, thoughts & emotions, are real. But nothing else is - certainly not within awareness.

RandFan

16th March 2004, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're stupid because you cannot understand the simplicity of my philosophy nor that "I am God" would have profound implications both for "yourself" and the rest of mankind. I understand the implications. They have no value to me.

I'm asking you to be yourself - God. That's my philosophy. And the fact that you still don't understand that philosophy and come out with garbage like this is just magnifying your stupidity. I don't want to be god. There is no evidence or reason to believe that I am god. On the contrary, all of the evidence points to the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, natural selection and statistics.

Who are you Randfan? Me! I don't mean to be flippant but I am my biology and a collection of memories. I fancy that I exist beyond my physical body but I have no evidence to support that notion so I live as though I don't.

Put your being on a plate for all to see and then explain where your individuality came from.
You're a joker. You possess nothing that was not given to you. You have nothing, least of all individuality. Having been on the side of Dualism in many debates I can say that I understand to a small degree how I can explain individuality from a materialistic standpoint.

Lucky you. Young, American? No bleedin wonder. See if you say the same thing in 50 years, if you're still around. If I am lucky I will grow old and die. I might suffer my Father-in-law's fate who fell victim to alzheimers and ceased to be what he was. I guess he became god then. No thanks, I don't want it. I would rather die.

You seem unaware of the ability to change. Not at all. Phineas Cage (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Goff.html) changed. I researched him for a university thesis. I would not want to be Phineas Cage. Francis Farmer changed also.

That I can change does not mean I want to.

You're stupid because you do not see the implications of my philosophy upon your puny ego. Ah the ego, ain't it a bitch? What about your ego? You have found the truth and you know so much more than the rest of us. I admit my ego. I understand it. It does not bother me.

Also, you're probably very frightened. Most people envisage that the death of the ego is the death of the self. Not frightened at all. I dealt with my mortality 10 years ago. I'm quite prepared.

I'm in this forum to save lunatics, not to stone them. Ah, the Christ Complex. Or, is it in your case, the God Complex?

Sorry but I must digress.

Dr. Jed Hill, Malice (1993)
Which makes me wonder if this lawyer has any idea as to the kind of grades one has to receive in college to be accepted at a top medical school. Or if you have the vaguest clue as to how talented someone has be to lead a surgical team. I have an M.D. from Harvard.

I am board certified in cardiothoracic medicine and trauma surgery. I have been awarded citations from seven different medical journals in New England; and I am never, ever sick at sea.

So I ask you, when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry, or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death, or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trauma from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, you go ahead and read your bible, Dennis, and you go to your church and with any luck you might win the annual raffle. But if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17th, and he doesn't like to be second guessed.

You ask me if I have a God complex? Let me tell you something I AM GOD, and this side show is over. I love that scene.

I do my job and that's all I can do. Sometimes, that job entails making individuals aware of the fact that the average skeptic is not so much a hero but a friggin moron. It's a wake-up call. But you're free to go back to sleep. I'm fast losing interest here. Sorry, but I am anything but asleep. 10 years ago I made a commitment to find the truth.

There was a problem, how does one find the truth? There are many churches and many philosophies. People are so certain that they are right that some kill themselves, some give all their property and time to a belief. Yet there are contradictions in all of these beliefs. There is only one way to truth. Objectivity and critical thought.

Truth isn't what we want it to be, it's what is.

uruk

16th March 2004, 05:29 PM

Let me spell it out for you. We can confirm existence solely through a reasoning/emotional awareness of intangible things which have their existence amongst the internal abstract sensations of our mind.

Sorry. We experiance "existance" via our perceptions. Those perceptions are built in responses to stimuli. Our experiance is our mind processing those responses. And again, those "internal abstract sensation of our mind" have no bearing what so ever on the existance or non-existance of an external reality

Our existence is completely internal to the self/awareness/mind. Emphasis full-stop.We neither know of nor can reason for (true!!) the existence of a realm external to "perception world". No soul has ever glimpsed a thing beyond his own awareness or self!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Emphasis justified.

Furthermore, we can know that our Mind is the creator of the [abstract/intangible/subjective] sensations, thoughts & feelings, which constitute the experience of "me" (or whomever). I explained why already - the external universe (if it did exist) neither knows of nor cares for nor possesses the power to impose such experiences upon an entity which has them. It is bleedin obvious that any entity which has such experiences is the primal-cause of those things.

Our mind does not create those experiance. our mind responds to and processes stimuli. I do not create the sensations of touch or sound. they are built in responses to stimuli. I can not choose to not hear a loud noise. I can not choose to not see a bright light shining into my eyes. I DO NOT CREATE THE STIMULI! What I create are the values or opinons in response to those stimuli. Wether I think the car is ugly, or the light is pretty. Objects do not require a consciouseness to" impose" a sensation in me. If I am hit by an object which is comeing at me from a direction in which I am unaware of it existance, it will still "impose" a stimulus which will instagate a sensation in my mind. It will do it regaurdless of what I believe or what state of mind I am in. You have involutary responses to stimuli. reactions, both mental and physical, which you can not control. You are not the primal-cause of objective responses, i.e. sound, touch, sight. Those are "built-in" responses.

People don't exist except as beliefs and perceptions of God. Only God exists. God chose to experience the world as it is. God created the world as it is perceived. God experiences the world as it was created.
A meaningless shuffle. "We don't chose the experiance. God choses the experiance." But according to you philosophy; we are god. therfore we are chosing the experiance.

RandFan

16th March 2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Everything I say goes over your head. Yeah, I understand how you feel. Everything I say goes over your head. And everything that everyone else says goes over your head.

The experience of death, sickness, pain, or whatever, is an experience occuring within awareness. This is a good example. I GET IT. I got it 25 years ago reading science fiction and listening to my science teacher.

I understood it much better 20 years ago when I studied psychology, philosophy and solipsism at the University of Utah.

I have made this very point myself, many times on this very forum. There is no reason for you to continue this mantra. It won't make your assertion true.

Pain is a subjective experience. It's about as meaningless to the universe as is death itself. This statement as far as I can tell is irrelevant and meaningless, so? We are not talking about the universe, we are talking about you.

Such things only have meaning within the awareness of an entity which imposes those experiences upon itself, fundamentally. If I take a gun and force you in a room and lock you in and you can't get out then you have no choice whether or not to experience pain. It's a done deal and if you don't get out you die.

Btw, when I said the experience is real and then began to discuss sleep-dreams, I was merely trying to show what I meant. I.e., in dreams, the experience is real but nothing else is. Similarly, conscious sensations (from whence unreal "things" are plucked), are party to the corresponding reality of emotions and thought. For the last time, I understand. That is why I said what I said. I understand the concept, ok?

So sensations, thoughts & emotions, are real. But nothing else is - certainly not within awareness. If the external is not real and only exists as a perception in the internal then it is logical that the internal has control of the external perception (please see dreams).

The room experiment proves that the internal ultimately does not control the external. Thus increasing by orders of magnitude the likely hood that the external is real.

RandFan

lifegazer

16th March 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
I understand the implications. They have no value to me.

That's irrelevant. You asked me what the implications were of accepting my philosophy. Saying that "They have no value to me" is a position not accepting of my philosophy.

I don't want to be god. There is no evidence or reason to believe that I am god. On the contrary, all of the evidence points to the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, natural selection and statistics.

What is the source/origin of all that you just mentioned?

Me! I don't mean to be flippant but I am my biology and a collection of memories.

Who is having the memories?

I fancy that I exist beyond my physical body but I have no evidence to support that notion so I live as though I don't.

LOLOLOLOLOL.
Show me one jot of proof that you have a physical body and I will show my butt on the nearest highstreet.

I would rather die.

Then die you shall.

Ah, the Christ Complex. Or, is it in your case, the God Complex?

I proclaim nothing of myself that I do not proclaim for all others. Spare me the boring sarcasm.

lifegazer

16th March 2004, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
"The experience of death, sickness, pain, or whatever, is an experience occuring within awareness."

I have made this very point myself, many times on this very forum. There is no reason for you to continue this mantra. It won't make your assertion true.

Don't be a mug. Concepts such as death and sickness and pain have no meaning beyond that existing within our own awareness. Show me, for example, any part of the universe (outside of "life") that can be considered as dead, sick, or in pain.

If I take a gun and force you in a room and lock you in and you can't get out then you have no choice whether or not to experience pain. It's a done deal and if you don't get out you die.

Big deal. The whole scenario occurs within awareness, played out upon my sensations. I.e., everything will happen within the reality of Mind. Fact.

lifegazer

16th March 2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Those perceptions are built in responses to stimuli.

Assertion!

Our experiance is our mind processing those responses.

Assertion!

And again, those "internal abstract sensation of our mind" have no bearing what so ever on the existance or non-existance of an external reality

I've answered this two times and you have ignored my answer. For the third time, it is nonsensical to discuss the reality of an external realm beyond that of an intangible realm. Nothing exists beyond the intangible.

Our mind does not create those experiance.

Liar. Tell this forum where 'pain' or 'red' or 'love' or 'sweet' or 'sad' comes from, if not from the entity that experiences those abstract experiences.

our mind responds to and processes stimuli.

Oh go away, I've had enough of this parroted nonsense.

RandFan

16th March 2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don't be a mug. Concepts such as death and sickness and pain have no meaning beyond that existing within our own awareness. Show me, for example, any part of the universe (outside of "life") that can be considered as dead, sick, or in pain. Irelevant. I only claim that it is very likely that you and I exist and that we will die.

Big deal. The whole scenario occurs within awareness, played out upon my sensations. I.e., everything will happen within the reality of Mind. Fact. But your "mind" cannot choose whether to experience or not experience. Nor can your mind control the external. The external can and does effect your mind. And if there is a test between the two, the external will always win.

That is a pretty damn big deal. Kinda makes your philosophy redundant (moot, unnecassary).

RandFan

16th March 2004, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I proclaim nothing of myself that I do not proclaim for all others. Spare me the boring sarcasm. Spoken like all the others. Please note, I have not called you stupid or attacked you. I have stated my honest opinion. If that makes me stupid and justifies your calling me stupid then fine. I see you better now for who you really are.

Thanks,

RandFan

Kopji

16th March 2004, 07:54 PM

If every person suddenly vanished, would 'god' still exist? The answer seems to be no. After all, if 'yes' it would not matter what we thought. God would just be, no matter what we thought, error or truth.

God exists as an idea. Perhaps this is self evident, if only because I can type the word 'God' and each person finds meaning.

But the idea of God has been abused and confusing to so many for so long. We are asked to consider ourselves god, and then accused of being stupid if we do not share the same idea or meaning.

Where is the justice in this concept?

I am convinced that whatever we are, the label "god" is a barrier to understanding and not a channel.

uruk

16th March 2004, 11:20 PM

I've answered this two times and you have ignored my answer. For the third time, it is nonsensical to discuss the reality of an external realm beyond that of an intangible realm.

And you've ignored my rebuttal to your answer. Your reasoning has led you to the conclusion that we are the source of our own perceptions. Or rather, god, in the guise of being us is the source of our perceptions. But this poses some problems. If we are the source of own perceptions, why can't we alter those perceptions or change our condition? Why do things happen to us beyond our control?

It is not nonsensical if an external realm is the source for the stimuli from which we develop our perceptions.

Nothing exists beyond the intangible.

Assertion! You have no proof that it does not exist. In fact you have no way at all to prove either way. If you have proof that an
external reality does not exist then please give it. Your past posts have not provided one shred of evidence. You state that all perceptions are internal then illogicaly jump to the conclusion that an external reality does not exist. Please show how one follows the other.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by uruk
Those perceptions are built in responses to stimuli.

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

Assertion!
How is this an assertion? We respond to "the light show" by "seeing " an image. Do we hear purple? Do we taste yellow?

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

Our experiance is our mind processing those responses.

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

Assertion!

Again, How is this an assertion? We recieve the light show, we "see" an image. From it we derive our experiance.
How is this not a process?

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

Our mind does not create those experiance.

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

Liar. Tell this forum where 'pain' or 'red' or 'love' or 'sweet' or 'sad' comes from, if not from the entity that experiences those abstract experiences.

Those "abstract" qualities are what we apply or give to describe our sensations, or to our reactions to the experiance. The experiance is our response to external stimuli. The experiance is internal but the stimuli is from outside the mind. Even if "god" is the source of the stimuli, it is still from outside "our" mind. Even if we are god. That part of god which is "us" still has to get stimulus from that part of god which is not "us".

Oh go away, I've had enough of this parroted nonsense.
Are you giving up so soon?

Wudang

17th March 2004, 01:32 AM

lifegazer, take a grip on your temper. Your current language does not reflect well on you or your philosophy.

Once again, your distinction between inner-awareness and the outer-awareness you deny is yet to be proven. Until you have demonstrated that our experiences of so-called inner states is to be taken any more at face value than our posited "external" states (I am hot) then you lack the foundation to attack the materialist assumption.

And for hammegk's benefit, I am aware of my assumption, thank you.

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
But your "mind" cannot choose whether to experience or not experience. Nor can your mind control the external. The external can and does effect your mind. And if there is a test between the two, the external will always win.

That is a pretty damn big deal. Kinda makes your philosophy redundant (moot, unnecassary).
There is a distinction to be made between the creator and what is perceived.
I've told you several times that the things perceived are illusions and are not the creator. This, of course, includes the perception of being Atlas, lifegazer, or anyone - we're all illusions held within the Mind of God.
The internal (not external) does not affect God. It just affects what is perceived or how it is perceived. God is immutable.

