Questions for which lifegazer's "philosophy" has no answer:

[Piscivore]

What is the criteria for determining which sensations are real or not?

Why is god's dream real and mine are not?

Why can an all-powerful god not start his dream over? Why can't he start an entirely different dream? How can you be certain he's not dreaming thousands of different "worlds" at the same time?

If "morality" is irrelevant in my dreams, why should morality have any meaning in god's?

Isn't your "proposal" "to extinguish the ego of man and swap it for the ego of God" just a slave changing masters? Why is "god's ego" better than mine?

Why can I not love my neighbor as I love myself without god?

Given the amount of brutality and suffering perpatrated by your dreaming god's avatars, can we conclude that It has, subconciously at least, a nihilistic personality? That this god-ego does love us as he loves himself- thus we die the death he craves and cannot have?

Regarding "humanity defined as a unified-harmony": If all are alike, what difference would there be to love or to hate? If everybody is thinking the same thing in the same way, what need is there of intellectual or creative pursuits?

How can competition exist in the framework of "humanity defined as a unified-harmony"

What benefit is it to your dreaming god to have six billion dreams, all alike?

Also, I'm going to quote Ms. Bradley's question, because I want to know as well:
LG, you were very cutting about the "selfish materialistic lives" of all us unenlightened god-denying egotists, and have consistently claimed to hold the high moral ground. I'd be really interested in knowing how you apply your philosophy to your own life. I assume you have retained some material resources, since you have a computer, internet access, and (apparently) a whole lot of time to use it. So - are you already actively engaged in being One with God and loving your neighbour as yourself? If so, how are you going about it? Or are you holding off until the other six billion of us catch up with you?

Are you man enough to answer?

[uruk]

No response yet? Hmmmmmm.

[lifegazer]

If I get time, I'll answer. My main priority at the moment is my own thread.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If I get time, I'll answer. My main priority at the moment is my own thread.

Which one? Most of these come from the one you just abandoned.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Which one? Most of these come from the one you just abandoned.
I retired from that thread on page 3. After that, it just turned into an anything-goes question & answer session.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I retired from that thread on page 3. After that, it just turned into an anything-goes question & answer session.

Interesting- you "retired" but kept posting? I love your command of the language.

Nevertheless, these are questions about your philosophy which you decline to answer. Are you afraid of what the answers tell you about your philosophy?

[Upchurch]

Interesting list. I personally would only add the followingOriginally posted by Piscivore
Why can an all-powerful god not start his dream over? Why can't he start an entirely different dream? How can you be certain he's not dreaming thousands of different "worlds" at the same time? Why is god's dream restricted only to a certain set of rules (you know, the ones that scientists study)?
If "morality" is irrelevant in my dreams, why should morality have any meaning in god's?Wow. Good one. Since puppies are really just a figment of god's imagination and not a thing of itself, there is really no moral basis for kicking and/or killing puppies under lifegazer's philosophy.

[uruk]

Wow. Good one. Since puppies are really just a figment of god's imagination and not a thing of itself, there is really no moral basis for kicking and/or killing puppies under lifegazer's philosophy.
Yea, that kind of leads into my unanswered question to LG.
If we and everything around us are not real, then why should we care or bother?
It goes along the lines of the karma and the caste system in India.
If someone is suffering or in poverty it is because they are working off the bad karma they built up in a previous life. So why should I interfere? If I ease the person's suffering, I'm just preventing him from building good karma.

Same with LG's philosophy. If people are suffering or in turmoil; maybe it is just god seeking the experiance of suffering. I'm not real , they are not real, the suffering is not real. Why care?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by uruk
Same with LG's philosophy. If people are suffering or in turmoil; maybe it is just god seeking the experiance of suffering. I'm not real , they are not real, the suffering is not real. Why care? This reminds me of something lifegazer said in yet another thread many moons ago.

He said that when we touch something hot (say like a lit stove) we feel pain as a warning to not touch hot things. His point was that the sensation of "pain" was something we chose to feel to protect us from harm.

However, since under lg's assumptions there are no real sources of danger (given that everything in our sensory perception is illusionary), that explination is inconsistant. The purpose of pain is irrelevent if it warns us about things that don't actually exist. One must then wonder why we, as lg puts it, choose to feel pain...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Upchurch
This reminds me of something lifegazer said in yet another thread many moons ago.

He said that when we touch something hot (say like a lit stove) we feel pain as a warning to not touch hot things. His point was that the sensation of "pain" was something we chose to feel to protect us from harm.

However, since under lg's assumptions there are no real sources of danger (given that everything in our sensory perception is illusionary), that explination is inconsistant. The purpose of pain is irrelevent if it warns us about things that don't actually exist. One must then wonder why we, as lg puts it, choose to feel pain...

Oh, man, Upchurch, if we're going to go down this road, we're going to have to have lg address many such comments that go back and forth between assuming the "other" exists while claiming it doesn't.

Ah, but then we have to get to an issue that's got me perplexed about these sorts who argue that we are all really one. Who the h-e-double-hockeysticks is he arguing with?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Who the h-e-double-hockeysticks is he arguing with? duh. God.


;)


Man, does that take stones, or what? :eek:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Upchurch
duh. God.


;)


Man, does that take stones, or what? :eek:

Oh, yeah, but remember lg claims we are all God. So lg's God is nothing if not schizophrenic.

[uruk]

Oh, yeah, but remember lg claims we are all God. So lg's God is nothing if not schizophrenic.
Not to mention masochistic, sadistic, and nihilistic. But then so would you if you were the only thing that existed. (being all homogenous with no naughty bits to play with either.)


It must suck being LG's god.

[Upchurch]

I don't know if this is a question that lifegazer's philosophy can't answer, but I have yet to hear a good explination why lifegazer's philosophy isn't ultimately solipsism and, thus, basically useless.

[kuroyume0161]

If not solipsism, it at least makes little differentiation between external materialism and itself. But, I do agree that with objects popping in to existence just as needed to interact with a consciousness (be sensed) and a 'singular' consciousness at its core, it smacks of solipsism.

Robert

[RebeccaBradley]

Bump. See Piscivore's list of unaddressed questions at the beginning of the thread (which includes one of mine - thanks).

Lifegazer, I would really honestly like to know what practical effect your philosophy has on your life. How do you personally apply your philosophy? What do you do with it, beyond engaging in endless (boundless, infinite) semantic acrobatics on this forum? Does it affect how you live your life? And if you ever did manage to convince any of us that your philosophy was valid, what then?

Please answer. I'm asking as nicely as I know how.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
Lifegazer, I would really honestly like to know what practical effect your philosophy has on your life. How do you personally apply your philosophy? What do you do with it, beyond engaging in endless (boundless, infinite) semantic acrobatics on this forum? Does it affect how you live your life? And if you ever did manage to convince any of us that your philosophy was valid, what then?

Until LG actually replies, I'll offer my inkling about what his philosophy is supposed to do. You see, and this is why I keep prodding him with the "soul shards" and whatnot, there are some beliefs wherein there was a perfect being. This perfect being was splintered into a myriad pieces, sometimes with the affect of causing the two sexes to occur (don't ask me). These splinters are the souls given to each conscious being, but they are not whole, therefore they cannot attain their high glory (or whatever). The former existence of the perfect being was forgotten eternally, well, until NOW when someone professes the acquisition of this revelation.

The idea is to 'enlighten' as many as possible to 'reconstruct' the shards back into the perfect being. Each of us has a piece of the perfect being within us (the soul) and can only begin the process by 'reuniting'. Again, don't ask me how this is all supposed to happen, but the theory is that everyone must reach this plain of understanding or transcendental revelation before the 'miracle' happens and we all become the perfect being again.

How does this relate to LG's philosophical meanderings? Well, seems that he is pushing a belief in a single 'perfect' being of which we are all a part. And, note this, that there will be a revolution when everyone accepts his philosophy (when we all realize that WE are GOD - id est: united we become the perfect being). Way too close to this other idea for me.

Well, that's my take on it anyway...

Robert

[Z]

Why does the assumption of an infinite space REQUIRE the existence of two points that are an infinite distance apart?

What reasoning allows the use of 'infinite' as a unit of measure between two fixed points?

How does change occur on an indivisible singularity?

Explain how reality can be non-spatial if space exists, 'really' or 'illusionarily'?

If reality is only a sensed-illusion, and we can have no true sense of what is real or not, then how can we know anything at all about reality?

How old are you, and how far in your education did you progress, what kind of grades did you get, and what country are you from?

How can you possibly hope to 'destroy' me, mate? :D

[Piscivore]

Your definitions of Existence, Infinity, Entity, and Absolute.

[RebeccaBradley]

Bump bump. LG has given us upwards of 3000 highly abstract and convoluted postings, which do not seem to have convinced anybody. If, as Robert says, he's trying to start a movement that will eventually reunite the shards of a perfect being and spark off a revolution and save the planet etc, well - his method seems pretty counterproductive so far.

So I ask again: LG, give the abstractions a little rest, and tell us something concrete. How does your philosophy affect how you live your life?

[RebeccaBradley]

Bump bump bump. Sorry to be so boring, but I'm really interested.

So do I win this thread yet?

Argument by being ignored.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
So I ask again: LG, give the abstractions a little rest, and tell us something concrete. How does your philosophy affect how you live your life? I'm on the same page as Rebecca. Jump ahead, and spell out the human value this knowledge of yours will provide. Also, fill in the gap between the confirmed existence of this Being and It's supposed specific communication with humankind, as I requested in this ignored post. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870635404#post1870635404)

Many thanks.

[uruk]

The idea is to 'enlighten' as many as possible to 'reconstruct' the shards back into the perfect being. Each of us has a piece of the perfect being within us (the soul) and can only begin the process by 'reuniting'. Again, don't ask me how this is all supposed to happen, but the theory is that everyone must reach this plain of understanding or transcendental revelation before the 'miracle' happens and we all become the perfect being again.
Or we all die and god wakes up from this nightmare.

[Anathema]

*cough*

Cue crickets....

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
Bump bump.

You're very persistent... but pleasant with it. I have decided to answer you and await the avalanche of criticisms. But what the hell - I'm use to that.

LG has given us upwards of 3000 highly abstract and convoluted postings,

I bet you've read them all. :)

which do not seem to have convinced anybody.

How many people do you know who aren't brainwashed by religion and/or materialism?
How many people do you know who think that science is a sound foundation for materialism? In other words, how many people do you know who think that science has knowledge of "reality"?
How easy do you think it is for a human to resolutely accept the notion that he/she is really God, perceiving Itself to be "a human"?

My failure was guaranteed.
Not forever though. I shall persevere.

If, as Robert says, he's trying to start a movement that will eventually reunite the shards of a perfect being and spark off a revolution and save the planet etc, well - his method seems pretty counterproductive so far.

I have no respect for the human ego so I treat it with disdain. After all, my ultimate purpose is to destroy the human ego - mine and yours.
I'm not a vulgar man though... even though I am not averse to a bit of banter with my readers - if they give me a hard time. I occaisionally get frustrated, but rarely lose my cool.
I actually think that my style gets me more readers. For example, if I was to come here with my reasoned-arguments and say things like "I love you all" and "Your sins are forgiven you" and "Yes madam" and "Yes Sir" - then I would be licking upto your egos whilst trying to destroy them... making me a hypocrite and a bull**it**.

My moto is to tell the truth. The ultimate truth is that the human ego must be destroyed.
This doesn't mean that humanity as we perceive it must be destroyed, but that the beliefs we have about Self-identity must completely change... which would involve the death of believing oneself to be a human individual.

So I ask again: LG, give the abstractions a little rest, and tell us something concrete. How does your philosophy affect how you live your life?
I have avoided answering your question because I don't like talking about 'me'. There are a few reasons for this and I'm not yet comfortable discussing it in a public forum with people that I do not know, especially given the criticisms that I get.
However, what you should know above all else is that until several years-ago, my goals in life were more-or-less the same as the "average person": I sought my peace & happiness in "things" I could possess in my sense-of-life - money; nice home; a good relationship; stuff like that.

