A line from Berkeley... [Archive]

evildave

20th March 2004, 02:08 PM

All you're asking lifegazer to prove is that what we perceive is artificial.

Yes, it is.

For you to see that there is a monitor in front of you, your brain interprets and models and compares 'monitor' to previous experience with 'monitor' and makes correlations to other 'monitor' like things in your experience. Slapping a language label like 'monitor' onto the object in front of you is highly artificial, as is every perception about the monitor's quality, value, etc. The simplified model of what the monitor in front of you is discounts its microscopic and (usually) internal attributes. Are you sure that's REALLY metal it's made of? A lot of matallic looking parts are painted plastic nowadays. Is it really heavy, or are you just weak?

All you can ever have to go on is a good approximation of reality, as your brain interprets sensory data. This is compared against past experience in some ways we naturally compare, and many ways that we learned to compare.

For a silly example, take people's perceptions of cats. Bad experiences, such as being bitten or badly injured by an animal when young could cause two different people to see the same cat two different ways. One sees the cat as a 'pwecious widdle cuddly wuvum', and the other sees a 'vicious, sadistic killer'.

They're both right, and both wrong. The cat is what the cat is, but their perceptions of it are very different.

There are limits to what the two cat observers can agree to. They can both agree it's a cat. They can agree it is covered with fur. They can agree it's male. They can agree that the cat has a spiral on his side, and it's roughly brown/bronze. If they both accept that a scale is accurate and measures weight, then they can agree that it's 14 pounds.

Will they agree that it's cuddly, or vicious?

It's according to if they want to try petting it and either get purrs and rubs, or draw back a bloody, ragged stump. Put to the test, they might agree that THIS cat has certain personality attributes. They will never know what sort of cat this is if they don't bother to find out, and simply believe their assumptions and prejudices are reality.

Materialism simply states we FIND OUT WHAT WE CAN about the cat. Establish standards we can agree about. Improve those standards. When different observers look at a cat, they can agree on approximately the same definitions for "cat", and can measure it against pretty much the same standards.

RandFan

20th March 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Why's that a problem? All you are saying here is that our perceptions are ordered. Since I contend that what we perceive is perceived by design, I would suggest that this is more of a problem for you! I think you type and don't even grasp the implication of what you type.

I'm saying that there is a dichotomy. We both agree that the order can be explained by known laws of physics. You believe that there is also a mysterious process that you cannot explain.

Besides, you have completely overlooked everything I have just said. Do you agree with that or not, and if not why not? No I didn't. And no I don't. Your statement is a non sequitur.

Premise: Even if things do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from how we perceive them.

Conclusion: Therefore, the things we perceive are not real in themselves. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Premise Even if the people we see on TV do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from their images on TV.

Conclusion: Therefore, the people on TV are not real in and of themselves.

The construct of dreams is largely founded upon the individual's emotional disposition. The construct of conscious reality is free from such emotional considerations and hence is universal in that the laws of physics remain unaltered by our emotions. Agreed.

As I kept trying to tell you, these things would only happen within perception. Hence my perceived body is affected by perceived ill-treatment, etc.. That is one theory. Another is that our perceptions are representations of reality.

2 Theories.

1.) Laws of physics are all that we need to explain pain.

2.) The Laws of physics and mysterious, inexplicable processes are required to explain pain.

The second theory violates the rule of parsimony. It would help a bit if you could give us a working model of this "god brain". But you can't even do that. We must simply accept that we are part of god's mind and not part of a computer simulation, the result of a dream inside an invisible unicorn or that we are real.

This ongoing debate is not about who's right and who's wrong. It's about the truth and it's about our future. If you're serious about knowing the truth, then just accept the fact that your whole life has been spent inside your own mind. You know of absolutely nothing beyond your own self, and everything within yourself is completely intangible (without objective form). For the last time. I understand your argument. I don't deny the subjective and abstract quality or our senses and perception. I accept that it is a real possibility that the real world doesn't even exist. You are arguing ad nauseam and preaching to the choir on this one aspect.

The point of debate is whether or not the external reality along with our perceptions also exists? The point of the debate is what conclusion can we draw from that which we both agree?

Your conclusion is without justification and is one of a number of possibilities, chief and most parsimonious being that our perceptions are a fairly accurate representation of the real world.

Atlas

20th March 2004, 02:16 PM

Atlas asks: Lifegazer, will you also be explaining why you trust the unreal - that is, what some here believe is delusional.
Reply: I'm not sure I understand the question. Actually, I am sure... that I don't understand the questionOne thing I've never been completely comfortable with in your philosophy is that there is no objective reality. Nothing substantial exists. It's not that there is a person in front of me that I perceive as an illusion of the "real" person because all I'm able to "sense" of the "real" person is the front surface exposed to my vision. I don't translate that apprehended external appearence into my subjective reality.

In your philosophy "I" only appear to be substantial and the experience I have of the person in front of me is a delusion of my insubstantial self. Nothing is real. I am not experiencing illusions of others and of things - I am a delusion of myself inside a delusion of my world inside a thought of God.

How do you trust the delusional or make sense out of things that are unreal in the experience. Ghosts or 6 foot bunnies or Santa Claus have an equal unreality to you as Atlas but you at least talk to me.

How do you know what is so real to you - your philosophy - if everything else you know is a lie - a lie that you perpetuate through your normal act of living, eating, talking, enjoying life, sleeping.... you real activities that you deny. It all seems backwards.You ask weird questions Atlas, but I like you.That's what my mama says too.

lifegazer

20th March 2004, 02:17 PM

Actually Dave, it's very very important to my philosophy that you just acknowledge that the "things" you perceive are not real in themselves. I.e., that "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another.".

Once you do this Dave, I can explain the duality between classical and quantum physics, and even between the particle and the wave. I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity. And then I can show you why an entity which experiences an abstract universe = the creator of that universe = God.
I just need you to lend me your ears Dave. Or is the philosophy too dangerous for your worldly survival?

Krandal2

20th March 2004, 02:21 PM

Lifegazer:

"A mind doesn't require direct contact with a thing in order to create the abstract awareness of a thing. Check-out your dreams and fantasies for confirmation of this."

But a distinction has to be made between perception (the mind observing something outside of itself) and cognition (the mind observing itself) of which dreams and fantasies are an example.

If you are arguing that ultimately all perception is cognition, then fine, but surely you must admit that even in this scenario, there must be a kind of greater reality from which a person draws there perceptions?

Take solipcism for example, suppose you are the only mind that exists, and everything you experience, including this post is being generated by it.
But, because you know didnt consciously create this post yourself, you would have to conclude that there is a part of your mind that is greater than your conscious self that generates reality "for" you, and that ultimatly that is what perception must mean; The act of this greater mind feeding information to the submind that is "You"

Now if this were true then you would be justified in calling your reading of this post ultimately an act of cognition, but you would still have to admit the fact that the things you observe still have a kind of existence beyond their observer (in this case you), and that a kind of perception is required to gain knowlege about whatever is observed, and that some connection between them must exist in order for perception to take place.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

20th March 2004, 02:25 PM

Lifegazer said:
Why not? Tell this forum (and me) of any knowledge you have gleaned of the universe beyond your perception.
The fact that you and I agree on 95% of what we perceive is an indication that we are perceiving something separate from either one of us. Or, at the very least, that the laws which dictate what we perceive are separate from us.

It is no more valid to assume that the objects of perception are within us than it is to assume they are external to us. If you define both viewpoints carefully, so that they both explain what we see, I think you'll find they are equivalent.

Why don't you continue on and explain everything else?

~~ Paul

evildave

20th March 2004, 02:48 PM

Lifegazer, of course I accept that what I experience is not ultimately real.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that I'll accept that what YOU experience is any more real than what I experience, or accept that any conclusions you've reached about your experiences are real.

On top of that, we don't have a common frame of reference to define what we're even talking about.

With a cat, we can both point at the cat. We can repeat the "try and pet the cat" experiment as often as we care to (or until we run out of limbs and/or blood to offer up to kitty).

There are no repeatable and unambiguous "god" experiments. We don't even have a working definition for "gods" to operate with. No measurements for attributes of "gods" we can refer back to.

We have nothing to work with but conjecture and ambiguity.

As another silly model to operate with, imagine I saw a 'ghost'. (No need for it to be holy, have holes, or anything else.) You ask "Where?", I point and say "Just there, a moment ago." You ask "What did it look like?" I say, "Um, I don't know." You press for details, I can't give any. I can't describe what I allegedly saw.

Do you automatically believe that I saw a supernatural, etherial being? Or do you suggest maybe I saw *something*, or even suggest that perhaps I was "seeing things"?

If it's 3:00am, I can attest that I have hallucinated in the past given fatigue, boredom and low sensory stimulation, such as on a highway. This is actually common.

So, assume it's very late right now. How likely is it that I saw a "supernatural, etherial being", or even "something"?

Indeed, I have had downright fantastic ideas that I could not see a single problem with late at night that didn't make a bit of sense after a good night's sleep. I have even had these ideas *last*, but fall apart the moment I had to put them into words.

Finally, when I am presented with information, I take away from it what I choose to, and it's often quite different from what I'm "supposed to".

All you can do is post your opinion, and maybe I'll accept it, or maybe I'll reject it.

RandFan

20th March 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Actually Dave, it's very very important to my philosophy that you just acknowledge that the "things" you perceive are not real in themselves. There is no evidence that the things taht we perceive are not actualy real. In fact this model is far more understandable and is self consistent.

...that "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another." Which only proves that they are different not mutually exclusive.

Once you do this Dave, I can explain the duality between classical and quantum physics, and even between the particle and the wave. I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity. And then I can show you why an entity which experiences an abstract universe = the creator of that universe = God.
I just need you to lend me your ears Dave. Or is the philosophy too dangerous for your worldly survival? Let's assume that you are correct. Please explain all of these concepts.

Yahweh

20th March 2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Even if things do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from how we perceive them. Therefore, the things we perceive are not real in themselves.
The second statement is not the logical conclusion of the preceding statement.

Everything we actually see is completely unreal and is just an abstract representation of a universe.
Thus, the universe we actually experience IS WITHIN US AND IS UNREAL.
Again, the second statement is not the logical conclusion of the preceding statement.

Absolute fact.
Only about half correct. In actuality, the things we perceive are sensory representations of the environment around us.

Always remember the Golden Rule: There is a distinction between mental facts and physical facts.

And the always remember the Silver Rule: There is no good reason to hold that every physical fact is logically dependent on mental facts, or that every physical fact is causally dependent on mental facts.

A bit of extraneous information:

Moore's Proof of the External World:

1) X is to be met with in space iff from the fact that it exists at time t it does not follow that any of us is having an experience at t. (Moore’s Realist claim)
2) There is one X, one of my hands, and here is another X, my other hand.
3) At least two X’s exist.
Therefore,
4) At least two external objects – things to be met with in space – exist.

Criteria to be considered an actual proof of the external world:

1) The premise(s) must be different from the conclusion
2) The premise(s) must be known to be true
3) The conclusion must follow logically from the premise(s)

gentlehorse

20th March 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
This ongoing debate is not about who's right and who's wrong. It's about the truth and it's about our future. If you're serious about knowing the truth, then just accept the fact that your whole life has been spent inside your own mind. You know of absolutely nothing beyond your own self, and everything within yourself is completely intangible (without objective form).

Hey, lifegazer.

You say that this debate is about truth and our future. Lets' say, for the sake of argument, that I accept what you posit above. What now? How does this truth affect me and my future?

I'm not trying to set you up for a slam dunk, my friend. I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

lifegazer

20th March 2004, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by gentlehorse
Hey, lifegazer.

You say that this debate is about truth and our future. Lets' say, for the sake of argument, that I accept what you posit above. What now? How does this truth affect me and my future?

I'm not trying to set you up for a slam dunk, my friend. I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
Well, if you accept that the whole experienced universe exists within yourself and that whatever "you" actually are is ultimately responsible for imposing this abstract universe upon itself (since nothing external to awareness/mind neither cares nor has the knowhow to impose such a subjective/abstract experience upon whatever you are), then it is quite easy to show that the creator of the perception that equates to or is reducible to "you", is a primal-cause... formless... boundless... omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient in relation to "your" own perceived existence. In fact, given a serious audience with these facts in mind, I could show you that you are God, who has imposed this experience of being gentlehorse upon itself.

Given that information Sir, it would be upto you to engage in a spiritual oddysey, the aim of which would be to transform the ego so that it would be content with the unity of mankind, as One.

Yahweh

20th March 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well, if you accept that the whole experienced universe exists within yourself and that whatever "you" actually are is ultimately responsible for imposing this abstract universe upon itself (since nothing external to awareness/mind neither cares nor has the knowhow to impose such a subjective/abstract experience upon whatever you are), then it is quite easy to show that the creator of the perception that equates to or is reducible to "you", is a primal-cause... formless... boundless... omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient in relation to "your" own perceived existence. In fact, given a serious audience with these facts in mind, I could show you that you are God, who has imposed this experience of being gentlehorse upon itself.

Given that information Sir, it would be upto you to engage in a spiritual oddysey, the aim of which would be to transform the ego so that it would be content with the unity of mankind, as One.
I certainly dont feel omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient/boundless/endless, I dont feel like God.

In fact, it seems the only thing I immediate have any control over is this perception of mine which I call "my body". It seems there are some unconscious (percieved) physical limitations I've exacted upon myself that I would wish to rid myself of, how exactly can I do this? (I promise, I'll be benevolent.)

RandFan

20th March 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
In fact, given a serious audience with these facts in mind... I really resent this. It is both arrogant and presumptuous. My decision to seek truth regardless of the consequences has come at a cost.

Please have a little more respect for those on this forum.

scribble

20th March 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

(I promise, I'll be benevolent.)

You've got a sh-tty track record, "Yahweh."

Seriously, good question.

uruk

20th March 2004, 05:44 PM

Thus, the universe we actually experience IS WITHIN US AND IS UNREAL.
I agree as long you are talking about the internal mental representation of the universe and not assuming on the supposed existance or non existance of the universe.

gentlehorse

20th March 2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well, if you accept that the whole experienced universe exists within yourself and that whatever "you" actually are is ultimately responsible for imposing this abstract universe upon itself (since nothing external to awareness/mind neither cares nor has the knowhow to impose such a subjective/abstract experience upon whatever you are), then it is quite easy to show that the creator of the perception that equates to or is reducible to "you", is a primal-cause... formless... boundless... omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient in relation to "your" own perceived existence. In fact, given a serious audience with these facts in mind, I could show you that you are God, who has imposed this experience of being gentlehorse upon itself.

Given that information Sir, it would be upto you to engage in a spiritual oddysey, the aim of which would be to transform the ego so that it would be content with the unity of mankind, as One.

Thanks for the response.

Okay, let's say you've shown me that I'm God and I've imposed the experience of being me on myself. With this in mind, I endeavor to transform my ego so that it is content with the unity of humanity. Let's say that I'm successful in doing so.

Would this transformation affect anyone other than me and those close to me?

Can an atheist successfully transform his/her ego so that it's content with the unity of humanity?

If so, would the affect be the same?

Edited to say that when I read this post it came across as rather cynical. That's not my intent. I'm curious about your worldview, that's all.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

20th March 2004, 06:36 PM

If everything is inside me and there is no external reality, where does my sense of time come from?

~~ Paul

scribble

20th March 2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
If everything is inside me and there is no external reality, where does my sense of time come from?

Ever been in one of those sensory deprivation chambers... or maybe waited for a teakettle to whistle? Your sense of time is as subjective as any other.

Does it mean anything that this time flows in only one direction, if at a variable rate? I'm not sure; I can't fully get my head around the implications. But it seems to me it only says that you're a Forward-Thinking Individual. :D

lifegazer

21st March 2004, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by uruk

I agree as long you are talking about the internal mental representation of the universe and not assuming on the supposed existance or non existance of the universe.
Tell us of this external universe. Take us beyond the boundlessness of the Mind where "we" exist, beyond sensations, thoughts & feelings. Remembering that the "things" we see reside amongst our very sensations, which are internal to our awareness. Hence, even our knowledge of reality is a knowledge of an inner-universe.

And then perhaps, explain to this forum how anything can exist externally to an intangible formless state of being.
If you accept the reality of your formless (intangible) state of being ("to exist is one thing, to be perceived is another"), then it is ludicrous to talk of a state of being external to this because your state of being possesses no definite position (no form).
It's impossible, for example, to stand 6 feet away from an imaginary mermaid since the mermaid has no definite form or hence position.
Likewise, if the Mind-reality in which we reside is shown to be without form (intangible in its constructs/functions/attributes), then it is ludicrous to ask what exists next to it or external to it. The question makes no sense.

lifegazer

21st March 2004, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
Once you do this Dave, I can explain the duality between classical and quantum physics, and even between the particle and the wave. I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity. And then I can show you why an entity which experiences an abstract universe = the creator of that universe = God.
I just need you to lend me your ears Dave. Or is the philosophy too dangerous for your worldly survival?

Let's assume that you are correct. Please explain all of these concepts.
Okay, "assuming I am correct" (please remember this as you read my responses), I shall proceed...

(1). "I can explain the duality between classical and quantum physics,".
The Mind (of God) has free-will. Therefore, the energy of God is essentially unpredictable. But the Mind is the source of its own perceived order. The "things" we perceive through our everyday sensations conform to the general order of classical physics. Yet we all know that, fundamentally, the constituent energy of the forms we see is essentially unpredictable. Hence the duality between what is observed and the reality of its constituent energy. Hence qm and classical.

(2). "and even between the particle and the wave".
"Things" do not exist, definitely and singularly, until seen within consciousness/awareness. We see "things". Until we observe anything, it behaves as a wave. Hence, without conscious observation no "thing" exists anyway.
There's an experiment where they emit a single electron and give it the opportunity to traverse two paths. Until observed, the electron traverses both paths, simultaneously, affecting receptors along those paths. Interestingly, once the experiment is observed, the electron behaves as a singular/definite entity and traverses only one path. The electron becomes a singular "thing" within our sight.

(3). "I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity."
I contend that light is imposed upon awareness by the Mind itself. This is a fact since whatever we perceive is just the abstract sensation itself, imposed upon awareness by that Mind. Hence, the Mind is the true source of the light we perceive and not the "thing" we actually see as a result of this light. For example, I contend that the Mind is the source of the Sun's light... not that the Sun is the source of that light. Remember that my philosophy contends that "things" are seen from the sensations. First the sensation, then the "thing". So, the Sun in itself is the source of nothing. The light we see gives the awareness/appearance of a "thing" we label 'the Sun'.
Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light since the object is not the source of that light. The Mind itself is... and one truly cannot accelerate from or towards the Mind itself. Thus, the constancy of lightspeed 'c'.