You say that "my" mind cannot choose whether to experience a specific phenomena or not. Well firstly, it's not "my" mind - it is not the mind of lifegazer. Secondly, lifegazer is a perception existing within the Mind which created all of its own sensations.
Lifegazer does not exist any more than any-thing else exists within awareness. Thirdly, it's so obvious that an entity must be the creator of its own abstract experiences that I'm not going to waste any more of my time explaining this to you. Either you accept it or you carry on pretending that the external universe knows what pain, red, sweet, love, hot, cold, itchy, or any sensation you care to name, is and is created by the external universe.

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 03:46 AM

It amazes me that you would all continue to lie to uphold the reality of an existence beyond your own awareness. Even if one existed - and there is not one jot of reason to show it - "we" have no dealings with it whatsoever!! This is hugely significant and I want you to think about it. Your universe is the realm of your own sensations and your mental/emotional responses to those sensations. You live within your own Mind. But when I say that it is your mind, I do not mean that it belongs to you uruk, Rand, Wudang, or whomever else reads these words. I mean that it belongs to you God and that you are having the perception of being uruk, Rand, Wudang, or whomever.

The Mind belongs to God. The perception of being a man is the illusion, in my philosophy. Even now, after several months here, people still think that there is a distinction to be made between the man and the God. The only distinction to be made is that the latter is existence and the former is what the latter thinks it is.

There is no man. Yet whilst perceiving ourselves as men, we lose ourselves to that dream. We cannot remember how the dream was created because "we" are the dream. The actual dreamer is the essence of our being. We regain contact with our true selves firstly by recognition, as I have for example, and then through spiritual endeavours such as meditation and inner prayer.
Remember that philosophical recognition of God's reality is only the beginning of the odyssey. It's not the end.

riverlethe

17th March 2004, 05:04 AM

Lifegazer, I'm curious as to how you realized your philosophy.

Did you have some sort of mystical experience?

Wudang

17th March 2004, 05:18 AM

lifegazer, I would ask you to bear in mind that I consider accusation of telling lies a profound insult. I care deeply about the truth and if you recall I have apologised to you on occasions when I have misremembered facts.

Now where is this lie you claim I have told?

In the meantime
"We have existence, but do not know who we really are. "
"There is no man. Yet whilst perceiving ourselves as men, we lose ourselves to that dream"

I have trouble reconciling these statements. I realise both are out of context but the full text should be available on this same page.

riverlethe

17th March 2004, 05:22 AM

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
lifegazer, I would ask you to bear in mind that I consider accusation of telling lies a profound insult. I care deeply about the truth and if you recall I have apologised to you on occasions when I have misremembered facts.

Now where is this lie you claim I have told?

What? Are you talking about my previous post, when I made this general statement to everyone here: "It amazes me that you would all continue to lie to uphold the reality of an existence beyond your own awareness."?
Do you finally accept that human existence is a completely internal affair and that the [perceived] universe exists inside of the self (awareness)?
Or do you continue to uphold the lie that the universe we know exists outside of our awareness?

In the meantime
"We have existence, but do not know who we really are. "
"There is no man. Yet whilst perceiving ourselves as men, we lose ourselves to that dream"

I have trouble reconciling these statements. I realise both are out of context but the full text should be available on this same page.
There is only God. But God has the ability to lose itself within the dreams it can create. You have lost awareness of your Godness as you live the dream of being Wudang.

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by riverlethe
Lifegazer, I'm curious as to how you realized your philosophy.

Did you have some sort of mystical experience?
I have no idea, other than I did earnestly seek to know the truth. I was tired of the religious and scientific garbage on offer, so I worked it all out for myself, using experience and reason.

uruk

17th March 2004, 08:25 AM

Either you accept it or you carry on pretending that the external universe knows what pain, red, sweet, love, hot, cold, itchy, or any sensation you care to name, is and is created by the external universe.
Your making a baseless assumption that an external reality has to "know" what those abstract terms for sensations are in order for it to have an effect on us. It does not. Those are only labels that we use to describe the effect of the stimuli.

Also, you write:
The perception of being a man is the illusion
Then you write:
There is no man. Yet whilst perceiving ourselves as men, we lose ourselves to that dream.
Is it "we" or is it god. You yourself continue to make the distinction then later say there is no distinction.

at any rate it does not matter. If the illusion seems real to us, even if we are an illusion. Then it IS REAL. Because we can only deal with this reality within relation us. We can not deal with it in relation it to god because we can not percive the god part of us.
And said it yourself "No soul has ever glimpsed a thing beyond his own awareness or self!" or what we can not percieve is not real to us"
So I chose to accept this reality as "real" because I can not percieve it as anything else. I have no choice. You have no choice either.

Phil

17th March 2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by riverlethe

Isn't he saying the same thing in both statements?

Really, what is so difficult about conceiving of yourself as a sensory God-tentacle, with delusions of individuality? :-P
There is nothing difficult about conceiving it. The difficulty comes in believing it, or holding it as the true nature of reality.

I asked lifegazer earlier in the thread what difference it would make if everyone bought into the idea, and he seems to be implying that the "dream" would end, that we would all cease to be men and just be god again, sans any dream.

But again, I must ask what would be different if we all accepted his philosophy. Why should we care if he is right or wrong? Would we indeed no longer exist? And if things would be different, how does he know? How has he come by this knowledge? Can he share anything with us other than strings of "this is what I think" that would support his notion?

I'm trying real hard not to use the word "evidence" but if we are dream-men, we are are dream-men of the skeptical variety, (hey, it's god's dream, full of skeptics and the gullible alike) and as such, we require evidence to be swayed.

In my view, lifegazer's philosophy amounts to good imaginitive concepts, but until he offers any evidence that it's real, it remains just a game. Albeit a fun one.

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by uruk
Your making a baseless assumption that an external reality has to "know" what those abstract terms for sensations are in order for it to have an effect on us. It does not. Those are only labels that we use to describe the effect of the stimuli.

Nonsense. External reality does not force an entity to feel pain, for example, as it meets fire or is hit by a large object. The entity in question must choose, fundamentally, to impose a [abstract] sensation upon itself and must then proceed to create that sensation, by itself and for itself. The same principle applies for all sensory experiences.
Remember that the mind is not you or yours (uruk). When I say that the Mind creates its own sensory experience, I don't mean that you consciously create these things. As I keep trying to point out, you (uruk) are actually part of the perception seen within the sensations.

at any rate it does not matter. If the illusion seems real to us, even if we are an illusion. Then it IS REAL. Because we can only deal with this reality within relation us.

The sensation of an inner universe is real. That you are really God embracing that universe within you is also real. Hence, deal with this reality. "Love thy neighbour as thyself.". Etc..
Or just continue to pretend that you are uruk and that you're going to get everything you want at whatever the cost to whomever else. You're either for unity or division... life or armageddon. A world without division or a world that crumbles. You cannot hide from the choices you make. You cannot pretend that there is no difference to behaving like God or behaving like the man.

riverlethe

17th March 2004, 08:42 AM

This debate is bringing up some interesting linguistic limitations...

riverlethe

17th March 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Nonsense. External reality does not force an entity to feel pain, for example, as it meets fire or is hit by a large object. The entity in question must choose, fundamentally, to impose a [abstract] sensation upon itself and must then proceed to create that sensation, by itself and for itself. The same principle applies for all sensory experiences.

Remember that the mind is not you or yours (uruk). When I say that the Mind creates its own sensory experience, I don't mean that you consciously create these things. As I keep trying to point out, you (uruk) are actually part of the perception seen within the sensations.

I agree with you up to the point that you read "choice" into the creation of these perceptions. Why do you assume that it's a choice made on some level, rather than, for example adapted responses as per evolution?

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Phil
But again, I must ask what would be different if we all accepted his philosophy. Why should we care if he is right or wrong? Would we indeed no longer exist? And if things would be different, how does he know? How has he come by this knowledge? Can he share anything with us other than strings of "this is what I think" that would support his notion?

When my philosophy is finally accepted by humanity as a whole, which it will, then the world shall become as one nation where "the first shall come last and the last shall come first.". Heard that before? It simply means that those who govern shall do so primarily for the people, who will come first before those that do govern.
No more wars. No more inequality or injustice. No more crime. No more poverty. Everybody genuinely working towards the betterment of everyone else - because they love their neighbour as themselves. A deeply spiritual and cultural world, learning to become closer with its maker. A new world. A saved world.

This is our future. Either that or armageddon. Two choices. Not long left.

Phil

17th March 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

When my philosophy is finally accepted by humanity as a whole, which it will, then the world shall become as one nation where "the first shall come last and the last shall come first.". Heard that before? It simply means that those who govern shall do so primarily for the people, who will come first before those that do govern.
No more wars. No more inequality or injustice. No more crime. No more poverty. Everybody genuinely working towards the betterment of everyone else - because they love their neighbour as themselves. A deeply spiritual and cultural world, learning to become closer with its maker. A new world. A saved world.

This is our future. Either that or armageddon. Two choices. Not long left.
This is a wonderful notion. But again why do we need to accept that we are a dream of god to acheive it? Is it not possible to lay aside our petty differences and accomplish this type of peace as men? Not saying it would be easy by any stretch, but isn't it possible? Why do we need to be god to do it?

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by riverlethe

I agree with you up to the point that you read "choice" into the creation of these perceptions. Why do you assume that it's a choice made on some level, rather than, for example adapted responses as per evolution?
What does that mean? Where, for example, are you suggesting that the sensation of pain comes from?

riverlethe

17th March 2004, 09:08 AM

The central nervous system, or thereabouts.
Sorry, I'm not a biologist...

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Phil
This is a wonderful notion. But again why do we need to accept that we are a dream of god to acheive it? Is it not possible to lay aside our petty differences and accomplish this type of peace as men? Not saying it would be easy by any stretch, but isn't it possible? Why do we need to be god to do it?
Mankind cannot work for unity unless mankind sees that he is One. It's the reason why communism didn't work - the people are essentially divided and have their own interests foremost in their minds.
What I have just said in my previous post will not work until my philosophy is universally accepted, sometime in the near future. People will always have their own interests foremost in their minds until they know that their own interests actually embrace the whole of mankind. You cannot force divided strangers to love one another.

RandFan

17th March 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
There is a distinction to be made between the creator and what is perceived. A meaningless distinction. I'm talking about what ever is perceiving.

I've told you several times that the things perceived are illusions and are not the creator. This, of course, includes the perception of being Atlas, lifegazer, or anyone - we're all illusions held within the Mind of God. And I have told you that it makes no difference. But I'm sure you will repeat this canard ad nauseam.

The internal (not external) does not affect God. It just affects what is perceived or how it is perceived. God is immutable. No one cares. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I am trying to tell you. The external world effects some perception.

Unless of course you start by assuming that there is no external reality in which case your argument assumes that which you are trying to prove.

You say that "my" mind cannot choose whether to experience a specific phenomena or not. Well firstly, it's not "my" mind - it is not the mind of lifegazer. Secondly, lifegazer is a perception existing within the Mind which created all of its own sensations. Lifegazer does not exist any more than any-thing else exists within awareness. Well, let's lock that perception up and see how long it takes to realize that it is much more than just a perception.

Thirdly, it's so obvious that an entity must be the creator of its own abstract experiences that I'm not going to waste any more of my time explaining this to you. Which entity? God or the lifegazer perception? Why is this so obvious? Why can't I be a biological entity that is interpreting stimuli and the abstract experience is the result of processing and interpreting that stimuli much as flight is the result of many complex variables.

Again lifegazer, I have been a dualist for 20 years (my dualism is based on HPC and no evidence to dispute materialism. I accept that materialism is the only mechanism that we have thus far to explain the human mind). I understand the concepts and the arguments. It is NOT obvious. You are interpreting the data the way you want and you are closed minded and dogmatic.

Either you accept it or you carry on pretending that the external universe knows what pain, red, sweet, love, hot, cold, itchy, or any sensation you care to name, is and is created by the external universe. False dichotomy and straw man. This is not my contention and there are other options.

I don't believe that the universe can know what pain or red is because the universe lacks a system to process such data. Humans do not lack such a system. We have a brain, eyes, ears, nose, etc. An entire system. Furthermore we can replicate to a degree this system. If scientific progression continues its course it is very likely that my notions about dualism will be proven wrong.

I have two choices. Believe that everything that I see is a lie and that I don't exist and that God's perception can change reality or believe that I do exist and that my perception can only alter reality only as much as the laws of physics allow. If locked in a room I can't stop my hunger or thirst pains and I can't stop my bowel movements (at least until my stomach and colon have been completely evacuated and my kidneys shut down)

RandFan

RandFan

17th March 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
What does that mean? Where, for example, are you suggesting that the sensation of pain comes from? Where does flight come from?

Edited to add: It's great to be arguing materialism when I am a *dualist.

Just because I cannot point to a single point in the brain and say see, there is where pain comes from does not mean that pain isn't a result of the entire system.

You can't point to any part of a plane and say, see there is flight.

*My dualism isn't based on a paranormal entity but more on a force or property that we do not yet understand. A secular god of the gaps if you will. I accept that materialism as we now understand is the only eplanation for consciousness and that many if not most neuroscientists do not see any relevance of HPC.

riverlethe

17th March 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
Where does flight come from?

Edited to add: It's great to be arguing materialism when I am a *dualist.

Just because I cannot point to a single point in the brain and say see, there is where pain comes from does not mean that pain isn't a result of the entire system.