It's difficult coming to terms with a philosophy which states that God is everyone and that everything is an illusion. Coming to realise this, rationally, is one thing... coming to realise what that means for 'me' is something different altogether.
The sum-total of 'your' life to-date is put under the spotlight: the attitudes you hold; the goals or purpose for your own life; the bad habits that you have; etc. etc.
Then, you have to decide what you're going to do about it. Can you change? Are you willing to change? What should you change?

... This is how it goes and this is it how it will go for anybody who recognises the Godself as their own being.

It's difficult. Very difficult.
Bear in mind that you're talking to someone who is convinced of this philosophy. So don't ask me whether it's worth all the internal aggravations. I have no choice. If I should go to my death-bed having not tried, at least, to change myself (as well as the world), then I would be a fool unto that which I have come to know as "the truth".

I've devoted the last three+ years of my life/time in trying to change the attitudes of mankind... without hardly any encouragement.
Because of this, I've lost the woman I loved and still love, primarily (I think) through my devotion to this ideal. That was my greatest sacrifice.
I've gone through all the internal strife I described earlier. My goals have changed and so have my purposes.
I have nothing to give but the truth I have come to realise. In the final analysis, only unanimous agreement will save "the world". Given the current state of the world, I feel obligated to push my message.
So I do.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're very persistent... but pleasant with it. I have decided to answer you and await the avalanche of criticisms. But what the hell - I'm use to that.

I bet you've read them all. :)

How many people do you know who aren't brainwashed by religion and/or materialism?
How many people do you know who think that science is a sound foundation for materialism? In other words, how many people do you know who think that science has knowledge of "reality"?
How easy do you think it is for a human to resolutely accept the notion that he/she is really God, perceiving Itself to be "a human"?

My failure was guaranteed.
Not forever though. I shall persevere.

I have no respect for the human ego so I treat it with disdain. After all, my ultimate purpose is to destroy the human ego - mine and yours.
I'm not a vulgar man though... even though I am not averse to a bit of banter with my readers - if they give me a hard time. I occaisionally get frustrated, but rarely lose my cool.
I actually think that my style gets me more readers. For example, if I was to come here with my reasoned-arguments and say things like "I love you all" and "Your sins are forgiven you" and "Yes madam" and "Yes Sir" - then I would be licking upto your egos whilst trying to destroy them... making me a hypocrite and a bull**it**.

My moto is to tell the truth. The ultimate truth is that the human ego must be destroyed.
This doesn't mean that humanity as we perceive it must be destroyed, but that the beliefs we have about Self-identity must completely change... which would involve the death of believing oneself to be a human individual.

I have avoided answering your question because I don't like talking about 'me'. There are a few reasons for this and I'm not yet comfortable discussing it in a public forum with people that I do not know, especially given the criticisms that I get.
However, what you should know above all else is that until several years-ago, my goals in life were more-or-less the same as the "average person": I sought my peace & happiness in "things" I could possess in my sense-of-life - money; nice home; a good relationship; stuff like that.

It's difficult coming to terms with a philosophy which states that God is everyone and that everything is an illusion. Coming to realise this, rationally, is one thing... coming to realise what that means for 'me' is something different altogether.
The sum-total of 'your' life to-date is put under the spotlight: the attitudes you hold; the goals or purpose for your own life; the bad habits that you have; etc. etc.
Then, you have to decide what you're going to do about it. Can you change? Are you willing to change? What should you change?

... This is how it goes and this is it how it will go for anybody who recognises the Godself as their own being.

It's difficult. Very difficult.
Bear in mind that you're talking to someone who is convinced of this philosophy. So don't ask me whether it's worth all the internal aggravations. I have no choice. If I should go to my death-bed having not tried, at least, to change myself (as well as the world), then I would be a fool unto that which I have come to know as "the truth".

I've devoted the last three+ years of my life/time in trying to change the attitudes of mankind... without hardly any encouragement.
Because of this, I've lost the woman I loved and still love, primarily (I think) through my devotion to this ideal. That was my greatest sacrifice.
I've gone through all the internal strife I described earlier. My goals have changed and so have my purposes.
I have nothing to give but the truth I have come to realise. In the final analysis, only unanimous agreement will save "the world". Given the current state of the world, I feel obligated to push my message.
So I do.

That has got to be the saddest thing I've heard in six days.

Well, LG, kudos for your perserverence and your dedication to your goal. Too bad your 'truth' is founded on ignorance and false assumptions - and you are willing to lose love for this ideal?

I would spit in God's almighty eye if God tried to come between me and Love. I would face oblivion or eternal torment rather than give up one good relationship in favor of religion.

And in my honest opinion, that is how God wants it.

So - your 'philosophy' leads to nothing but trouble and pain, and you try to convince people utterly in vain. (Well, not in 'vain', all things considered... or isn't it?)

How are you destroying the individual human ego, when it is your OWN ego that your attempts to spread this manure serves ultimately? You are so convinced that you are right that, inadvertantly, you have succumbed to ultimate ego. You cannot even consider that your philosophy might be wrong. And this, sad for you, is the Ultimate Ego. So even by losing everything dear in this (sensed) reality, you still have failed, because you cannot relinquish your personal Ego.

Seriously, LG - seek good professional help. If you like, my wife can refer you to any number of agencies and individuals that can really, seriously help you - without brainwashing or drugs. Even a number of faith-based organizations, since you essentially fear science and established methodologies.

God/dess wants us all to enjoy life. No faith, religion, or anything else is worth living a life of loneliness or suffering... this is anathemic to Deity.

[RebeccaBradley]

LG - many thanks for your lengthy and open reply. It deserves much more of a response than I can give at this second, since we're going out for the evening, but I'll certainly respond tomorrow. Rebecca

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
...snip... You see, and this is why I keep prodding him with the "soul shards" and whatnot, there are some beliefs wherein there was a perfect being. This perfect being was splintered into a myriad pieces, sometimes with the affect of causing the two sexes to occur (don't ask me). These splinters are the souls given to each conscious being, but they are not whole, therefore they cannot attain their high glory (or whatever). ...snip...

Kaballah, Sefirots, Breaking of the vessels, Adam Kadmon...

[lifegazer]

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. [Matt. 16, 25... King James version]

It boils down to two choices:-
Love the world or love your God. You cannot love both. You cannot serve two masters... as he said.

'my' life is insignificant. It's losses or gains are illusions and destined to end with the grave. Ask Napoleon what he remembers of his life. Ask Caesar. Ask Cleopatra.
Within a blink of the cosmic eye they came and went and their possessions were lost in an instant. Now, they have no "thing".

Chase [sensed] "things" or chase Yourself.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. [Matt. 16, 25... King James version]

It boils down to two choices:-
Love the world or love your God. You cannot love both. You cannot serve two masters... as he said.

'my' life is insignificant. It's losses or gains are illusions and destined to end with the grave. Ask Napoleon what he remembers of his life. Ask Caesar. Ask Cleopatra.
Within a blink of the cosmic eye they came and went and their possessions were lost in an instant. Now, they have no "thing".

Chase [sensed] "things" or chase Yourself.

And yet you swear you are not a Judeo-Christian - yet you insist on quoting the Judeo-Christian Bible. Quoting King James is about the surest way to destroy your own credibility.

As to 'serve two master', that's purely Judeo-Christian crap. Certainly you can love the World and God - and any number of other things. Love is limitless and boundless - infinite, if you will.

Your life is only insignificant if you choose it to be so. You can either make the world a little better than how you found it, for yourself and for others, or you can face oblivion (or whatever afterlife you opt to believe in) after a life of misery and suffering.

I know what choice I'd make!

At any rate, will you stop telling 'porkies' about being Religious? This is just one of several posts that shows your true nature. I wonder - if you had studied other world religions, would your current philosophy continue to ruin your life?

[Z]

Since you enjoy quoting the Bible, o Mr. I'm-Not-Religious, let us consider the following:

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

And isn't there another passage about loving what God loves and hating what God hates?

Hence, the very Bible you quote (well, I used NIV vs. your KJV) to show you cannot serve two masters, also says you should love the World.

Suggestion: If you're claiming to be non-religious, don't go quoting the Bible.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Suggestion: If you're claiming to be non-religious, don't go quoting the Bible.
I never said that I didn't believe the words of the bible. I just said that I wasn't religious.
Do you understand the distinction?
... If not, consider how many religions have been borne of one book.

I'm specifically interested in the words as spoken by Jesus. I challenge you to find anything said by him which opposes my own philosophy.
As far as I'm concerned, Jesus was saying what I'm doing my utmost to say.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I never said that I didn't believe the words of the bible. I just said that I wasn't religious.
Do you understand the distinction?

Do you understand the contradiction? IF you believe the words of the Bible, THEN you are religious. No other option exists.

I'm specifically interested in the words as spoken by Jesus. I challenge you to find anything said by him which opposes my own philosophy.

And I challenge YOU to find anything said by him. Period.

:D

Get going, Bob - you've got about 2000 years of historical documents to search through.

[lifegazer]

You didn't understand - you plonker (:)).
I have a philosophy which I think precisely matches what Jesus was saying.
I challenge you to find a single sentence in the 4 gospels which contradicts my philosophy which states that "only God exists.".
It's a worthy challenge. Just think of the acclaim you will get from your fellow skeptics if you can prove that Jesus didn't share the exact-same philosophy as lifegazer.
I'm going to produce that profound causality-argument tomorrow, so you'd better do your homework and do it fast.
Or else, what sized white-robe would you like?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Do you understand the contradiction? IF you believe the words of the Bible, THEN you are religious. No other option exists.



And I challenge YOU to find anything said by him. Period.

:D

Get going, Bob - you've got about 2000 years of historical documents to search through.

Knock! Knock! "Is this the Del Boy school of natural philosophy, or the Rodney school of Christian theology?"

"Pisss off, you plonker. This is an asylum!"

:) :(

[Anathema]

As I stated somewhat jokingly here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870633429#post1870633429), your extensive verbiage thus far still summarizes as:

Step 1. I've redefined infinity
Step 2. Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.
Step 926. Therefore, get praying you bozos.

Kindly address steps 3 through 925. You've been witholding full disclosure pending granular and progressive agreement, which never came --- and was never likely to. I offered early to suspend judgment on the foundations of your claims, but I asked you to clarify the relevance of your ultimate message. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. In order to help your audience stay in engaged through a long course of discussion, you could at least foreshadow some sense of the worth of your final product --- particularly when you begin with claims of such an allegedly revolutionary nature. So far, nada.

I've asked in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870636374#post1870636374) and this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870635404#post1870635404) for you to bridge the vast gulf between your theoretical "inescapably singular distanceless ACA" and any direct communication with humankind as to His/Her/Its meaning. No reply.

Now, up come the biblical references (surprise, surprise), with no comment on how in the world they derive any authority from your "proof". You spew longwinded trails of "evidence", and then leap to a conclusion that in no way follows your previous line of discussion. It's enough to give one a "sense" of dizzying nausea.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's difficult. Very difficult.

Argumentum ad misericordiam


Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm specifically interested in the words as spoken by Jesus. I challenge you to find anything said by him which opposes my own philosophy.

How about: (all quotes from Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/))

Mark 14:61-62
“61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

Luke 22:66-69
66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Matthew 8:11
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

Tell me how “at the right hand� is not a designation of spatial position. Tell me how Matthew 8:11 is not a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of your doctrine of “all is god�

***

Matthew 5:19
“19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.�

Why the differentiation? If they are all “one� in the kingdom of heaven, why did he use the words “least� and “great� in comparison?

***

Matthew 5:29
“29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.“

Matthew 6:25
25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

B-O-D-Y. Not “ego�. Note the word “more� in 6:25- not “instead of.