(4) "And then I can show you why an entity which experiences an abstract universe = the creator of that universe = God.".
There is no position in which to hold an intangible experience/event (see my previous post to uruk). It is clear that an intangible event can only occur within an intangible 'medium'.
Whatever "you" really are - embracing the whole perceived universe of "things" within you - we can be sure of two things:-
(a). You are a formless being, without bounds. Hence, it is ludicrous to even contemplate a reality beyond your own true identity/nature.
(b). You ("Randfan" is the experience being had by the true you) created the sensations being had upon awareness. You created the awareness of being Randfan and have become immersed and lost within this self-imposed dream.
We know this because any entity which experiences a completely subjective/abstract reality must be the primal-cause of that reality. The external-universe (even if it did exist) neither cares nor knows about sensations, thoughts & feelings. Hence, any entity which is aware of such things must be the primal-cause of them.
Also, as I have said, it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind. Hence, we can be sure it has created the whole universe, as perceived.

lifegazer

21st March 2004, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by gentlehorse
Okay, let's say you've shown me that I'm God and I've imposed the experience of being me on myself. With this in mind, I endeavor to transform my ego so that it is content with the unity of humanity. Let's say that I'm successful in doing so.

Would this transformation affect anyone other than me and those close to me?

I expect that depends upon the measure of your "Christ consciousness".

Can an atheist successfully transform his/her ego so that it's content with the unity of humanity?

Yes. All it takes is a sincere willingness and effort to do so. We are all God.

John 10:34 -> "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods'?"

Psalm 82:6
I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'

John 14:20 -> "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."

Atlas

21st March 2004, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
~snip~ (4) "...Whatever "you" really are - embracing the whole perceived universe of "things" within you - we can be sure of two things:
(a). You are a formless being, without bounds. Hence, it is ludicrous to even contemplate a reality beyond your own true identity/nature...

The external-universe (even if it did exist) neither cares nor knows about sensations, thoughts & feelings. Hence, any entity which is aware of such things must be the primal-cause of them.

Also, as I have said, it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind. Hence, we can be sure it has created the whole universe, as perceived. Lifegazer,

Consider that you live at the top of a hill with a road that sweeps down the hill in a kind of a V curve. One day you are hiking down the hill and it's a beautiful day of sunshine and soft breezes and your experience is one of real harmony. The air carries a familiar sound. It is a neighborhood kid is coming up the hill on her little bike.She has rounded the V curve almost as you arrive at it and the sight of her makes you smile. The pink jacketed, blond headed bundle of exertion pedals toward you.

When the red faced girl's ascent brings her even and she see's you smiling she does something unexpected. She flips you the bird. How unharmonious! But you continue walking down determined not to let your spiritual experience of harmony be derailed.

As you reach the curve's vertex you can see far down the hill. In the far distance you see a lone car wending it's way toward the base of the hill to begin it's climb. Suddenly, behind you, you hear a crash and you whirl around to see the little girl laying in the road moaning, with the bike lying on top of her. She doesn't seem to be getting up, you see one of her feet tangled in the spokes of the rear bicycle wheel.

What is the reality of this event?
1) If the little girl doesn't move she will likely be run over by the approaching car as it wheels around the curve.
2) This little girl doesn't seem to be an agent of world harmony.
3) You are acutely aware that nothing of this is real but you are experiencing an "interesting" moment of the Mind's illusion.

What do you do?
1) Envy the experience of the little girl that is about to know nonexistence even more fully than you.
2) Turn again toward the pleasant harmonious experience of hiking down the hill in sunshine.
3) Thank the Mind for it's ability to choose it's own reality and to dispense with unharmonious aspects of lifegazer's experience.
4) Forget philosophy. Save the real girl from getting run over by the real car.

Is there any way that you can think of that , knowing your objective reality is nonexistent, alters your behavior ? (Besides tapping your keyboard defending your idea that the keyboard doesn't really exist.)

Wudang

21st March 2004, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

(3). "I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity."
Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light since the object is not the source of that light. The Mind itself is... and one truly cannot accelerate from or towards the Mind itself. Thus, the constancy of lightspeed 'c'.

Irrelevant since we can no more move away than accelerate so there is no speed at all so relativity is irrelevant so you don't need to discuss it any more. Please.

The "abstract experience" stuff I ignored as it's been hashed over befoe.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

21st March 2004, 05:01 AM

Scribble said:
Ever been in one of those sensory deprivation chambers... or maybe waited for a teakettle to whistle? Your sense of time is as subjective as any other.
That's not what I was asking. I'm supposing a world in which there is nothing external to me, not just one in which sensory input has been damped. Where would I get a sense of time, since there would be nothing against which to measure the passing of time? There is no external change at all to act as a clock.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

21st March 2004, 05:05 AM

Lifegazer said:
Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light since the object is not the source of that light. The Mind itself is... and one truly cannot accelerate from or towards the Mind itself. Thus, the constancy of lightspeed 'c'.
But the mind is also the source of the object. Why does its apparent speed change?

~~ Paul

RandFan

21st March 2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Also, as I have said, it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind. Hence, we can be sure it has created the whole universe, as perceived. Non-sequitur.

As to the rest, pretty disappointing. :(

Sorry lifegazer,

There are some very serious flaws with your explanations. Chief amongst them is inconsistency. For some odd reason there needs be order that is predictable and measurable. Why? At the same time phenomenon that is difficult to explain is explained by stating that we don't exist. ???

(1) Constituent energy from something that doesn't exist? Your philosophy is simply convenient.

(2) A lot of double speak and I'm not certain if things exist or not.

(3) Again, why can we measure the speed of light to a very exacting degree yet "acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light".

(4a) You have yet to establish why contemplating reality is ludicrous? You have only made an assertion that it follows from the fact that our understanding of the real world is subjective.

Again, this is a non sequitur. It could be, It could not be.

(4b) Whether the universe cares or doesn't is immaterial to your conclusion. You conclude things without justification.

I'm sorry to piss on your parade but that was very unenlightening. Just a hodgepodge of rhetoric. I'm sure you are very taken with it and I am now to be the brunt of your frustration. Sorry, do what you must but I don't think you will be awarded a Nobel prize.

lifegazer

21st March 2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
For some odd reason there needs be order that is predictable and measurable. Why?

What a dumb question. How can we share a common experience unless there is a common order of perception?

At the same time phenomenon that is difficult to explain is explained by stating that we don't exist. ???

What??

(1) Constituent energy from something that doesn't exist? Your philosophy is simply convenient.

God exists.

(2) A lot of double speak and I'm not certain if things exist or not.

You call this a response?

(3) Again, why can we measure the speed of light to a very exacting degree yet "acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light".

I explained that the Mind is the source of all perceived light. You obviously paid little attention to my post.

(4a) You have yet to establish why contemplating reality is ludicrous? You have only made an assertion that it follows from the fact that our understanding of the real world is subjective.

You aren't listening. We are living an intangible existence and the universe we are experiencing exists within us. Neither we or the universe within us has real form. Thus, it is stupid to ask what exists externally to a reality that possesses no form.

(4b) Whether the universe cares or doesn't is immaterial to your conclusion. You conclude things without justification.

The universe does not force any entity to have an abstract experience. It is obvious to anybody with just a modicum of intelligence that an entity is the primal-cause of its own abstract experiences.

I'm sorry to piss on your parade

I would expect little else from you. Your response was pathetic and exhibited a lack of attention combined with low intelligence. I'd rather you didn't participate in future, thankyou.

but that was very unenlightening. Just a hodgepodge of rhetoric. I'm sure you are very taken with it and I am now to be the brunt of your frustration. Sorry, do what you must but I don't think you will be awarded a Nobel prize.
Screw the nobel prize.

Wrath of the Swarm

21st March 2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Krandal2
But a distinction has to be made between perception (the mind observing something outside of itself) and cognition (the mind observing itself) of which dreams and fantasies are an example. No, both are examples of perception. The system of the brain that monitors other systems can't monitor itself. Monitoring other processes within the brain isn't different from monitoring processes outside of the brain.

At least lifegazer's basic point - that your experiences are artificially constructed within your mind and cannot be regarded as 'objective' - is correct.

RandFan

21st March 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
What a dumb question. How can we share a common experience unless there is a common order of perception? But then the order gets difficult to explain and you simply state it is because we don't exist.

What?? You are being inconsistent.

God exists. An assumption that leads nowhere.

You call this a response? It is accurate.

I explained that the Mind is the source of all perceived light. You obviously paid little attention to my post. I did pay attention. Your post is not self-consistent, it is incoherent.

You aren't listening. We are living an intangible existence and the universe we are experiencing exists within us. Neither we or the universe within us has real form. Thus, it is stupid to ask what exists externally to a reality that possesses no form.You are assuming that which you are trying to prove. Your logic is circular.

The universe does not force any entity to have an abstract experience. It is obvious to anybody with just a modicum of intelligence that an entity is the primal-cause of its own abstract experiences. Ad hominem.

I would expect little else from you. Your response was pathetic and exhibited a lack of attention combined with low intelligence. I'd rather you didn't participate in future, thankyou. Again, more ad hominem.

You will have to ignore me or talk to the moderators. This non-existing god perception isn't through. So your non-existing god perception is going to have to put up with me a little while longer. My ultimate motivation is not to be a jerk but to understand. You are going to have to do a better job. I think Atlas is correct. I think you could clean your philosophy up a bit so that it is somewhat presentable. You have a ways to go.

Screw the nobel prize. There is no cause for your non-existing god perception to be vulgar. :D

Toughen up your skin and take a course in philosophy.

RandFan

RussDill

21st March 2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The construct of dreams is largely founded upon the individual's emotional disposition. The construct of conscious reality is free from such emotional considerations and hence is universal in that the laws of physics remain unaltered by our emotions.

But what dreams are do not bear that out. For example, I just recently had a dream where I was in a room with some other people, and there was a bear panted on a wall, I knew that there was a tomb hidden behind the painting of the bear, it was even said. But then, for no aparent reason, we all started digging in the floor. That is simply logically inconsistent, it has nothing to do with emotion.

RussDill

21st March 2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why not? Tell this forum (and me) of any knowledge you have gleaned of the universe beyond your perception.

The point you made is that no one has, wasn't it? So why don't you tell us the knowledge you have gleaned of anything beyond what you have learned through perception. Oh? none, well then, you don't know what you are perceiving, you don't know if a material universe exists or not.

RussDill

21st March 2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Scribble, do me a favour and say something worthwhile that is relevant to this very credible thread. Or go and annoy somebody else.
Thankyou, in anticipation of your co-operation.

geez, why apologize to someone if they are just going to insult you in return. There's that unity for you

RussDill

21st March 2004, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Actually Dave, it's very very important to my philosophy that you just acknowledge that the "things" you perceive are not real in themselves. I.e., that "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another.".

So we accept the first half on faith...

Once you do this Dave, I can explain the duality between classical and quantum physics, and even between the particle and the wave.

A) There is no "true" duality.
B) You have shown no understand of QM or physics in general, even to the point of embracing QM while insulting other theories (ie, string)
C) The things you are tring to explain have already been explain. Add to that, that your explainations could not be used to predict any processes in QM, so they are not complete.

I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity.

There is no weirdness. And if you can explain relativity, can you derive the time dialation formula? If not, then no, you cannot explain relativity.

And then I can show you why an entity which experiences an abstract universe = the creator of that universe = God.
I just need you to lend me your ears Dave. Or is the philosophy too dangerous for your worldly survival?

Oh yes, he thinks that such radical ideas are too dangerous, we all do, which is why we all seem to have such "trouble" accepting them. Also, we are all members of a secret global society trying to cover up those ideas.

RussDill

21st March 2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

And then perhaps, explain to this forum how anything can exist externally to an intangible formless state of being.

I've already explained how this is possible, however, since you are using this dichotomy in an attempt to validate your philosophy, and you cannot counter my explaination, you continue to ignore it.

RussDill

21st March 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

(1). "I can explain the duality between classical and quantum physics,".

OK, great, but there is no duality, there is no classical physics, just classical physics do not actually exist, they are merely an approximation. So unless you are about to explain that classical physics is an approximation of quantum physics, you would be wrong (I can show you mathematically how this is true if you would like)

The Mind (of God) has free-will. Therefore, the energy of God is essentially unpredictable.

A) God does not have energy, if he did, he would be existing within an existence where energy is a property. Is god existing within an existence, or is he existence?

Second, what does it mean for energy to be unpredictable. The roll of a die can be said to be unpredictable in one sense, you will always get anywhere from a 1 to a 6. However, in another sense, it is predictable, there is an equal chance you will get any number 1 to 6, and you will NEVER get any other number. True unpredictability would not have these limitations, and I am guessing, that since your god's free-will is complete or whatever, then would it have these limitations of predictability?

I think not, however, energy within our universe does have these limitations. Also, it makes no sense to compare whatever property energy would be where god exists, with energy in the "universe" since they are not the same thing.

But the Mind is the source of its own perceived order. The "things" we perceive through our everyday sensations conform to the general order of classical physics.

No, they don't. I sense things everyday that do not conform to classical approximations of quantum equations.

Yet we all know that, fundamentally, the constituent energy of the forms we see is essentially unpredictable. Hence the duality between what is observed and the reality of its constituent energy. Hence qm and classical.

You haven't explained anything. You haven't even understood the problem to begin with.

(2). "and even between the particle and the wave".

There is no duality because there is no particle.

"Things" do not exist, definitely and singularly, until seen within consciousness/awareness.

But then you are saying that things do exist, and before you said they do not exist. Which is it?

We see "things". Until we observe anything, it behaves as a wave.

Everything always behaves like a wave.

Hence, without conscious observation no "thing" exists anyway.

Conciousness has no effect on QM. The word "Observation" in physics does not refer to consciousness, no one needs to know the result of an "observation" for the observation to have an effect.

There's an experiment where they emit a single electron and give it the opportunity to traverse two paths. Until observed, the electron traverses both paths, simultaneously, affecting receptors along those paths. Interestingly, once the experiment is observed, the electron behaves as a singular/definite entity and traverses only one path. The electron becomes a singular "thing" within our sight.

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I'm not sure where to begin. Firstly, consciousness could not have an effect, because by the time the information from any receptor reaches any technitian, the electron has already completed it's path. So by the time the experiment is observed by anyone, the electron has already been obsorbed in the target area, the conscious observation could not have any effect on the electron's path.

Second, there is no experiment where an electron traverses two paths and is detected by receptors along both paths . If a receptor "picks up" the precence of an electron, then the wave function is collapsed, we know which path the electron took, and the other receptor will not detect anything.

Third, the process of a receptor (whatever that receptor may be, even another particle) "picking up" the precense of an electron IS what is refered to as an observation.

Fouth, an electron is never a singular defined entity, it is always described as a wave. The description of an electron as a particle is an approximation.

(3). "I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity."
I contend that light is imposed upon awareness by the Mind itself.

You contend that everytnhing is imposed upon awareness by the Mind itself. [Side note: This means that we are always perceiving a reality outside our awareness, the reality that the Mind is imposing on our awareness. This runs counter to many, many of your other statements that try to shoot down any possiblity of a reality outside our awareness]

This is a fact since whatever we perceive is just the abstract sensation itself, imposed upon awareness by that Mind.

That seems rather cicular doesn't it? A is a fact because A?

Hence, the Mind is the true source of the light we perceive and not the "thing" we actually see as a result of this light. For example, I contend that the Mind is the source of the Sun's light... not that the Sun is the source of that light.

But if I crash into the Sun, I will see that the "thing" the sun is no more or less real than the light that I percieve. Hence, you contend that the Mind is the source of both the Sun, and the light. Also, by our current understandings of "Things" and light, light is just as much of a "Thing" as a "Thing". energy<->matter

Remember that my philosophy contends that "things" are seen from the sensations. First the sensation, then the "thing". So, the Sun in itself is the source of nothing.

Yes it is, in the conceptual view of the universe by the Mind. In the Mind's imagination, the "Sun" is emenating rays of light.

The light we see gives the awareness/appearance of a "thing" we label 'the Sun'.
Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light since the object is not the source of that light.

OK, but then the same argument would apply to sound. Sound is a sensation impressed upon our awareness by the Mind. The "thing" is not the source of the sound, the Mind is. Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-sound since the object is not the source of that sound.

I fail to see you being able to rectify that inconsistency, I much more likely see you ignoring it completely, since you (or anyone) is totally incapable of explaining it. You will instead, go on your merry way, and repeat your whole relativity tripe over and over. Your philosophy predicts the speed of sound is absolute.

Also, if the speed of light is a property, so is it's color. And the color of light coming from a source most certainly changes as we accelrate towards or away from an object. Are you saying the doppler shift doesn't exist?

The Mind itself is... and one truly cannot accelerate from or towards the Mind itself. Thus, the constancy of lightspeed 'c'.

...but we aren't trying to accelerate towards or away from the mind, we are trying to accelerate towards or away from what we perceive as things, even if our perception of things are only our imagination.

oh, btw, Thus, the constancy of the speed of sound

(a). You are a formless being, without bounds. Hence, it is ludicrous to even contemplate a reality beyond your own true identity/nature.

So if we assume your philosohpy, it is pointless to assume otherwise. Seems to be the position you've taken up.

We know this because any entity which experiences a completely subjective/abstract reality must be the primal-cause of that reality.

Unless something/someone else created that being. Also, primal-cause assumes that time exists outside of reality.

The external-universe (even if it did exist) neither cares nor knows about sensations, thoughts & feelings.

Ok, it doesn't care, which proves...

Hence, any entity which is aware of such things must be the primal-cause of them.

Simply because you don't care about something, doesn't mean you can't cause it to happen. Ice does not care if it melts, and yet it does.

Also, as I have said, it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind. Hence, we can be sure it has created the whole universe, as perceived.

hehe, because my philosophy is true, it is crazy to entertain any other ideas, hence, I can be sure that I am right, and will sleep soundly at night.

RussDill

21st March 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What a dumb question. How can we share a common experience unless there is a common order of perception?

What is a "common order of perception" and what is a "common experience". I don't think we share either. We share a common reality, but perception and experience are bouth very subjective.

BTW, in QM, you can measure however accurately you want. You can know the precise position, or velocity of a particle, just never both. Also, reality does not need to be completly predictable for us to share that reality.

We are living an intangible existence and the universe we are experiencing exists within us. Neither we or the universe within us has real form.

What I assume is true...

Thus, it is stupid to ask what exists externally to a reality that possesses no form.

Thus, it is stupid to discuss any alternate ideas.

Anyway, he is not asking what exists externally to reality. The question only gets phrased in that way if we assume your philosophy isn't true. Why don't you climb out of your spider hole for a second and comtemplate questions from an un-biased perspective.

Plus, it makes no sense to say "a reality that possesses form/or no form" as the question assumes that there is some external vantage point to determine that from.