Of course, you could take it one step further and recognize the Oneness of the Universe. :P

Phil

17th March 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Mankind cannot work for unity unless mankind sees that he is One. It's the reason why communism didn't work - the people are essentially divided and have their own interests foremost in their minds.
What I have just said in my previous post will not work until my philosophy is universally accepted, sometime in the near future. People will always have their own interests foremost in their minds until they know that their own interests actually embrace the whole of mankind. You cannot force divided strangers to love one another.
But doesn't this speak more to a dream of yours than provide any solid methods for acheiving it?

I mean, it's a wonderful hope to have the utopia you speak of, and I am all for it. But what indications do you have---I said indications, not assumptions based on what you believe, but indications---that accepting your philosophy will bring that change about.

The only related phenomenon that comes to my mind would be the observed unity inherent in those within certain cults. These people have accepted a philosophy of one-ness in service of some other guy or thing, and they seem to have their own utopias, in a weird, sometimes deadly sort of way. But I'm guessing you're not hoping we all become automatonic drones without an original thought or a speck of creativity.

So the question remains, on what are you basing the contention that, if your philosophy is accepted, there will be such massive changes? What observed phenomonon supports the "we=god=no more dream=utopia" idea?

RandFan

17th March 2004, 10:12 AM

I have one other major problem with the notion that objective reality does not exist.

Our understanding of what we perceive of objective reality is the result of thousands of years of observing and testing. Of course the vast majority of what we no know and understanding has come relatively recently.

Furthermore our understanding is the result of falsifying our hypothesis and building a foundation of understanding. This foundation has allowed us to accelerate our understanding. We are not smarter than Davinci we simply know more.

According to your thesis gazer,

This is all a lie. A mirage. Which raises the question, to what end? If all things are possible to god why are not all things possible to me and why can't I violate the known laws of physics? What purpose does the known laws of physics serve if they don't really exist? They certainly lead us away from god don't they? Why does he set us up to fail? Why must we have to find a cypher and discount and mistrust our perceptions to find the truth??????

Wudang

17th March 2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by riverlethe

Isn't he saying the same thing in both statements?

Really, what is so difficult about conceiving of yourself as a sensory God-tentacle, with delusions of individuality? :-P

Nothing really, the Diamond Sutra describes it quite well. I am actually tring to understand lifegazers philosophy and where it is for instance different from Zen and/or christianity.

RandFan

17th March 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
Nothing really, the Diamond Sutra describes it quite well. I am actually tring to understand lifegazers philosophy and where it is for instance different from Zen and/or christianity. If I wanted to hold onto my Christian world view but recognized the problems inherent in that philosophy, I could devise a belief system that obviates physics. This of course is problematic in that it makes god a liar and the bible a cypher that exists primarily to mislead. There is no flesh and therefore no sins of the flesh. There is no mortality and therefore no murder. Christ was not the physical embodiment of god and therefore was not crucified.

These things were all imagined by god and perceived by individual manifestations of god (aka individual perceptions) living in a collective virtual reality.

I don't know if this is gazer's motivation but it would fit what we know so far of his philosophy. It's important to bear in mind that we are incapable of understanding until we first accept his philosophy and then we will see the truth.

RandFan

riverlethe

17th March 2004, 10:53 AM

riverlethe

17th March 2004, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
If I wanted to hold onto my Christian world view but recognized the problems inherent in that philosophy, I could devise a belief system that obviates physics. This of course is problematic in that it makes god a liar and the bible a cypher that exists primarily to mislead. There is no flesh and therefore no sins of the flesh. There is no mortality and therefore no murder. Christ was not the physical embodiment of god and therefore was not crucified.

I wouldn't go that far. He's got some kind of Karmic system where "you" will face consequences if you harm another manifestation of God.

But then my question is, what does it matter? Can God harm himself? And what about this Armageddon "choice?" Is God going to self-destruct?

I would actually like to see that.

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
The external world effects some perception.

What external world? If you're like me, you only know of an internal world comprised of sensations which are fragmented (by reason/judgement) into "things". These things exist within our mind, like the sensations from which they rise.
The behaviour of the internal world affects how things are perceived. This is all we know. This is all that affects us. The external world - even if it exists - has no bearing upon the creation (and hence observation) of abstract reality. Again, I repeat that the Mind itself is the primal-cause of sensory experience, thoughts & feelings.

Unless of course you start by assuming that there is no external reality in which case your argument assumes that which you are trying to prove.

My argument begins with what we know. Human existence occurs within the self (awareness) so that the universe exists within the
self.
Everything you know has been discovered within your awareness. Everything you see exists within your awareness.

Well, let's lock that perception up and see how long it takes to realize that it is much more than just a perception.

You don't listen. Death and sickness are what happens within awareness. They are perceptions, like everything else. They are no more real than anything else. And please remember that only lifegazer can die - not God. And let us not forget that in my philosophy, lifegazer doesn't really live anyway.

Which entity? God or the lifegazer perception?

Only God exists... so God.

Why is this so obvious? Why can't I be a biological entity that is interpreting stimuli and the abstract experience is the result of processing and interpreting that stimuli

Even if there were an external universe giving information/data to our brains via the sensory-organs, the brain would still be the primal cause of sensation. The brain would still have to choose to impose any specific sensation to mirror the data and would then have to create that sensation without any input from the universe itself- which doesn't know what pain, red, hot, cold, etc., is.
In other words, the experience of abstract sensation requires:-
(1) Choice.
(2) The ability to create a new phenomena within existence.

Interestingly, any entity choosing to create a sensory-awareness of existence must comprehend what existence is about before it begins to represent it, subjectively.
So, the brain/mind understands the universe without sensing it!!
After all, the brain/mind creates the senses upon what it already knows. And the senses do mirror the order apparent within our laws of physics.

The brain/mind doesn't sense anything. It's "we" who are having the senses - given to us by the brain/mind.

much as flight is the result of many complex variables.

Flight isn't an abstract concept such as 'pain'. The comparison isn't credible.

I accept that materialism is the only mechanism that we have thus far to explain the human mind).

Well that's a crock since there is no physical explanation for the human experience of existence.

I understand the concepts and the arguments. It is NOT obvious. You are interpreting the data the way you want and you are closed minded and dogmatic.

Nonsense. I used to be a mug like you and believed anything science told me.

I don't believe that the universe can know what pain or red is because the universe lacks a system to process such data. Humans do not lack such a system. We have a brain, eyes, ears, nose, etc. An entire system.

Processing information is one thing. Deciding to create an internal awareness of abstract sensations, is something entirely different, requiring will, artistry, and intelligence of divine proportions.

riverlethe

17th March 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What external world? If you're like me, you only know of an internal world comprised of sensations which are fragmented (by reason/judgement) into "things". These things exist within our mind, like the sensations from which they rise.
The behaviour of the internal world affects how things are perceived. This is all we know. This is all that affects us. The external world - even if it exists - has no bearing upon the creation (and hence observation) of abstract reality. Again, I repeat that the Mind itself is the primal-cause of sensory experience, thoughts & feelings.

How do you know that sensory experiences are not the cause of "Mind?"

My argument begins with what we know. Human existence occurs within the self (awareness) so that the universe exists within the
self.
Everything you know has been discovered within your awareness. Everything you see exists within your awareness.

It exists within my awareness of existence. Which is to say, existence exists as a whole.

Even if there were an external universe giving information/data to our brains via the sensory-organs, the brain would still be the primal cause of sensation. The brain would still have to choose to impose any specific sensation to mirror the data and would then have to create that sensation without any input from the universe itself- which doesn't know what pain, red, hot, cold, etc., is.
In other words, the experience of abstract sensation requires:-
(1) Choice.
(2) The ability to create a new phenomena within existence.

Again with the word "choice." On what basis do you call it choice?

I would agree that sensation is "a new phenomena within existence," but it exists as part of a continuum of causal factors, most of which external to what we delineate as an "individual."

I don't think I could really prove this, but it is a simpler solution than a Being who creates sensory faculties in order to produce sensations of a non-existent reality, and then forgets what He has done, billions of times for countless millenia.

Interestingly, any entity choosing to create a sensory-awareness of existence must comprehend what existence is about before it begins to represent it, subjectively.
So, the brain/mind understands the universe without sensing it!!
After all, the brain/mind creates the senses upon what it already knows. And the senses do mirror the order apparent within our laws of physics.

Yes, assuming that there's an entity that chooses to create a sensory awareness of existence. What is the basis for this assumption?

The brain/mind doesn't sense anything. It's "we" who are having the senses - given to us by the brain/mind.

Again, how do you know it's not the other way around? Perhaps "we" are simply the sum total of our senses.

Processing information is one thing. Deciding to create an internal awareness of abstract sensations, is something entirely different, requiring will, artistry, and intelligence of divine proportions.

Indeed, and supreme egotism. But that doesn't make it so.

Atlas

17th March 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
What external world? If you're like me, you only know of an internal world comprised of sensations which are fragmented (by reason/judgement) into "things". Lifegazer,

It's answers like this one that make it so hard to comprehend your meaning. In it you seek to deny the external world but do so by implicitly agreeing that things exist outside of you... If you're like me...

Why would you even talk to us otherwise. Are you choosing to talk to your Godself in us. Why, when we deny that we are the God you say we are? Are you trapped in a nightmare that you didn't choose? Why can't you choose to experience more acceptable answers from the other expressions of God? What does God gain from fighting the truth within himself?

My argument begins with what we know... ~snip 1 line~...
Everything you know has been discovered within your awareness. Everything you see exists within your awareness. From there, you posit an invisible underlying reality that we do not sense. Everybody else believes that the senses internally reflect the external real world that they seem to be sensing.

Death and sickness are what happens within awareness. They are perceptions, like everything else. They are no more real than anything else. And please remember that only lifegazer can die - not God. And let us not forget that in my philosophy, lifegazer doesn't really live anyway. [/B]Right, only God exists. But then, as riverlethe and others have asked what does it matter? Why seek harmony? Why do you think Armageddon is coming? If only God exists surely he can choose not to experience it. I suppose just as we can choose not to experience death because we are not really alive.

You seem to think it's important to God that we avert Armageddon but if you trust your awareness you have to admit that God enjoys the crashings and the smashing and the big booms of creation. Of course we can choose not to look at meteors cratering our moon or novas in the night sky. But how can we be sure some butthead, somewhere, sometime isn't going to choose to look up, at the violence of it all, and by looking bring Armageddon down on our heads?

You have denied any reincarnation or even that heaven is a reward for those who are given the experience of life. You seem to suggest that it's a good thing to deny the reality before us in favor of a reality that isn't doing a damn thing for us other than deluding us into thinking that it is there. The end will still come, and no reward or penalty can be earned. The end will come sooner if we don't believe you, a little later if we do.

I usually end up with a lot more of these same kinds of thoughts. I'll stop though. You have yet to provide something coherent and satisfying for even these. I think it's because you are not being as exacting in your wording as you need to be.

We don't exist, never die, unless we choose to, because we are not alive, but we can experience life and death because we are God - who doesn't die and wants us to live in harmony even though we do not really live.

It's a confusing tangle and you really should acknowledge that "we" are either the devil pestering you or "you" have been unable to articulate the wonderful truth the God has given you for the nonexistent masses.

Phil

17th March 2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Lifegazer,

It's answers like this one that make it so hard to comprehend your meaning. In it you seek to deny the external world but do so by implicitly agreeing that things exist outside of you... If you're like me...

Why would you even talk to us otherwise. Are you choosing to talk to your Godself in us. Why, when we deny that we are the God you say we are? Are you trapped in a nightmare that you didn't choose? Why can't you choose to experience more acceptable answers from the other expressions of God? What does God gain from fighting the truth within himself?

From there, you posit an invisible underlying reality that we do not sense. Everybody else believes that the senses internally reflect the external real world that they seem to be sensing.

Right, only God exists. But then, as riverlethe and others have asked what does it matter? Why seek harmony? Why do you think Armageddon is coming? If only God exists surely he can choose not to experience it. I suppose just as we can choose not to experience death because we are not really alive.

You seem to think it's important to God that we avert Armageddon but if you trust your awareness you have to admit that God enjoys the crashings and the smashing and the big booms of creation. Of course we can choose not to look at meteors cratering our moon or novas in the night sky. But how can we be sure some butthead, somewhere, sometime isn't going to choose to look up, at the violence of it all, and by looking bring Armageddon down on our heads?

You have denied any reincarnation or even that heaven is a reward for those who are given the experience of life. You seem to suggest that it's a good thing to deny the reality before us in favor of a reality that isn't doing a damn thing for us other than deluding us into thinking that it is there. The end will still come, and no reward or penalty can be earned. The end will come sooner if we don't believe you, a little later if we do.

I usually end up with a lot more of these same kinds of thoughts. I'll stop though. You have yet to provide something coherent and satisfying for even these. I think it's because you are not being as exacting in your wording as you need to be.

We don't exist, never die, unless we choose to, because we are not alive, but we can experience life and death because we are God - who doesn't die and wants us to live in harmony even though we do not really live.

It's a confusing tangle and you really should acknowledge that "we" are either the devil pestering you or "you" have been unable to articulate the wonderful truth the God has given you for the nonexistent masses.
Very well said, Atlas. You illustrate perfectly the trouble with some of lifegazer's posts.