***

Matthew 6:16
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Matthew 6: 19-20
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Why the differentiation? Doesn’t sound like a “singularity� to me.

***

Really, this could go on until I quoted all of the four gospels. It is pretty clear that Jesus preached a physical earth and a non-physical, separate heaven. Why don’t you show which verses you think DO support your delusion.

[RebeccaBradley]

Hi, LIfegazer. I appreciate your taking the time to respond at last to the questions in this thread, including mine; though when I read your reply carefully, I was let down to see how little you actually told us. Nothing concrete about your plans to implement your philosophy – just that you plan to soldier on in the same old way, despite the failure of your tactics so far. What a waste of your passion and intelligence.

You say you are out to destroy the human ego; but I’ve noticed you use the term equivocally:
1. the self of an individual; the conscious subject.
2. conceit, self-pride; the perception of self as the centre of the universe, and one’s own interests as paramount.

The first sense is not pejorative, the second often is. When you speak of disdaining the human ego, do you mean sense-1, sense-2, or both? Whichever it is, I have to agree with the Wiccan: your postings on this forum display a whole lot of sense-2 ego-tripping.

Further, I think a number of us on this board would actually agree with you that the sense-1 ego is a kind of illusion. Where we wouldn’t agree, is on where those illusions are “situated� – I would say in the realm of the philosophical realists, you would say in God’s dream. I, for one, am okay with the position that my personality is an emergent property of the functioning of my brain – and that once those jolly old synapses stop crackling, ‘I’ will no longer exist. In that connection, I like this quote from Susan Blackmore, concluding her research into NDEs and OBEs:

“We are biological organisms, evolved in fascinating ways for no purpose at all and with no end in any mind. We are simply here and this is how it is. I have no self and ‘I’ own nothing. There is no one to die. There is just this moment, and now this and now this.� (Dying to Live)

You also make no distinction between the different senses of “materialism�.
1. Interest in and desire for money, possessions, etc., rather than spiritual or ethical values.
2. The doctrine that matter is the only reality and that the mind, the emotions, etc., are merely functions of it.
3. The rejection of any religious or supernatural account of things.

Many of us on this board would subscribe to one or both of 2 and 3, but (contra to 1) are passionately interested in ethical values, and not actively pursuing wealth. One can be a philosophical materialist without being greedy. Most of us have quite modest aspirations – enough money to keep our kids healthy and educated, and ourselves a burden to nobody, now and in old age. If that is sense-1 materialism in your books, so be it. But bear in mind that you too, unless you’re a Breatharian or philosophically able to transcend your body’s need for food and shelter, are probably a de facto sense-1 materialist.

As for devoting to your life to disseminating the truth, I get the impression you’re not trying to persuade us of anything. If you were, you’d be assessing your failure to do so, and looking around for more effective methods. I think you’re seeking attention, and we’re giving it to you in fair trade for the entertainment you provide.

I actually have more to say, but I have to go feed some people now. Later? :)

Rebecca

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
I, for one, am okay with the position that my personality is an emergent property of the functioning of my brain – and that once those jolly old synapses stop crackling, ‘I’ will no longer exist. In that connection, I like this quote from Susan Blackmore, concluding her research into NDEs and OBEs:

“We are biological organisms, evolved in fascinating ways for no purpose at all and with no end in any mind. We are simply here and this is how it is. I have no self and ‘I’ own nothing. There is no one to die. There is just this moment, and now this and now this.� (Dying to Live)

Susan Blackmore has no idea about 'reality'.
Read what I said to z-dragon when he bombarded me with similar beliefs to yours and hers:-

(1) Science knows nothing about a world beyond the sense of one. In fact, science is the study of the order of sensed-things - not real things. Science cannot prove the existence of an external reality.
(2) Science cannot prove that we are physical entities. Given my philosophy relating the distinction between sensed-things and real things, I should not have to explain this to you in any more detail than this.
(3) There is no proper explanation for how physical motion transforms into abstract experience, or how abstract experience is recognised by 4-dimensional matter.

Susan Blackmore cannot prove a single thing she says. Neither can you. The fact that you "like what she says" is just reflective of your own inability to reason combined with closedmindedness.
You accuse me of failing when, in fact, it is people such as yourself who have failed me. You won't listen to me because you don't want to listen to me. That has nothing to do with my credibility to reason.

[Z]

Alas, if only what you said were true, Bob.

Believe it or not, I do listen - very carefully - to everything you are saying. I listen because I have a hope - mind, barely the thinnest of hopes - that somewhere in your ranting you will, in fact, stumble on the final proof of God. Yet so far, you stumble only over your own ignorance and close-minded interpretations of 'reality'.

You say that Susan Blackmore cannot 'prove' what she claims. Well, my friend, neither can you 'prove' what you claim. In fact, your very first premise dissolves all hope of any proof or disproof - thus, leading many of us to wonder, what's the point?

Still - you are entertaining, at least.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
In fact, your very first premise dissolves all hope of any proof or disproof - thus, leading many of us to wonder, what's the point?

What premise would that be and why is it wrong?

[RebeccaBradley]

The roast is in, the veggies are on, I can chat for a few minutes. My, you are a prickly one, aren't you!

I'm sorry, but the failure is yours. How can I have failed you, when I don't owe you anything? Unless you're saying I have a moral obligation to be convinced by you, which would be a fine example of sense-2 egotism. I'm reminded of the story of the proud mum watching a military parade: "Oh look, they're all out of step but my son John!"

And actually, in common with a large number of people on this board, I have listened to you. In fact, I've spent far too many irrecoverable hours trying to puzzle out what you've been saying, when I could have been doing far more productive things. Like knitting. The only thing you've convinced me of is that you have delusions of grandeur, your own personal dictionary, and far too much time on your hands. I'm not surprised that you've started comparing yourself to Jesus. (As if that would impress many people on this board.)

Which reminds me! Your gospel challenge! How about John 3:6 -
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Implies dualism, wouldn't you say?

OR Matthew 10: 35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. An aim which does not sound much like your goal of spiritually uniting humanity.

That's it, break over. I have some chores to delegate. Rebecca

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What premise would that be and why is it wrong?

(1) Science knows nothing about a world beyond the sense of one. In fact, science is the study of the order of sensed-things - not real things. Science cannot prove the existence of an external reality.

Nor can it 'prove' the existence of an internal reality. It is not science's goal to 'prove' anything. Proofs are for mathematics, logic, and courts. Science studies what it considers reality, internal or external. It cannot study non-existent things or things considered beyond existence It cannot be used to make determinations about whether what we sense is real or a simulated reality.

Still, it is so very far superior to any subjective or introspective method (including raw logic and philosophy) in studying and uncovering underlying order in this reality that it is not worth mentioning. If you don't agree with this, then you are the one with a closed mind.

And herein lies your greatest obstacle. How are you going to convince anyone of the superiority of your philosophy if is has not a shred of backing evidence whatsoever? As I and just about everyone else has noted, philosophy is a logical meandering whose only success is wherein it agrees with objective experience. What other means is there to show that something has a bearing on reality than by comparing it to reality - the only reality to which we can subject to tests and compare evidence? You would have us pretend that reality is an illusion and adopt your unevidenced, unproven, unfalsifiable subjective reasoning in the place of unmitigated success. Why would someone be so stupid to do such an idiotic thing?

Robert

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What premise would that be and why is it wrong?

Well, the premise that the only reality we can know is the sensed-reality, and that no 'true reality' exists beyond our sense of one. The problem with this premise is, that if no reality exists beyond our sense of one, then no amount of reasoning, logic, or anything else can tell us one single thing about 'true reality'. In fact, every argument that you have followed this concept with is based either on observed things about this sensed-reality, or on abstract thinking that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. So no other part of your theorems becomes relevant, since you have already invalidated any means we have whatsoever to reason out any conclusions.

This does not mean that your premise is 'wrong' - it may very well be true. But if it is, then we can know absolutely nothing, and therefore, such an existence is irrelevant, so we might as well treat our illusionary 'sensed-reality' as if it were 100% real.

[Z]

Thank you Robert, I see you have summed it up nicely for Bob.

:D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
I'm sorry, but the failure is yours. How can I have failed you, when I don't owe you anything?

If you want to read and criticise my philosophy, then you owe it to me to understand that Susan Blackmore is not a very bright person when it comes to discussing the reality of existence. [Explanation given]
You owe it to me to empty your mind of your unfounded beliefs.
You owe it to me to open your mind to a new way of thinking.
Then, you owe it to me to explain why my reasoning is incorrect or to explain why your own ideas are correct.

If you do not do these things and still criticise my philosophy, then you have failed me as my audience. Miserably so.

I'm not surprised that you've started comparing yourself to Jesus. (As if that would impress many people on this board.)

You're not very bright, are you? The only thing I've compared to Jesus is his sayings and my philosophy.

OR Matthew 10: 35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. An aim which does not sound much like your goal of spiritually uniting humanity.

If all is God, then you have no father, no mother, no daughter-in-law. To treat a small band of people as "your family" is to fail in recognising God as all.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
(1) Science knows nothing about a world beyond the sense of one. In fact, science is the study of the order of sensed-things - not real things. Science cannot prove the existence of an external reality.

Nor can it 'prove' the existence of an internal reality.

The proof is self-evident. The universe is an introspective reality and an abstract one at that.

Science studies what it considers reality, internal or external.

Science has always sought an external agent as the cause for any perceived effect.
You only have to read Susan Blackmore's quote in Rebecca's post to hear the prevailing beliefs of your average scientist.

It cannot study non-existent things or things considered beyond existence It cannot be used to make determinations about whether what we sense is real or a simulated reality.

It's a lie to declare that science hasn't influenced the philosophy of materialism or that materialism hasn't influenced the minds of scientists.

Still, it is so very far superior to any subjective or introspective method (including raw logic and philosophy) in studying and uncovering underlying order in this reality

In what 'reality'?
If science has nothing to say about reality, then what is science saying about anything?
And what exactly is science superior to if it contributes nothing to our understanding of reality?

How are you going to convince anyone of the superiority of your philosophy if is has not a shred of backing evidence whatsoever?

What sort of evidence are you after? A miracle?

What other means is there to show that something has a bearing on reality than by comparing it to reality

"Comparing it to reality"? What reality would that be? I thought science knew nothing about reality?

Your post is full of contradictions and quite a few lies. To deny the science-materialism marriage is just laughable. Half the members in this forum think that science is their only hope of comprehending 'reality'. Yet if what we sense is an abstract construction - which it is - then science can only help us to identify the underlying-order inherent within UNreality!!

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The proof is self-evident. The universe is an introspective reality and an abstract one at that.

No, the proof is not 'self-evident' - especially if, as you claim, there is no 'self'.


If science has nothing to say about reality, then what is science saying about anything?
And what exactly is science superior to if it contributes nothing to our understanding of reality?

As you like to say, science studies the order among sensed-things. If those sensed-things are representative of reality, as we believe, then it contributed GREATLY to our understanding of that reality.

If, however, sensed-things represent nothing at all (an UNreality), then nothing at all can contribute to our understanding of reality.

You only have two options, Bob. Either 1) our senses provide us a fairly accurate portrayal of Reality, and we can trust what we can learn from our senses, or 2) our 'senses' are painting an illusion in which we are trapped, and we can never, under any circumstances, perceive a true 'reality' beyond our senses. But if 2) is true, then any 'reality' is thus irrelevant, and we might as well treat our sensed-reality as true-reality.

What sort of evidence are you after? A miracle?

The fact is, you have precluded any evidence whatsoever. Our only means, at all, of learning the 'truth' you are trying to teach is just to believe you at face value. There can never be any evidence whatsoever of what you claim.

Yet if what we sense is an abstract construction - which it is - then science can only help us to identify the underlying-order inherent within UNreality!!