The universe does not force any entity to have an abstract experience. It is obvious to anybody with just a modicum of intelligence that an entity is the primal-cause of its own abstract experiences.

Same old false dicothomy you keep using over and over again. It has been countered, you have not responded. Using it again and again just makes you look less credible as a person.

I would expect little else from you. Your response was pathetic and exhibited a lack of attention combined with low intelligence. I'd rather you didn't participate in future, thankyou.

Insult insult insult. Do you gain pleasure form insulting others? Do you need to insult others to feel better about yourself? Does it make it easier to dismiss the ideas of other people if you insult them? You can continue to attack the individual instead of the argument if you wish, but it will not advance your ideas, merely stifle discussion of them.

uruk

21st March 2004, 04:07 PM

Tell us of this external universe. Take us beyond the boundlessness of the Mind where "we" exist, beyond sensations, thoughts & feelings. Remembering that the "things" we see reside amongst our very sensations, which are internal to our awareness. Hence, even our knowledge of reality is a knowledge of an inner-universe.

There is an external world. Our senses interacting with this world generates stimuli. Our perceptions are formed from the stimuli. Our senses tells us of things in this external world when they come into the boundry of our awareness.There are things which have existed prior to my existance. (my parents, this planet, a '57 chevy)

I know and admit that I am making an assumption on the existance of an external world but I am trusting what my senses tell me because they haven't steered me wrong yet. I can not percieve anything else other than this world.

Your still stuck in your faulty logic loop. Just because our perception of the universe is internal does not mean an external world does not exist.

I answered. Now it's your turn. How does the fact that our perceptions are internal negate the existance of an external world? Please refrain from using circular logic (i.e. "an external world does exist because an external world does not exist") or
Non sequiter logic (i.e. Neither we or the universe within us has real form. Thus, it is stupid to ask what exists externally to a reality that possesses no form.)

RandFan

21st March 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by uruk
I answered. Now it's your turn. How does the fact that our perceptions are internal negate the existance of an external world? Please refrain from using circular logic (i.e. "an external world does exist because an external world does not exist") or
Non sequiter logic (i.e. Neither we or the universe within us has real form. Thus, it is stupid to ask what exists externally to a reality that possesses no form.) Succinct. Thank you uruk.

uruk

21st March 2004, 04:36 PM

If you accept the reality of your formless (intangible) state of being ("to exist is one thing, to be perceived is another"), then it is ludicrous to talk of a state of being external to this because your state of being possesses no definite position (no form).
It's impossible, for example, to stand 6 feet away from an imaginary mermaid since the mermaid has no definite form or hence position.
Likewise, if the Mind-reality in which we reside is shown to be without form (intangible in its constructs/functions/attributes), then it is ludicrous to ask what exists next to it or external to it. The question makes no sense.

How does this say anything of the non-existance of an external universe?
If my senses tell me I am standing 6 feet away from a horse., then everything in my perception tells me I am standing 6 feet away from a horse (as a mermaid has yet to be discovered). I am justified in saying that I am 6 feet away from a horse. And other people will agree with my assesment if they are standing around also.
If the world is an illusion. it is an illusion that behaves EXACTLY like an external world. Since we can not percieve anything else other than this world.(unless you have any evidence to show that we can percieve something other than this world) I am perfectly justified to deal with and talk about this world as if it actually exists. You are percieving yourself as sitting in front of a computer typing away at a keyboard, If I was standing next to you I would make the same assesment as you. You can not violate the laws that govern this world. You can not percieve the realm of god. You can only percieve this existance. How can you not talk about this world as if it does not exist. Can you percieve something else? Let me add to Berkeley(if I may be so bold) "To rationalise something is one thing but percieve it is something else."

uruk

21st March 2004, 06:41 PM

[QUOTE(2). "and even between the particle and the wave".
"Things" do not exist, definitely and singularly, until seen within consciousness/awareness. We see "things". Until we observe anything, it behaves as a wave. Hence, without conscious observation no "thing" exists anyway.
[/QUOTE]

You've just contradicted yourself here.

First you say: "Things" do not exist, definitely and singularly, until seen within consciousness/awareness.

Then you say:Until we observe anything, it behaves as a wave.

You are saying that "things" exist (behaving as waves) before we observe (see) them. Hence things exist before they come into our awareness.
You really need to pay attention to what you are saying.

also if it is "ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind."
Then why do you instist on using QM and relativity in your arguments since they make the fundamental assumption that the universe is real and external to the mind?
Even you have to deal with this world as if it is real in order to communincate with us and live your life. It seems ludicrous to argue against the existance of something you have to accept by default in order to make your argument known to others. (i.e you argue against the reality of the "real world" yet you have use an "imaginary" device to communicate with us.)

The rest of you post is too silly to respond to. (let's see if you enjoy an ad hominim statement as much as we do.)

uruk

21st March 2004, 06:42 PM

Succinct. Thank you uruk.
Your welcome, but I have little hope.

RandFan

21st March 2004, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Your welcome, but I have little hope. It's funny but there seems to be a pattern. Before lifegazer we had Franko, Win and UCE. I actually got along well with all of them. I found the quality of their arguments far superior to lifegazer though I am sure that there are many here who would disagree and say that they were no better.

In the end the were upset that the skeptics on this forum did not see the brilliance of their various philosophies. And I say that plural because they were all different. Like I said, in the end they were abusive and resorted to the same bullying tactics that lifegazer is using. The posters here were simply too stupid to grasp the concpets.

uruk

22nd March 2004, 10:53 AM

That is one of the differences between science and dogma or religion or even certain philosophical beliefs.

Science is willing to admit to error and attempt to correct itself and further itself. Religion and other dogma can not admit to error or advancement of knowlegde lest it contradict itself or negate itself. Look at lifegazer and the rest. they are unable to admit to any error in their reasoning or beliefs since all that they hold would crumble if they did.

lifegazer

22nd March 2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by uruk
That is one of the differences between science and dogma or religion or even certain philosophical beliefs.

Science is willing to admit to error and attempt to correct itself and further itself. Religion and other dogma can not admit to error or advancement of knowlegde lest it contradict itself or negate itself. Look at lifegazer and the rest. they are unable to admit to any error in their reasoning or beliefs since all that they hold would crumble if they did.
What a bozo. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
Firstly, science is simple the discernment of perceived order. Got that? I hope so, because I'm tired of repeating the same old obvious stuff time after time after time. There isn't a scientist that's ever lived who has any real idea whether reality is internal or external. And to be honest, the nature of reality is an entirely philosophical pursuit. Like I say, science can tell you that x follows w follows v follows u, but science cannot tell you what the essence of all effects is or even whether there is an external reality.
My original post was spot on. A few members here had the honesty to admit that the universe they perceive is within them - subjective. Even you! Yet here you are giving me a load of old tosh about dogma and religion and how great science is.

I've had enough of giving my valuable time to plonkers like you and Rand. Talk amongst yourselves. Jump into the abyss together, for comfort's sake.

RandFan

22nd March 2004, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What a bozo. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
Firstly, science is simple the discernment of perceived order. Got that? I hope so, because I'm tired of repeating the same old obvious stuff time after time after time. There isn't a scientist that's ever lived who has any real idea whether reality is internal or external. And to be honest, the nature of reality is an entirely philosophical pursuit. Like I say, science can tell you that x follows w follows v follows u, but science cannot tell you what the essence of all effects is or even whether there is an external reality.
My original post was spot on. A few members here had the honesty to admit that the universe they perceive is within them - subjective. Even you! Yet here you are giving me a load of old tosh about dogma and religion and how great science is.

I've had enough of giving my valuable time to plonkers like you and Rand. Talk amongst yourselves. Jump into the abyss together, for comfort's sake. Sorry gazer but this won't pass for answering the questions.

If you can't do it then we understand. You have painted yourself into a corner and like all the rest can't answer the questions.

RandFan

RandFan

22nd March 2004, 11:41 AM

In case you have forgoten the questions I will repost uruk's cogent request.

Originally posted by uruk
I answered. Now it's your turn. How does the fact that our perceptions are internal negate the existance of an external world? Please refrain from using circular logic (i.e. "an external world does exist because an external world does not exist") or
Non sequiter logic (i.e. Neither we or the universe within us has real form. Thus, it is stupid to ask what exists externally to a reality that possesses no form.)

uruk

22nd March 2004, 01:35 PM

What a bozo......

More of your patented ad hominem statements to skirt or divert from my question. How typical, when you are confronted by a question you can't answer you resort to insults and evasion. how sad. I thought you were much more of an ethical debater than this. But I am willing to admit to my errors.

I have never said that science could explain anything outside of this universe. I agree with you that science only deals with the workings of this universe. science does not try to answer the big "philosophical" questions. It's usually philosophers who get one scientific discovery and "runs" with it. (Like you do when you try to use QM or relativity to prove your point.) Philosophy deals with the relationship our mind has with reality. It does not PROVE that it does not exist, It only questions it's existance. And it does not deny that we have to deal with it.
Rationalization may all be fine and dandy, and it may be internaly logicaly consistant. But it don't mean a thing if it can't bear practical fruit or make a testable prediction. It just all becomes a facinating academic puzzle. Like a Rubics cube; ingrossing and consistant, but ultimately useless. (no offense to philosophers, this is just my opinion)

Name one philosophy which corrects itself after an error has been detected in it's reasoning. Science!

Name one philosopher or religion that has ever said "oops! we got that wrong" about their fundamental beliefs. None! (unless someone knows something I don't. Which is alot)

I challenge you. I am willing to admit that I could be wrong about everything I believe. Are you? Can you?

RandFan

22nd March 2004, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Name one philosopher or religion that has ever said "oops! we got that wrong" about their fundamental beliefs. None! (unless someone knows something I don't. Which is alot)Excelent points. I'm not sure if it qualifies since you used the modifier "fundamental" but the Pope has admitted evolution and some other concepts, I think.

uruk

22nd March 2004, 02:09 PM

Excelent points. I'm not sure if it qualifies since you used the modifier "fundamental" but the Pope has admitted evolution and some other concepts, I think.

D'OH!!!!!!!!:hb:
I forgot about that one. And with my mother being a staunch catholic and all.
Vatican two announced that the Roman catholic church officially recognized "big bang" and evolution as the method inwhich god created the universe and man. Steven Hawking was invited to that shindig. The pope praised him for his work on big bang but warned him not to look into the moments before big bang. Which of course Hawking is.

scribble

22nd March 2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by uruk
The pope praised him for his work on big bang but warned him not to look into the moments before big bang.

I wonder how that conversation went?

"All these moments are yours. Except T minus 1. Attempt no discernment there."

:eek:

Edit to add: I just had a mental image of Stephen Hawking being torn apart by sprits like in that scene in the first Indiana Jones movie. I don't know why that makes me giggle. Maybe I'm a Sick Bastard.

uruk

22nd March 2004, 02:17 PM

Also, as I have said, it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind. Hence, we can be sure it has created the whole universe, as perceived.

Wow I missed this shining example of logic that is both circular and non sequiter at the same time. The mind does boggle.

RandFan

22nd March 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Wow I missed this shining example of logic that is both circular and non sequiter at the same time. The mind does boggle. With god all things are possible. Except of course predicting the lottery, writing down the numbers and then changing the outcome. http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/scratchchin.gif

lifegazer

22nd March 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Also, as I have said, it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind. Hence, we can be sure it has created the whole universe, as perceived.

Wow I missed this shining example of logic that is both circular and non sequiter at the same time. The mind does boggle.
It has been established that the actual experience of existence is internal to awareness and that all "things" therein are not real in themselves, but are seen amongst our inner-sensations. The universe we actually perceive of is not really there. It's an intangible illusion of "things".
That was the point of my first post and this: "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another.".
Several members, including yourself, even admitted that this was true.

You then asked: "But how do you know that there isn't a real universe of "things" existing externally to our abstract awareness of a universe?".

I responded that it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established]intangible realm.
You cannot be next to or external to an abstract/imaginary object.
I mentioned that you cannot be 6 feet from the tooth fairy to drive home my point. The tooth fairy does not occupy real space since she isn't really there. Thus, you cannot find her, let alone be 6 feet from her.
Of course, this went right over your head.

Don't accuse me of circular reasoning just because you lack the brains to understand my point of view.

Also, let me drive home - just for clarity's sake - that science knows jack all about the nature of reality. Science only knows about the order within perceived existence. This forum is full of fools who think science lends philosophical weight towards an external (to awareness) reality. Science lends zilch towards such a reality. Absolute jack.
Got that?

Atlas

22nd March 2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Also, let me drive home - just for clarity's sake - that science knows jack all about the nature of reality. Science only knows about the order within perceived existence. This forum is full of fools who think science lends philosophical weight towards an external (to awareness) reality. Science lends zilch towards such a reality. Absolute jack.
Got that? Lifegazer,

Most people agree that we perceive or have an experience of reality. You are the only one who says that the reality does not exist.

It is common sense that leads the human toward an appreciation of the existence of objective reality. Science serves to support and expand that common sense notion with explanations of objective reality beyond our immediate senses.

Common sense also tells us that your version of reality offers nothing in the way of human advancement, in that it denies human existence and badmouths science (and religion).

RandFan

22nd March 2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You cannot be next to or external to an abstract/imaginary object. Just because our experiences are subjective does not negate objective reality.

I mentioned that you cannot be 6 feet from the tooth fairy to drive home my point. The tooth fairy does not occupy real space since she isn't really there. Thus, you cannot find her, let alone be 6 feet from her. There is no evidence that the tooth fairy exists even in our virtual world.

Of course, this went right over your head. This is just bullying.

Don't accuse me of circular reasoning just because you lack the brains to understand my point of view. You are accused of circular reasoning because your argument assumes your conclusion.

It is also non sequitur because you go from point "a" to point "c" without any rationale.

Also, let me drive home - just for clarity's sake - that science knows jack all about the nature of reality.[/b] An assumption on your part.

Science only knows about the order within perceived existence. And makes a conclusion that it is real. Which counters your conclusion that it is false. Just because you choose to disregard what your senses tells you is correct is not a reason to suppose that you are right.

This forum is full of fools who think science lends philosophical weight towards an external (to awareness) reality. Science lends zilch towards such a reality. Absolute jack.
Got that? It has been pointed out to you time and time again that what science understands about perceived reality is consistent. Further it is consistent to all of us who are in this perceived reality. Finally our conclusion that reality exists does not violate the rule of parsimony that you so conveniently ignore.

You have yet to respond to many of the points made in this and the last thread you started.

evildave

22nd March 2004, 05:13 PM

Ahh, the position posted.

Now I can examine it.

Originally posted by lifegazer

Okay, "assuming I am correct" (please remember this as you read my responses), I shall proceed...

I can't just "assume" you are correct. First off, for pure communication's sake, I must ask a few questions. Otherwise, I may assume I understand what you meant, but actually believe you said something different than what you meant to communicate.

Therefore, a few questions will be inserted into your statements, with useful keyword labels to refer back to.

(1). "I can explain the duality between classical and quantum physics,".

The Mind (of God) has free-will.

MINDGOD: On what basis do you make this "free-will" claim?

Therefore, the energy of God is essentially unpredictable.

EnergyUnpredict: Does this really follow?

But the Mind is the source of its own perceived order. The "things" we perceive through our everyday sensations conform to the general order of classical physics. Yet we all know that, fundamentally, the constituent energy of the forms we see is essentially unpredictable. Hence the duality between what is observed and the reality of its constituent energy. Hence qm and classical.

SCHROEDINGER: Actually, physics tells us we can know the position and not the state, or the state, and not the position, among other things.

Fundamentally, all physics tells us is we can't know both with the techniques and models available to us right now, because the measurement of very small things changes them. This bit of trivia is often misinterpreted.

On a larger scale than singleton atoms, or singleton subatomic forces, the collective reactions are very, very predictable. So much so that your computer can be made of relatively small bits of matter, yet work.

Our senses work on a very, very large scale.

(2). "and even between the particle and the wave".
"Things" do not exist, definitely and singularly, until seen within consciousness/awareness. We see "things". Until we observe anything, it behaves as a wave. Hence, without conscious observation no "thing" exists anyway.

TREEFOREST: A tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to see? Just because you didn't see the car comming, it makes you no less crushed.

There's an experiment where they emit a single electron and give it the opportunity to traverse two paths. Until observed, the electron traverses both paths, simultaneously, affecting receptors along those paths. Interestingly, once the experiment is observed, the electron behaves as a singular/definite entity and traverses only one path. The electron becomes a singular "thing" within our sight.

MEASURE: A single electron can not be observed by human senses. It requires devices that can lend their own artifacts to the observation. It should be noted that the "unobserved" electron's traversed paths were observed, or they wouldn't know where it went.

(3). "I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity."
I contend that light is imposed upon awareness by the Mind itself.
This is a fact since whatever we perceive is just the abstract sensation itself, imposed upon awareness by that Mind. Hence, the Mind is the true source of the light we perceive and not the "thing" we actually see as a result of this light. For example, I contend that the Mind is the source of the Sun's light... not that the Sun is the source of that light. Remember that my philosophy contends that "things" are seen from the sensations. First the sensation, then the "thing". So, the Sun in itself is the source of nothing. The light we see gives the awareness/appearance of a "thing" we label 'the Sun'.
Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light since the object is not the source of that light. The Mind itself is... and one truly cannot accelerate from or towards the Mind itself. Thus, the constancy of lightspeed 'c'.

DOPPLER Physics predicted, and experiments confirmed that the frequency of light changes relative to fast-moving objects. It's also known as the 'doppler effect'. You can't personally see it because there is no device on which you have ever ridden that went more than the tiniest fraction of the speed or light relative to something emitting light.

The doppler shift of light is used in commonplace items, such as laser and RADAR devices that measure SPEED. Do a quick search on 'doppler'.

Also, don't forget that radio waves, invisible to you, me and everyone else, are detectable.

(4) "And then I can show you why an entity which experiences an abstract universe = the creator of that universe = God.".
There is no position in which to hold an intangible experience/event (see my previous post to uruk). It is clear that an intangible event can only occur within an intangible 'medium'.
Whatever "you" really are - embracing the whole perceived universe of "things" within you - we can be sure of two things:-
(a). You are a formless being, without bounds. Hence, it is ludicrous to even contemplate a reality beyond your own true identity/nature.
(b). You ("Randfan" is the experience being had by the true you) created the sensations being had upon awareness. You created the awareness of being Randfan and have become immersed and lost within this self-imposed dream.
We know this because any entity which experiences a completely subjective/abstract reality must be the primal-cause of that reality. The external-universe (even if it did exist) neither cares nor knows about sensations, thoughts & feelings. Hence, any entity which is aware of such things must be the primal-cause of them.
Also, as I have said, it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind. Hence, we can be sure it has created the whole universe, as perceived.

INTANGIBLE:

The fact that what I perceive about what my senses tell me is artificial does not necessarily make all things my senses tell me about artificial.