I don't adhere to his philosophy at all, but he's an interesting fellow, and I'm glad he's around. But I think some members of this board slam him due to the often vague or contradictory nature of the language he uses in his posts. You have done us all a service by pointing it out in a gentlemanly manner.

riverlethe

17th March 2004, 02:26 PM

But in fairness, we don't really have a linguistic framework for expressing Oneness with God.

And language does not necessarily express anything other than the conceptual prejudices of our ancestors.

Atlas

17th March 2004, 02:49 PM

Thanks Phil.

I enjoy much of the give and take with Lifegazer. I have to drop away when he seems to just want to be fustrating. But I always come back.

I have never met anyone who is so adamantly solipsistic. It is a fascinating idea that he presents and I have expressed similar thoughts myself... Life is an illusion, etc. But to take it all to this extreme is interesting when it's not being offensive. RussDill is an articulate nemesis. It seems to roll over the rim of the absurd.

But lifegazer seems committed to his philosophy even when it seems absurd to others. I wish he would contrast more what the questioner asks from a naturalism perspective to point out how the questioner's viewpoint is flawed compared to his philosophy.

Lifegazer is being hit often with very similar sounding questions. Perhaps, he should have his own FAQ answer list to draw on.

Originally posted by riverlethe
But in fairness, we don't really have a linguistic framework for expressing Oneness with God.

And language does not necessarily express anything other than the conceptual prejudices of our ancestors. Riverlethe, I agree. I've asked lifegazer in the past to bring a more flowery or poetic fullness to the description of his vision. I think that only a poet will be able to convey the mystery he perceives.

That is, I don't really think people are swayed much by rational descriptions of God. If they feel the truth in your words it doesn't much matter what you are saying. Lifegazer's words don't have a "feel" of the deep truth he is trying to convey. He is aiming at the brain to me and he should be aiming at the heart.

Phil

17th March 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Thanks Phil.

I enjoy much of the give and take with Lifegazer. I have to drop away when he seems to just want to be fustrating. But I always come back.
Likewise, though I mostly read, and only post replies and questions sporadically.

I have never met anyone who is so adamantly solipsistic . . . lifegazer seems committed to his philosophy even when it seems absurd to others. I wish he would contrast more what the questioner asks from a naturalism perspective to point out how the questioner's viewpoint is flawed compared to his philosophy.
Agreed.

RandFan

17th March 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Phil
I don't adhere to his philosophy at all, but he's an interesting fellow, and I'm glad he's around. But I think some members of this board slam him due to the often vague or contradictory nature of the language he uses in his posts. You have done us all a service by pointing it out in a gentlemanly manner. I agree, while I find his philosophy to logically inconsistent I believe he deserves to be treated appropriately.

Hey, it's what we all want right?

RandFan

17th March 2004, 03:23 PM

In the end gazer you want me to ignore my own lying eyes and believe that the real world does not exist. That everything is just an illusion and that you and I are both god, just seperate perceptions inside of god's mind.

Evidence? Well, as I understand it, if I read all or part of the Bible with this understanding then I will see that it is true. If not then I am stupid.

Thanks for the information.

Cio,

RandFan

uruk

17th March 2004, 04:03 PM

Nonsense. External reality does not force an entity to feel pain, for example, as it meets fire or is hit by a large object. The entity in question must choose, fundamentally, to impose a [abstract] sensation upon itself and must then proceed to create that sensation, by itself and for itself. The same principle applies for all sensory experiences.
This is utter nonsense. If get hit by a hammer I can not chose to experiance it as anything else but pain. I have no control over that. That is a "built in response" It is necessary for survival.

If a volcano erupts and I get caught in the pyroclastic flow, I have no choice but to sufforcate and fry to a crisp. There is no conciouse decision here. It will happen to me if I am awake and conciouse or asleep and not conciouse .
(and by "me" I mean that part of god that is having the experiance of being "me". It has no control over the eminent pyroclastic death to being. God os o.k. but "my being" is a gonner)
So you see, it makes no difference to "me". for "me" this is real. it all behaves like an external (to my "mind") existance is affecting "me". It does not matter if these things are happening within gods mind. "I' am with in gods mind. these things are happening within god's mind. therefore these things are happening to "me".

External reality does not "force" a stimuli in the same manner as a sentient thing forces a stimuli. there is no conciuose motive in an inanimate object. It is simply a process or condition of this reality. it is determined by the laws which govern this reality. We do not conciousely create the sensation. it is a process which is a part of our nature. we have no choice in the sensations, just how we characterise them.

The external world - even if it exists - has no bearing upon the creation (and hence observation) of abstract reality. Again, I repeat that the Mind itself is the primal-cause of sensory experience, thoughts & feelings.

The external world is the source of the stimuli. The mind recieves and processes the stimuli into an internal representation of the external world. The mind is not the "primal cause" of the sensory experiance, it is just responding to the stimuli.

Human existence occurs within the self (awareness) so that the universe exists within the self.

Human experiance occurs within the self. The universe that we are experincing within the self is an internal representation of the external universe which is made known to us by stimuli.

Or just continue to pretend that you are uruk and that you're going to get everything you want at whatever the cost to whomever else. You're either for unity or division... life or armageddon. That's a false dilemma and a strawman all rolled into one.
I have no choice but to "pretend" that I am "Uruk" To accept myself as me. I can not be you or anyone else. I can not even percieve the part of me which is god.
this is what you laid out for us in your philosophy.
I can be for unity and not believe or follow your philosophy.
In order for there to be unity we have to deal with or negate certain aspects of our human nature. (some of which I explained before). Believing that we are all god or the same entity will not do it. we can not "know" that aspect because we can not access that part of us which is god.
It's the reason why communism didn't work - the people are essentially divided and have their own interests foremost in their minds.
One of the tennants of communism is that we are all the same. No one individual is more important that the other. Communism didn't work because it ignored human nature.
(i.e. lust for power, greed, or our predaorty aspects)

the brain would still be the primal cause of sensation. The brain would still have to choose to impose any specific sensation to mirror the data and would then have to create that sensation without any input from the universe itself- which doesn't know what pain, red, hot, cold, etc., is.
In other words, the experience of abstract sensation requires:-
(1) Choice.
(2) The ability to create a new phenomena within existence.
.

The sensation is a response to stimuli. The sensation itself is created in the mind, it is not caused by the mind. The mind does not "choose" the sensation. there is no conscious selection of the sensation. I cannot choose to hear red or taste pain, it is a built in respond. we respond to certain stimuli with a particular sensation. we also can not arbitrarily chose to ignore certain sensations or experiances. god may but "we" can't.

Interestingly, any entity choosing to create a sensory-awareness of existence must comprehend what existence is about before it begins to represent it, subjectively.
So, the brain/mind understands the universe without sensing it!!
After all, the brain/mind creates the senses upon what it already knows. And the senses do mirror the order apparent within our laws of physics.

Unless the sensations are a built in response. When we are infants we do not posses the experiance or capability to make complex abstract sense of the world or our perceptions. We still see, hear, touch and taste, without fully comprehending what those sensation are. So actually we sense the universe before we comprehend it. We do not learn how to see, hear, touch, etc... we are created or born with that ability. Hence "built in response"
The brain/mind doesn't sense anything. It's "we" who are having the senses - given to us by the brain/mind.
"we" are the brain/mind. the brain is the physical vehicle or representation. The mind exists within the brain. the mind is "us"
or that which is having the experiance of being "me"

Processing information is one thing. Deciding to create an internal awareness of abstract sensations, is something entirely different, requiring will, artistry, and intelligence of divine proportions.
Nope, sorry, that is something we do by design. we do not decide to do it or not. we have no choice.

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by uruk
This is utter nonsense. If get hit by a hammer I can not chose to experiance it as anything else but pain. I have no control over that. That is a "built in response" It is necessary for survival.

Sigh. I'm at the point of giving up. How distressing it is for me to see a fellow of good intelligence, who I have been conversing with for a considerable time, to utter tripe like this in response to everything I have posted.
I have just recently (today) told you that you (uruk) are not the creator of the sensory-experience but are indeed part of that experience itself - one of the "things" therein.
'uruk' is not the essence of the mind nor of the sensations perceived therein. Please squire, climb the ladder or take a back seat.

RandFan

17th March 2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Sigh. I'm at the point of giving up. How distressing it is for me to see a fellow of good intelligence, who I have been conversing with for a considerable time, to utter tripe like this in response to everything I have posted.
I have just recently (today) told you that you (uruk) are not the creator of the sensory-experience but are indeed part of that experience itself - one of the "things" therein.
'uruk' is not the essence of the mind nor of the sensations perceived therein. Please squire, climb the ladder or take a back seat. I said Cio but I have to make one more observation.

I can see that it is awfully frustrating to be the only person who gets it. All the rest of us are just stupid an unwilling or incapable of understanding what it is that you have to say.

Odd that we understand the false reality well enough to create rockets and televisions and cars and medicine to alleviate our false pains. Technology to reduce the false hunger and starvation, organizational skills to take care of the needs of a complex society but we are unable or unwilling to accept your philosophy.

Odd that you should be frustrated that one or more of god's figments doesn't get it. Especially in light of the fact that to "get it" we must reject the scientific method and empirical evidence. We must accept that we don't exist beyond a "perception" in gods mind and that to be saved we must discover a cypher and accept this cypher without evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Yes, I can see how that might frustrate you.

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
It's answers like this one that make it so hard to comprehend your meaning. In it you seek to deny the external world but do so by implicitly agreeing that things exist outside of you... If you're like me...

"If you're like me" is reducible to "if you are me".

Why would you even talk to us otherwise. Are you choosing to talk to your Godself in us.

It's a good question. I've been doing this forum stuff for 2 and a half years now and have learnt to develop/improve my philosophy as well as my knowledge of many things. I had no significant education so my interactions with the likes of people here has been more than beneficial, if only to myself.
I sincerely want to pass on what I know to be the truth. That's why I put up with all the crap and persevere. But I wouldn't be telling the truth if I didn't admit that I was getting as much from this discourse as any of you. I am writing most of this stuff off the cuff. I'm sometimes blown away by the responses I am inspired to write. I'm not blowing my own trumpet there btw - I'm just trying to tell you how profound this philosophy is and how new it is, even to me. I'm in the discovery process still.

Why, when we deny that we are the God you say we are? Are you trapped in a nightmare that you didn't choose? Why can't you choose to experience more acceptable answers from the other expressions of God? What does God gain from fighting the truth within himself?

It's one big drama. Each of us plays the part assigned, even as rebels or atheists to God's existence. I drew the short straw and was one of the puppets assigned to espouse the obvious truth of God into the 21st century, to the masses, before the end of days arrived on this stage.
There is a purpose to all of this, which will facilitate God's eternal happiness or heavenly being.

From there, you posit an invisible underlying reality that we do not sense.

Invisible to the senses does not mean that it is invisible to reason. Reason transcends the senses.

Everybody else believes that the senses internally reflect the external real world that they seem to be sensing.

"Believe" being the issue at hand.

Right, only God exists. But then, as riverlethe and others have asked what does it matter? Why seek harmony? Why do you think Armageddon is coming? If only God exists surely he can choose not to experience it. I suppose just as we can choose not to experience death because we are not really alive.

If God chooses, as a whole, to obliterate being, then God shall die to being. There shall be no more being.

You seem to think it's important to God that we avert Armageddon but if you trust your awareness you have to admit that God enjoys the crashings and the smashing and the big booms of creation. Of course we can choose not to look at meteors cratering our moon or novas in the night sky. But how can we be sure some butthead, somewhere, sometime isn't going to choose to look up, at the violence of it all, and by looking bring Armageddon down on our heads?

The time is upon us when we shall no longer serve fear. That post I made to Phil about unity is actually possible. We could obliterate war, injustice, inequality, poverty, borders, all division, and live as one nation seeking the glorification of each individual... right now, today. Do you fancy it? Then voice your opinion before it's too friggin late. All of you! You can make a difference today by supporting the philosophy of unity. Screw worrying about how you will look in a forum full of skeptics supporting a tosspot like lifegazer. I don't give a rat's ass about establishment politics or being your best mate. I only want to wake the world up before it destroys itself.
It's one minute to noon ladies and gents. Only you, collectively, can stop the bell from striking twelve. That's why I talk to you all, in the forlorn hope that something can be done. I have to tell you all that presently, the news aint too inspiring. The truth needs a boost from somewhere, desperately soon.

a reality that isn't doing a damn thing for us

Reality has given us the stage to exhibit our divinity.

It's a confusing tangle and you really should acknowledge that "we" are either the devil pestering you or "you" have been unable to articulate the wonderful truth the God has given you for the nonexistent masses.
This is God's stage, and God shall be given the finale. Welcome to the penultimate act.

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Odd that we understand the false reality well enough to create rockets and televisions and cars and medicine to alleviate our false pains. Technology to reduce the false hunger and starvation, organizational skills to take care of the needs of a complex society but we are unable or unwilling to accept your philosophy.

Look pal, the order of perceived existence is there internally. I.e., our sensations are imposed upon awareness with an order reflective of that known in our physical laws. But the precise order of our perceptions - and our ability to understand this order (surprise surprise, as though order should be recognisable by default) - proves nothing contrary to what I have told you about God being the creator of everything within perception.

You are simply incapable of walking into the undiscovered country.
So it seems. Our ability to comprehend universal behaviour is not evidence to counter the reality of a God. Climb the ladder or leave. You seem to be under the impression that I would rather have any participation than none. That's not true. Go and die, if that is what you choose.