'Abstract' means 'representing nothing'. Obviously, this 'reality' we perceive represents something - even if in only an illusionary sense. Ergo, use of 'abstract' is erroneous.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, the proof is not 'self-evident' - especially if, as you claim, there is no 'self'.

I have never claimed that there is no self. My claim is that you do not realise who you are.

[Anathema]

I resign myself to the conclusion you are a delusional git. I have no further time for your masturbatory nonsense.

[c4ts]

I've translated Aristotle's Metaphysics from the original Greek, and it made a lot more sense than Lifegazer's English. It's like you can't get a straight answer out of that guy. I ask him to just relate his first post to God, and instead of just doing it, he makes a lot of cryptic implications and gets angry with me.

[Paul]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If all is God, then you have no father, no mother, no daughter-in-law. To treat a small band of people as "your family" is to fail in recognising God as all.
Have you explained this position to your imaginary family?


Again, if this reality is real, how would your non-reality be any different from our perspective, and how could we ever show either?
And if it wouldn't and we couldn't, then why bother?


I have never claimed that there is no self.
How can there be self if we are god and god is us and everyone is everything and everything is nothing?


science can only help us to identify the underlying-order inherent within UNreality!!
"Come see the underlying-order inherent in the UNreality. Help, help, I'm being repressed."



Anathema, how about something more classical?

Perhaps "crusty botch of nature!", "poisonous bunch-back'd toad!" or more appropriately "[You] speak an infinite deal of nothing."

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If you want to read and criticise my philosophy, then you owe it to me to understand that Susan Blackmore is not a very bright person when it comes to discussing the reality of existence. [Explanation given]

You owe it to me to empty your mind of your unfounded beliefs.
You owe it to me to open your mind to a new way of thinking.
Then, you owe it to me to explain why my reasoning is incorrect or to explain why your own ideas are correct.

If you do not do these things and still criticise my philosophy, then you have failed me as my audience. Miserably so.

You're not very bright, are you? The only thing I've compared to Jesus is his sayings and my philosophy.

If all is God, then you have no father, no mother, no daughter-in-law. To treat a small band of people as "your family" is to fail in recognising God as all.


Very interesting. I'm quite chuffed to see I've joined the not-overly-select club of people whom you consider not very bright. One of us should design a club t-shirt.

Okay, so it seems you DO think I have a moral obligation to believe you. Sorry, no. By putting your ideas on a public forum, you open them up to scrutiny and critique, but nobody is obliged even to read them, much less be convinced by them. As it happens, I did read a blinding number of your posts, with great interest - but I also read those answering you, and I found them more convincing. I am no more obliged to believe you than I am obliged to send my banking data to that nice man from the Nigerian Petroleum Ministry who emailed me today.

As it happens, if you check back, I was not criticizing your philosophy so much as wondering how you planned to implement it. Do you need all six billion (or so) of us to accept it? What about babies and small children - the brain-damaged - the schizophrenic - the sociopathic - our fellow hominoids, the chimpanzees - how about cats, for Pete's sake? Are animals part of our dream, or are we part of theirs? Are they God too? How far you have thought it through? And I must say, if you can't convince a bunch of reasonably literate people who share your general culture and language, then I wish you luck with the rest of the world.

BTW, I was travelling much of the last two years, and missed any discussion you might have had about Susan Blackmore's research. So I'd appreciate it if you'd post me a link to the explanation mentioned above.

As for the comparison with Jesus, I stand corrected. How silly of me to think you might liken yourself to a self-educated messiah who claimed an exclusive on the truth, had contempt for unbelievers, and yearned for converts. (But before you idiosyncratically reinterpret the verse from Matthew, you might try checking the context.)

This is from the heart. I say again, this is a waste of your passion and intelligence. And I'm sad for you that your relationship broke up over it.

Rebecca

[Z]

Ah, those wacky Nigerian bondsmen... I think, if each of us accepts just one proposal from the Nigerians and forward all funds to the U.S. Government, we'd be debt-free forever!

:D

[RebeccaBradley]

But - but I'm Canadian...! That's okay, neighbour, we can share. :D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
Very interesting. I'm quite chuffed to see I've joined the not-overly-select club of people whom you consider not very bright. One of us should design a club t-shirt.

No comment about the actual passage, I see, which you were convinced was at-odds with world unity.

Okay, so it seems you DO think I have a moral obligation to believe you. Sorry, no.

I've already told you that I don't think you have a moral obligation to believe me and I thoroughly explained why.
But if you want to criticise my philosophy, you certainly have a moral obligation to address that philosophy... something you seem incapable of.

By putting your ideas on a public forum, you open them up to scrutiny and critique,

Where's the scrutiny?

but nobody is obliged even to read them, much less be convinced by them.

I never said that they did. You tell alot of lies don't you Rebecca?

As it happens, I did read a blinding number of your posts, with great interest - but I also read those answering you, and I found them more convincing.

WHY?
I understand that 'reason' is an alien concept to you, but don't make yourself look like an idiot by constantly criticising a philosophy without reason.

I am no more obliged to believe you than I am obliged to send my banking data to that nice man from the Nigerian Petroleum Ministry who emailed me today.

I think you should stick to knitting Rebecca.

BTW, I was travelling much of the last two years, and missed any discussion you might have had about Susan Blackmore's research. So I'd appreciate it if you'd post me a link to the explanation mentioned above.

I've already explained to you why Susan Blackmore was talking through her bum. I don't need to read a single word of her works to explain to you why that quote of hers is garbage. Science is not a philosophy and tells us absolutely nothing about 'reality'.

This is from the heart. I say again, this is a waste of your passion and intelligence.

The heart does not know how to reason.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Where's the scrutiny?

In the OP, you sanctimonious little pillock.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
In the OP, you sanctimonious little pillock.
I was talking to her.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I was talking to her.

Of couse you were. Because your prepubescent genitalia lacks the necessary testosterone output to answer even a single one of my questions in the OP. You are a coward and a fraud.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

But if you want to criticise my philosophy, you certainly have a moral obligation to address that philosophy... something you seem incapable of.
I never said that they did. You tell alot of lies don't you Rebecca?
I understand that 'reason' is an alien concept to you, but don't make yourself look like an idiot by constantly criticising a philosophy without reason.

I think you should stick to knitting Rebecca.

I've already explained to you why Susan Blackmore was talking through her bum. I don't need to read a single word of her works to explain to you why that quote of hers is garbage. Science is not a philosophy and tells us absolutely nothing about 'reality'.

The heart does not know how to reason.

But apparently your heart knows how to ditch reason in favour of insult and personal attacks as usual.
Be like lifegazer, realise you are god then you too can spread personal abuse and vitriol everywhere you go.

[Z]

No, just grandly self-deluded.

Which is sad - in embracing his pseudo-philosophy, he loses everything which most of us value as dear, and gains nothing whatsoever - not even followers or a bolstering of his ego. Yet, you either have to admire his dogged persistence - or laugh at his dogged stupidity.

Let's face it - we all have trouble understanding LG because he has a different set of equations than we do.

To LG:

science = illusions, lies, brainwashing
philosophy = truth
sensed-reality = annoying illusion full of 'rules' and 'concepts' that go against his fantasy of what reality should be
reason = chain of mental acrobatics and misused terminology, applied with a liberal disdain for science and history, to further support his own fantasy of what reality should be.

So as long as we keep looking to what science has demonstrated to us as truth (or at least, highly consistant theorems), he will continue to ignore what we have to say. He still hasn't dealt with the idea that a 0-dimensional object does NOT require reality to be o-dimensional as well. He still hasn't come to terms with the fact that an infinite space does NOT require an infinite distance between fixed points. He still has NEVER ONCE addressed the fact that, if our 'sensed-reality' is not a representation of true reality, we can't know, reason, or even fantasize about what true reality really is - and his philosophy REMAINS ungrounded and irrelevant.

Heck, he still hasn't demonstrated why, even if every word he says is true, it should matter one whit to anyone.

He's living in La-La Land, and unless we're willing to join him there, we're all just plonkers. Whatever the heck THAT is.

[Piscivore]

Is it just me, or does our Mr. Lifegazer exhibt the same sort of breakdown of his social being as your typical "alien abductee"?

1) He has an experience (in this case, his revelation that "God is existence")
2) He is insufficiently educated to realise that:
.....a) this experience is not unique
.....b) this experience is not what it appears
3) He affords this experience more import that it deserves
4) He begins to dwell on the experience, social life begins to suffer.
5) He assigns further importance to the experience, and his "quest" to understand it, in order to justify the damage he is doing to himself socially
6) 4) & 5) repeat each other in an escalating viscious circle
7) His "quest" replaces all other sources of positive ego reinforcement - he thinks the "quest makes him "special"
.....a) He begins to see his "suffering" (loss of social contact) as justifying the "quest".
.....b) facts and evidence that deny the validity of his "research" are dismissed, as any invalidation of his quest would mean the sacrifices made in the quest were futile.
8) He becomes so deeply enmeshed in the delusion that he begins to seek validation from others

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No comment about the actual passage, I see, which you were convinced was at-odds with world unity.

Uh, it is, actually. So did you check the context, like I suggested? The bit about coming, not with peace, but with a sword? And making foes of one's own household?

And while we're on the subject of "no comments", I notice you are intriguingly selective about what you choose to reply to, both in my posts and everybody else's. No comment on "that which is born of flesh etc."? Are you conceding your equivocal use of "materialism" and "ego"? Do you have any idea whatsoever about implementing your world-saving philosophy?

I've already told you that I [b]don't think you have a moral obligation to believe me and I thoroughly explained why.
But if you want to criticise my philosophy, you certainly have a moral obligation to address that philosophy... something you seem incapable of.

And I will repeat, my original questions regarded the practical implementation of your philosophy, starting with an account of how your life differs from those of us god-denying materialist idiots...a question you seem incapable of addressing.

Where's the scrutiny?

On all the threads of yours I've ever bravely slogged through. Also, what Piscivore said. :p

I never said that they did. You tell alot of lies don't you Rebecca?

Great, now I'm a liar. I'll add that to my "LIFEGAZER THINKS I'M NOT VERY BRIGHT" t-shirt.


WHY?
I understand that 'reason' is an alien concept to you, but don't make yourself look like an idiot by constantly criticising a philosophy without reason.

I think you should stick to knitting Rebecca.

Actually, I'm a crummy knitter. If it's all the same to you, LG, I'll stick to writing books, college teaching, and archaeological research.

I've already explained to you why Susan Blackmore was talking through her bum. I don't need to read a single word of her works to explain to you why that quote of hers is garbage. Science is not a philosophy and tells us absolutely nothing about 'reality'.

Oh, you mean that stuff in blue in your post on page 1? Was that supposed to be a critique of Susan Blackmore's research? Oo-er. Are we to infer, then, that you have not read any of her books, and know bugger-all about her work except that little quote of mine? LG, what can I say? You're a phenomenon.

Uh - can somebody else explain to him about "from the heart" being a metaphor? It's time for my beer.

Rebecca

[uruk]

Well at least we know why he clings so tenaciously to his hackneyed "philosophy. He's destroyed everything in his life for the sake of this meaningless drivel and he has nothing to show for it. It truely is a pity. What have you gotten from it LG? Has it "enriched" your life? Has denying this "reality" made you any happier?

The manner of your writing shows you to be very self-centered, insecure, and a megalo-maniacal, ego-maniac. The fact that you respond to criticizims of your "philosophy" and knowlege with belittleing insults alone exhibits your need to feel superior over others.

Quite simply this obsession you have is destroying your life.
Try as you might, you will never be more than a blip in the greater scheme of things. That you keep plodding your philosophy around on forums shows how small minded or ignorant you are.