Knowing that a photograph is composed of chemical dyes on paper, does that prove that ANY subject of a photograph is actually composed of "chemical dyes on paper". The grand canyon is made of chemical dyes on paper? Your mother is chemical dyes on paper?

The rest about 'formlessness' does not appear to follow.

I do not see a connection between faulty, error-prone senses and deity status. I still don't have a workable definition of what that 'God' is supposed to be.

And about your other posts to people about being 'stupid', I find that it's usually the fault of the speaker not making themselves clear enough, rather than the listeners, who misunderstand.

Please define your terms.

Either use human senses all the way through in your examples, or physics experiments (with citations) all the way through.

If you can, come up with a repeatable experiment that can demonstrate what you're asserting.

scribble

22nd March 2004, 07:12 PM

dave - great post.

RussDill

22nd March 2004, 11:25 PM

Lifegazer, given up on attempting to defind your arguments from my posts I see. Well, suppose once you get to the point where your philosophy predicts that the speed of sound is a constant, there really isn't any point in making a decent effort defending it.

Your philosophy is dead lifegazer, it has clearly predicted what is clearly not true. (amoung other things, but this is by far the most odvious)

evildave

22nd March 2004, 11:56 PM

Actually light propagates through different media at different rates, as well.

uruk

23rd March 2004, 12:27 AM

?It has been established that the actual experience of existence is internal to awareness and that all "things" therein are not real in themselves, but are seen amongst our inner-sensations. The universe we actually perceive of is not really there. It's an intangible illusion of "things".

Again, all this says is that our perception of existance is internal to our mind, the "things" within our mind are not real. This says NOTHING of the existance or non-existance of an external reality, just about the nature of our perceptions.

Remember, our internal perception is a representation of a reality.
We can not know if that reality is a real external reality or information being fed to us from some outside entity. We have no way of making that determination. Everything our senses tells us is that this reality exists. It operates with a set of self-consistant rules. We are incapable of dealing with it otherwise.

I responded that it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established]intangible realm.
Here you have it folks. A textbook example of circular reasoning.

rephrased: It is ludicrous to discuss a external reality because it is completely nonsensical to enquire of and external reality.

Don't accuse me of circular reasoning just because you lack the brains to understand my point of view
Here is an example of ad hominem.

that science knows jack all about the nature of reality. Science only knows about the order within perceived existence.
That percieved existance is fundamentaly no different from an actual external reality. Because our percieved reality behaves exactly as if it is an external reality, and we can not percieve any other reality. And I have said before that I agree with you that science only applies to the workings of our percieved reality. That's why we know it is consistant. We can use science to make testable predictions within this percieved reality as well as manipulate the "things" within that percieved reality. Your philosophy provides us with zip because it can not give us any practical information about our existance. It will always remain academic.

I mentioned that you cannot be 6 feet from the tooth fairy to drive home my point. The tooth fairy does not occupy real space since she isn't really there. Thus, you cannot find her, let alone be 6 feet from her.
This is a red herring. I know that you are saying that I can not be 6 feet away from an imaginary creature because it does not exist. The problem with this analogy is that we are talking about what is going on within relation to this percieved reality. you yourself have said that this percieved reality has a set order (i.e. TLOP) If within that percieved reality I am standing next to an object, to me that object is real. I cannot percieve it otherwise. That perception of reality behaves as if it is real. I have no choice but to accept it as real. I CAN NOT DO OTHERWISE. Therefore it means didly-squat to me if this reality does not exist. I can not deal with it as if it is not real. We are incapable of dealing with it as unreal.

This forum is full of fools who think science lends philosophical weight towards an external (to awareness) reality.
Wouldn't that also make you a fool to think that science lends philosophical weight towards proving that an external reality does not exist?

Got that?

uruk

23rd March 2004, 09:55 AM

Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light since the object is not the source of that light.

Apparently you have never heard or read about Doppler shift.
If you are accelerating toward or away from and object, or vice-versa, the wavelength (not the speed) of light reflecting or eminating from that object will shift either towards the red or blue end of the spectrum depending on if it was moving away from or towards you. This is an observed fact. Thats how Hubble (I think) discovered that the universe is expanding.
This is counter your "mind is the source of light" hypothesis. Light is just another one of the ways "reality" interacts with our senses.

lifegazer

23rd March 2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by uruk
Again, all this says is that our perception of existance is internal to our mind, the "things" within our mind are not real.

That's the whole bleedin' point!:cry:

Sigh. Are you just winding me up or what?
My philosophy is founded upon this established truth - that we have our existence amongst an intangible realm. We only know of sensations, thoughts and feelings. Our existence is comprised of abstract concepts/functions/attributes. An intangible realm does exist!!! (this is true even if an external reality also exists)

This says NOTHING of the existance or non-existance of an external reality, just about the nature of our perceptions.

Read my last post again. After confirming the existence of an intangible realm, to which you have agreed twice now, the question is asked how we can know if there is a reality external to this established realm of existence, also. I.e., I then proceed to confront your question.

Remember, our internal perception is a representation of a reality.
We can not know if that reality is a real external reality or information being fed to us from some outside entity.

Our internal awareness is real. I.e., there is really an intangible awareness full of intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings. It's also distinct from any supposed external reality comprised of real objects in real spacetime, as opposed to the perception of illusory objects in illusory spacetime. Remember that all actual "things" seen within awareness are illusions and are not real. Nothing perceived is real. We do not perceive actual reality, but rather a subjective reality. Understand? It's important that you do. Yes, it's essentially important that you should realise that you have never sensed anything real in your whole life. The things you see are ghosts of things.

Everything our senses tells us is that this reality exists.

Nonsense. Everything our senses tells us is about things existing internally to our awareness. Why is it that you cannot grasp this?
How many times do I have to make the same point to you? How many times do I have to show you that you have personally never experienced a single thing beyond your own internal awareness?

It operates with a set of self-consistant rules.

The presence of order within our perceptions doesn't prove that there is an external reality. Not at all.

We are incapable of dealing with it otherwise.

Garbage. You deal with it regardless.

"I responded that it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established]intangible realm."

Here you have it folks. A textbook example of circular reasoning.

I cannot believe that you have said this again after I painstakingly explained why it wasn't circular reasoning.
(1) An intangible realm is established.
(2) The question is asked whether there is a reality external to this intangible realm.
(3) I say "it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established] intangible realm.".

I then used the example of a tooth fairy to drive my point home. Intangible entities possess no form. Nothing can be next to or external to an intangible entity or realm of intangibles.

That's a perfectly sound response to your question. It is not circular reasoning. There is nothing external to this intangible realm of ours because nothing can be external to an intangible realm, by rational default.

rephrased: It is ludicrous to discuss a external reality because it is completely nonsensical to enquire of and external reality.

You come out with crap like this and expect me not to call you a bozo?

Here is an example of ad hominem.

I don't care. If you talk to me like a moron and glibly brush aside all of my considerable efforts without engaging your brain, I'll make sure you know that you've annoyed me.

Because our percieved reality behaves exactly as if it is an external reality

My dreams behave exactly as though they were an external reality! Can we have some rationality here please, or there's no point to the discussion.

, and we can not percieve any other reality.

That reality being internal!

And I have said before that I agree with you that science only applies to the workings of our percieved reality. That's why we know it is consistant. We can use science to make testable predictions within this percieved reality as well as manipulate the "things" within that percieved reality.

Nothing in this statement lends weight to science having anything to say about the nature of reality. That squire is a purely philosophical pursuit.
Understanding that t follows s follows r follows q, does not tell you from whence time/change emanates. Nor does it tell you whether reality is internal or external.

Your philosophy provides us with zip because it can not give us any practical information about our existance. It will always remain academic.

Utter tripe. I might not be offering a new improved technology. But I am offering everybody the insight that they are God and that they, therefore, should be striving for unity on Earth. Thus, I am offering peace, justice and equality for everyone. If they want it.

This is a red herring. I know that you are saying that I can not be 6 feet away from an imaginary creature because it does not exist. The problem with this analogy is that we are talking about what is going on within relation to this percieved reality.

Nothing you see within/amongst your senses is real in itself. I've explained this so many times now that I'm gobsmacked you still don't gettit.

Wouldn't that also make you a fool to think that science lends philosophical weight towards proving that an external reality does not exist?

Got that?
Actually no, since science is the study of perceived order. Whatever laws or forces we see is applicable to an internal reality. What I tried to show you is how relativity and qm fits in with this realisation. But you cannot grasp it, I fear.

lifegazer

23rd March 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
Lifegazer, given up on attempting to defind your arguments from my posts I see. Well, suppose once you get to the point where your philosophy predicts that the speed of sound is a constant, there really isn't any point in making a decent effort defending it.

Your philosophy is dead lifegazer, it has clearly predicted what is clearly not true. (amoung other things, but this is by far the most odvious)
Before I attempt to answer this question, please explain precisely what you mean. In what sense do you say that the speed of sound is not a constant?

evildave

23rd March 2004, 01:42 PM

I'll take that really quickly:

Anyone who didn't sleep through even a small part of an introductory physics lesson should know that sound AND LIGHT travel at different speed through different media, though for different reasons.

The speed of sound varies according to the gas and temperature of that gas that it's travelling through.
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/events/regimes/speed.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe3.html

So, at different altitudes and pressures, and temperatures, sound travels at different rates. Simple.

Similar information for light, though the reason for the speed difference is different. More about how it's absorbed and re-emitted by atomic state than "waved" through elasticity.
http://lecture.mfu.ac.th/~chuleeporn/quantum.htm
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~skim/SpeedOfLight/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/light2.htm

So, light travels a little more slowly through air than it does through a vacuum, and about 3/4 speed of air through water. Simple.

lifegazer

23rd March 2004, 01:53 PM

Dave, the differing speeds of light through various mediums is not a consideration.

Acrimonious

23rd March 2004, 01:56 PM

The speed of sound varies according to the gas and temperature of that gas that it's travelling through.
Sound propogates through liquids and solids much the same as gases, although much faster and farther, due to the closer proximity of the molecules and the higher likelihood of collisions.

Speed of Sound in various Media (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/soundv.html)

An easy demonstration of this can be made if you have access to unused or abandoned rail lines.

Have a friend hit the rail with a hammer while you stand 200 yards away. Note how long it takes for the sound to reach you.

Then: Hold your ear against the rail and have him hit it again.

scribble

23rd March 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Dave, the differing speeds of light through various mediums is not a consideration.

Why does it take us longer to see things that are far away if there is no such thing as distance or seperation?

If there are such things as distance or seperation, then why can't we refer to the two objects that are distant or seperated as two seperate objects? How can something be distant or seperated from itself? How can A not equal A?

RandFan

23rd March 2004, 02:37 PM

lifegazer
(1) An intangible realm is established. Agreed.

(2) The question is asked whether there is a reality external to this intangible realm. Yes, this is a good question to ask.

(3) I say "it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. Ok, this is your proposition. Now all we need are the premises to support this proposition

The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. Redundant but ok, this is fine, we can live with it.

It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established] intangible realm.". Whooooa. Hold on there. You just stated a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.

By this logic the people on TV don't exist because they are just images. They are intangible.

I then used the example of a tooth fairy to drive my point home. Intangible entities possess no form. Nothing can be next to or external to an intangible entity or realm of intangibles. The tooth fairy possesses no predictable qualities. I have never seen her, touched her, smelled her, heard her. My wife on the other hand is quite different from the Tooth Fairy. Through my senses I can see her, touch her, hear her, etc. My perception tells me that she is physical and that I can make prediction of any number of things based on the physical properties of my wife. On the other hand, I can make no predictions based on the tooth fairy.

Do you see the difference?

There is nothing external to this intangible realm of ours because nothing can be external to an intangible realm, by rational default. Non Sequitur, circular.

Just because our perceptions are internal does not disprove that there is an external.

Let me count the ways.[list=1] Your philosophy violates the law of parsimony.

Your philosophy assumes that which it tries to prove. (The fact that our perceptions are internal proves that there is no external.) When this fact only proves that they are internal.

Your philosophy is a non sequitur because you state that nothing can be external to an intangible realm. This doesn't follow.

You accept that our perceptive world contains both order and predictability but you then use the tooth fairy as an argument when the tooth fairy has neither order nor predictability.

You claim "fundamentally, the constituent energy of the forms we see is essentially unpredictable." When in reality we can know the position and not the state, or the state, and not the position.

You use ad hominem.[/list=1] Let's see how long you can make the list.

Atlas

23rd March 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
An easy demonstration of this can be made if you have access to unused or abandoned rail lines...

Hold your ear against the rail and have him hit it again.

Lifegazer,

You can try this one even if the rail line is not abandoned.:D

lifegazer

23rd March 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by scribble
Why does it take us longer to see things that are far away if there is no such thing as distance or seperation?

I contend that there is distance and separation - within awareness - between "things" that don't really exist. Hence, because it's within awareness, it's not real or true distance (just as the "things" we perceive of aren't actually real things).
The appearance of space between objects also occurs within your dreams. Creating the awareness of space where there isn't any space and creating the awareness of things where there are no things, is a piece of cake for the Mind. Your dreams should tell you this, if nothing else. But as I have explained, even in consciousness our perceptions are internal and Mind-generated. I.e., the things and spaces we see are illusions, but we still perceive of things and spaces, nevertheless.
Thus, the Mind has the ability to make some things appear further away than others.

If there are such things as distance or seperation,

Only within perception/awareness - within the self.

then why can't we refer to the two objects that are distant or seperated as two seperate objects?

You can say that the perception of two objects within the mind are perceived as separated. Yet, one must also acknowledge the illusory nature of both the objects and the distance between them, since they are perceived subjectively and inwardly to the self.
I often like to mention the nightsky to drive home my point. How often have you, like me, stared in awe at the nightsky as you've contemplated the unimaginable distances that appear to exist between ourselves and those numerous spots of light in the sky?
Well, amazingly, every single one of those spots of light (and the apparent distances between you and they), exists within your awareness... which means that you actually embrace everything you see. There is no real distance between yourself and what is seen since everything is within you. The universe is in you. You encompass everything.
Of course, when I say 'you' I am refering to your essential identity (not your perceived identity). By now, you should know that I am addressing you as the God that you are.

scribble

23rd March 2004, 03:36 PM

I contend that there is distance and separation - within awareness - between "things" that don't really exist. Hence, because it's within awareness, it's not real or true distance (just as the "things" we perceive of aren't actually real things).
The appearance of space between objects also occurs within your dreams. Creating the awareness of space where there isn't any space and creating the awareness of things where there are no things, is a piece of cake for the Mind. Your dreams should tell you this, if nothing else. But as I have explained, even in consciousness our perceptions are internal and Mind-generated. I.e., the things and spaces we see are illusions, but we still perceive of things and spaces, nevertheless.

But if thing A and thing B can both exist inside an imagined space C, and thing A and thing B are both also imaginary, then doesn't discussing this contradict your statement that it's meaningless to discuss what's external (thing B and space C) to an intangible thing (thing A?)

lifegazer

23rd March 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by scribble

But if thing A and thing B can both exist inside an imagined space C, and thing A and thing B are both also imaginary, then doesn't discussing this contradict your statement that it's meaningless to discuss what's external (thing B and space C) to an intangible thing (thing A?)
Why?
You lost me there.

scribble

23rd March 2004, 03:43 PM

Okay -

You say there is distance and seperation between the things in our mind. That is, we can tell an imaginary rock from an imaginary television set. When I look around my room, even though it's all in my head, I see different, distinct objects. And I asked you, can we refer to them as distinct objects, being seperate and distant from each other?

And you said yes - even though it's all in my head, I can still represent different objects. Okay. But before you said if something is intangible, like my television set or my pet rock, then it makes no sense to speak of anything being distant or external to it - so if I want to speak of my pet rock, can I never again refer to anything else? Being as it's intangible?

Sorry if that comes across as confused. I am.

evildave

23rd March 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Dave, the differing speeds of light through various mediums is not a consideration.

Why not? It's obviously not constant.

Air is media, but the only place you're likely to try to go fast enough to see doppler effects in light would be in deep space, where there is lots of room, and relatively little matter to collide with.

That light will be traveling faster than light through air that you've been used to seeing to start with. It will phase-shift and do the whole range of things that sound does as you observe things.

You said it was "constant".

Just pointing out that it isn't.

(3). "I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity."
I contend that light is imposed upon awareness by the Mind itself.
This is a fact since whatever we perceive is just the abstract sensation itself, imposed upon awareness by that Mind. Hence, the Mind is the true source of the light we perceive and not the "thing" we actually see as a result of this light. For example, I contend that the Mind is the source of the Sun's light... not that the Sun is the source of that light. Remember that my philosophy contends that "things" are seen from the sensations. First the sensation, then the "thing". So, the Sun in itself is the source of nothing. The light we see gives the awareness/appearance of a "thing" we label 'the Sun'.
Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light since the object is not the source of that light. The Mind itself is... and one truly cannot accelerate from or towards the Mind itself. Thus, the constancy of lightspeed 'c'.

And what you THINK light is doesn't seem to have any effect on what it does when photographic plates, sensors, detectors and other such things interact with it. One man's ignorance of physics and the nature of light does not prevent a laser speed or distance detecting device, or a RADAR device he is using from working, provided it has a simple user interface and a battery that only goes in one way.

That whole "light is a tiny subset of the radio spectrum" thing seems to have been left out.

Is it the mind's model of color that makes a radio play sound? And not just for that mind. Lots of people react to a radio announcement about impending disasters, or disasters currently in progress. Of course, those that do not have a radio do not react, unless someone shows up and tells them about it.

Finally, there are some papers that indicate that certain forms of signal propagation can take place FASTER than light.
http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html

Thank you, Acrimonious, for finding a better table of speeds than my trivial search did.

lifegazer

23rd March 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Whooooa. Hold on there. You just stated a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.

By this logic the people on TV don't exist because they are just images. They are intangible.

You need to prove that the people you perceive of really do exist before raising this objection.
But since everything within perception has already been established as subjective/intangible/abstract (lifegazer:
(1) An intangible realm is established.
----------
Rand: "Agreed."), you won't be able to do this.
Both the people we see and the images on the TV are intangible.
There's nothing wrong with my logic Rand. It stands solid. All I have said is that nothing can exist externally to an intangible realm and nothing you have said above is even relevant.

I have never seen her, touched her, smelled her, heard her.

Irrelevant. An intangible realm is an intangible realm whether perceived as orderly (as in consciousness) or disorderly (as in dreams).

My wife on the other hand is quite different from the Tooth Fairy. Through my senses I can see her, touch her, hear her, etc. My perception tells me that she is physical and that I can make prediction of any number of things based on the physical properties of my wife. On the other hand, I can make no predictions based on the tooth fairy.

Absolutely irrelevant. 'Your wife' exists within awareness. And that's that.