RandFan

17th March 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Look pal, the order of perceived existence is there internally. I.e., our sensations are imposed upon awareness with an order reflective of that known in our physical laws. But the precise order of our perceptions - and our ability to understand this order (surprise surprise, as though order should be recognisable by default) - proves nothing contrary to what I have told you about God being the creator of everything within perception. Everything that I know and sense tells me that you are wrong. I have to choose to believe you over my own lying eyes.

I don't understand why anyone would do that? You have not provided one iota of data or evidence. You have only given us conjecture that is counter to all that is known about the universe.

To believe you I must accept that this is all a lie and that the scientific method and empirical evidence is just a dream. Why would anyone do that?

You are simply incapable of walking into the undiscovered country. Me and everybody else.

Your response to Atlas
I'm sometimes blown away by the responses I am inspired to write. We all are blown away by our responses gazer, it's called ego.

It's not until our responses blow others away that it is worthy of mention.

There was once a poster to this forum who took pictures of demons. He was so enamored with his discovery that he went on and on about. He used to get so upset when others failed to understand his great contribution to society.

Then there was the guy who predicted that he was going to blind James Randi. He came here week after week. I had established a somewhat personal relationship with him and he would PM me and go on and on about how he was so good at explaining God's will, etc. etc.

I'm sorry gazer, I'm sure that you are a decent guy and all but I'm afraid that you suffer a common pathology, in non technical terms it's called "believing in our own ****". Read about Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite to name but a few. They all figured out the meaning of life. They all knew the truth.

So it seems. Our ability to comprehend universal behavior is not evidence to counter the reality of a God. It is every reason to believe that the objective world exists.

Climb the ladder or leave.[/b] Or drink the juice, or take the pill? What do you mean? Accept your view of the truth and deny my own senses and understanding of the world and reject the scientific method and empirical evidence?

Come on? God's plan must have some reason to understand it or accept it beyond a belligerent individual who tells me that I am too stupid to understand? Can't you give me anything beyond conjecture and speculation? Is it written anywhere that I do not exist beyond gods mind.

You seem to be under the impression that I would rather have any participation than none. That's not true. Go and die, if that is what you choose. I choose to seek the truth and believe what my senses tell me. I choose not to rely on mythology, fanciful stories or take the word of someone who wants me to disavow my own senses.

One last think, we all put up with crap. Just like Paul Bethke who complained week after week about the crap he had to endure by all of us who did not accept that he could actually blind Randi.

Putting up with crap is one of the benifits of membership. It does not make you special. If it did I would be much more special than you. I never called you stupid. I only questioned your held beliefs.

RandFan

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Everything that I know

Everything you know is derived from everything you sense = everything you know exists within your mind, since your sensations exist within your mind.

and sense tells me that you are wrong.

What friggin sense? LOL. You have no reason to show us of an existence beyond the abstract reality of your mind and you come in here lying to this forum that "sense" tells you I am wrong.
I hereby proclaim you as a liar or stupid. You choose which you wish to defend. I don't give a monkey's uncle. Either use worthwhile logic to prove of an existence beyond your awareness, or acknowledge the truth of "your" abstract existence - lest I tear you to shreds for my own purposes. Cruelty in this case is justified.

I have to choose to believe you over my own lying eyes.

You aren't even seeing what your eyes are seeing. I've already established the fact that the light-show you are aware of is completely abstract and/or subjective. The universe does not impose the experience of colour upon any entity. Hence, neither do the eyes.

To believe you I must accept that this is all a lie

There is no lie. What you sense is the truth. The only lie here is the interpretation of those inner sensations.

and that the scientific method and empirical evidence is just a dream. Why would anyone do that?

Science is the study of internal order. That order does exist. I.e., we do perceive of an inner-world which behaves with a specific order that mirrors our laws of physics. The laws of order/science are not a lie - order does exist. However, what this order means is beyond the scope of physics itself.

We all are blown away by our responses gazer, it's called ego.

I'm not here for a pat on the back and a few dollars. I have no ego in that respect. It would be alot easier for me to spend my time in nightclubs and pretend that I am special, if I wanted real attention for myself.

I'm sorry gazer, I'm sure that you are a decent guy and all but I'm afraid that you suffer a common pathology, in non technical terms it's called "believing in our own ****". Read about Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite to name but a few. They all figured out the meaning of life. They all knew the truth.

They thought that they figured in this truth. I present myself as a nonentity to truth. Deal with that you bozo. LOL

It is every reason to believe that the objective world exists.

Name any reason you wish and I will make you look a fool for presenting it!!!

I'm sorry, I've had enough of this post. I cannot be bothered to respond to the rest of your tripe. Sorry. I did appeal for a higher quality and effort from you but like so many here that I have conversed with, I foresee that it shall not be forthcoming. I give up on you. Be free to die. Go as you wish.

Mercutio

17th March 2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What friggin sense? LOL. You have no reason to show us of an existence beyond the abstract reality of your mind and you come in here lying to this forum that "sense" tells you I am wrong.
I hereby proclaim you as a liar or stupid. You choose which you wish to defend. I don't give a monkey's uncle. Either use worthwhile logic to prove of an existence beyond your awareness, or aga yourself before I tear you to shreds.
'gazer, your perception is extraordinarily myopic recently. There have been several threads over the past months which have argued logically, coherently, and forcefully that this "mind" you speak of can be completely explained through the action of a purely material world.

Now, I will agree with you, that if you presuppose the primacy of thought, your solipsistic universe is logically consistent. And, quite obviously, you do assume primacy of thought. But these other threads, assuming a material world, can easily lead to your starting place--that is, the appearance of "mind" or "thought" or "perception" or whatever it is that you are treating as bedrock.

Just because you think it is bedrock, just because you have built a castle on it, just because you really, really hope that it is solid...as the song says, it ain't necessarily so. And this is why your pronouncements are not met with the seriousness you hope for. If you cannot see that your bedrock is arbitrary, why should we trust the construction of the castle?

lifegazer

17th March 2004, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
just because you really, really hope that it is solid
I don't use "hope" as the basis of my philosophy, pal. I wouldn't waste anybody's time - least of all my own - on the back of a complete wager. I come here, taking all ****, as the harmonica of a profound truth.

If you cannot see that your bedrock is arbitrary, why should we trust the construction of the castle?
My so-called "bedrock" is not arbitrary. Everone here of average+ intelligence (who has actually made an effort to understand my philosophy) understands that sensations, as experienced, are distinctly separate from the external world they are meant to represent. They should thus recognose that what is sensed, abstractly, has nothing to do with any presumed external universe.

RandFan

17th March 2004, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Everything you know is derived from everything you sense = everything you know exists within your mind, since your sensations exist within your mind. And what evidence to you have that it is false.

What friggin sense? LOL. You have no reason to show us of an existence beyond the abstract reality of your mind and you come in here lying to this forum that "sense" tells you I am wrong. Do you have proof that my senses are betraying me? That I'm not really typing on this keyboard?

I hereby proclaim you as a liar or stupid. Why? I see my child and I believe my child is real, that he exists and I work to protect him. Why is this a lie?

You choose which you wish to defend. I don't give a monkey's uncle. I choose to believe and defend that the experience that I percieve is real and that the physical world exists.

Either the physical world exists and my senses are correct or it doesn't. I chose to accept that the world exists.

YOU HAVE YET TO EXPLAIN WHY I SHOULD BELIEVE YOU AND NOT MY SENSES?

Either use worthwhile logic to prove of an existence beyond your awareness, or acknowledge the truth of "your" abstract existence While I can think in the abstract it does not prove that I only exist in the abstract.

...lest I tear you to shreds for my own purposes. Cruelty in this case is justified. Manson, Jones, Koresh and Applewhite. they were able to justify their cruelty also. I suppose you would hurt out of spite and ego.

You aren't even seeing what your eyes are seeing. I've already established the fact that the light-show you are aware of is completely abstract and/or subjective. Subjective yes, but you have NOT proven that what I'm seeing doesn't exist.

The universe does not impose the experience of colour upon any entity. Hence, neither do the eyes. No one says that they do. You are very adept at straw men.

We only assert that the expereince that we percieve is real. Why must if be false? Why would god lie? You make no sense.

Science is the study of internal order. That order does exist. I.e., we do perceive of an inner-world which behaves with a specific order that mirrors our laws of physics. Our laws of physics? You're philosophy is so scatter brained it is incoherent. Physics is the "REAL WORLD" the "PHYSICAL WORLD" which you assert does not exist.

The laws of order/science are not a lie - order does exist. However, what this order means is beyond the scope of physics itself. Meaningless quote.

I'm not here for a pat on the back and a few dollars. I have no ego in that respect. It would be alot easier for me to spend my time in nightclubs and pretend that I am special, if I wanted real attention for myself. Then chill the hell out. Sheesh, what is the big deal. Ignore me.

They thought that they figured in this truth. I present myself as a nonentity to truth. Jibberish. This has no meaning.

Deal with that you bozo. LOL No ego huh?

Name any reason you wish and I will make you look a fool for presenting it!!! Everything that I sense tells me that you are wrong. The only thing that I have to tell me that you are right is you.

I'm sorry, I've had enough of this post. I cannot be bothered to respond to the rest of your tripe. Sorry. I did appeal for a higher quality and effort from you but like so many here that I have conversed with, I foresee that it shall not be forthcoming. I give up on you. Be free to die. Go as you wish. Yes, it is all our fault for not seeing the mastery of your devine inteligence.

Cio

P.S. You think that you have discovered some wonderful concept when in fact the mechanics for your philosophy have been around for a long long time. And dude, I'm a Dualist, do you have any idea what that is? You keep talking to me like I don't comprehend what you are saying as if I did I would have to accept that what you say is true. I understand what you are saying but there is no reason to accept everything that you are saying is fact.

Yes, everything all of our senses are subjective. This does not prove that the real world does not exist.

Phil

17th March 2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't use "hope" as the basis of my philosophy, pal. I wouldn't waste anybody's time - least of all my own - on the back of a complete wager. I come here, taking all sh*t, as the harmonica of a profound truth.

My so-called "bedrock" is not arbitrary. Everone here of average+ intelligence (who has actually made an effort to understand my philosophy) understands that sensations, as experienced, are distinctly separate from the external world they are meant to represent. They should thus recognose that what is sensed, abstractly, has nothing to do with any presumed external universe.
lifegazer,

Not that it would mean much to you, but I'm having a lot of trouble sympathizing.

What did you expect to acheive by relating your philosophy so vehemently, especially to a group of people who have said countless times, "Show us. Don't just tell us"?

I have no doubt that you truly believe the ideas you propose on these boards. I also know there's been much good debate about existence, perception, stimuli, sensation, and on and on; and not all of it has shined favorably on you. In fact, I'd say the better arguments poke enormous holes in most, if not all, of your precepts. But I don't really think you have legitimate cause to be frustrated.

For the sake of argument, or for the sake of good sportsmanship, or because it's St. Patrick's day, let's forget all the good points brought up in previous debates and your complete lack of evidence, and pretend that you are right; that we are in fact, all part of the same consciousness who has, at some point and for some reason it has forgotten, dreamed us or imagined us all into being.

Now, ignoring the important question of "How do you know?", I have asked you before: If this is the case, what difference does it make to anything? Why should we care? Isn't our perception the only thing that matters, despite the engine generating it, or the foundation upon which it is laid?

And your answer was along these lines: If we can all recognize that we are of the same consciousness/dream/god, we will achieve unity, and all the world's ills will be abolished, and dooms day will be avoided.

Again, ignoring the important question of "How do you know?", this then raises the question: Given a recognition of your philosophy as true, would men cease to exist, or would we still exist, only no longer be individuals?

I'm not sure you ever spoke directly to this question, but given a positive response to either part, the universe described by your philosophy does not seem very attractive. I personally do not want to cease to exist, nor do I want to sacrifice my individuality.

The only other option would be that we do not cease to exist, and we retain our individuality and our ability to make choices. Which brings us back to the question: What difference would it make to know we are all part of the same consciousness?

In short, what you're saying is that, despite a good amount of evidence contradicting you, despite the fact that you claim you came by the truth through reasoning no one else is able to see, despite the fact that acceptance of your philosophy either has some blatantly negative aspects or it makes no difference whatsoever, we should abandon everything we hold true and see the world as you see it.

Given that, are you able to understand why you are taking so much sh*t?

uruk

17th March 2004, 09:12 PM

I have just recently (today) told you that you (uruk) are not the creator of the sensory-experience but are indeed part of that experience itself - one of the "things" therein.
Then what did you mean by this?:
...gave you proof earlier. Any entity which experiences abstract existence is the primal-cause of that existence. I.e., that entity chose to create sensations, thoughts & feelings , for itself and by itself.

Mercutio

17th March 2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
My so-called "bedrock" is not arbitrary. Everone here of average+ intelligence (who has actually made an effort to understand my philosophy) understands that sensations, as experienced, are distinctly separate from the external world they are meant to represent. They should thus recognose that what is sensed, abstractly, has nothing to do with any presumed external universe. [/B]What you say here is true if and only if you assume a priori the primacy of experience. If we assume a priori the external world, I can get to the exact same set of sensations.