If you want to take this big time. you need to play the game by the rules. These forums are small fry; ultimately meaningless. The universities are where the big fish of philosophy are. What you need to do to be taken seriously is get yourself a degree in the established stuff. Nothing gives you credibility and simpathy in the those you wish to convert when you show and can prove that you really understand their philosophies. Really learn what it is the establishement believes.
You want to be a rule breaker. Pablo picasso once said that if you want to break the rules (and be taken seriously), you first have to learn the rules. Otherwise people are going to think your talking out your backside.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by uruk
If you want to take this big time. you need to play the game by the rules. These forums are small fry; ultimately meaningless. The universities are where the big fish of philosophy are.

You forget that becoming educated would tear down this house of cards his self esteem is based on, and cannot be allowed. Thus, he excuses himself from becoming educated by declaring all post-secondary education as "establishment brainwashing".

[uruk]

You forget that becoming educated would tear down this house of cards his self esteem is based on, and cannot be allowed. Thus, he excuses himself from becoming educated by declaring all post-secondary education as "establishment brainwashing".
I made it through my poli-sci class all the while thinking my prof. was an idiot. I just wrote down what I thought he wanted to hear and got through with a C.
O.K. maybe I didn't always get it right. Point is, If LG has the cajones, he can do it without getting brainwashed. Just as long as he doesn't opening his mouth until after graduation. Once he's got the letters after his name, then people will take his shlock with slightly more credibility.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by uruk
I made it through my poli-sci class all the while thinking my prof. was an idiot.

I can imagine. :D You've heard the saying that all English teachers are frustrated novelists? I think that similarlly, all poly-sci teachers are frustrated demagogues.

On which side of the spectrum did he fall?

ETA: Of course, if lifegazer had cojones, he'd face the iniquities in his philosophy with something other than argumentum ad bellum.

[Z]

Eh, maybe he'll finally do what he said he'd do back in March, and leave us for 'that other forum' that he and Iacchus were discussing.

[uruk]

On which side of the spectrum did he fall?
Frustrated demagouge and a pseudo-conservative. This was during a time when it was "hip" to be conservative in predominately liberal university.
He was envious of a fellow colleauge who was tapped by the local media to do "hard-hitting" local politcal commentary during elections. It was quite entertaining to watch two bloated, tenured egos sparring for public masterbation time.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
Oh, you mean that stuff in blue in your post on page 1? Was that supposed to be a critique of Susan Blackmore's research? Oo-er. Are we to infer, then, that you have not read any of her books, and know bugger-all about her work except that little quote of mine? LG, what can I say? You're a phenomenon.

You're not very bright Rebecca. Twice I've explained to you why science knows nothing about 'reality' yet you still don't understand that science isn't a philosophy.
It doesn't matter what work Ms. Blackmore has done. She knows sweet fanny adams about reality. She's as brainwashed as you.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're not very bright Rebecca. Twice I've explained to you why science knows nothing about 'reality' yet you still don't understand that science isn't a philosophy.
It doesn't matter what work Ms. Blackmore has done. She knows sweet fanny adams about reality. She's as brainwashed as you.

According to you, NOBODY knows a thing about reality. But science knows about sensed-reality. Show me another reality that isn't 'sensed reality' and we'll talk. Otherwise, you're blowing more smoke into the flames.

Frankly, though, I hate to say it, but I've grown rather sad now, considering that this discussion can only lead to more frustration and heartache for you. You've sacrificed three years of your life, your love, probably your friends, family, job, for a philosophy that, ultimately, was not well thought-out and is proving to have absolutely no positive repurcussions for you to follow. It's sad, and I feel morose contributing to the discussion. For if I lie, and try to support you, I only build your glass walls higher; yet if I tell the truth, I only add to the cracks in your foundation. I'd just as soon not be here when your castle comes crashing down.

[uruk]

On that note, I want to repeat my questions to LG:

What have you gotten from it (your philosophy) LG? (how)Has it "enriched" your life? Has denying this "reality" made you any happier?

[The Mighty Thor]

LG I think you should stick to knitting Rebecca.

I wonder how this sad guy lost the love of his life?:(

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're not very bright Rebecca. Twice I've explained to you why science knows nothing about 'reality' yet you still don't understand that science isn't a philosophy.
It doesn't matter what work Ms. Blackmore has done. She knows sweet fanny adams about reality. She's as brainwashed as you.

(Sigh.) LG, where did I say that science is a philosophy? As it happens, I have read a fair amount of philosophy and science and, for that matter, the philosophy of science. My point there was that if you want to be taken at all seriously, you need to know a bit about something before you trash it. I did you the courtesy of reading what you had to say - vast amounts of it. So have others on this board. Whereas your pride in your apparent ignorance is breathtaking.

Now, because I'm quite patient (and yes, normally quite pleasant), I'll restate my central questions once more, in simple terms. Have you thought through how you plan to implement your philosophy, beyond futzing around on these forums? And since your enlightenment, how does your life differ from those of us god-denying materialists? And I'd also be interested in your answers to Uruk's related questions:

What have you gotten from it (your philosophy) LG? (how)Has it "enriched" your life? Has denying this "reality" made you any happier?

It would be nice if you answered without abuse and equivocation.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
(Sigh.) LG, where did I say that science is a philosophy? As it happens, I have read a fair amount of philosophy and science and, for that matter, the philosophy of science. My point there was that if you want to be taken at all seriously, you need to know a bit about something before you trash it. I did you the courtesy of reading what you had to say - vast amounts of it. So have others on this board. Whereas your pride in your apparent ignorance is breathtaking.

Once again, this statement demonstrates your inability to distinguish between science and philosophy.
Why?
Because you keep moaning about me not reading Blackmore's works.
What did I say to you earlier? Science is not a philosophy. Science seeks to discern the order of SENSED things. Or, science seeks to discern the order of the abstract universe existing within awareness. Science cannot study 'reality' since science can only observe sensed entities and events.
Hence:
[color=red]Science tells us nothing about REALITY[color].

Do you understand yet? Do you understand why reading ALL the science books that were ever written will not change what I have just said to you?
No scientist in existence knows a thing about ~reality~. Blackmore should be stricken off for teaching our kids unfounded lies.

[AWPrime]

LG You can't blame science for not teaching your flawed idea of reality.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by AWPrime
LG You can't blame science for not teaching your flawed idea of reality.
Tell me what you think science knows about reality.
Tell me why you think my previous post to Rebecca is flawed.

Condemnation without reason is just pointless, exhibiting your probable inability to critically and openly examine the facts.

[AWPrime]

Science has been able to provide us with mathematicals and physical laws which help us understand and predict reality.


As for your post. You assume that philosophy provides all the answers for reality. This is wrong, philosophy is most usefull for finding a good way to act.

[Wudang]

lifegazer, it has been explained to you several times in different threads that one of the first things that will be covered in any elementary course on philosophy, and especially the philosophy of science, will be the distinction between your "sensed-things" and whatever "reality" actually is. It's not your blinding new discovery. For you to continually use this as an excuse for your unwillingness to borrow a book from your local library is dishonest.
By the way, since you didn't answer last time - what do you think "by default" means?
And again, why should we embrace your philosophy when it is obvious from your behaviour that it does not produce peace and goodwill but instead, from the one example we have, the believers love to insult people and belittle anyone who dares to show they have any learning?
And again, if neither of us exists except as dreams of the Mind, what separates our experiences? If it is god, who are we pathetic little fragments of a dream to question his dream? If you believe you don't exist why are you sensitive to any perceived slight against you? Why in fact do you become angry at the rest of us if you believe we are all one? Answer: because you don't.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Science has been able to provide us with mathematicals and physical laws which help us understand and predict reality.

Voila: talking to brick walls.
For the gazillionth time, science deals with the order existing amongst the abstract/intangible/unreal (sensed) world within your mind.
No scientist has ever observed the reality of any "thing".

This is a fact which the masses are seemingly incapable of grasping.
The truth of the matter is that science is the study of the order which exists amongst the UNreal (illusory) world embraced by awareness.

Science has no dealings with a real world. None whatsoever. Any scientist who tells you otherwise is an absolute liar.

[RebeccaBradley]

(Siiiiigh.) All right already, LG. I'm a fool. Susan Blackmore is a fool. All scientists are fools and liars. Science is useless. Only your philosophy is true.

NOW will you answer my questions?

If you do, maybe I'll knit you a scarf.

[AWPrime]

You have yet to find a way to predict your reality.

It seems that your idea of reality it self is flawed.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by AWPrime
It seems that your idea of reality it self is flawed.
It does?
You have a habit of making judgements without explanation.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
(Siiiiigh.) All right already, LG. I'm a fool. Susan Blackmore is a fool. All scientists are fools and liars. Science is useless.

I never said that science was useless. I said that it tells us nothing about the nature of reality. If you are a fool, it's because of your stubborn resistence to this fact.

Only your philosophy is true.

Well you don't appear to have a philosophy to counter mine. Believing - without any reason to do so - in an existence beyond the introspective awareness of one, is not so much a philosophy but rather an act of ignorance, relying entirely upon faith (and perhaps desire) in the existence of the aforementioned reality.
Note that 'philosophy' is usually dependent upon a series of reasoned statements to support whatever it is you espouse to exist. I know for a fact that neither you nor Ms Blackmore can provide this forum with any such statements.

NOW will you answer my questions?

I'll have another look at them after this post.

If you do, maybe I'll knit you a scarf.
I'd prefer a jumper (sweater). ;)

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'd prefer a jumper (sweater). ;)

Sorry, no. My expertise in knitting does not extend past scarves. And they're usually lumpy. :(

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It does?
You have a habit of making judgements without explanation.

Yes most people give reality another definition. And you have yet to show how your belief is of any use in working with reality.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
lifegazer, it has been explained to you several times in different threads that one of the first things that will be covered in any elementary course on philosophy, and especially the philosophy of science, will be the distinction between your "sensed-things" and whatever "reality" actually is. It's not your blinding new discovery.

The number of people in this forum who think that science is the study of the order existing amongst 'reality' seems to contradict your assertion that it is "basic philosophy".
Indeed, I did discover this for myself but I wasn't the first to discover it. But that's irrelevant. It's not an issue. The issue is the consequence of this discovery and why science itself is affected by it.

For you to continually use this as an excuse for your unwillingness to borrow a book from your local library is dishonest.

A book about what?
Name a book which will prove that science is the study of a real world and I will read it.
Name a book which proves that the brain is the creator and recipient of abstract/intangible experiences and I will read it.
Name a book which proves that 'I' do not exist but am some epiphenonema of matter and I will read it.

We both know that no such books exist. So spare me the lecture about reading.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
Have you thought through how you plan to implement your philosophy, beyond futzing around on these forums?

I can do nothing other than spread the word, so to speak.
I've toyed with the idea of writing a book.

And since your enlightenment, how does your life differ from those of us god-denying materialists?

The purpose of my philosophy, ultimately, is the unification of humanity. I still live in a world that is divided against itself: continent against continent; country against country; city against city; man against man.
'My' life cannot really change unless all this changes.
Yet I devote my time to changing awareness and to inner growth and meditation. Realisation is not the destiny but the first step to finding the God in oneself... and inner growth.

[uruk]

Well you don't appear to have a philosophy to counter mine. Believing - without any reason to do so - in an existence beyond the introspective awareness of one,
This is precisely what you do. You have no sense or experiance of this "god singularity" yet you believe in it based on faulty reasoning.
Hell you've never even gone to educate yourself in basic philosophy. Your like an infant with a machine gun.

At least I can point to my "sensed" surroundings and say "this is my realty" Can you do the same to your "singular god" or his realm?


is not so much a philosophy but rather an act of ignorance, relying entirely upon faith (and perhaps desire) in the existence of the aforementioned reality.

Pure case of pot calling kettel "black".

A book about what?
Name a book which will prove that science is the study of a real world and I will read it.
Name a book which proves that the brain is the creator and recipient of abstract/intangible experiences and I will read it.
Name a book which proves that 'I' do not exist but am some epiphenonema of matter and I will read it.