Do you see the difference?

I'm aware that intangible realms can be ordered or disordered. That's the difference.

Let me count the ways.[list=1] Your philosophy violates the law of parsimony.

Positing existence as just One entity glorifies the law of parsimony.

Your philosophy assumes that which it tries to prove. (The fact that our perceptions are internal proves that there is no external.) When this fact only proves that they are internal.

My philosophy assumes no such thing. I have reasoned that nothing can be external an intangible entity. It's not my fault that you don't comprehend why.

Your philosophy is a non sequitur because you state that nothing can be external to an intangible realm. This doesn't follow.

Don't be silly. An intangible realm occupies no space or form. By default, nothing can exist next to or around (external to) such a realm.

You accept that our perceptive world contains both order and predictability but you then use the tooth fairy as an argument when the tooth fairy has neither order nor predictability.

Irrelevant.

You claim "fundamentally, the constituent energy of the forms we see is essentially unpredictable." When in reality we can know the position and not the state, or the state, and not the position.

Everyone is aware of the base indeterminism of quanta (fundamental energy/matter). Enough said.

You use ad hominem.[/list=1] Let's see how long you can make the list.
So calling you a bozo means that I'm wrong? Don't be a plonker Rand.

uruk

23rd March 2004, 04:05 PM

That's the whole bleedin' point

The point I am trying to make is that just because our perception of reality is internal does mean that an external reality does not exist. You are making the assumption that an external reality does not exist based on this observation. All I am saying is that you can't make that assumption without proof. the fact that our perception of reality is internal IS NOT PROOF of the non-existance or existance of an external reality.

My philosophy is founded upon this established truth - that we have our existence amongst an intangible realm. We only know of sensations, thoughts and feelings. Our existence is comprised of abstract concepts/functions/attributes. An intangible realm does exist!!! (this is true even if an external reality also exists)

our experiance and perceptions are that intangible realm. But remember that intangeble realm is a representation of some "thing" which is feeding us information. Be it a "god" or an "external realm" we can not know. We only create that realm in so much that it is a representation.
You again make the assumption that we are creating that "information". It is not the same as a dream because the source of that "information" is self consistant. It follows a set of rules in which we have no control over. We can only observe those rules. Our dreams do not follow any internal rules. That is why we can tell the difference between a dream and wakeing "reality".

Read my last post again. After confirming the existence of an intangible realm, to which you have agreed twice now, the question is asked how we can know if there is a reality external to this established realm of existence, also. I.e., I then proceed to confront your question.
That was not my question. My question was How does the fact that our perceptions are internal mean (or prove) that an external reality does not exist as you assert. Not wether one actually exists or not. I've already admitted to that there is no way to make the determination.

Our internal awareness is real. I.e., there is really an intangible awareness full of intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings. It's also distinct from any supposed external reality comprised of real objects in real spacetime, as opposed to the perception of illusory objects in illusory spacetime. Remember that all actual "things" seen within awareness are illusions and are not real. Nothing perceived is real. We do not perceive actual reality, but rather a subjective reality. Understand? It's important that you do. Yes, it's essentially important that you should realise that you have never sensed anything real in your whole life. The things you see are ghosts of things.
This ultimately useless and meaningless. As I have said, If this formless, intangible, subjective realm is all that we can percieve, then it makes no different to us whether it is actualy real or not. For all practical purposes it IS REAL. It behaves EXACTLY as a "real" world would. We have no control over the rules which govern this "realm". If in my subjective, illusory, intangible realm a car is heading straight towards me from behind (so that it is not within my line of sight or awareness within that realm) I am going to be hit and probably killed. I have no control over that. I can not make the car majicaly dissapear as I could in a dream. How is this any different from a reality that "us fools" belive in lock stock and barrel.

Nonsense. Everything our senses tells us is about things existing internally to our awareness. Why is it that you cannot grasp this?
How many times do I have to make the same point to you? How many times do I have to show you that you have personally never experienced a single thing beyond your own internal awareness?
Our senses tells us we live in this world. the same world you are experiance for yourself sitting in front of monitor and typing on a keyboard. Wether that world actually exists, I do not know or care for that matter. I can not percieve any other existance.
What do I gain by denying what my senses are telling me?
What do I gain by believing this world is not real?

The presence of order within our perceptions doesn't prove that there is an external reality. Not at all
I never said it did. Just that it suggested the possibility.

cannot believe that you have said this again after I painstakingly explained why it wasn't circular reasoning.
(1) An intangible realm is established.
(2) The question is asked whether there is a reality external to this intangible realm.
(3) I say "it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established] intangible realm."..

1.) agreed (with reservations)
2.) that was not my question. read above. please be more ethical in your arguments
3.) This has no meaning. Our internal perception is a representation of something. Information. By your own philosophy, this information is being fed to us by god, therefore external to our minds.

I then used the example of a tooth fairy to drive my point home. Intangible entities possess no form. Nothing can be next to or external to an intangible entity or realm of intangibles. .
I keep telling you that that intangable realm IS our reality. And that reality is a representation of information coming to us from outside our minds. The TLOP and all the thing that happen beynd our awareness suggest that. It does matter if the things do not have "actual" existance (if not to us, then what?) To us they are real. everthing behaves accordingly. It makes no difference. That's all that matters. Your god is external to that reality.
there are things that are external to our awareness. My parents life before I was born. All the events in history that has happen before I was born. All the things and events that are going right now in places around the world and behind my back that I can't see. All the subatomic processes that are taking place beyond my perception. All the things that are going on in galaxies out there in space. These things exist outside my awareness.

That's a perfectly sound response to your question. It is not circular reasoning. There is nothing external to this intangible realm of ours because nothing can be external to an intangible realm, by rational default.
.

Now THAT is a circular statement!

RandFan

23rd March 2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
All I have said is that nothing can exist externally to an intangible realm... And it is a fallacious statement. Prove it.

lifegazer

23rd March 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by uruk
The point I am trying to make is that just because our perception of reality is internal does mean that an external reality does not exist. You are making the assumption that an external reality does not exist based on this observation. All I am saying is that you can't make that assumption without proof. the fact that our perception of reality is internal IS NOT PROOF of the non-existance or existance of an external reality.

The proof of the non-existence of an external reality has been presented:-
(1) An intangible realm does exist.
(2) Nothing can reside next to or externally to an intangible realm, by rational default. I have explained why and I'm not repeating myself.
(3) By virtue of the fact that we agree upon the existence of an intangible realm, we must conclude that there is nothing which exists externally to this realm, because of '(2)'.

Very simple logic uruk. Please try to raise a level.

RandFan

23rd March 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Positing existence as just One entity glorifies the law of parsimony. But you don't do this.

Do you deny that fire requires Heat + Fuel + Oxygen?

Naturalism
Fire = Oxygen + Heat + Fuel

Gazerism
Fire = Oxygen + Heat + Fuel + God's Mind + Mysterious forces.

Tell us how god's mind works Gazer?

NO gazer, saying that you have reduced everything to a single entity does not work. It is demonstrable that you don't.

RandFan

23rd March 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
(2) Nothing can reside next to or externally to an intangible realm, by rational default. I have explained why and I'm not repeating myself. What is this next to? Such a statement is silly.

It is plausible that our internal realm exists inside of our mind (brain). You haven't proven that it doesn't only claimed that it can't PROVE IT.

(3) By virtue of the fact that we agree upon the existence of an intangible realm, we must conclude that there is nothing which exists externally to this realm, because of '(2)'. We may all agree to an external realm but we do not conclude that the eternal realm does not exist.

lifegazer

23rd March 2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
And it is a fallacious statement. Prove it.
I have proved it, with reason. An intangible entity/realm possesses no form nor occupies any space. Therefore, nothing can exist next to it or around it, for where exactly is that entity/realm that we may be next to it or embrace it??!!!

Please wake up. I cannot believe that you do not understand this very simple logic. I must conclude that:-
(1) You refuse to accept it for fear of the consequences.
(2) You're just winding me up regardless of whether you understand or not, because you're a ****.

RandFan

23rd March 2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have proved it, with reason. No, you have only made a claim.

An intangible entity/realm possesses no form nor occupies any space. Agreed.

Therefore, nothing can exist next to it or around it, for where is that entity/realm that we may be next to it or embrace it??!!! Irrelevant.

(1) You refuse to accept it for fear of the consequences. I am not invested in my philosophy. I only ask you to prove your claims.

(2) You're just winding me up regardless of whether you understand or not, because you're a ****. Sorry but I don't just bow down to every idea that comes along. I'm a skeptic and require proof. You have yet to provide any.

Your argument is circular and a non sequitur and ad hominem.

uruk

23rd March 2004, 04:38 PM

contend that there is distance and separation - within awareness - between "things" that don't really exist. Hence, because it's within awareness, it's not real or true distance (just as the "things" we perceive of aren't actually real things).

If all we can percieve is our internal perceptions, then they are real to us. then who or what is it not real to? God? then god exists outside our precieved reality and you said there is nothing outside our percieved reality.

lifegazer

23rd March 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
"An intangible entity/realm possesses no form nor occupies any space."
Agreed.

Here, you agree that an intangible realm possesses no form nor occupies any space.
"Therefore, nothing can exist next to it or around it, for where is that entity/realm that we may be next to it or embrace it??!!!"
Irrelevant.

Irrelevant??!!
How can you agree that an intangible realm possesses neither form nor space yet think that it's irrelevant to ask what exists beyond our intangible realm of existence? You're living in denial Rand. I don't know what's wrong with you.

lifegazer

23rd March 2004, 04:52 PM

RandFan

23rd March 2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
How can you agree that an intangible realm possesses neither form nor space yet think that it's irrelevant to ask what exists beyond our intangible realm of existence? Now you are making straw men. I never said that it was irrelevant to ask. On the contrary I embrace the question. and there are at the very least two answers. Nothing exists beyond this intangible realm.

Reality exists beyond this intangible realm.[/list=1]
You can't prove that reality doesn't exist. I can't prove absolutely that reality does exist. However, [list] My senses tell me that reality does exist.

There is order and predictability that testifies that reality does exist.

The rule of parsimony dictates that I don't need mysterious forces to explain what my senses tell me is real.

RandFan

23rd March 2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
An intangible entity/realm possesses no real form nor occupies any real space. Therefore, nothing can exist next to an intangible entity/realm or around it, for where exactly is that entity/realm that we might be next to it or embrace it??!!! No one claims that reality exists next to an intangible or embraces it. This is but a straw man for you to knock down.

Our intangible existence is within our mind. To prove it we can hit someone over the head and change that which is intangible. We can perform lobotomies and predictably change individual's "intangible" experiences.

If you take a drink of alcohol it changes your intangible experience and it does so in a very predictable way.

Why?

According to gazer alcohol + blood chemistry + brain + god's mind + mysterious forces.

Naturalism.
Alcohol + blood chemistry + brain

Clearly, by rational default, nothing can exist externally to an intangible realm. This is a claim and has not been proven by you. It is merely an assumption and a poor one at that since it requires us to assume all sorts of mysterious forces to explain what it is that we are experiencing.

Atlas

23rd March 2004, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence is within us, completely!!!!!!!!
Behold, the truth. Lifegazer,

If existence is within us and all existence is at singularity,
Then the singularity is within us. We are god in that solipsistic sense. And there is no need to posit a God, primal-cause, bringer of Armageddon. I think you assume God rather than infer him. I think you assume God because otherwise you have a philosophy that is more hopeless than an atheist's who believes in humanity, or at least that humanity exists and continues beyond his own life.

Otherwise, your philosophy tends towards nihilism - maybe not the darkest incarnation of nihilism, but nihilism nonetheless. You must come up with a reason for it all.

You have a need to believe in God and also a need to believe that we live in an illusion. These requirements exist for you prior to your philosophy and informs it.

IMO, everyone understands that reality for you is subjective. Much of the rest of the discussion tries to get you to agree that no logic "proves" an Overbeing that holds you and your subjective reality. Another part of the of the discussion seeks to reveal the utility of acting as though our subjective reality is an echo of a real objective reality.

Do you see the argument that way? I know you get frustrated with "plonkers". They get equally frustrated with you, as much because you blame them for not understanding you as because they see no utility or advantage in preferring your philosophy to a common sense, pedestrian view of the world and the universe.

evildave

23rd March 2004, 05:36 PM

As for the intangibility of mind, it only seems to be as 'intangible' as computer software state. Of course, we can stick a test probe right into a piece of computer equipment and "see" that there is a difference in potential from ground representing a set bit.

In the same sense, the color "green" is THERE, and physically manifested in the form of chemical reactions, detectable electrical signals, etc. in that complex switching meat in your brain. Well, in most people's brains, anyway.

In your particular brain, there could be an alien tentacle sticking out of another dimension gripping your brain stem like a joystick in mostly empty space. I don't have access to your brain to know for sure. "Prove I'm wrong." It seems more likely there's a few pounds of greyish meat with blood circulating through it.

I've seen XRAY pictures of my own brain. It seems generally consistent with other human brains that are subject to various kinds of damage, exposure to chemical medications and poisonings, bleeding, the whole range of very material things that go wrong with a biological system supporting high-density information processing.

When they plug a mesh of pins into people's brains to allow them to see, it actually works. Replacement senses based on knowledge of how the brain operates. This development has been going on for several years, with functional "find your way around things" vision restored.
http://www.aao.org/aao/news/eyenet/feature1/feature1_jan_2004.cfm
http://www.slu.edu/readstory/homepage/1233

Here's a woman seeing with sound.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3171226.stm

There are detectable electrical fluctiations that manifests when people think about things. When people imagine things. Differences in the amount of nutrient consumption in various parts of the brain that are busy "thinking" about things has also been measured.

Hardly "intangible".

uruk

23rd March 2004, 08:34 PM

You come out with crap like this and expect me not to call you a bozo? I don't care. If you talk to me like a moron and glibly brush aside all of my considerable efforts without engaging your brain, I'll make sure you know that you've annoyed me.
Theres a word for someone who says he is for unity and the brotherhood of mankind then in the same breath call people who don't agree with him morons and stupid. That word is hypocrite.

My dreams behave exactly as though they were an external reality! Can we have some rationality here please, or there's no point to the discussion.
they sure do. The external reality to dreams is called conciousness or being awake. Dreams are usually drawn from conciouse and sub-concious experiance. the external reality to our internal perceptions is the source of the information.
Nothing in this statement lends weight to science having anything to say about the nature of reality.
Science says something about the nature of our reality. Our percieved reality.

Utter tripe. I might not be offering a new improved technology. But I am offering everybody the insight that they are God and that they, therefore, should be striving for unity on Earth. Thus, I am offering peace, justice and equality for everyone. If they want it. That insight means nothing to us if we can not percieve god. your philosophy talks about things we can never percieve or make any testable predictions. So it of no use to us other than an academic question. Also we don't have to buy your philosophy to strive for unity. As I pointed out, unity has nothing to do with the existance or non-existance of reality or god. it has everything to do with human nature.

Nothing you see within/amongst your senses is real in itself. I've explained this so many times now that I'm gobsmacked you still don't gettit.
What you don't seem to get either is that it does not matter if it is not real in itself because it is real to us. That is what matters.[

uruk

23rd March 2004, 08:50 PM

But if thing A and thing B can both exist inside an imagined space C, and thing A and thing B are both also imaginary, then doesn't discussing this contradict your statement that it's meaningless to discuss what's external (thing B and space C) to an intangible thing (thing A?)
You took the imaginary thought right out of my imaginary head!

quoted by lifgeazer:
Why? you lost me.
I figured as much

uruk

23rd March 2004, 09:11 PM

Everyone is aware of the base indeterminism of quanta (fundamental energy/matter). Enough said.
Every one except you. enough said.

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

You use ad hominem.
Let's see how long you can make the list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So calling you a bozo means that I'm wrong? Don't be a plonker Rand.
.
No, but it hurts your credibility. You wish to convince people of your philosophy but your use of ad homimen serves to turn them away from you. Aristotle said there were three "players" to an argument. ethos, logos and pathos. Pathos is the person you are trying to convince with your argument, Logos is the argument or the logic of your argument, Ethos is your credibility which helps to strengthen your argument. Who are you going to be convinced by, a person who respects the views of his opposition and debates with a level head, or some one who resorts to name calling and personal attacks whenever he gets frustrated. It exposes your imaturity.
Try and rise a level.

RussDill

23rd March 2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Before I attempt to answer this question, please explain precisely what you mean. In what sense do you say that the speed of sound is not a constant?

No matter what speed you think you are traveling, light travels at the same speed in any direction. According to you, your philosophy predicts this because light is really just a sensation emenating from the mind, and whatever, I will not repeat your argument here.

The argument would apply in the same way if you replace light with sound, the argument makes just as much sense. So your philosophy would make the same prediction about sound, that no matter what speed you think you are traveling, the speed of sound is still the same in all directions.

However, this is not true for sound. If you are traveling at 400 miles per hour airspeed, then sound traveling away from you will go at ~150mph, behind you at ~950mph (assuming that speed of sound is 550mph).

(travel though different materials completely aside)

uruk

23rd March 2004, 09:28 PM

The proof of the non-existence of an external reality has been presented:-
(1) An intangible realm does exist.
(2) Nothing can reside next to or externally to an intangible realm, by rational default. I have explained why and I'm not repeating myself.
(3) By virtue of the fact that we agree upon the existence of an intangible realm, we must conclude that there is nothing which exists externally to this realm, because of '(2)'.
-

1.) yes, It exists to us, It is OUR representation of reality

2.)this is an assumption. there is no default rationality to it.
you must prove that there is no external realm. Like I said before
Just because our perception is internal does not mean there is no external reality. And I have explain how there could be an external reality which feed us information in which our senses interact with.

3). this is circular to '(2)' and is non sequiter. the non-existance of an external realm is not contigent to the existance of an intagible realm. One does not follow the other.
the fact that we keep going in circles is proof that your argument is circular.

It is not simple logic, It is bad logic.

uruk

23rd March 2004, 09:39 PM

I have proved it, with reason
I can reason that guava tastes good.
It is a fruit, I have had favorable experiances with other fruit, other people who tried it says it tasets good. But untill I have actually tasted a guava for myself I really don't know if it tastes good. The reasoning is academic untill it is proven.
reasoning does not prove anything. It must be tested or testable

Therefore, nothing can exist next to it or around it, for where exactly is that entity/realm that we may be next to it or embrace it??!!!
Just because a "real" thing can not be next to an imaginary thing does not mean that the real thing does not exist. it simply means you can't put a real thing next to an imaginary thing. Please read what you are writting.

uruk

23rd March 2004, 10:01 PM

An intangible entity/realm possesses no real form nor occupies any real space. Therefore, nothing can exist next to an intangible entity/realm or around it, for where exactly is that entity/realm that we might be next to it or embrace it??!!!