Unless you are defining "intelligence" as "agreeing with lifegazer", then your statement in your second sentence above is demonstrably false. I have made an effort, and in fact I believe that I understand your philosophy. I just have to agree with those on this thread who see it as thoroughly meaningless. Paul's post just above says it beautifully. In addition to his "how do you know" question, I would like to add "how does it happen?" Let's assume you are right, let's assume you convince the world, let's assume we all recognise we are part of a unity...so...how does this get us to "obliterate war, injustice, inequality, poverty, borders, all division, and live as one nation seeking the glorification of each individual... right now, today"?

neutrino_cannon

17th March 2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Take a look around you. Rather, take a look around your awareness. What do you see? - You see light in various shades of colour. It's a bleedin light show!
Now, we all know that colours are subjective. I.e., they do not exist objectively, in any external universe. The universe doesn't know what colour is. So, what you are seeing ladies & gents is actually a work of art, deliberately created by an entity to be seen WITHIN THAT ENTITY ITSELF.

That's right, the universe we see is an abstract piece of art. And just as significantly, the whole show is seen within the entity that creates that show.

Now, every "thing" we see is seen amongst the colours within/upon our awareness. I.e., our reason/judgement sees "things" amongst the light of our inner-awareness.
I.e., the universe of "light things" exists inside your mind. Your mind embraces the universe that you see.

You are the universe. You are existence. So, it's about time you made a serious effort to find out who you are. Isn't it God?

I've skipped reading most of the thread, but this assertion puzzles me.

Now assuming I'm not that rusty on my physics and physiology (it will be a blast to take physics next year!), eyes are essentially tools for converting a stream of photons into impulses that get traded around amongst my neurons.

The different colors are a result of different wavelengths (in the case of the difference of red or orange, a minute difference in wavelength) that react with different cells within the eyes.

Every element, when heated to the point of incandesence, will release a characteristic spectrum. Some elements were even discovered on the basis of their spectra alone. Cesium (http://www.cs.rochester.edu/users/faculty/nelson/cesium/cesium_songs.html) comes to mind.

While our eyes aren't as sensitive to subtle differences as a spectrometer, we can tell roughly what a material is made of because when heated to incandescance or simply relflecting light, only certain wavelengths will make it back to our eyes. From there, only certain cells within our eyes will react to those wavelengths.

In that sense, color is pretty darned objective. I found a chart once, and you may too if you google vigorously, showing which colors relate to which exact wavelengths (measred in angstroms for visable light). While you do see a mix of red and yellow light as being or an intermediate wavelength, as opposed to a mix of yellow and red, our eyes show us only what's out there as far as electromagnetic radiation goes.

There are, of course cases where our eyes report light to our brains when there is none. I belive visual hallucinations do not come form the eyes, but if I remember correctly (I may have even read this in Randi's commentary) when charged particles strike ones eyes directly, you could see a flash of light. Happens to astronauts, where there's lots of those suckers zooming around. I don't know if that counts though, because the impact of the charged particle may actually cause a real flash of light within the eye, as opposed to just setting off the nerves. I don't know, and I don't know if anyone knows.

Anyway, colors are pretty well objective, and saying that the universe "doesn't know" will probably create all sorts of problems by attributing the ability to know and not to know to the universe, quite likely incorrectly.

As far as one photon being the same wavelength, or color, all the time goes, a spectrum emmiting piece of cesium will always appear purple a any distance, and under any circumstances. Actually, that's part of how we know it's cesium. A spectrometer will confirm what our eyes tell us, x angstroms always corresponds to red, y always to blue. The reason we see various shades of color is... because that's how light is. It exists in a variety of different flavors.

uruk

17th March 2004, 10:04 PM

Either use worthwhile logic to prove of an existence beyond your awareness, or acknowledge the truth of "your" abstract existence - lest I tear you to shreds for my own purposes. Cruelty in this case is justified.

My parents existed before I came into existance or awareness.
They had to have existed before I did in order to bring me into awareness. Therefore my parents existed before I did. They existed outside my awareness.

RandFan

17th March 2004, 11:00 PM

Either use worthwhile logic to prove of an existence beyond your awareness, or acknowledge the truth of "your" abstract existence - lest I tear you to shreds for my own purposes. Cruelty in this case is justified.

Point: Lifegazer's philosophy is in direct opposition to the philosophy of realism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=realism).

Proposition: If we assume for arguments sake that the philosophy of Gazer is true then it violates Occam's Razor.

Premises: Gazer's Philosophy holds that all event's behave as though they are real.

Gazer's Philosophy does not change our understanding of known laws of physics.

In order to explain his philosophy Gazer must introduce the distinction of a virtual world explained with terms like "god's mind". But no such extra explanations are necessary to understand our existence and our interaction with the world.

Gazer's philosophy must also postulate the existence of unknown, inexplicable and invisible class of processes which gives us the illusion of living in an external reality.
Conclusion: Gazer's philosophy is actually just realism with added assumptions and worthless conjecture.

Shred that.

Atlas

17th March 2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
I've skipped reading most of the thread, but this assertion puzzles me. Welcome to the party. We're all commenting along those very lines. I can't speak for lifegazer, no one can... but he scoffs at your incandescent wavelengths as mere appearance within awareness.

You don't exist except as experience. Objective Reality is an illusion. So pack up your big ideas, and everything you think you know and stow them in a dark corner. Out here rational thought will only get in your way.

RandFan

17th March 2004, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Out here rational thought will only get in your way. Hmmm.....

`It seems very pretty,' she said when she had finished it, `but it's RATHER hard to understand!' (You see she didn't like to confess, ever to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.) `Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas -- only I don't exactly know what they are!
--Lewis Carroll

Atlas

17th March 2004, 11:44 PM

`It seems very pretty,' she said when she had finished it, `but it's RATHER hard to understand!' (You see she didn't like to confess, ever to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.) `Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas -- only I don't exactly know what they are! RandFan, I want to change my name to Alice.

I misread that. I thought I'd read It seems very pretty,' she said when he had finished it...

But I was wrong. It's lifegazer in Wonderland after all.

RandFan

18th March 2004, 12:44 AM

If Gazer's philosophy is true the there is no need for electrons, quarks, electron shells, relativity, black holes, back ground radiation, red shift, vacuum, bacteria, molecular synthesis, etc., etc..

All of these things were predicted before they were confirmed (I could be wrong on one or two. It's late). Prior to that the world just worked and it was god that made it work. If it is the mind of god that is making our reality then all of these things are superfluous and just excess baggage. They do NOT further our understanding of anything sine they describe the physical world and the physical world is not real.

Take dreams for example. My dreams are not dependant on known laws of physics. I can fly and travel through space without reliance on science or technology.

If Gazer philosophy is real then the physical world violates Occam's Razor.

Lifegazer,

You must denounce Occam's Razor or admit that your philosophy violates it.

riverlethe

18th March 2004, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
If Gazer's philosophy is true the there is no need for electrons, quarks, electron shells, relativity, black holes, back ground radiation, red shift, vacuum, bacteria, molecular synthesis, etc., etc..

All of these things were predicted before they were confirmed (I could be wrong on one or two. It's late). Prior to that the world just worked and it was god that made it work. If it is the mind of god that is making our reality then all of these things are superfluous and just excess baggage. They do NOT further our understanding of anything sine they describe the physical world and the physical world is not real.

This strikes me as something of a strawman.

I'm sure God would have an interest in understanding his own dream. :-P

Take dreams for example. My dreams are not dependant on known laws of physics. I can fly and travel through space without reliance on science or technology.

If Gazer philosophy is real then the physical world violates Occam's Razor.

Lifegazer,

You must denounce Occam's Razor or admit that your philosophy violates it.

Perhaps God's dream necessarily requires deterministic order.

riverlethe

18th March 2004, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't use "hope" as the basis of my philosophy, pal. I wouldn't waste anybody's time - least of all my own - on the back of a complete wager. I come here, taking all ****, as the harmonica of a profound truth.

Lifegazer, how can you deny your egotism after a statement like that?
"Egotism" does not require that you believe yourself to be acting selfishly. For example, you could exaggerate the importance of all humanity, consequently raising your own significance (Edit: That goes for you too, RandFan. ;)).

My so-called "bedrock" is not arbitrary. Everone here of average+ intelligence (who has actually made an effort to understand my philosophy) understands that sensations, as experienced, are distinctly separate from the external world they are meant to represent. They should thus recognose that what is sensed, abstractly, has nothing to do with any presumed external universe.

I freely grant this. And I've sometimes had the feeling myself (psychologists might call this "dissociation").
Now, how does your philosophy follow from it?

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
Do you have proof that my senses are betraying me? That I'm not really typing on this keyboard?

I do not doubt that you see a lightshow that gives the impression of a keyboard therein. Your sense of touch conspires to speak of the same "thing".
But this thing - this keyboard - exists amongst your sensations which themselves exist inside of your awareness, which means that the keyboard you are experiencing is embraced by your own existence.
Same applies to all "things", so that the whole universe exists within you. Amazing, innit.

YOU HAVE YET TO EXPLAIN WHY I SHOULD BELIEVE YOU AND NOT MY SENSES?

Your senses give testimony of my philosophy. They exist within you and are the essence of all "things" experienced by you.

Yes, everything all of our senses are subjective. This does not prove that the real world does not exist.
What real world are you talking about? No man knows of any world except for the one residing within his own awareness.

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
The different colors are a result of different wavelengths (in the case of the difference of red or orange, a minute difference in wavelength) that react with different cells within the eyes.

Colour is like pain in that an entity must choose to have the experience itself and thus create it, even as a response to external events. Those events are not the cause of pain (or colour).

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
What you say here is true if and only if you assume a priori the primacy of experience. If we assume a priori the external world, I can get to the exact same set of sensations.

Excuse me for laughing, but are you suggesting that I can only assume that something is having the abstract experience of being lifegazer? What about yourself? Are you denying the reality of your own sensations, thoughts & feelings? How absurd.

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
You must denounce Occam's Razor or admit that your philosophy violates it.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
Occam's Razor:
"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Since I posit that only One entity exists, I suggest that you be the one who do the denouncing.

riverlethe

18th March 2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Colour is like pain in that an entity must choose to have the experience itself and thus create it, even as a response to external events. Those events are not the cause of pain (or colour).

You keep using the words "entity" (singular) and "choice." What is your basis for doing so? Are you deliberately ignoring this question?

External events are not the direct cause of pain, for example, but they are the environment that life has filled, adopting an internal symbolism to interpret stimuli. That arbitrary symbolism is not based on a choice , but simply a result of trial and error, where organisms responding "inappropriately" have failed to flourish. (I do not mean to imply volition with the phrase "trial and error." It is very difficult not to imply volition when using English, so please forgive me.)

You are correct in asserting that we are ultimately only aware of our sensations. But what use would those sensations have if they did not describe the world around us? I find it much easier to accept a causal chain based on my perceptions of this world, than a causal chain for which I perceive no basis.

Another question: If this world is a dream of God, is that not sufficient to give it actual existence?

RandFan

18th March 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
Occam's Razor:
"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Since I posit that only One entity exists, I suggest that you be the one who do the denouncing. Sorry gazer,

We don't need "god's mind" to explain life. Your philosophy is the same as realism but with added baggage. We both agree in the known laws of physics. You just add something else, something inexplicable.

Your philosophy, by definition, volates Occam's Razor

RandFan

18th March 2004, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by riverlethe
This strikes me as something of a strawman.

I'm sure God would have an interest in understanding his own dream. :-P Why? It isn't necassary. I don't think it is a straw man at all. But I could be wrong.

Perhaps God's dream necessarily requires deterministic order. Why? It can be what ever he want's it to be?

How about my original argument? That gazer's philosophy is the same as realism with added unexplained processes? Would you agree that my premises are correct and that his philosophy violates Occam's Razor under those circumstances?

Mercutio

18th March 2004, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Excuse me for laughing, but are you suggesting that I can only assume that something is having the abstract experience of being lifegazer? What about yourself? Are you denying the reality of your own sensations, thoughts & feelings? How absurd. 'gazer, you can laugh all you want to. Doesn't bother me a bit, except that I realize I have to explain it all again in simpler terms. Why would anyone deny sensing, thinking, feeling? I am simply pointing out that they are not necessarily the starting point that you claim they are. You claim that experience gives rise to the appearance of an external world. I simply point out that this external world (including your body, since it is external to your concept of mind) easily explains the appearance of a sensing, thinking, feeling mind. Thus, which is caused and which is causal is a matter of assumption. Your bedrock is not bedrock, it is assumption.

In addition, this assumption of an actual external world has allowed us, as other posters in this thread have pointed out to you, to make predictions about our universe which have subsequently been shown true. What predictions does your world-view make?

I am still waiting to see your explanation of how, if you manage to convince the world that you are right, this would lead to peace & harmony. Thus far, belief in a god has not seemed to lead in this direction.

riverlethe

18th March 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
Why? It isn't necassary. I don't think it is a straw man at all. But I could be wrong.

Why? It can be what ever he want's it to be?

How about my original argument? That gazer's philosophy is the same as realism with added unexplained processes? Would you agree that my premises are correct and that his philosophy violates Occam's Razor under those circumstances?

It's necessary because God has to dream something , and it might as well be a Universe obeying a particular arbitrary set of physical rules, as opposed to a different set, or many sets. Even dreams have an internal logic, right? I just thought it was a strawman to suggest that God's dream would have no internal consistency or predictability.

But yes, I'd say that denying the senses and adding God to the model certainly violates Occam's Razor. :p

riverlethe

18th March 2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
'gazer, you can laugh all you want to. Doesn't bother me a bit, except that I realize I have to explain it all again in simpler terms. Why would anyone deny sensing, thinking, feeling? I am simply pointing out that they are not necessarily the starting point that you claim they are. You claim that experience gives rise to the appearance of an external world. I simply point out that this external world (including your body, since it is external to your concept of mind) easily explains the appearance of a sensing, thinking, feeling mind. Thus, which is caused and which is causal is a matter of assumption. Your bedrock is not bedrock, it is assumption.