So your saying that not even interested in what your opposition really thinks? You do not want to educate yourself on your opponents theories and beliefs but rather grope around in the dark making uneducated, baseless assumptions on what science and philosophy are really saying.
This is called willfull ignorance. This is a large reason why nobody here takes you seriously. This is also a large reason why your arguments and reasoning and your logic is so flawed and chaotic.

Good God! you won't even educated yourself in the proper use of words.

Would you trust a mechanic who pokes around your car guessing at what the tools he uses are for? Would you trust him if he didn't even know what the parts of an engine do much less what they are called? Would you believe him if he comes to you and says "that ding-a-mjingle in your hoozits is wacky" Would you believe him AND pay him? No you wouldn't.
So why should we believe or even listen to you if you don't even know what your talking about?
You pass judgnment on this Blackmore lady without even knowing what it is she is saying.
Willfull ignorance.


Oh yea, and answer the questions:
Have you thought through how you plan to implement your philosophy, beyond futzing around on these forums? And since your enlightenment, how does your life differ from those of us god-denying materialists?
What have you gotten from it (your philosophy) LG? (how)Has it "enriched" your life? Has denying this "reality" made you any happier?

oops, I see you responded while I was writting this

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The purpose of my philosophy, ultimately, is the unification of humanity. I still live in a world that is divided against itself: continent against continent; country against country; city against city; man against man.
'My' life cannot really change unless all this changes.

Isn't that convenient. How do you explain the thousands who have changed themselves, and their little part of the world, for the better without changing the entire world first? And without embracing your nihilistic philosophy?

The truth is, you are a coward making excuses for your personal failings.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
"Believing - without any reason to do so - in an existence beyond the introspective awareness of one"

This is precisely what you do. You have no sense or experiance of this "god singularity" yet you believe in it based on faulty reasoning.

My philosophy is founded upon a fact: that the universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).

So you see, the difference between my philosophy and yours is that my philosophy is founded upon an absolute fact whereas yours is founded upon absolute faith (in a reality beyond the one we are experiencing within ourselves).

At least I can point to my "sensed" surroundings and say "this is my realty" Can you do the same to your "singular god" or his realm?

But that's the point: your sensation of a universe is not a reality of a universe.

So your saying that not even interested in what your opposition really thinks?

Why can't you understand that science does not oppose my philosophy?
When you finally understand that science tells us nothing about the reality of a universe and that it tells us only of the sensation of a universe, you may begin to see that I am right.

There is not a science book in existence which can counter my philosophy. I could study science for a hundred years and it will not change a single thing I've said to you or Rebecca.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Why can't you understand that science does not oppose my philosophy?
When you finally understand that science tells us nothing about the reality of a universe and that it tells us only of the sensation of a universe, you may begin to see that I am right.

If I understand you correctly, science can merely tell us about this so-called "sensation" of the universe we live in - we may be able to take measurements from scientific instruments (or our senses), but these measurements are only of the sensed-universe we live in.

In fact, every method known to man merely takes measures of this sensed-universe you claim.

If this is indeed true, there is no way to learn anything about the REAL (non-sensed) universe, no matter what machines we invent or measurements we take. Sounds like we're stuck with your sensed-universe, regardless of any efforts to learn about the real universe.

If this is true, the sensed-universe and real universe are essentially identical, insofar as human measurement can take us. Therefore, they are interchangeable, and your concept of the sensed-universe is wholly and completely irrelevant.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Cosmo
If I understand you correctly, science can merely tell us about this so-called "sensation" of the universe we live in - we may be able to take measurements from scientific instruments (or our senses), but these measurements are only of the sensed-universe we live in.

That's entirely true.

If this is indeed true, there is no way to learn anything about the REAL (non-sensed) universe

One cannot sense reality, that is true. But there's no reason to say that there's no reason which can discern the exact nature of reality.
'Reality' is definitely beyond the limits of sensation, but not necessarily the limits of reason.
That is why philosophy - and not science - is the key to unveiling whatever it is reality may be.

Sounds like we're stuck with your sensed-universe, regardless of any efforts to learn about the real universe.

Do not assume that there is a universe of things beyond your sense of one. In fact, never assume anything.

If this is true, the sensed-universe and real universe are essentially identical, insofar as human measurement can take us. Therefore, they are interchangeable, and your concept of the sensed-universe is wholly and completely irrelevant.
If reason can explain that the whole of existence is the entity which sees this abstract universe within it, then reason will have unveiled 'God'.
Hardly "irrelevant" Cosmo.

[uruk]

My philosophy is founded upon a fact: that the universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).
I'm sorry, that is not a fact. It is more accurate to say that we have an abstract representation of a universe in our mind. This does not mean that the universe actually exists with in us. but rather a representation of a universe exists within us. We do not yet have a way of determining from where the sensory input from which we create this representation comes from.
Do YOU see the difference?
So you see, the difference between my philosophy and yours is that my philosophy is founded upon an absolute fact whereas yours is founded upon absolute faith (in a reality beyond the one we are experiencing within ourselves).
Your philosophy is not founded on absolute fact. You've simply gotten an old idea; "that we are not sure if the universe we percieve is really 'real'". Which is essentially just a notion to ponder.
Then you created this whole undetectable realm of a god that exists in a non-spacial realm that is homogenous and does not change yet imagines all of our existance based on that academic notion.
In actuality LG, your belief requires ALOT more faith than what I believe in.
I simply choose to believe that this universe I percieve is "actualy real". I can see it, I can touch it, I can smell it, I can talk to other people about it and they would agree on most aspects of I observe.
Your belief requires that we believe in a god and realm that we cannot detect or experiance.
Do YOU see the difference?

But that's the point: your sensation of a universe is not a reality of a universe.
I know, It is a representation of a universe. Wether that universe actually exists or not is just an academic argument. It serves no purpose but to give tenured philosophy professors something to stroke their beards about. Try as hard as I might, I cannot sense or percieve anything other than that universe. I cannot deny the affects it has on me. I will still get killed if a paint can falls on my head wether I'm aware of it or not. What do I gain by denying it's reality? What does it matter?
Why can't you understand that science does not oppose my philosophy?
Well you seem to take objection with science when it says that acausual events can occur, Or when it does not say anything about god, or that it existed long before human being came into being, or that the universe may not have had a "begining", or when it makes the assumption that the universe is real, or not say aything about being sensed or being within our mindsg.
I'd say that you really believe that science does go against your philosophy. That's why you have such disdain for it.
When you finally understand that science tells us nothing about the reality of a universe and that it tells us only of the sensation of a universe, you may begin to see that I am right.

Well science can tell us alot about this universe. And I believe this universe to be our reality since I can't experiance any other "reality". And I don't see a need to believe in another "reality" that I can't observe or experiance or even rationaly prove to exist. I'd say science can tell us alot about our reality.
I could study science for a hundred years and it will not change a single thing I've said to you or Rebecca. I think this says something more about you rather than it does about science.
The purpose of my philosophy, ultimately, is the unification of humanity. I still live in a world that is divided against itself: continent against continent; country against country; city against city; man against man.
Well I don't see how thinking that we and our reality is not real and that we are all the same god will change all that. You've never explained exactly how it would happen. As I have explained to you in another thread long ago; Even if I accept your philosophy, I still have live in this sensed world. I cannot change the rules. I still have to eat. I still need shelter from the elements. (I'm affected by them wether I believe their real or not) To deal with these things I need resources. Alot of our strife has to do with the distribution and the availability of these resources. And the availability of these resources are affect by things that are beyond our control. Or do you believe that if all of humanity were to believe in your philosophy (good luck on that, givin human nature) that something "magical" will happen and we won't need all that stuff?

'My' life cannot really change unless all this changes. So you admit that you too cannot deny the "reality" of this existance either. Why does your happiness and well being depend on others? How about trying to make your life better for yourself and those near you first, then worry about the world later. Charity begins at home. Remember? Right now it seems your world is pretty chaotic. Fix yours first.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do not assume that there is a universe of things beyond your sense of one. In fact, never assume anything.

Indeed. However, isn't this what you've been doing yourself - assuming the existence of a universe beyond our sensed one? If there are absolutely no means available to us for learning about this "real" universe, it becomes irrelevant.

You claim that "reason" can give us answers about the "real" universe. How so, and what sort of things will you conclude from this reasoning?

Keep in mind that all the reasoning you do in this area will be based off of knowledge from the sensed-universe. Apples and oranges - you cannot use one to draw conclusions about the other.

Example:
Imagine a child was raised in a sealed, controlled environment, in which there were absolutely no occurrances of the color red. If you asked him/her to use "reason" to deduce information about the color red, do you honestly think any answer would be forthcoming?

We live in, as you say, a "sensed-universe". We have no means of scientifically discovering anything about the real universe, save reason - and I fail to see how we could "reason" information about something with which we have no basis of experience.

PS - Even if there is a universe beyond our sensed universe, why do you assume that it is in any way different from (and therefore worthy of study) our sensed universe?

[Cosmo]

Oops, double post.

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I can do nothing other than spread the word, so to speak.
I've toyed with the idea of writing a book.

The purpose of my philosophy, ultimately, is the unification of humanity. I still live in a world that is divided against itself: continent against continent; country against country; city against city; man against man.
'My' life cannot really change unless all this changes.
Yet I devote my time to changing awareness and to inner growth and meditation. Realisation is not the destiny but the first step to finding the God in oneself... and inner growth.

LG, thank you for your civilized reply. :)

You've been informative about part of what I'm interested in, but not all. That is, we're all pretty well informed about the content of your philosophy; and you've stated its ultimate purpose, i.e., the unification of humanity (a goal which, by the way, few people on this board would quarrel with).

But though I'll agree the goal is great, I still do not see how you go from an abstruse (and debatable) logical proof to a practical path to world unity. Is it a sort of magical thing, where if everybody believes, the dreaming god will wake up, and we'll all be one? Or a kind of Hundredth Monkey thing, where only a proportion of people need to believe? Or a kind of theistic Buddhism, where we all decide to be nicer to each other because we're all God. Or what? Hpw far have you thought past the theoretical side?

And, to restate a question from above, whose consciousness is involved? Just humans? All humans? All hominoids? What, not cats? (If you've ever lived with even the illusion of a cat, you'll know what powerful personalities they are. :D) Pardon me if these questions seems naive or trivial, but I've always been more interested in application than theory. And if you want any chance of succeeding, remember there are lots of people like me you'd have to convince.

As for what you're doing now - again, thank you for being open. But I have to say, I think you're on a hiding to nothing. Trying to convince a few nonentities like us on an internet forum is not really productive; and yet you've given the impression that your mission to the JREF is a vital one, eg:

Listen good: My posts here are of the utmost importance. The relevance of these posts/threads is extremely important because the very survival of being mankind is dependent upon them being taken seriously. Hence, I don't take lightly to idiots strolling in and dismissing my words as "boring".

If you really think what you're doing is so important, I wonder that you're content with the life you describe.

Grrr, my son is hovering at my shoulder, yammering to bump me so he can check his email. Must summarize.

Yes, by all means write a book. Though as one who has been through the mill, I'd warn you to prepare yourself for hell on earth. If you think the JREF forum is a tough sell, wait till you hit the publishing industry. Believe me, there are people out there you won't want to be one with.

Second (and I cannot believe I'm saying this) - have you checked out the theosophists?

Rebecca

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The number of people in this forum who think that science is the study of the order existing amongst 'reality' seems to contradict your assertion that it is "basic philosophy".
Indeed, I did discover this for myself but I wasn't the first to discover it. But that's irrelevant. It's not an issue. The issue is the consequence of this discovery and why science itself is affected by it.

A book about what?
Name a book which will prove that science is the study of a real world and I will read it.
Name a book which proves that the brain is the creator and recipient of abstract/intangible experiences and I will read it.
Name a book which proves that 'I' do not exist but am some epiphenonema of matter and I will read it.