Clearly, by rational default, nothing can exist externally to an intangible realm. And since most of you have agreed that we exist within an intangible realm of sensation, thought & feeling, you must also acknowledge that nothing can exist externally to this realm.

Existence is within us, completely!!!!!!!!
Behold, the truth.

Behold, the faulty logic!

our internal realm is intangible with relation to what? an external realm. where might that realm be? outside to our internal realm. If our internal realm is intangible to god then god is external to our internal realm.
can we embrace it? no because we can only percieve our internal realm. can we embrace god? no because he is outside our internal realm. Does it make sense to discuss this realm we can't percieve. no more or less sense than for us to talk about our perception as if it is an illusion since we can not perceive what is outside our perception and thus have no way of determining if it is an illusion.

Internal by default implies that there is an external.
intangible by default implies there is a tangible.

RussDill

23rd March 2004, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The proof of the non-existence of an external reality has been presented:-
(1) An intangible realm does exist.

meaningless unless you define your terms, what is a realm?

(2) Nothing can reside next to or externally to an intangible realm, by rational default. I have explained why and I'm not repeating myself.

And I've explained how a material existence can represent abstract/intangible things and processes within itself. You keep pushing this false dichotomy, but you have not addressed my example.

RussDill

24th March 2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Sigh. Are you just winding me up or what?
My philosophy is founded upon this established truth - that we have our existence amongst an intangible realm.

How can something be a truth if you haven't defined your terms? That is like saying that it a truth that elephants are heavy. And then going on to say that a planet is pretty light in comparison to a star, so elephants weigh more than a planet. Without defining your terms, you have nothing. Given the vaugeness of you "truth" I can equally state that we are aware of existence through an intangible realm, which means exactly the same thing, and lends itself towards materialism.

We only know of sensations, thoughts and feelings. Our existence is comprised of abstract concepts/functions/attributes.

Correction, our *awareness* of existence is comprised of abstract concepts/functions/attributes.

An intangible realm does exist!!! (this is true even if an external reality also exists)

Again, you'll have to qualify the term "realm".

Read my last post again. After confirming the existence of an intangible realm, to which you have agreed twice now, the question is asked how we can know if there is a reality external to this established realm of existence, also. I.e., I then proceed to confront your question.

Our internal awareness is real. I.e., there is really an intangible awareness full of intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings. It's also distinct from any supposed external reality comprised of real objects in real spacetime, as opposed to the perception of illusory objects in illusory spacetime. Remember that all actual "things" seen within awareness are illusions and are not real.

Our perception and awareness is an abstract process. That says nothing about any source of those perceptions. Your claim is that the source is something real, the "Mind". A counter claim would be that the source is something real, a material existence.

Nothing perceived is real. We do not perceive actual reality, but rather a subjective reality.

The former does not follow the latter. Again, just because the process of perception is abstract, does not mean that it is a vast illusion.

Understand? It's important that you do. Yes, it's essentially important that you should realise that you have never sensed anything real in your whole life. The things you see are ghosts of things.

Assumption based on your fautly logic above. And it also depends on how you define "real".

Nonsense. Everything our senses tells us is about things existing internally to our awareness. Why is it that you cannot grasp this?

and why can't you grasp that the abstract nature of our perception does not prove anything about the source of our sensation?

How many times do I have to make the same point to you? How many times do I have to show you that you have personally never experienced a single thing beyond your own internal awareness?

You have to first answer what it means to experience something beyond your own awareness. When the universal awarness, the "Mind", feeds sensations into our own awareness, would we not be experiencing something beyond our own internal awareness?

The presence of order within our perceptions doesn't prove that there is an external reality. Not at all.

Too bad this isn't what the discussion is about. We don't have to prove that there is an external reality. Just prove that it is an alternate explaination to the false dichotomies you have presented.

I cannot believe that you have said this again after I painstakingly explained why it wasn't circular reasoning.
(1) An intangible realm is established.
(2) The question is asked whether there is a reality external to this intangible realm.
(3) I say "it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established] intangible realm.".

And I have explained countless times why this is a false dichotomy. You have never responded, but instead go about your merry way.

The reason it is circular, is that you answer #3 from the only the point of view of your philosophy. If you would attempt to ask the question from different points of view, you would get different answers. Your proof assumes what you set out to prove, thus, it is circular.

I then used the example of a tooth fairy to drive my point home. Intangible entities possess no form. Nothing can be next to or external to an intangible entity or realm of intangibles.

However, a book that tells a tale about the tooth fairy, and gives the intangible representation, is something tangible. A tangible representation of an intangible entity.

You come out with crap like this and expect me not to call you a bozo?

Not really, we really expect the personal insults. You rarely discuss something on its merits, but rather repeat what you said before, call the idea ludicrus, crap, stupid, whatever, and then insult the individual.

We expect that from you.

My dreams behave exactly as though they were an external reality! Can we have some rationality here please, or there's no point to the discussion.

wow, you have some pretty special dreams. My dreams behave nothing like an external reality. They are non-linear, they aren't consistent, previous reality is corrected later on, ideas and memories are often represented on the pure abstract level, and not on a level where actual perception would take place. (ie, instead of actual hearing sounds, only words, or even ideas are heard). Left brain dreams are purely verbal in nature, no surrounding reality whatsoever. Dreams often contain representations of the world around you (ie, your alarm clock goes off, and you see a beeping badger in your dream, you hit it, it stops. You have hit your snooze bar). You can talk to someone while they are dreaming.

That reality being internal!

not even in your philosophy is the reality we perceive internal to our awareness, it is fed to us by the "Mind"

Utter tripe. I might not be offering a new improved technology. But I am offering everybody the insight that they are God and that they, therefore, should be striving for unity on Earth. Thus, I am offering peace, justice and equality for everyone. If they want it.

Most of us already have higher insight, we are all fellow human beings, we strive for unity, we offer peace, justice, and equality for everyone.

Nothing you see within/amongst your senses is real in itself. I've explained this so many times now that I'm gobsmacked you still don't gettit.

Depends on what you mean by see. If you mean the entire process, from photon emmision to awareness, then yes, the things you see are real. If you just mean the awareness part, then no, they are only abstract.

RussDill

24th March 2004, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have proved it, with reason. An intangible entity/realm possesses no form nor occupies any space. Therefore, nothing can exist next to it or around it, for where exactly is that entity/realm that we may be next to it or embrace it??!!!

*You* think you have proved it. We ask you to clarify elements of your proof, and you cannot. You simply attack the intelligence of the person asking, repeat what you said before, and move on. I have proved your philosophy is bunk with reason, does that mean that I am automatically right, I get my gold star, and I'll go home now? No, you get a chance to point out any flaws you think exist in my reasoning, and then I attempt to correct those flaws. And btw, saying something is "crap", is not pointing out a flaw. Reminds me of when you ask a teenager about something and they say "that sucks" you ask them why it sucks, they say "caus it really just, like, sucks".

Please wake up. I cannot believe that you do not understand this very simple logic. I must conclude that:-
(1) You refuse to accept it for fear of the consequences.

Oh yes, thet horrible unity you keep talking about.

(2) You're just winding me up regardless of whether you understand or not, because you're a ****.

We understand your logic, we just find odvious flaws in it. Very simple, basic ones too.

lifegazer

24th March 2004, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
How can something be a truth if you haven't defined your terms?

Please explain what your question means.

You see how dumb and annoying and evasive responses like mine are to perfectly understandable statements such as your own? Well, the same applies to you. Everyone here knows what I mean by an intangible realm comprised of abstract sensations which give rise to the appearance of intangible (illusory) things. We live the language.

Correction, our *awareness* of existence is comprised of abstract concepts/functions/attributes.

The point is that there is an intangible realm (of existence). The proof is in our own experience of existence.

Again, you'll have to qualify the term "realm".

Again, you'll have to stop playing silly games. I'm not interested.

Our perception and awareness is an abstract process. That says nothing about any source of those perceptions. Your claim is that the source is something real, the "Mind". A counter claim would be that the source is something real, a material existence.

There is an intangible realm of existence. We know this because "we" are in it. In fact, we are it. This is the only information that I need to proceed with my logic:-

An intangible entity/realm possesses no real form nor occupies any real space. Therefore, nothing can exist next to an intangible entity/realm or around it, for where exactly is that entity/realm that something might be next to it or embrace it??!!!

Clearly, by rational default, nothing can exist externally to an intangible realm. And since most of you have agreed that we exist within an intangible realm of sensation, thought & feeling, you must also acknowledge that nothing can exist externally to this realm.

Existence is within us, completely!!!!!!!!

(1) There is an intangible realm.
(2) Nothing can be external to such a realm.
(3) Therefore, only our intangible realm exists!!

Wake up call Russ. Meet your God, amongst you. Or just continue in denial.

lifegazer

24th March 2004, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
not even in your philosophy is the reality we perceive internal to our awareness, it is fed to us by the "Mind"

Now I remember why I got fed up of trying to have a proper discussion with you. You simply cannot comprehend, or do not listen to, my philosophy... even after all of my threads.

"we" perceive of nothing. "we" are the perception had by It.
There is only God. Russ is one of those illusory "things" I was talking about, being had within the awareness of God.

Wudang

24th March 2004, 02:48 AM

lifegazer, we can't trust your use of words because you don't stick to the meanings we understand. Witness your continued misuse of "singularity" which we understand to mean something that stands out as singular from everything around it (to keep it simple).
You may also not have picked up on something. Your theory predicts that the speed of light is constant, yes? It isn't. We science types have a word for theories that make predictions that turn out not to be the case. That word is "wrong".

lifegazer

24th March 2004, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
lifegazer, we can't trust your use of words because you don't stick to the meanings we understand. Witness your continued misuse of "singularity" which we understand to mean something that stands out as singular from everything around it (to keep it simple).
You may also not have picked up on something. Your theory predicts that the speed of light is constant, yes? It isn't. We science types have a word for theories that make predictions that turn out not to be the case. That word is "wrong".
Stay away unless you have something meaningful to contribute. I'm tired of your listening to your weak whines.
Fyi, the issue is not that the speed-of-light is the same everywhere through all mediums. It's that all observers will measure the same speed-of-light through a specific medium, regardless of their own velocity.

Wudang

24th March 2004, 04:29 AM

Oh dear more venom from the unity man.

Explain again why the argument does imply that the speed of sound is constant. I must have missed that.

I noticed that you finally admitted that you couldn't answer "Upchurch's question" by the way. I'm glad we settled that.

lifegazer

24th March 2004, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
[B]Oh dear more venom from the unity man.

I'm tired of bozos and plonkers crying because I point out to them that they're being plonkers and bozos. Don't respond to this here because I'm about to start a thread about this very subject. Seriously.

Explain again why the argument does imply that the speed of sound is constant. I must have missed that.

It doesn't. That's what Russ says. I'll address that later.

I noticed that you finally admitted that you couldn't answer "Upchurch's question" by the way. I'm glad we settled that.
Yes we did settle it. The question was silly, as I stated.

Wudang

24th March 2004, 05:03 AM

"The question was silly"? That's your great logical proof? Hilarious! Thanks for making my day!:D

Oh and once again you are abandoning a thread when proved wrong. At least you're consistent.

lifegazer

24th March 2004, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
"The question was silly"? That's your great logical proof? Hilarious! Thanks for making my day!:D

Oh and once again you are abandoning a thread when proved wrong. At least you're consistent.
Originally posted by Upchurch:
If you reject materialism on the basis that you only perceive it through senses, why do you accept the existance of your own consciousness when the only basis you have for it are those same senses?

My response:-
The question is extremely silly when you look at it closely.
Let me rephrase it in line with my philosophy to show what I mean:-
"If you reject the idea that there is an external-reality on the basis that everything you perceive is shown to exist abstractly, in awareness, then why do you accept the existence of your own awareness when the only basis you have for it is the abstract entities (sensations, thoughts, feelings) which do exist therein?"
See what I mean?"

Wudang

24th March 2004, 06:10 AM

And as was pointed out, you're assuming your philosophy in order to prove it which is a circular argument. Again. Ho hum.

lifegazer

24th March 2004, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
And as was pointed out, you're assuming your philosophy in order to prove it which is a circular argument. Again. Ho hum.
What exactly am I assuming? Explain.

uruk

24th March 2004, 10:53 AM

Time for a logic lesson lifegazer.

let me tell you why reason and logic do not prove anything.

lets take a look at this syllogism.

Major premise: I like fruits (this premise is true, I have eaten fuits and like them)
Minor premise: guavas are fruits. (this is true, by botanical defintion guava is a fruit)
Conclusion: I like guavas (this is implied by the premises. this is what must be tested to be proven true or false)

The syllogisim is valid the conclusion contains elements of both the major and minor premise. No we must test the conclusion to see if it is true. Remember the reasoning is not true by default. the logic may be valid but also wrong.

I test the conclusion by actually tasting a guava.
if I like the taste of the guava the logic is true
If I do not like the taste of the guava the logic is false.

Just because the syllogism or logic is valid does not mean the conclusion derived is true. the premises may bet true in themselves but the conclusion derived may be false. The logic must be tested. and inorder for the logic to be proven true the conclusion must be testable.

Another problem lies with in the language. lets take a look at yor argument."Clearly, by rational default, nothing can exist externally to an intangible realm. And since most of you have agreed that we exist within an intangible realm of sensation, thought & feeling, you must also acknowledge that nothing can exist externally to this realm."

Internal by definition implies an external. it is a reference. if something is internal, it is internal in reference to something external. so if our perception , reality, experiance is internal then it is internal in reference to something external. therefore something must exist external to this. so it does not follow that something cannot exist external to the internal realm. That is not possible according to the definition of the word. it must other wise there is no reference to give it the definition of internal. Intangible has the same connentation.

Wudang

24th March 2004, 11:15 AM

Okay let me try it this way - I'll recast the questionin terms of what may be my philosophy

"if you reject neuronal impulses from the sensory organs, why do you accept the validity of neuronal impulses from the cognitive centres?"

Do you see how the assumptions of that question presume the answer?

lifegazer

24th March 2004, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
Okay let me try it this way - I'll recast the questionin terms of what may be my philosophy

"if you reject neuronal impulses from the sensory organs, why do you accept the validity of neuronal impulses from the cognitive centres?"

Do you see how the assumptions of that question presume the answer?
No.
Stop prancing around and tell me exactly what I have assumed.

Atlas

24th March 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
...tell me exactly what I have assumed. IMO, you take what we all agree on....

Each of us {has/is} a subjective experience of the material universe!

I'd rather put it like this
<blockquote> Each of us has a subjective experience of the material universe!

Which you assume means...

Each of us is a subjective experience!</blockquote>

And assume this means there is no material universe.
*** Which implies that we don't exist.
*** (But we agree that each of us has/is subjective experience.)

You assume that subjectivity resides not as a faculty of your nonexistent human but as a willed projection of God.

And assume that this makes us God. As if my thoughts on popsicles is me.

I know you don't agree with those assertions.

But you also assume Armageddon or Utopia based on humankind's acceptance of your philosophy.

RandFan

24th March 2004, 02:16 PM

Gazer,

You have missed so much of my posts. How do you expect to have any credibility when you simply say you are right but ignore logical arguments?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Stop prancing around and tell me exactly what I have assumed. It has been spelled out to you time and time again. How is it you don't understand?

(2) Nothing can reside next to or externally to an intangible realm, by rational default. I have explained why and I'm not repeating myself. It is plausible that our internal realm exists inside of our mind (brain). You haven't proven that it doesn't only claimed that it can't.

By virtue of the fact that we agree upon the existence of an intangible realm, we must conclude that there is nothing which exists externally to this realm, because of (2)We may all agree that our perceptions are an internal realm but it doesn't follow that an external realm does not exist.

RandFan

24th March 2004, 02:21 PM

lifegazer
How can you agree that an intangible realm possesses neither form nor space yet think that it's irrelevant to ask what exists beyond our intangible realm of existence?Now you are making straw men. I never said that it was irrelevant to ask. On the contrary I embrace the question. and there are at the very least two answers.
Nothing exists beyond this intangible realm.
Reality exists and this intangible realm exists
[/list=1] You can't prove that reality doesn't exist. I can't prove absolutely that reality does exist. However, [list]
My senses tell me that reality does exist.
There is order and predictability that testifies that reality does exist.
The rule of parsimony dictates that I don't need mysterious forces to explain what my senses tell me is real.

RandFan

24th March 2004, 02:22 PM

Our intangible existence is within our mind. To prove it we can hit someone over the head and change that which is intangible. We can perform lobotomies and predictably change individual's "intangible" experiences.

If you take a drink of alcohol it changes your intangible experience and it does so in a very predictable way.

Why?

According to gazer alcohol + blood chemistry + brain + god's mind + mysterious forces.

Naturalism.
Alcohol + blood chemistry + brain

Wudang

25th March 2004, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

No.
Stop prancing around and tell me exactly
what I have assumed.

You have been told over and over again. Atlas tried again there. I tried by analogy but I overestimated (again) your limitted comprehension skills

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by Wudang

You have been told over and over again. Atlas tried again there. I tried by analogy but I overestimated (again) your limitted comprehension skills
I've asked you three times now to tell me exactly what I have assumed, and you just can't tell me, can you?
This is your last chance. I want you to quote the axioms I have used and assumed as true.

Wudang

25th March 2004, 04:55 AM

"If you reject the idea that there is an external-reality on the basis that everything you perceive is shown to exist abstractly, in awareness, then why do you accept the existence of your own awareness when the only basis you have for it is the abstract entities (sensations, thoughts, feelings) which do exist therein?"

Okay the first problem I have is that you are assuming a lot about "awareness". You have failed to explain what you mean by abstractly. The word "shown" is unwarranted.
In fact "everything you perceive is shown to exist abstractly, in awareness" is a completely meaningless statement until you define your terms. There is also an assumed "only" missing in the above phrase.

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 05:16 AM

I don't think you even know what I am supposed to have assumed. I'm certainly no more enlightened by that waffle.

When you can tell me, without any confusion, give me a call.

Wudang

25th March 2004, 05:43 AM

I'm sorry lifegazer but every time I increase my estimate of how stupid you are, you prove you are even stupider than I thought. What part of "explain what you mean by abstract" is beyond your comprehension?

RandFan

25th March 2004, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't think you even know what I am supposed to have assumed. I'm certainly no more enlightened by that waffle. It's obvious you don't know. Odd since you have been told over and over. You assume that since we exist in an "internal realm" that there can be no external realm.

You assume that there is a god.

You assume that our senses lie to us.

You assume that there are mysterious processes that allow for the aparent order that we see in our "internal realm".

You assume that people will ignore their own intuition and believe you without any evidence.

You assume that people should leap from one premise to a conclusion without any reason to reach that conclusion.