In addition, this assumption of an actual external world has allowed us, as other posters in this thread have pointed out to you, to make predictions about our universe which have subsequently been shown true. What predictions does your world-view make?

Very well put Mercutio, but the utility that you speak of is only proof of... utility. (Not that I think you're suggesting otherwise) How on earth do you get someone to flip their basic assumptions? Have you ever seen it happen?

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
Why would anyone deny sensing, thinking, feeling?

Thank goodness for that. I thought you'd flipped.

I am simply pointing out that they are not necessarily the starting point that you claim they are.

The sensations are the beginning of the human experience. We do not experience anything until we have the sensation of that thing. This is a fact and I won't allow you to tango your way around this - not on my dancefloor, anyway.:D

You claim that experience gives rise to the appearance of an external world.

Not a claim - a fact. We have sensory-experiences and we discern of "things" within those sensations.

I simply point out that this external world (including your body, since it is external to your concept of mind)

What external world? The "things" we see are internal to our awareness since they exist amongst our sensations. The body you see exists within your awareness.

easily explains the appearance of a sensing, thinking, feeling mind.

Firstly, you just blatantly assume the existence of a reality beyond your awareness. Secondly, you tell a complete pork-pie - there is no proper scientific explanation for the experience of intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings, from material processes. There is just another assumption that this is indeed the case.

In addition, this assumption of an actual external world has allowed us, as other posters in this thread have pointed out to you, to make predictions about our universe which have subsequently been shown true. What predictions does your world-view make?

Hold on a minute - science is the study of perceived order. I.e., science is a study of the order apparent amongst the things within our mind. Hence science is in the business of predicting inner order, not outer order.

I am still waiting to see your explanation of how, if you manage to convince the world that you are right, this would lead to peace & harmony. Thus far, belief in a god has not seemed to lead in this direction.
The world will desire unity once it accepts the philosophy as true. What will stop it from happening?

Wudang

18th March 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
'gazer, you can laugh all you want to. Doesn't bother me a bit, except that I realize I have to explain it all again in simpler terms. Why would anyone deny sensing, thinking, feeling? I am simply pointing out that they are not necessarily the starting point that you claim they are. You claim that experience gives rise to the appearance of an external world. I simply point out that this external world (including your body, since it is external to your concept of mind) easily explains the appearance of a sensing, thinking, feeling mind. Thus, which is caused and which is causal is a matter of assumption. Your bedrock is not bedrock, it is assumption.

...snip...

I am still waiting to see your explanation of how, if you manage to convince the world that you are right, this would lead to peace & harmony. Thus far, belief in a god has not seemed to lead in this direction.

well there was a thread devoted to the first issue "Upchurch's Question" that lifegazer has avoided. He keeps starting new threads so can pull out the same "are you trying to deny that we feel" and "external universe cannot force people to experience red" stuff.

For the latter point, we have so far one case of a believer in lifegazers philosophy, i.e. lifegazer himself. Who calls people liars, plonkers, and pr*cks. So far 100% failure. His excuse is that he gets frustrated. Or he blames his hamster.

uruk

18th March 2004, 11:56 AM

What external world?
External world = source of stimuli which gives rise to sensations.
Cause and effect. that "we" are the source if the stimuli violates cause and effect. chicken and egg sort of thing.

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by uruk

External world = source of stimuli which gives rise to sensations.
Cause and effect. that "we" are the source if the stimuli violates cause and effect. chicken and egg sort of thing.
Interestingly, the creation of sensory awareness, thoughts & feelings, is direct evidence for the existence of an actual primal-cause within existence.
A primal-cause is a very very special entity. It exhibits will and supreme intelligence/knowhow in the creation of the human subjective experience. In fact, if you are interested, I might do a post which shows why a primal-cause must be 'God'.

Those of you who acknowledge that an entity has to be the primal-cause of its own sensations et al, are looking God right in the eye.

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Wudang
Who calls people liars, plonkers, and pr*cks.

... and bozos, like yourself. LOL

uruk

18th March 2004, 12:24 PM

Firstly, you just blatantly assume the existence of a reality beyond your awareness. Secondly, you tell a complete pork-pie - there is no proper scientific explanation for the experience of intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings, from material processes. There is just another assumption that this is indeed the case.

Actually it is less of an assumption then your philosophy. our senses tell us there is an external realm every experiment we perform confirms that an external real exists. it may be an illusion, but we have no way of confirming that. The illusion behaves as if it is real. It is perfectly consistant.

Science refers to the workings of the illusion (external world). science will only explain experiance and intangible sensation with relation to the illusion. Because you deny the illusion, you will never accept any explinations derived from the illusion. So it is pointless to show you any scientific research or explinations. You will just deny them because you deny the existance of the external world. I can show you PETscans of brain activity when a person is thinking of something , or accessing memory, or seeing colors. But will just say that those thing exists internaly to us and thus are not real and thus not accept the explination. So then, where does that leave us? The external world (the illusion) behaves consistanly within itself. there is explination if you accept the illusion. If you don't then that leaves you nowhere.

Your philosophy is asking us to deny everything we experiance and accept the existance of a realm that we can neither sense or experiance; based solely on the concept that our experiance and thoughts are internal.
You assume this existance is not real simply because we experiance it internaly. One does not follow the other. you have to show why this is so.

Wudang

18th March 2004, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

... and bozos, like yourself. LOL

Exactly my point. Your philosophy has not promoted harmony and goodwill in you so how can it in others? Lifegazers paradise, where we all go around calling each other liars and bozos. Doesn't seem like much of a paradise to me.

RandFan

18th March 2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
... and bozos, like yourself. LOL Jedi would often end his statements with "LOL". Your behvior is the same as most ot the others who believed that their ideas had merit but were unable to support them.

But gazer,

I don't think you read your own link as it pertains to Occom's Razor.

From Gazer's Linkhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

We have two models.

Gazer Philosophy and Realism. Both are identical except you add variables and contructs (see above). You assume that in addition to all of the physical laws there is also "God's mind" which embodies processes that are not understood.

Thanks to Occam's Razor we shave off the unecassary parts of your model.

RandFan

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
You assume that in addition to all of the physical laws there is also "God's mind" which embodies processes that are not understood.

Actually, there is just God. My philosophy reduces the complex universe to nought but a thought within God's Mind. Like I said, my philosophy reduces existence down to one absolute entity and you cannot simplify things any more than this. Fact.

Mercutio

18th March 2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by riverlethe

Very well put Mercutio, but the utility that you speak of is only proof of... utility. (Not that I think you're suggesting otherwise) How on earth do you get someone to flip their basic assumptions? Have you ever seen it happen? Oh, I have no desire for 'gazer to flip his assumptions. I would be ecstatic if he simply recognised that they are, in fact, assumptions. That has happened on this forum, more than once.

but...
Originally posted by Lifegazer[B]The sensations are the beginning of the human experience. We do not experience anything until we have the sensation of that thing. This is a fact and I won't allow you to tango your way around this - not on my dancefloor, anyway.

Not a claim - a fact. We have sensory-experiences and we discern of "things" within those sensations. ...as you see, 'gazer does not see that his assertions are assumptions. He sees them as facts. That he does so only weakens his position, although I doubt he sees it that way.

I find it amazing that he can see the entire universe as an illusion of the mind, and yet cannot conceive that this "mind" thing which none has ever been able to see, let alone measure, might be an illusion. Very closed-minded.:D

RandFan

18th March 2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Those of you who acknowledge that an entity has to be the primal-cause of its own sensations et al, are looking God right in the eye. I googled "lifegazer and "primal-cause" and found that someone named lifegazer has been arguing primal cause since as long ago as Sept 92 in the Philosophy Forums and ephilosopher.

From ephilosopher.

I hope you do, really - because it seems so obviously simple to me that I cannot fathom why humanity as a whole has failed to see it. God has been staring us in the face.Gazer,

Let's formaly frame your argument. It would be unfair for me to actually do it but let me help. I will give a propostion and premises and you change them as needed ok? I just want to get you thinking logically. I'm taking this from your epholosophy post (http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-472&14.html)

Proposition: God exists. Every relative thing comes from something.
We can point to a time when all (relative) things began.
The source of all things had no beginning.
The source of all things had to have will power.

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
The sensations are the beginning of the human experience. We do not experience anything until we have the sensation of that thing. This is a fact and I won't allow you to tango your way around this - not on my dancefloor, anyway.

Not a claim - a fact. We have sensory-experiences and we discern of "things" within those sensations.

...as you see, 'gazer does not see that his assertions are assumptions. He sees them as facts. That he does so only weakens his position, although I doubt he sees it that way.

"We do not experience anything until we have the sensation of that thing.". Why is this an assumption??
"We have sensory-experiences and we discern of "things" within those sensations.". Why is this an assumption??

RandFan

18th March 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, there is just God. My philosophy reduces the complex universe to nought but a thought within God's Mind. Like I said, my philosophy reduces existence down to one absolute entity and you cannot simplify things any more than this. Fact. Sorry gazer,

That is just a game and it won't work. You have by your own admission accepted that our virtual world works the way science predicts. In other words we can explain all existence based on our understanding of the physical world and you agree to that fact.

You then add to that God. Now you might not intend to do that but it is an inescapable fact. We can start from god and then add all of the known physical properties of physics but we can then shave god off.

God is not necessary to explain our existence. Your theory violates Occam's Razor. THAT is a fact!

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
I googled "lifegazer and "primal-cause" and found that someone named lifegazer has been arguing primal cause since as long ago as Sept 92 in the Philosophy Forums and ephilosopher.

92 or 02?
I've been doing this forum stuff for less than three years.

RandFan

18th March 2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
92 or 02?
I've been doing this forum stuff for less than three years. http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/doh.gif '02

Sorry.

lifegazer

18th March 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
That is just a game and it won't work.

Want a bet?

You have by your own admission accepted that our virtual world works the way science predicts.

Whoa camel. I've said that there is order apparent within existence. I've said that science is the attempt to unveil this order. But science hasn't achieved its aims. And it cannot, for if there is a primal-cause of "things", then it cannot be one of those things, by default. Hence, only a philosopher can unveil the truth of such a cause.

In other words we can explain all existence based on our understanding of the physical world and you agree to that fact.

You must be joking.
Why don't you provide this full explanation for existence?

You then add to that God.

I add nothing to that. "That" doesn't even exist.

God is not necessary to explain our existence.

Utter tripe. I hereby demand an explanation for all existence or a retraction of this statement. And an apology.:D

Your theory violates Occam's Razor. THAT is a fact!
Only God exists. Just one entity. Existence cannot be reduced or simplified any more than this.
I'm bored of this Occam lark now so let's forget about it.

uruk

18th March 2004, 04:40 PM

Actually, there is just God. My philosophy reduces the complex universe to nought but a thought within God's Mind. Like I said, my philosophy reduces existence down to one absolute entity and you cannot simplify things any more than this. Fact.

No It doesn't. It just adds more unanswerable questions to the ones we already have now.

Atlas

18th March 2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Randfan
God is not necessary to explain our existence.
Originally posted by lifegazer
Utter tripe. I hereby demand an explanation for all existence or a retraction of this statement. I found this cute Ontological refutation deep on this page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument)

Necessary Nonexistence

It can be argued that nonexistence is greater and more perfect than existence. The elements of existence are asymmetric and interact because of their imperfections. If they were perfect they would be static. Nonexistence is boundless, timeless, omnipresent, simple, etc. Existence is defined by its limitations. Furthermore, for any number of things that exists, one can imagine twice as many that do not exist, or the set of all sets of them, etc.

Another rationale is attributed to Melbourne philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911-1994), one component of his proof of the nonexistence of God:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

(Reference: Gasking's Proof', Analysis Vol 60, No 4 (2000), pp. 368-70.)

Gasking was apparently thinking the "world" or "universe" is the same as "everything." The proof is strengthened if "everything" is substituted.

It's a marvellous tribute to the ability of the human mind to push logic. Lifegazer, you should attempt a simple elegant proof of your own.

Mercutio

18th March 2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

"We do not experience anything until we have the sensation of that thing.". Why is this an assumption??
The assumption is in your use of "experience", which you tend to equate with existence. The sentence, alone, as you have it written here and not in the context of your philosophy, is not problematic; it can be thought of as a simple definition. But that is not how you use it; your use of this sentence is tantamount to saying "things do not exist apart from being sensed." (please correct me if I am wrong in this interpretation of your words--do you believe that the external world exists apart from your sensing it? Or did I interpret you correctly?)

"We have sensory-experiences and we discern of "things" within those sensations.". Why is this an assumption?? How about "through" those sensations? The assumption "within" implies that the things themselves are irrelevant. This is wholly an assumption on your part. Would you accept the same sentence with "through" instead of "within"? If it is merely semantics, you should have no problem with it. Again, do you believe that the external world exists apart from your sensing it?

In addition, "we have sensory-experiences" is an ambiguous phrase. Do you mean to imply that we have processes by which we get information about an external world? This is a perfectly good interpretation of your phrase. Or, perhaps, might you mean that "we have" some form of mental entity called a "sensory-experience", wholly independently of any outside world? This is another interpretation of the exact same phrase.

.....

I just noticed, you like to use the term "fact" a lot. Try substituting "assertion" sometimes; I think you will find it fits better.