We both know that no such books exist. So spare me the lecture about reading.
No you just don't understand them.

And since your posts do not prove your philosophy then I should not read your posts? Curious.

Once again - as Upchurch pointed out many times before he apparently tired of your obtuseness - the rules you apply to dismissing the assumption that there is an external reality must apply to your own philosophy.

And you have yet to explain any effective mechanism that keeps my apparent thoughts from interfering with others apparent thoughts. Science and the assumption of external reality being roughly as it seems is one. That is why people suggest you read books - so you can see the explanations. You keep argiung with what you guess we're saying not what we're actually saying.

By the way. what do you mean by "by default"?

[Z]

I see that, now that all of his other 'arguments' have been dashed upon the rocks, Bob LG here is resorting to his 'no true reality' argument again.

I think Cosmo summed it up nicely: there is no significant difference between the real Universe and our sensed-representation of that universe within our awareness.

Point: Two observers who observe the same phenomenon have confirmed the reality of that phenomenon. Ergo, if two or more people have the same 'sensed-awareness' of a thing, that thing must be somewhat real. OR - a different phenomenon, also real, must exist to give the illusion of the perceived phenomenon, OR the observers themselves must be illusions. If we're all illusions, then nothing matters anyway.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've toyed with the idea of writing a book.

I'm sure:
http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20040922.gif (http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040922.html)

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally posted by Piscivore
I'm sure:
http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20040922.gif (http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040922.html)

Dammit! I hate having coffee up my nose!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Once again - as Upchurch pointed out many times before he apparently tired of your obtuseness - the rules you apply to dismissing the assumption that there is an external reality must apply to your own philosophy.

Incorrect. Compare the foundation of my philosophy with the foundation of materialism:
My philosophy
The universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract-respresentation (sensed) of a universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).
Materialism
A real universe exists beyond the sense of one... and hence, beyond whatever it is that I am.

Now, the foundation of my philosophy is a fact: The sense of a thing is not the reality of a thing... and my (whatever it is that I am) awareness embraces every sensed-thing, meaning that the whole universe which I experience, exists within my awareness.
However, there is zero fact and zero reason to support the foundation of materialist-philosophy.

Simply put, you are wrong.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Incorrect. Compare the foundation of my philosophy with the foundation of materialism:
My philosophy
The whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract-respresentation (sensed) of a universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).
Materialism
A real universe exists beyond the sense of one... and hence, beyond whatever it is that I am.

Now, the foundation of my philosophy is a fact: The sense of a thing is not the reality of a thing... and my (whatever it is that I am) awareness embraces every sensed-thing, meaning that the whole universe which I experience, exists within my awareness.
However, there is zero fact and zero reason to support the foundation of materialist-philosophy.

Simply put, you are wrong.

Your awareness of the universe within only is percieved by yourself. It can therefore not be proven and used in any meaningfull way.

Because the 'outer' universe can be proven by the understanding of physics and used in a meaningfull way it has shown itself to be real.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Now, the foundation of my philosophy is a fact: The sense of a thing is not the reality of a thing... and my (whatever it is that I am) awareness embraces every sensed-thing, meaning that the whole universe which I experience, exists within my awareness.
However, there is zero fact and zero reason to support the foundation of materialist-philosophy.

As I pointed out before...

If you are correct, then there are no means available to us - nor will there ever be - for determining information about the non-sensed universe. All of our measurements, scientific or otherwise, are of the sensed-universe.

Nothing can ever be learned about the "real" universe. The sensed-universe and the real universe are therefore, for our purposes, identical. The concept of a sensed-universe is consequently irrelevent.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Incorrect. Compare the foundation of my philosophy with the foundation of materialism:
My philosophy
The universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract-respresentation (sensed) of a universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).
Materialism
A real universe exists beyond the sense of one... and hence, beyond whatever it is that I am.

Now, the foundation of my philosophy is a fact: The sense of a thing is not the reality of a thing... and my (whatever it is that I am) awareness embraces every sensed-thing, meaning that the whole universe which I experience, exists within my awareness.
However, there is zero fact and zero reason to support the foundation of materialist-philosophy.

Simply put, you are wrong.

Once again, misuse of the term, 'abstract'.

An 'abstract representation' is an oxymoron.

Further, your philosophical foundation is wrong - the 'whole universe' is not contained within your awareness, for there are many, many things within the Universe which are not, in turn, a subset of 'your awareness'. For example, there is no way, no way whatsoever, that you can tell me what is sitting on my desktop, between my two monitors; nor what is on top of my secondary monitor, nor what is contained in the cup directly in front of me, nor what color Hot Wheels car is sitting on my desktop at the moment. These things are not sensed by you, ergo, they are not a part of your 'sensed awareness'. They are, however, part of the Universe. Now, they are within MY sensed-awareness, but quite obviously, we do not share a common sensed-awareness.

The basis for your philosophy, AS STATED ABOVE, either a) creates the foundation for assuming there are some 6 billion plus universes, as well as an entire, separate universe of currently un-sensed objects and events; OR b) has to make some 'leap of faith' that blends ALL sensed-awareness universes into one meta-universe. You obviously choose b) and try to link all sensed-awarenesses by saying that all thinking beings are experiential dreams of 'God' - however, in doing so, you still are at a rather large lack, as you are thereby proposing a God with multiple personalities, no true omniscience, and completely contradictory to any known or reasoned systems by which any entity COULD have multiple, different experiences. Further, your philosophical foundation denies the use of language and common communication as a means of sharing sensed-awareness, and equally denies any mechanism by which the sensations of things which we perceive as being external to ourselves are transmitted into our awareness.

In short, your philosophical foundation chooses the more complicated and unrealistic of two choices. The more sensible approach would simply be to admit that your 'sensed-awareness' OF the universe is imparted to your awareness via your sensory input organs by various physical means (all observed by the same systems of sensed-awareness).

Consider (and I've said this before, but I doubt you'll reply to this any more than you have before): If, by some strange whim of this meta-God of yours, you should become both blind and deaf, and, while sitting in a local park, absorbing the welcome warmth of the distant sun (all sensed within your awareness, of course), a meteor should slam into you at full speed (say, upon reaching you, all that remained were a few small grains, unnoticed by the population and undetected by our radar) - would this meteor kill you? It does not exist within your sensed-awareness, and, by your philosophy, is not part of your universe. Ergo, if your philosophy were more than empty smoke, it could not harm you; it would not exist.

Yet I assure you, it would very much exist - it would probably kill you outright.

Consider, also, the implications of what you are claiming, in the long run: either the sensed-universe is a proper representation of a real universe, in which case it is in our best interests to be excellent to each other for common survival purposes; or all of this, including us, is merely a dream with no significance or importance, in which case there is no reason at all why we shouldn't behave however we wish - except that, regardless of which is true, we are trapped - utterly and inescapably - within this universe, in which case we STILL must be as excellent as we can be in order to 'survive' within this 'sensed-universe'. Certainly, your philosophy won't suddenly allow us to escape the boundaries of our sensed-universe; it won't allow us to transcend the need for resources, or affection, or protection. I highly doubt your philosophy will protect you from the cold, from hunger, from predatory beasts.

So, to summarize: your philosophy is unnecessarily complicated, unreasonably founded, and utterly irrelevant.

Repent, and 'reason' no more! :D

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Incorrect. Compare the foundation of my philosophy with the foundation of materialism:
My philosophy
The universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract-respresentation (sensed) of a universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).

All disciplines based on "internal perceptions" have a major -and fatal- flaw:

How can you be sure that you are not experiencing an illusion? How can you be sure that this "reality", this "universe that exists inside you", you claim to have discovered is not actually an illusion or a misunderstanding. Our mind and our perceptions (external and internal) are not exactly flawless.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Materialism
A real universe exists beyond the sense of one... and hence, beyond whatever it is that I am.

Ain´t this option much more reasonable? Are you sure that your awareness includes everything? Are you aware of every subatomic particel that compose your body? Sure, living in a vast indiferent universe it can turn us in to nothing. But, still, its much more reasonable, except for bloated egoes.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Now, the foundation of my philosophy is a fact: The sense of a thing is not the reality of a thing... and my (whatever it is that I am) awareness embraces every sensed-thing, meaning that the whole universe which I experience, exists within my awareness.
However, there is zero fact and zero reason to support the foundation of materialist-philosophy.

Simply put, you are wrong.

This fact is far from being accepted as being so by a lot of smart people that have burnt a lot of neurons on the issue. Please, don´t even try to use the "brainwashing" line.

A given star irradiated photons say, 5000 years ago. You look to the night sky, your eyes pick the photons. Now, since you were not alive 5000 years ago, how can your reasoning be true?

An astronomer uses the Hubble Space Telescope to take a picture of a galaxy located say, at 5 billion light-years. Now, its stars irradiated photons at an average age of 5Gy (note that within the galaxy there are stars that are closer and other that are more distant). The image is then selected by someone else to be relased to the press. Other people decide to print it at a magazine. Yet other people enter on thr proccess of printing, distributing and selling it. You buy the magazine and see the picture. Does your awareness includes all this people, the photons, HST, all the people at NASA/JPL, etc?

If your answer is yes, then prove how!!!

And the sentence regarding the "zero fact and zero reason to support the foundation of materialist-philosophy" is simply a lie.

[uruk]

The universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract-respresentation (sensed) of a universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).
Wrong! The representation exists inside you, what it represents does not.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Ain´t this option much more reasonable? Are you sure that your awareness includes everything? Are you aware of every subatomic particel that compose your body? Sure, living in a vast indiferent universe it can turn us in to nothing. But, still, its much more reasonable, except for bloated egoes.

It appears that you haven't grasped everything I have said to you. Our observation and consequent knowledge of the universe comes through our sensation of light. We can only discern of "things" AFTER we have sensed the light of those things.
Let's be absolutely clear on this point: the WHOLE universe which we experience and come to have knowledge of, is the sensed-universe.
We cannot observe nor have knowledge of any other universe or any other things... just a sensed-universe comprised of sensed-things.

This fact is far from being accepted as being so by a lot of smart people that have burnt a lot of neurons on the issue. Please, don´t even try to use the "brainwashing" line.

What are these "smart people" thinking about? Everything they observe is sensed first, within awareness, and deciphered later.
When I said that my philosophy was founded upon a fact, I meant it.

A given star irradiated photons say, 5000 years ago. You look to the night sky, your eyes pick the photons. Now, since you were not alive 5000 years ago, how can your reasoning be true?

'lifegazer' wasn't alive 5000 years ago, but lifegazer is part of the sensed-world. lifegazer also, is embraced by awareness.
So is Correa Neto.

An astronomer uses the Hubble Space Telescope to take a picture of a galaxy located say, at 5 billion light-years.

Please note that the "Hubble telescope" is a sensed-object. It too exists within awareness.
Please note that the stars we see, exist within awareness, as sensed. Take a look at the night-sky next time you get a chance -
every single-one of those specks of sensed-light that you see exist within your awareness. That's right: the universe you are experiencing and seeing is occuring inside of you.
Fact: The moon, for example, which you sense does not exist 250,000 miles from you, but right inside of you!!!

Also, consider this: the sensed-light we observe passing through sensed-space in sensed-time, is an illusion.
It might appear that it takes 1.5 (ish) seconds for sensed-light to reach the sensed-earth from the sensed-moon. But in reality, that sensed-light hasn't moved at all. How could it when all sensed-light exists within you?!
The sensed-light of the moon is no further away from your awareness (which embraces that sensed-moon) than is the sensed-light of the Earth itself (which is also embraced by your awareness).
Thus the sensed-moon is no further away from 'you' (awareness) than is the sensed-earth.

Sensed-distance, sensed-time, sensed-motion: They are all illusions.