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
I'm sorry lifegazer but every time I increase my estimate of how stupid you are, you prove you are even stupider than I thought. What part of "explain what you mean by abstract" is beyond your comprehension?
I asked you to tell me which part of my philosophy I had assumed, and you respond by asking me a question. Then you have the gall to call me stupid.

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
You assume that since we exist in an "internal realm" that there can be no external realm.

That's a lie. I gave a reason.

You assume that there is a god.

That's a lie. I gave reasons.

You assume that our senses lie to us.

The "things" you see are not real in themselves. That's a fact, not an assumption.

You assume that there are mysterious processes that allow for the aparent order that we see in our "internal realm".

The Mind [of God] created the sensations that are experienced.

You assume that people will ignore their own intuition and believe you without any evidence.

Plonkerism.

uruk

25th March 2004, 11:20 AM

That's a lie. I gave a reason.
The reason you gave was to restate your first premise, this is called circular reasoning. lets look at what you wrote:

"it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established] intangible realm.".

In the first sentance, "it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities", we are talking about two things which are not contigent upon each other, meaning one does not have anything to do with the other. You can have an external reality (i.e. the realm of our concious awareness, meaning awake.)and an intangible entity such as an object in our dream. (the intangible realm). Now remember intangible is a reference qualifier, so in reference to our conciouse awareness which is external to our dream, the object in our dream is intangible in reference to our waking conciousness.
So we can talk about an external reality (our waking conciousness) to an intangible realm(our dream conciousness) to contrast how one is intangible in reference to another.
the proof? The objects you dream about do not follow you into the wakeing realm. This shows your first statement to be fallacious.

The second sentence: "The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less." This is not a reason. This is just restating part of the definition of the word 'intangible'. It does not add any usefull information to the first sentence or make any implications or conclusions.

The last sentence:"It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established] intangible realm" is just restating the first sentence.
look at the first sentence again:"it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities".

Ok now let us compare:
"it is completely nonsensical" = It is ludicrous"; "to enquire" = "to discuss"; "of a reality external" = "a reality external"; 'to an [established] intangible realm" = "to an intangible entity or entities".
See? you are just repeating the same statment as a proof or a conlusion. This is the same as saying "I hate dogs because I hate dogs." This is a textbook example of what is called circular reasoning. Pleas do look it up. it will help you in the futur.

In another post I showed you why reasoning is not proof. Reasons are assumptions based on a premise. They become fact when there is evidence to support them. That is why the belief in god is essentialy an assumption because there is no established way of proving one or the other of gods existance. The same applies to most philosophies. Especially yours.

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 12:20 PM

An internal (to the self/mind) universe of unreal "things", formed from abstract/subjective sensations occuring within awareness, has been established as true.
This is a fact. It's not an assumption.
The experience of being lifegazer in the world I perceive, happens entirely within my awareness. I've never experienced any reality beyond that of my subjective sensations and my responsive thoughts & feelings. I.e., I know of no real "things"... I just know of the unreal things seen via my sensations.

... Hence Berkeley's: "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."

Now we come to the point of the essential question: What can exist externally to this established realm or awareness of formless entities/things? What exists outside of formless being?

Now we come to the point of my logic. A realm of formless being has been established and we want to know what embraces this and exists beyond it.
But our enquiries are in vain - pointless - for as I tried to explain to you on several occasions, a formless being occupies no real space or hence position in that space. Thus, such being cannot be embraced by a reality of space and occupy a position in that space.
**Thus, our being is not embraced by an external reality.**
Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!

There is nothing external to our own being.

Behold, you are existence.
Say hello to your Godself.

Acrimonious

25th March 2004, 01:18 PM

Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the reiteration of the definition of the word "formless."
There is nothing external to our own being.
1) Your philosophy mandates that there is no external reality, that we are all God, and our senses are internal, subjective imaginations of that one same being.
2) If {1} is true, then, by definition, these senses cannot be used to detect an external reality. Being imaginary, they can only experience the imagination fed to them.
3) If {2} is true, then, by definition, "humans" are not even equipped to be able to sense an external reality.

I can follow, and actually agree with the logic behind all of the above statements, even if I don't believe a single one of the premises. Here's where you go circular:

4) Instead of admitting that, if everyone is an imaginary construct of an all-God, our imaginary senses would be ill-equipped to detect an external reality even if there was one, you re-state the premise that there is no external reality.

[Insert obligatory "Get an Education" quip and "Random Ad Hominem" here.]

Wudang

25th March 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I asked you to tell me which part of my philosophy I had assumed, and you respond by asking me a question. Then you have the gall to call me stupid.

You assume all of it, not part of it. I think that you fail to grasp the difference between showing your ideas are internally consistent (I.e. if you start by assuming my philosophy then it all makes sense) and showing that your philosophy is provable - i.e. that it fits with what we know and can deduce.
You have asked the same question umpteen times and different people have tried different tacks at explaining your errors to you. I really hate to think of people as unhelpable but ..... I tried showing you the difference between inference and implication and just got insults and incomprehension.
I think scribbel may be right.

Atlas

25th March 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
An internal (to the self/mind) universe of unreal "things", formed from abstract/subjective sensations occuring within awareness, has been established as true. This is a fact. It's not an assumption. Lifegazer,
I can agree with you if by your statement you mean: "Humans experience their reality subjectively."
Perhaps short clear sentences would help get your ideas across. We're not trying to be obtuse. You present your ideas here for everyone's illumination, I'm sure. You are a recipient of some of that light too, you've said so. The experience of being lifegazer in the world I perceive, happens entirely within my awareness. I've never experienced any reality beyond that of my subjective sensations and my responsive thoughts & feelings. I.e., I know of no real "things"... I just know of the unreal things seen via my sensations. I can agree that we are all ignorant of the true nature of the reality that appears to surround us. Life is very much dependent on sensation and thought for apprehending the reality we perceive.
... Hence Berkeley's: "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."You use "Hence" like "Presto" - You have expected that we get your exact meaning but you know we're stupid to you. This is something central to your thread. Take pity on us. You make us guess and chase you for explanation. What is obvious to you escapes us. Always expand, but use short sentences and bullet points for your logical explanations.Now we come to the point of the essential question: What can exist externally to this established realm or awareness of formless entities/things? What exists outside of formless being?We say, formless and formed entities... Light, gravity, thought, rocks, air, animals and us..Now we come to the point of my logic. A realm of formless being has been established and we want to know what embraces this and exists beyond it.We're not at God yet, right? We're just agreeing that thought and imagination are part of the human experience.But our enquiries are in vain - pointless - for as I tried to explain to you on several occasions, a formless being occupies no real space or hence position in that space. Thus, such being cannot be embraced by a reality of space and occupy a position in that space.I'm not with you on this. If I look at it just the opposite... First, The solar system appears to hang in formlessness, that is - space. So form can rest in formlessness. That is similar to your point.

Next, Heat is given off by my body. The moon dances against the gravity of Earth. Heat and gravity are formless but existing both within and outside of form. Formlessness can rest in form.

It seems that you got hooked on the idea that you perceive a reality that you cannot know so that reality doesn't exist and you assume a reality does exist that can support intellection so you manufactured God to fill this role. Nothing that you've stated up to this point implies God though. **Thus, our being is not embraced by an external reality.**
Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!

There is nothing external to our own being.

Behold, you are existence.
Say hello to your Godself. This last part is what you want us to believe but it's all assumptions based on a logic that does not necessarily lead here. You've got some gaps to fill. Somehow you've got to find language to bridge those gaps, Lifegazer. We're pretty attached to the reality around us. We live and die there. If you could predict faster than light travel through unreal space or something else that was a useful upshot to your way of thinking, that would help.

But you offer nothing. No life after death. No existence. I must accept that what I see is delusion. And unless we all see it together, Armageddon. You offer nothing but utter hopelessness. The nature of Human beings is to look at things with different perspectives. They will never all see your complex philosophy. So it is Armageddon. And when we ask you about that - You're worried about God.

As it stands right now, to my mind, you've still got to overcome two obstacles. Your philosophy is illogical and it offers nothing. If you can reach out to us effectively on either of those, I'm sure you'll experience a more favorable reception.

Atlas

25th March 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!I want to hit this line, with all the exclamation points, one more time.

Air is considered formless. Yet you can pack it in a spaceship and fly it into space. Space is formless too.

Air in a spaceship is like thought in the human mind.

Air in a spaceship in space is like thought in the human mind in a summer breeze.

Formlessness in form in formlessness.

And I didn't need Dream or God in the metaphor.

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Wudang
You assume all of it, not part of it.
You're king of the plonkers Wudang. I give up on you. You clearly haven't been reading this thread, for starters, since most of the members here agree with my most basic premise - that the universe we sense is not a real universe.
Fade away Wudang. There's no point in us having any more discourse. Take care.

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 02:13 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Acrimonious
Here's where you go circular:

4) Instead of admitting that, if everyone is an imaginary construct of an all-God, our imaginary senses would be ill-equipped to detect an external reality even if there was one, you re-state the premise that there is no external reality.
[QUOTE]
That's not true.
Perhaps you had a blackout when you came to the part of my post which explained why it is ludicrous to enquire what embraces intangible being. Remember - the part about intangible being having no position in space therefore space not being around it. You see, if you are embraced by a reality of true space, then you must occupy a position within that space. Yet clearly, an intangible being cannot occupy a definite position in real space.
Thus, it's simply impossible, by rational default, to have an external reality embracing intangible being. Hence, no such reality exists = the Mind is the whole of existence.

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
... Hence Berkeley's: "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."

You use "Hence" like "Presto" - You have expected that we get your exact meaning but you know we're stupid to you. This is something central to your thread. Take pity on us.

The existence of a thing and the perception of that thing, are not the same thing.
Whatever we perceive is not the truth or reality of any thing.
The universe of things we experience is within us, not without.
We have no dealings with real things. We have our dealings with the things of the mind. We have our dealings with un-reality.
We live amongst our mind.

We say, formless and formed entities... Light, gravity, thought, rocks, air, animals and us.

You must adjust your thought to the realisation, above. You must take note that all things, as experienced, are intangible. We experience the reality of no thing.
When I said that the things of our mind are without form, I was of course refering to the fact that they are unreal. Thus, even rocks (of the mind) are without true form. Yes, they have the appearance of form, but appearances are not reality (we're back to Berkeley's quote again).

I'm not with you on this. If I look at it just the opposite... First, The solar system appears to hang in formlessness, that is - space. So form can rest in formlessness. That is similar to your point.

Nothing in awareness has true form. So you should understand that your statement is worthless.

Next, Heat is given off by my body. The moon dances against the gravity of Earth. Heat and gravity are formless but existing both within and outside of form. Formlessness can rest in form.

You're way off track. The moon you perceive is as formless as the space you perceive it within.

But you offer nothing. No life after death.

Not true. I offer you the realisation that there is no death.

No existence.

Not true. I tell you that you are God.

I must accept that what I see is delusion. And unless we all see it together, Armageddon. You offer nothing but utter hopelessness. The nature of Human beings is to look at things with different perspectives. They will never all see your complex philosophy. So it is Armageddon. And when we ask you about that - You're worried about God.

The absolute death to being is what worries me. God cannot die. But God can cease to be, if God so chooses, through "we".

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
"Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!"

Air is considered formless. Yet you can pack it in a spaceship and fly it into space. Space is formless too.

My previous post deals with this. No thing within awareness is real so no thing within awareness possesses true form.

scribble

25th March 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

My previous post deals with this. No thing within awareness is real so no thing within awareness possesses true form.

So... is there anything outside awareness?

If not, what does posess true form?

Atlas

25th March 2004, 03:12 PM

Lifegazer, you counter inquiry with assertion not explanation.

In the realm of formlessness, which now I understand to be everything, how do you explain form.

Nothing has it. It is as alien to your philosophy as the notion that formlessness can exist within it.

Our perceptions of self and of reality depend on form. We can recognize nothing without it, yet you cannot explain it's origin to us.

If Objective Reality is true and real and substantial it will necessarily have form.

But for you nothing exists - everything is formless in the mind. Why and how does it enter our awareness?

Oiginally your logic took us to a deity that was formless and was the substructure of everything. You, in another thread, talked of Intent and Will that had to exist in God for us to see them in our reality. But you have left no room for form and yet our reality depends on the perception of it.

Scribble beat to the question.

scribble

25th March 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
But you have left no room for form and yet our reality depends on the perception of it.

Vague metaphysics are like Jell-O: there's always room for more.

But you bring up a fascinating question - it will be interesting to see how he builds form out of formlessness.

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by scribble
So... is there anything outside awareness?

I've just explained why there cannot be a reality external to intangible being. Whatever we are is the essence of all existence. There is nothing beyond us. Everything else is [perceived] within.

If not, what does posess true form?
Ask me what does possess true/real existence. That word 'form' is the source of some confusion, I see. Atlas' posts confirmed that for me.

The conclusion of my philosophy, as you know, is that God = existence.

Dancing David

25th March 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

My previous post deals with this. No thing within awareness is real so no thing within awareness possesses true form.

Dualism, dualism dualism, it ain't no passing craze.

If nothing within awareness is real then you have the real and the unreal and that is a dualism.

uruk

25th March 2004, 03:26 PM

The language you are using is failing you again. look at your statement here: "An internal (to the self/mind) universe of unreal "things", formed from abstract/subjective sensations occuring within awareness, has been established as true.
This is a fact. It's not an assumption. "

"An *INTERNAL (TO the SELF/MIND)* universe of unreal things....."

Internal to the self/mind means that something is inside the self/mind. That means that the self/mind is external to the universe of unreal things.
This is a fact. It's not an assumption. "
And this has not been established as fact. What we define as "mind", awareness, sensation, differs depending on your particular praradigm. A materialist would have a different definition of "mind" then would you or an immaterialist, or a christian, or what ever philosophy or religion is out there. The definition of those concepts remain an assumption because we have difficulty in testing those assumptions. All we know for certain is that we have one (a mind). and even that statement is shakey.(especially if we consider your philosophy)

The experience of being lifegazer in the world I perceive, happens entirely within my awareness. I've never experienced any reality beyond that of my subjective sensations and my responsive thoughts & feelings. I.e., I know of no real "things"... I just know of the unreal things seen via my sensations.

And what I've have been trying to tell you is since we can not percieve anything but those things in our awareness. then those things are "real" to us. Your use of unreal is confusing because they are unreal as compared to what? If something is unreal, that implies that something else is real (again, this is a reference word). What is real? If there is nothing to compare it to then how can we tell if they are not real. All we know that if one of those "unreal" objects slams into our "unreal" body, we are going to feel it. It will affect us. (even things we do to our "unreal" bodies affects our awareness) How is this unreal?
If we have no way of determining otherwise, it makes no difference to us. The only way I could make a determination that the things in my awareness are unreal is if I can percieve something "beyond that of my subjective sensations and my responsive thoughts & feelings". But I can't. (you've said it yourself) I am locked into this realm, whatever this realm is. So what do I gain by disbelieving it? Oh yea, the realisaion that I am god. How is that any different from any other belief. And it is just a belief since I can not prove it because I can not percieve anything "beyond that of my subjective sensations and my responsive thoughts & feelings". God, if it exists, is beyond that(remember reasoning is not proof)

Hence Berkeley's: "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."
All this says to me is that existance and being percieved are two different things.

Now we come to the point of the essential question: What can exist externally to this established realm or awareness of formless entities/things? What exists outside of formless being?

You said it yourself here:"An internal (to the self/mind) universe of unreal 'things'...." By the use of your words; the self/mind is external to an internal universe.

Besides, Lack of evidence for the existance of something is not evidence for it's nonexistance.

Now we come to the point of my logic. A realm of formless being has been established and we want to know what embraces this and exists beyond it.
But our enquiries are in vain - pointless - for as I tried to explain to you on several occasions, a formless being occupies no real space or hence position in that space. Thus, such being cannot be embraced by a reality of space and occupy a position in that space.
**Thus, our being is not embraced by an external reality.**
Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!
.

Again, you have implied that the self/mind is external to this realm. therefore the formless being is within the self/mind. And it is unreal as compared to what? Once you find what it is unreal as it is compared to you will find what embraces it. And, of course, all this only applies to your particular paradigm.

Realise that all you are saying is that our perceptions and thoughts and sensations are internal. Internal to what? self/mind. Where is that self/mind. Might it be in a physical body? particularly a brain. You jump to the conclusion that a physical world does not exist simply on the idea that our perceptions are internal. You have to show how that is.

scribble

25th March 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've just explained why there cannot be a reality external to intangible being. Whatever we are is the essence of all existence. There is nothing beyond us. Everything else is [perceived] within.

Okay.

Ask me what does possess true/real existence. That word 'form' is the source of some confusion, I see. Atlas' posts confirmed that for me.

Okay, let's change the whole thing, then. Let's not switch horses mid-stream or we're likely to get washed away. So going back to the shore we'd just left, we'll restate the question and depart again on our new horse:

You say:
No thing within awareness is real so no thing within awareness possesses true form.

We can't use 'form' anymore, you suggest 'existence' as a replacement. So we get...

No thing within awareness is real so no thing within awareness posesses true existence.

Well, that's logically consistent, and I like it. But it doesn't do anything to address the questions it was meant to address anymore.

Feel free to restate it until you find something that works - I can't offer help, since I'm asking the question myself, not knowing the answer.

Edit to add: What I meant to say is it leaves us with the same question - if nothing within awareness exists, and there is nothing outside of awareness, what exists? And where?

The conclusion of my philosophy, as you know, is that God = existence.

Yes, and it's a cool one, I like it. Let's try to get there from here without assuming that we're already there. Otherwise the journey was meaningless.

Atlas

25th March 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by scribble
But you bring up a fascinating question - it will be interesting to see how he builds form out of formlessness. Thanks, but I've got faith he can do it if anyone can. Heck, he built God with less. ;)

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
In the realm of formlessness, which now I understand to be everything, how do you explain form.

How do I explain form? I explain it by saying that the formulaters of our languages were not aware that all of the things within their perception are not real. In fact, they - like you - assumed that they were real. Hence the misuse of language.

Nothing has it. It is as alien to your philosophy as the notion that formlessness can exist within it.

There is the appearance of form, like there is the appearance of "things" themselves. Our language is constructed around the idea that what we perceive is real. That's all.

uruk

25th March 2004, 03:36 PM

...most basic premise - that the universe we sense is not a real universe.

Again, just because the universe we sense is not real (with relation to the universe) does not mean that the universe does not exist.
Remember lifegazer we are talking about two different things here. There is our perception and there is the universe. what is our perception of? The universe. where does that say that the universe does not exist?

lifegazer

25th March 2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Dualism, dualism dualism, it ain't no passing craze.