RandFan

18th March 2004, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I add nothing to that. "That" doesn't even exist. The order does. And we can explain the order (to a degree) without god.

You simply insert god to explain everything which explains nothing. How does God's brain work? What are the processes that creates our perception? All mysterious, inexplicable and unnecessary.

Utter tripe. I hereby demand an explanation for all existence or a retraction of this statement. And an apology. I'll tell you what. Let's compare explanations.

Gazer's Explanation: God did it.

The Explanation of Science:

Imagine the Universe! (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/science.html)

NOVA - Runaway Universe (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/)

PBS - Timeline of the Universe (http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/index.html)

Hands-on Universe (http://hou.lbl.gov/ISE/new/)

NASA - Big Bang (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html)

All About the Solar System (http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/trading/trading-inter-scientist.html)

Only God exists. Just one entity. Existence cannot be reduced or simplified any more than this. This is wrong. Stating that you have reduced all of the facts that we know about the world into god does not take away all of that information.

I'm about to prove you wrong. You have three choices, sit down and pay attention, put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly or pretend that you don't understand and state that I am wrong.

You have made a strategical error. You have admitted that if you are locked in a room you will suffer just as if the real world did actually exist. This could only be if the known laws of physics behave in the virtual world the same as they would in the real world.

Therefore the model of realism is identical to Gazer Philosophy with one exception. Your model has god and inexplicable and undefined processes.

QED

I'm bored of this Occam lark now so let's forget about it. :D If that is the best way for you to avoid the truth. By all means.

Kopji

18th March 2004, 09:47 PM

A book I can recommend on some of these topics, is Mortimer Adler's 'Ten Philosophical Mistakes'. Try pages 27-28

When ideas are treated as the only things with which we have direct acquaintance by our immediate awareness of them as things apprehended, we are compelled to live in two worlds without any bridge between them.
One is the world of physical reality, in which our own bodies occupy space, move about, and interact with other bodies. Our belief in the existence of this world is a blind and irrational faith.
The other is the completely private world in which each of us is enclosed - the world in which our only experience is the experience constituted by the consciousness of our own ideas. The assumption that individuals other than ourselves also and similarly live in the private worlds of their own conscious experience is as blind a faith as the belief that we all live together in the one world of physical reality.
When we correct the initial error that generates all these results, we find ourselves living together in the world of physical reality, a world with which we have direct acquaintance in our perceptual experiences...
We also live in a world in which we live together... the public world
There is still a third world... the world of our completely private, subjective experience...

It would, perhaps, be more accurate and more consonant with common sense to speak of these three realms of experience as three dimensions of one and the same world, not as three separate worlds.

The three dimensions consist of (1) perceptual objects that are really existing things or events (2) all other objects that may or may not exist, may have existed in the past but no longer exist, and objects that do not exist in the present but may exist in the future, and (3) the subjective experiences that exist only for the individual mind that has them.

c4ts

18th March 2004, 10:21 PM

I'm not sick of Occam. Lightgazer's theory postulates plurality on every concievable level. The man must be turning in his grave.

RussDill

18th March 2004, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The universe we participate in is internal to our awareness. Exactly like a dream. Our physical laws relate to the order within our awareness.
Relativity and base quantum-indeterminism are to be expected in my philosophy, as discussed quite recently in another thread. Indeed, I even remember saying that Quantum-indeterminism of fundamental energy/matter could have been predicted thousands of years ago, as long as one assumed the existence of a primal-cause (God).

Based on your complete misunderstanding of QM and realitivity, so no, your predictions would have been utterly useless and meaningless.

I gave you proof earlier. Any entity which experiences abstract existence is the primal-cause of that existence. I.e., that entity chose to create sensations, thoughts & feelings, for itself and by itself.

And I've shown time and time again exactly how your proof is not a proof, and is woefully incomplete. However, you choose to ignore it, since after all, you know you are right, and I am wrong.

Even science recognises the workings of the subconscious.

Ok...so? The subconscious (non-conscious) part of the mind is rather unintersting. But I suppose here you mean "collective unconscious", which science does not recognize.

There can be nothing external to an intangible realm of existence. By default.

I already pointed out how a realm of existence represents intangible constructs, but you ignored that too.

RussDill

18th March 2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Have you watched the news recently? Have you read your history books?

Yes, it is truly exciting how far we have come. However, from your implied meaning, I would gather that you watch the news, but do not read your history books.

We've screwed each other - man against man, nation against nation, church against church. All divided. Result: inequality, war, terror, poverty, injustice, greed, indifference.
Where are our values? With money and comfort for the self and our immediate family first and foremost. We perpetuate the inequality and division passed onto us by previous generations. But guess what, it's not obligatory that this generation should make the same mistake as all previous generations.

You ask what difference it would make to know yourself as God... to know yourself in all people... to know all people in yourself. Those that know embrace humanity as their family... seek unity for mankind. One nation, no borders, an end to war and inequality. No more poverty.
One God, one people, all working for each other. Not through cohersion, but through realisation and desire.

OK, so right now, we are all seperate individuals with our own identity, wants, desires, flaws, emotions, etc, etc. If we all realized that the "primal source" was god, then we would all be our own seperate individuals with our own identity, wants, desires, flaws, emotions, etc, etc. I fail to see the point.

You should care because your egotistical/selfish purposes are at odds with the truth of your identity and with unity for mankind.
Only unity will save mankind from self-oblivion. Division means death.

All signs point to diversity being the path to success. I happen to enjoy being different, thank you very much. And you don't have to have this whole unity crap anyway, if everyone realizes that we are all brothers, all human beings, then you get the same result. (unless you can explain why the result would be different)

RussDill

18th March 2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Let me spell it out for you. We can confirm existence solely through a reasoning/emotional awareness of intangible things which have their existence amongst the internal abstract sensations of our mind.

I see you were unable to come up with any answers to any of the questions I have put forth regarding the above and below. You have not even modified your argument to strengthen it. Again, your ego takes over and tells you that you are right, and I am wrong. I imagine you getting ready to craft your response now, insult me, tell me that I, and my arguments are worthless, so much easier than actually meeting someone head-on.

[You are assuming that our awareness of things refers soley to something within our mind, and does not represent anything outside our awareness, which, even in your philosophy it does. Also, since you are getting desperate, I see you are throwing in more unqualified adjetives than usual, ie, "internal abstract sensations"]

Our existence is completely internal to the self/awareness/mind. Emphasis full-stop.
We neither know of nor can reason for (true!!) the existence of a realm external to "perception world". No soul has ever glimpsed a thing beyond his own awareness or self!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Emphasis justified.
[/B]

All you are saying here is that we cannot prove that our senses are telling us about a material world. OK, but that is not what you need to do. You need to prove that our senses are not telling us about a material world. I feel silly even assuming that you might understand the difference.

Furthermore, we can know that our Mind is the creator of the [abstract/intangible/subjective] sensations, thoughts & feelings, which constitute the experience of "me" (or whomever).

Simple enough, but you need to define "creator". Because it is not clear if you are including cause or not. Just because you create something does not mean that you designed it. Once you define creator specifically, it becomes clear that the above statement no longer holds water.

I explained why already - the external universe (if it did exist) neither knows of nor cares for nor possesses the power to impose such experiences upon an entity which has them.

Shall I sing a song about false dichotomy, make a rhyme, what? I've already laid out in great detail why the above is a false dichotomy, and even given specific examples of other choices.

It is bleedin obvious that any entity which has such experiences is the primal-cause of those things.

"bleedin odvious", wow, I'm sure that if anyone said something was "bleedin odvious", you'd believe them rigtht away.

Nothing truly exists external to an intangible entity, by default. To ponder the existence of a reality outside of non-spatial reality is absurd.

Again, another false dichotomy.

RussDill

18th March 2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Lucky you. Young, American? No bleedin wonder. See if you say the same thing in 50 years, if you're still around.

Actually, I know quite a few people who are much older than 50 who are still happy, optomistic, easy going, etc. I'm sorry if you think you have such a crap life lifegazer, but your philosophy will not save you, an idea of unity will not save you, only perspective, understanding, optimizism, motivation, and some love.

RussDill

18th March 2004, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

LOLOLOLOLOL.
Show me one jot of proof that you have a physical body and I will show my butt on the nearest highstreet.

Thats great lifegazer, but that isn't what he said, and it doesn't have anything to do with what you have tasked yourself with doing. There is no need to prove you wrong (although it is easy to do). We mearly need to show that your proof that we do not have a physical body is incomplete. Do you think that showing that you cannot prove you have a physical body is equivelent to proving that you do not?

So as you say, Show me one jot of proof that you do not have a physical body and I will show my butt on the nearest highstreet.

RussDill

18th March 2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Assertion!

doesn't matter

Assertion!

doesn't matter

I've answered this two times and you have ignored my answer. For the third time, it is nonsensical to discuss the reality of an external realm beyond that of an intangible realm. Nothing exists beyond the intangible.

already explained this many times.

Liar. Tell this forum where 'pain' or 'red' or 'love' or 'sweet' or 'sad' comes from, if not from the entity that experiences those abstract experiences.

doesn't matter

It doesn't matter if he has not proved his assertions. The point is that your philosophy cannot disprove them. If there are alternate explainations to things your philosophy looks to explain, or dichotomies your posts attempt to make, then your proof has been shown to be incomplete.

IE, someone sets out a case for a crime, and attempts to prove that the mistress killed the husband. But then someone points out that given the evidence it is perfectly plausible thet the butler did it. The defense for the husband does not need to prove that the butler did the crime.

RussDill

18th March 2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The internal (not external) does not affect God. It just affects what is perceived or how it is perceived. God is immutable.

I'm sorry, you have just contridicted yourself again. The whole point of your philosophy was for man to realize that man was god, and choose unity. If man does not do this, god will choose death. Is that not the internal (the individual awareness and perception of each of us) effecting a supposively immutable god?

RussDill

19th March 2004, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
It amazes me that you would all continue to lie to uphold the reality of an existence beyond your own awareness. Even if one existed - and there is not one jot of reason to show it - "we" have no dealings with it whatsoever!! This is hugely significant and I want you to think about it. Your universe is the realm of your own sensations and your mental/emotional responses to those sensations. You live within your own Mind. But when I say that it is your mind, I do not mean that it belongs to you uruk, Rand, Wudang, or whomever else reads these words. I mean that it belongs to you God and that you are having the perception of being uruk, Rand, Wudang, or whomever.

so...your point is we cannot prove A (that there is a reality beyond our awareness). And since we cannot prove A, it must not be true, so B (existence is entirely our awareness) must be true.

What if I say instead that we cannot prove B, and since we cannot prove it, A must be true?

RussDill

19th March 2004, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by riverlethe
The central nervous system, or thereabouts.
Sorry, I'm not a biologist...

The answer that he refuses to consider, or even attempt to counter, is simply that we are "born" or "created" with the ability to feel pain. Something even most immaterialists consider to be true.

RussDill

19th March 2004, 12:06 AM

RussDill

19th March 2004, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is God's stage, and God shall be given the finale. Welcome to the penultimate act.

And by what logic do you decide that it is the "penultimate" act? I suppose by listening to Art Bell and hearing about the "quickening"

RussDill

19th March 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You are simply incapable of walking into the undiscovered country.
So it seems. Our ability to comprehend universal behaviour is not evidence to counter the reality of a God. Climb the ladder or leave. You seem to be under the impression that I would rather have any participation than none. That's not true. Go and die, if that is what you choose.

Again with the assumption that not proving position A someone PROVES position B.

RussDill

19th March 2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You aren't even seeing what your eyes are seeing. I've already established the fact that the light-show you are aware of is completely abstract and/or subjective. The universe does not impose the experience of colour upon any entity. Hence, neither do the eyes.

OK lifegazer, lets say for a second, that maybe we do live in a material world, and we do have eyes. How would you define what happens when we do experience sight?

RussDill

19th March 2004, 12:19 AM

RussDill

19th March 2004, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What real world are you talking about? No man knows of any world except for the one residing within his own awareness.

This statement assumes your philosophy is true. You cannot advance your argument with such statements.

RussDill

19th March 2004, 12:29 AM

RandFan

19th March 2004, 12:39 AM

lifegazer[list=1]
...sensations, as experienced, are distinctly separate from the external world they are meant to represent.

They should thus recognose that what is sensed, abstractly, has nothing to do with any presumed external universe.
[/list=1]#1 is a premise. #2 Is a conclusion.

This is what is called a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.

The images that I see on television via my DVD player are distinctly separate from the events that they represent.

By your logic the images have nothing to do with the actual events.

RandFan

19th March 2004, 07:36 AM

lifegazer
I hereby demand an explanation for all existence or a retraction of this statement. And an apology.Straw man. I never said that I could explain all existence. Only that everything that we can explain, you agree with and by default add god.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realism:
Fire = Fuel + Heat + Oxygen

Gazerism:
Fire = Fuel + Heat + Oxygen + God's Mind + Unexplained Mysterious processes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realism:
Water = 2 Molecules Hydrogen + 1 Molecule Oxygen

Gazerism:
Water = 2 Molecules Hydrogen + 1 Molecule Oxygen + God's Mind + Unexplained Mysterious processes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try as you might you can't escape the fact that any and all scientific models, according to your philosophy, must by default include god and mysterious processes. When in fact, according to Occam, we don't need god to understand these principles. We can simply shave god off. Got it?

It's ok, you don't have to apologize, my ego isn't invested in my world view.

RandFan