If nothing within awareness is real then you have the real and the unreal and that is a dualism.
1 real dollar + 1 unreal dollar = 1 real dollar.

uruk

25th March 2004, 03:52 PM

The existence of a thing and the perception of that thing, are not the same thing.
Whatever we perceive is not the truth or reality of any thing.
The universe of things we experience is within us, not without.
We have no dealings with real things. We have our dealings with the things of the mind. We have our dealings with un-reality.
We live amongst our mind.
.

Well I got something very different from that quote. I agree, existance and perception are two different things. "a thing " exists. we do not know of it's existance untill we percieve it. Notice how our perception of the thing has no bearing on the existance of the thing. Just our knowledge of it.

we are percieving something. what is that something we are percieving? We recieve information. what is the source of that information?

uruk

25th March 2004, 04:03 PM

There is the appearance of form
Then how is the "appearance" of form any different from "actual" form. (as it applies to our perceptions. Remember, that is all we can percieve.)Our language is constructed around the idea that what we perceive is real. That's all. Why, because those "things" are "real" to us. We can't percieve them as anything else.

Atlas

25th March 2004, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
How do I explain form? I explain it by saying that the formulaters of our languages were not aware that all of the things within their perception are not real. In fact, they - like you - assumed that they were real. Hence the misuse of language.

There is the appearance of form, like there is the appearance of "things" themselves. Our language is constructed around the idea that what we perceive is real. That's all. You dodge adroitly, but I don't yet know if you dodged to safe ground.

Language is a thing like form that God doesn't need. I might as well ask how it is different than form in it's origin. However, the Bible has God speak creation into being. Likewise, I think it is John that says, and the Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word dwelt among us - describing Jesus. That was a different God and that creation was our objective reality and not your truer reality.

Language and the words we use are that unreal "thought existence" made real. It is the stuff of thought made manifest in the invisible air as an unseen sound. Words carry our thought to others - on the wind, the wind of objective reality. Words have the many qualities of sound (speed, loudness, tone) and something more, meaning. That is, they are the same as thought, but are of a different qualty... they are substantial.

Uruk points out the redundancy inherent in the phrase: There is the appearance of form... but I think I know what you mean. Language is a tricky thing. We use it to make out ideas concrete. When we understand what a rock is we use the word rock. We have done this with all things in our objective reality. Words are, in a sense, the form of appearence. But words also objectify for us the ghosts, the pink unicorns, and the gods of our mind.

Reality could be the objectification experience spoken into being by God. Or God can be an objectification experience spoken into being by us. In your words <blockquote>...the appearance of "things" themselves. Our language is constructed around the idea that what we perceive is real. That's all. </blockquote>
We believe you have mistaken the appearance of a God with an idea you only perceive as real. Your language and thoughts lead you to an Ideal understanding but not a Real one.

You know something lifegazer, arguing with you has an effect of making me more sure God doesn't exist. I know this is not what you claim to want. Sometimes I wonder if you're John Cleese and I've stumbled in for an argument. One of these days you'll just say "Times Up - Argument is over" and then charge us money to flail at you with our best ideas on the nature of what is, while you sit back once again and say contrarily- "No, it isn't!!"

RandFan

25th March 2004, 08:10 PM

RandFan
You assume that since we exist in an "internal realm" that there can be no external realm.

You assume that there is a god.

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's a lie. I gave a reason. No, not really. You simply made a cliam. This is not reason.

The "things" you see are not real in themselves. That's a fact, not an assumption. Prove it. This is a claim that you cannot prove. You could be right but you are unable to prove that you are right. How could it be a fact? Do you know the definition of fact?

The Mind [of God] created the sensations that are experienced. Which works how? Come on gazer, at least have the balls to admit that you can't explain how god's mind works.

RandFan

25th March 2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
You know something lifegazer, arguing with you has an effect of making me more sure God doesn't exist. I know this is not what you claim to want. Sometimes I wonder if you're John Cleese and I've stumbled in for an argument. One of these days you'll just say "Times Up - Argument is over" and then charge us money to flail at you with our best ideas on the nature of what is, while you sit back once again and say contrarily- "No, it isn't!!" And now for something completly different...

There was a time when I was certain that Jedi Knight was a very clever ruse to get us all to find a corner in a round building to urinate in. In the end the truth turned out to be far more pedestrian.

But we can dream dear Horatio, we can dream. :D

RandFan

25th March 2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've just explained why there cannot be a reality external to intangible being. Whatever we are is the essence of all existence. There is nothing beyond us. Everything else is [perceived] within. Withing what?

And god? Does god exist?

Is god omnipotent?

Can god create a physical realm?

Can god create people of flesh and blood who live in a real world and exerience the world with their minds?

uruk

25th March 2004, 09:02 PM

another thing lifegazer; the representation in our mind may be "formless" but what it represents is not.

uruk

25th March 2004, 09:08 PM

Language is a thing like form....

Atlas, very interesting, and well put.

Acrimonious

26th March 2004, 07:26 AM

That's not true.
Perhaps you had a blackout when you came to the part of my post which explained why it is ludicrous to enquire what embraces intangible being. Remember - the part about intangible being having no position in space therefore space not being around it. You see, if you are embraced by a reality of true space, then you must occupy a position within that space. Yet clearly, an intangible being cannot occupy a definite position in real space.

Thus, it's simply impossible, by rational default, to have an external reality embracing intangible being. Hence, no such reality exists = the Mind is the whole of existence.

I am imagining a great, black dragon. Assuming there is a material world, and that I am a part of it, tell me where this great, black dragon exists. Its exact position in space, if you could, please?

The great, black dragon is intangible. It is an imaginary being within a real universe. I cannot tell you the position of the great, black dragon in space. I can tell you the position of my keyboard in space. Or: my morning coffee mug. But not my imaginary great, black dragon.

I can imagine this dragon in such a way that he believes he exists. I can imagine him in such a way that he believes he lives in his own, custom-tailored material world. I can dictate his experiences, his thoughts, his opinions, and his actions.

You may claim that he exists within my mind. Could you cut open my mind to find the great, black dragon? Or would you only find grey matter?

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

Your argument is akin to saying that neither I nor the world I live in are real, simply because the great, black dragon is imaginary.

RandFan

26th March 2004, 07:48 AM

Please note that I am not ignoring this post or the concept.

Remember - the part about intangible being having no position in space therefore space not being around it. Agreed. This is correct.

You see, if you are embraced by a reality of true space, then you must occupy a position within that space. Only if YOU are a true reality.

Yet clearly, an intangible being cannot occupy a definite position in real space. Ok, can you prove that I am an intangible being?

You only prove that my thoughts and perceptions are intangible. This does not prove that I am intangible.

Thus, it's simply impossible, by rational default, to have an external reality embracing intangible being. This is really a straw man. It is true that we think of our abstract ideas as being inside of our mind. But they are intangible and can't really be said to be anywhere. However this fact doesn't obviate reality. You are merely trying to turn the abstract concept of our mind into a proof that materialism is false.

It doesn't really work that way. Please note that I have given allot of thought to your argument and I understand. I agree that it is possible that the material world does not exist. But there are just so many problems with such an assumption.

Hence, no such reality exists = the Mind is the whole of existence. Non sequitur. Our senses in conjunction with the proof of prediction and verification of the workings of the material world lend considerable weight to the existence of the Material world. To believe that we do not actually exist we must conclude that the order of the universe is a lie created by god. We must also assume that this god is capable of creating this universe by processes that we can't explain.

Your "god did it" philosophy tells us nothing. It does not advance our understanding of the order of the universe in any way (your naive views on QM and other concepts not withstanding).

Others have said that your philosophy is interesting. I agree but I don't really give you the credit for it. You are just repackaging solipsism. There is only one mind, god's and god is a solipsist. Big deal.

Gestahl

26th March 2004, 08:23 AM

I have been browsing LG's threads for weeks now... and you consistently argue him down to solipsism or nihilism, I can't tell which one (he very poorly distinguishes whether "he" is an illusion (something else perceiving itself in his mind or something like that) or is real). Why do you keep arguing with him? You cannot assail those two philosophies, nor anything built up upon it, simply because LG can claim langauge and even logic are illusion, etc. His philosophy is useless, because from his viewpoint there are no limitations to what can be the truth, because somehow through all the illusions *he* is able to see what he says.

*Sigh*.

Just like when an athiest argues with a Christian, he *cannot* accept the assumption of God's existence and prove the Christian wrong. God is too laden and too powerful an assumption to overcome.

Like I said, once you argue someone down to solipsism or nihilism, if this were a game, you would have "won".

Upchurch

26th March 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Gestahl
Why do you keep arguing with him? There are a number of valid reasons to do so that have nothing to do with "beating" him (again and again and again...).

First and foremost, in my mind, is that nothing should ever be left to stand unchallenged, whether or not one personally believes that it is correct or not. That is the very essence of skepticism, endless questioning.

Second, in cases like lifegazer here, who endlessly repeats the same mistakes over and over, it is becomes an instructive exercise to try to approach the same argument from different tacts. Sometimes it leads you to question your own views and leads you to knew insights (even though it is rarely the one the woo would prefer).

Third, let's just admit it, sometimes there is a guilty pleasure in smakin' down a pompous self-righteous fool. I've heard it called "skeptomasochism". Although maybe "skeptosadism" would be more appropriate... I dunno.

(okay, so maybe the last one does have to do with "beating" him...)

uruk

26th March 2004, 09:31 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gestahl
Why do you keep arguing with him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Upchurch, I learn something new each time I engage in debate.

lifegazer

26th March 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
I am imagining a great, black dragon. Assuming there is a material world,

You're not cutting down my reasoning on the back of a giant assumption. What do you think this thread's about? It's about cutting through the assumptions and dealing with the facts.

lifegazer

26th March 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Gestahl
[B]I have been browsing LG's threads for weeks now... and you consistently argue him down to solipsism or nihilism, I can't tell which one (he very poorly distinguishes whether "he" is an illusion (something else perceiving itself in his mind or something like that) or is real).

You haven't got a clue pal... and as such, you shouldn't be posting a critique of my philosophy.
Only God exists. Everything else is a perception within God's Mind. That's my philosophy.

Why do you keep arguing with him? You cannot assail those two philosophies, nor anything built up upon it, simply because LG can claim langauge and even logic are illusion, etc.

LG has never done anything of the sort. Again, you're talking through your behind.

His philosophy is useless, because from his viewpoint there are no limitations to what can be the truth, because somehow through all the illusions *he* is able to see what he says.

Garbage.

Just like when an athiest argues with a Christian, he *cannot* accept the assumption of God's existence and prove the Christian wrong. God is too laden and too powerful an assumption to overcome.

Like I said, once you argue someone down to solipsism or nihilism, if this were a game, you would have "won".
Don't ever post any more utter crap like this again in one of my threads. Clear off and browse elsewhere.

lifegazer

26th March 2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
First and foremost, in my mind, is that nothing should ever be left to stand unchallenged, whether or not one personally believes that it is correct or not. That is the very essence of skepticism, endless questioning.

Cling firm to your own assumptions and be skeptical of anything else. I know your game. Same as the rest.

The rest of your post was complete tripe.

Upchurch

26th March 2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Gestahl
Like I said, once you argue someone down to solipsism or nihilism, if this were a game, you would have "won". I imagine that one also wins if one's opponents can do nothing but come back with personal attacks. ;)

RandFan

26th March 2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Cling firm to your own assumptions and be skeptical of anything else. The only one who is clinging to anything here is you. Most if not all of us agree that you could be right and we could be wrong. You are the one who knows that he is right. You are like all of the rest who think that they have discovered the meaning of life. You KNOW that you are right. Not unlike the guy who thought that he was the first to square the circle (see Time Cube (http://www.timecube.com/)) and figure out that nature is it's own dynamic and harmonic time cube. Hey, there is a $1,000.00 reward for anyone who can
disprove 4 days in each earth rotation. You can prove it, right? email oray612959@earthlink.net.

I know your game. Same as the rest. Oh hell, you figured it out. You should get together with Gene Ray.

uruk

26th March 2004, 12:41 PM

Cling firm to your own assumptions and be skeptical of anything else. I know your game. Same as the rest.

Well at least we admit that they are assumptions. You are the one who doesn't want to admit to your assumptions. 'cause in the end, that's all we got.

Acrimonious

26th March 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're not cutting down my reasoning on the back of a giant assumption. What do you think this thread's about? It's about cutting through the assumptions and dealing with the facts.
Yes, I freely admit that my view that an external material reality exists is an assumption.

You, on the other hand, claim the assumption that an external material reality doesn't exist is a "fact."

You come into a "discussion" about your "philosophy" with no intention of discussing your philosophy. In your mind, your philosophy is complete and correct, and nothing remains but missionary work and/or witch-burning of the heretical non-believers.

FYI: Assumptions take a whole lot more to prove as Fact than a single internet forum troll repeating them ad nauseum.

FYI: The first thing you should do when scrutinizing a hypothesis is to actually do the scrutinizing. Yes, even if you came up with it "all by yourself," *cough* Mr. Solipsist.

Gestahl

26th March 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You haven't got a clue pal... and as such, you shouldn't be posting a critique of my philosophy.
Only God exists. Everything else is a perception within God's Mind. That's my philosophy.

First of all, I have no more of a clue than you, and if you can't admit that in philosophy then you miss the basics of discussing it. Philosophy cannot be proven true, only desirable (personal choice), logically consistent, and useful. I see no further use in your philosophy... you cannot make value judgements, you cannot discern any more truth, and you cannot gain any more "true" knowledge.

So be it. I stand corrected. You argue that your perceptions are not yours, that there is no *you* to speak of, and that reality is an illusion created by this God's own awareness of himself. I think I know your philosophy pretty well, I had a friend with a similar one (although I have to admit, I may be attributing some things to him, and not you).

LG has never done anything of the sort. Again, you're talking through your behind.

Read back carefully what I said.... I said you *can*, not that you *had*. Learn some reading comprehension skills.

LG, there is nothing so far that has convinced you are not "talking from your behind". If I were really speaking out of my ass, the post would just be PPPTTTHTHTBTBTBTHTBHT!!!

(In response to my claim that he can claim anything and defend it). Garbage.

Nope. With your philosophy, since the external world is an illusion, your thoughts are an illusion created by God experiencing himself, you have created nothing on which to debate your statements merits. God is by definition infinite in power, no? What prevents *anything* from being true in this case, if God wills it? God is above logic, above words, etc. Otherwise he is not all-powerful. If your philosophy boils down to this, all you are saying is "Everything is." Brilliant.

Go learn some basic philosophy....

Don't ever post any more utter crap like this again in one of my threads. Clear off and browse elsewhere.

You do not own this thread, no one does. If you want, please let the moderators know and they might give you a section where you are the moderator on every thread. I will browse and post where I choose. *sticks out tongue* There, I can be petulant and infantile too. Your insults are not furthering your case...

Dancing David

26th March 2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

1 real dollar + 1 unreal dollar = 1 real dollar.

But if the real dollar contains within it the unreal dollar, and seems to contain millions of unreal dollars, what basis is there for saying there is a real dollar when all of it's components are unreal.

A perception contained within the reality of the metamind is real. Otherwise the meta-mind contains two states (lack of awareness)=real and (awareness)=unreal. If the metamind has two states then it is not a unity but a pluraility.

Dancing David

26th March 2004, 05:58 PM

Gesthal
Like I said, once you argue someone down to solipsism or nihilism, if this were a game, you would have "won".

I believe that monism is in essence the same as nihilism. And it must have really scored somewhere in LG's non-existant brain, because he flamed you. Way to go!

RussDill

31st March 2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Please explain what your question means.

If I say it is a truth that elephants are big, it isn't really a truth, because I haven't defined what "big" is. So if you have a statement with a bunch of ambiguous terms, and call it a truth, it is not really a truth, it is just a meaningless collection of words.

You see how dumb and annoying and evasive responses like mine are to perfectly understandable statements such as your own? Well, the same applies to you.

Whatever, I think this example shows the opposite, you asked me to clarify something, I clarified it. I didn't repeat what I said before, I didn't call you dumb or annoying. I clarified. Calling you dumb, evasive, a simpleton, etc, doesn't advance the discussion, it just wastes electrons. (luckily, my messages are produced with a minimum of 73% post-consumer content electrons)

Everyone here knows what I mean by an intangible realm comprised of abstract sensations which give rise to the appearance of intangible (illusory) things. We live the language.

Really? you might want to check that, because you've never explained what the difference is between an intangible realm, and a tangible realm, nor what the difference between an abstract sensation, and a non-abstract sensation, or intangible things, and tangible things. Unless you can clearly explain them, it is as useless as saying that an elephant is big (big in relation to what), or that 7 is a real number (only meaningfull if you explain what a fake number is, in this case, ignoring what is commonly meant by real/imaginary numbers).

The point is that there is an intangible realm (of existence). The proof is in our own experience of existence.

Unless you can define what makes it a realm, and not just intangible ideas, then it is useless. Not only that, you need to define what is an intangible idea besides a tangible idea. Is a tangible idea real, but an intangible idea not real? (even then, you have to define "real"). Would a tangible idea occupy space, but an intangible idea not? If so, isn't occupying space a result of position being a property of things existing in space? If so, how is the property of position any more or less special than a property of an idea in an intangible realm to make you call it tangible vs intangible?

Again, you'll have to stop playing silly games. I'm not interested.

No, really, you need to define "realm". Because a "realm" refers to a division of something. What are you dividing? What are the other realms? How do they fit together? IE, if you are talking about a company and their sales, a realm might be a sales region. The term "realm" is one of those words that is useless unless you define it in your context.

There is an intangible realm of existence. We know this because "we" are in it. In fact, we are it. This is the only information that I need to proceed with my logic:-

Again, realm, "In general, province; region; country; domain; department; division; as, the realm of fancy.". So what are the other realms of existence? If they aren't any, then it doesn't make any sense to call it a realm.

An intangible entity/realm possesses no real form nor occupies any real space. Therefore, nothing can exist next to an intangible entity/realm or around it, for where exactly is that entity/realm that something might be next to it or embrace it??!!!

How many times have I explained how this is possible with you ignoring it?

A material existence represents intangible things with ease. A good example is a book, or a computer program.

What you refer to as a "material" existence is just as intangible (or tangible) as your mind existence. Define the terms tangible and intangible fully and you will see this. A material existence, just like you mind existence, can be viewed as simply a collection of information.

Clearly, by rational default, nothing can exist externally to an intangible realm. And since most of you have agreed that we exist within an intangible realm of sensation, thought & feeling, you must also acknowledge that nothing can exist externally to this realm.

And you keep ignoring the counter argument, just as you ignore your proof of the speed of sound is a constant, and just as you ignore every other difficult question I put to you.

(1) There is an intangible realm.
(2) Nothing can be external to such a realm.
(3) Therefore, only our intangible realm exists!!

Wake up call Russ. Meet your God, amongst you. Or just continue in denial.

You've contridicted yourself in (2). It is a contridiction to say there can be nothing external to a realm, because a realm is a form of division.