And the sentence regarding the "zero fact and zero reason to support the foundation of materialist-philosophy" is simply a lie.
In that case, provide unquestionable facts which support this philosophy. Or else, provide sound reason which supports this philosophy.
If you can do neither then retract your statement.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
Wrong! The representation exists inside you, what it represents does not.
Whether there is a reality of a universe beyond the sense of one is questionable, so stop asserting said reality as a fact Sir. Do you want a rationale discussion or not?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you want a rationale discussion or not?

Was that a Freudian slip, or what?

Can you answer the questions in the OP "rationally" or not?

[AWPrime]

Lifegazer, your awareness/inner universe is only a mirror of the real world.




ps. Humans have more senses than sight.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Lifegazer, your awareness/inner universe is only a mirror of the real world.

"Whether there is a reality of a universe beyond the sense of one is questionable, so stop asserting said reality as a fact Sir. Do you want a rationale discussion or not?"

My philosophy
The universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract-respresentation (sensed) of a universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).
Materialism
A real universe exists beyond the sense of one... and hence, beyond whatever it is that I am.

Now, the foundation of my philosophy is a fact: The sense of a thing is not the reality of a thing... and my (whatever it is that I am) awareness embraces every sensed-thing, meaning that the whole universe which I experience, exists within my awareness.
However, there is zero fact and zero reason to support the foundation of materialist-philosophy.

The foundation of my philosophy is rock solid
It is not an assumption. It is not a belief.

If you people do not see a significant distinction between my philosophy and materialism, then I can only conclude that it's because you do not want to see it. Because it isn't hard to see.

[Piscivore]

Your endless digressions only serve as proof you are unable to answer the questions in the OP. Do so, or I shall taunt you a second time.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by uruk
Wrong! The representation exists inside you, what it represents does not.

Yes! That's one of the problems I've been having with LG's argument, but couldn't sum it up.

Thankee!

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Whether there is a reality of a universe beyond the sense of one is questionable, so stop asserting said reality as a fact Sir. Do you want a rationale discussion or not?

Whether reality is in the imagination of a god creature is questionable as well, and I note you present it as fact quite often.

[Cosmo]

Lifegazer - are you ignoring my posts by accident, or are you making an effort to avoid me?

[Z]

Oh, Bob, your posts are truly becoming humorous!

Nevertheless, let me say for the passing person who DOESN'T realize you're kidding:

Bob LG's concept here is that a 'philosophy' that denies the 'physical world' is superior to 'certain knowledge' based on the concept that our 'senses' are accurate and 'represent' a true world.

Obviously wrong, but BOB is gonna insist this is true, no matter what.

[Wudang]

I'm going to ask yet again, what do you mean by "by default"? You have ignored the question several times now.

And again - what mechanism keeps my experiences separate from others?

The great "proof" you risibly quoted yet again has been dismembered many times before as you know. If the entire univers is in your awareness then you are a solipsist. You have never ever explained why you are not a solispist. Or more accurately you have never given any rational for it.
"The universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract-respresentation (sensed) of a universe existing inside of me (whatever I am)."

a - by your "philosophy" you don't exist so the universe can't exist inside you
b - once again, you are dishonestly switching between the senation of a thing and the thing as a res extensa. You have been pulled up on that before as you know so you are again being dishonest.
By the way - something is wrong with your keyboard - it keeps sticking random "-"s in words.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"Whether there is a reality of a universe beyond the sense of one is questionable, so stop asserting said reality as a fact Sir. Do you want a rationale discussion or not?"
[LG-talk]
It can be deduced to be a fact because we are able to make relevant interactions with it.

And your awareness is just a form of sense without relevant interaction.[/LG-talk]

[uruk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by uruk
Wrong! The representation exists inside you, what it represents does not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Whether there is a reality of a universe beyond the sense of one is questionable, so stop asserting said reality as a fact Sir. Do you want a rationale discussion or not?

Your not getting it. Only the representation of a universe is within you. If it is a representation of an actual universe, The actual universe would exist "outside" of you. If it is a representation of an illusionary universe that god feeding us via sensory input, god would also be "outside" of you because it is you that is in god, not the other way around.
It works even if you believe that we are all parts of god. God's conciousness is still external to your identity or conciousness. you are but a small fraction of his conciouseness. so if there is an all encomapssing conciousness that is creating us and the sensory input, it would still be "external" to us. Why? Because we cannot access or experiance this all encompassing conciousness just a small fragment that constitutes our individual identity.

Any way you cut it, if the universe is real or illusional sensory siganls, it stll exists "outside" of us.

That is why I say that the only truth that you can say is that we are percieving a universe. That perception builds a
representation of a universe. That representation exists inside of you. You cannot say that the universe exists inside of you.

This is the distinction you are not getting.
If we are the ones producing the sensory input into our own minds, then that is simple solipsizim. We are creating our own universe. But you say that is not the case. God is creating us AND the universe.

My philosophy
The universe exists within whatever it is that I am. Change that to "a percieved" or "a representation of a" and you'll be closer to the truth.
It's an introspective awareness of an abstract-respresentation (sensed) of a universe O.k. This is just a repeat of the first statement existing inside of me (whatever I am).
This is the part that is assumed by you. Remember All that you can truthfully say is that a representation of a universe exists inside you. You cannot know for sure what exists outside from you. As you say, that would be an assumption or belief.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Cosmo
As I pointed out before...

If you are correct, then there are no means available to us - nor will there ever be - for determining information about the non-sensed universe. All of our measurements, scientific or otherwise, are of the sensed-universe.

And as I replied to you earlier, we have the ability to reason, which I say can touch 'reality'. You obviously don't think so, but why?

Nothing can ever be learned about the "real" universe.

Why?
Given that it is possible to formulate a philosophy on a rock-solid foundation, why do you assert this?

The sensed-universe and the real universe are therefore, for our purposes, identical.

Even if reason were unable to discern 'reality', there is no basis for declaring this.

The concept of a sensed-universe is consequently irrelevent.
Shoddy grounds for making such a conclusion.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
Your not getting it. Only the representation of a universe is within you. If it is a representation of an actual universe, The actual universe would exist "outside" of you.

The mind does not need a 'real model' to create Its abstract portrait. If you don't believe this, then ask yourself how the mind creates your dreams each night.
The existence of an internal abstract-world does not necessitate the need for a real external world.

If it is a representation of an illusionary universe that god feeding us via sensory input, god would also be "outside" of you because it is you that is in god, not the other way around.

You still haven't grasped my philosophy: there is no 'we'... there is only God. You are God, perceiving (sensing) yourself to be uruk.
God is not outside you because God is you.

That is why I say that the only truth that you can say is that we are percieving a universe. That perception builds a
representation of a universe. That representation exists inside of you. You cannot say that the universe exists inside of you.

?
It is my position that an abstract representation of a universe exists within/upon awareness.

This is the distinction you are not getting.
If we are the ones producing the sensory input into our own minds, then that is simple solipsizim. We are creating our own universe. But you say that is not the case. God is creating us AND the universe.

Make sure you understand what my philosophy is before posting again. There is no 'we'.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It is my position that an abstract representation of a universe exists within/upon awareness.

This is a representation of an abstract, and the abstract represents nothing but conceptual form. Is that close?

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/kandinsky/kandinsky.black-violet.jpg

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It appears that you haven't grasped everything I have said to you. Our observation and consequent knowledge of the universe comes through our sensation of light. We can only discern of "things" AFTER we have sensed the light of those things.
Let's be absolutely clear on this point: the WHOLE universe which we experience and come to have knowledge of, is the sensed-universe.
We cannot observe nor have knowledge of any other universe or any other things... just a sensed-universe comprised of sensed-things.

Lets be absolutely clear on this point- The universe does not exists inside you. Whats inside you is a faulty interpretation of the universe based on the little information you have.

Please note that without the help of the countless people who work and worked on all the hardware and software used in this talk you would never knew (and insult) me, Zaayrdragon, Rebecca, Piscivore et alii. Yet, we would exist regardless of you, and vice-versa.

Originally posted by lifegazer
What are these "smart people" thinking about? Everything they observe is sensed first, within awareness, and deciphered later.
When I said that my philosophy was founded upon a fact, I meant it.

Oh, sorry, I forgot you consider yourself the smartest person in the world... Your philosophy, better say, your RELIGION, is based on your INTERPRETATION on the nature of perception and the universe. That´s a far cry from being a fact.

Originally posted by lifegazer
'lifegazer' wasn't alive 5000 years ago, but lifegazer is part of the sensed-world. lifegazer also, is embraced by awareness.
So is Correa Neto.

Please note that the "Hubble telescope" is a sensed-object. It too exists within awareness.
Please note that the stars we see, exist within awareness, as sensed. Take a look at the night-sky next time you get a chance -
every single-one of those specks of sensed-light that you see exist within your awareness. That's right: the universe you are experiencing and seeing is occuring inside of you.
Fact: The moon, for example, which you sense does not exist 250,000 miles from you, but right inside of you!!!

Sorry, but after some diet and working out, I lost some weight. There is no space for the universe inside me, not even for the moon.

Now, on a more serious side, I´ll type again for you:

The universe does not exists inside you. Whats inside you is a faulty interpretation of the universe based on the little information you have.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Also, consider this: the sensed-light we observe passing through sensed-space in sensed-time, is an illusion.
It might appear that it takes 1.5 (ish) seconds for sensed-light to reach the sensed-earth from the sensed-moon. But in reality, that sensed-light hasn't moved at all. How could it when all sensed-light exists within you?!
The sensed-light of the moon is no further away from your awareness (which embraces that sensed-moon) than is the sensed-light of the Earth itself (which is also embraced by your awareness).
Thus the sensed-moon is no further away from 'you' (awareness) than is the sensed-earth.

This argument is based on utter incomprehension of physics and how we gather and interpret information.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Sensed-distance, sensed-time, sensed-motion: They are all illusions.

Based on what? Please present unquestionable facts which support this idea or retreat your claim. I mean FACTS and not INTERPRETATIONS.

Originally posted by lifegazer
In that case, provide unquestionable facts which support this philosophy. Or else, provide sound reason which supports this philosophy.
If you can do neither then retract your statement.

There is no evidence supporting the existence of god. Please note that even if god exists this does not imply that your religion bears the truth.

There is no evidence for the existence of phenomena that can not be explained by science (read paranormal phenomena).

There is no evidence supporting that our selves (or any other similar term you decide to use) is nothing but a product of our body. Damage the body and you damage the self. destroy the body and you destroy the self.

And at last but not least, here goes again the point you have not commented.

All disciplines based on "internal perceptions" have a major -and fatal- flaw:

How can you be sure that you are not experiencing an illusion? How can you be sure that this "reality", this "universe that exists inside you", you claim to have discovered is not actually an illusion or a misunderstanding. Our mind and our perceptions (external and internal) are not exactly flawless.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
And as I replied to you earlier, we have the ability to reason, which I say can touch 'reality'. You obviously don't think so, but why?

If indeed every single thing we know is merely information about the sensed-universe, how can you say that we could ever "touch reality"? How would you use reason to learn about "reality"?

Quite simply, how would you know "reality" when you 'saw' it?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Even if reason were unable to discern 'reality', there is no basis for declaring this.

Sure there is. Every effort made by mankind - either now or in the future - to learn about "reality" is doomed to failure for the simple reason that our reality is merely a sensed representation of a universe, and nothing we can do will *ever* change that.

1. It is utterly futile to attempt to learn anything about "reality".
2. Therefore, we never will learn anything about reality.
3. Therefore, we must accept our current sensed-universe as the closest we'll ever get to "reality".
4. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, our current sensed-universe *IS* reality.

So: 5. The concept of a sensed-universe is irrelevant.

I look foward to your response.

[Z]

Perfectly logical - well reasoned. My congratulations, Cosmo - I bow my wings unto you!

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
And as I replied to you earlier, we have the ability to reason, which I say can touch 'reality'. You obviously don't think so, but why?

Why?
Given that it is possible to formulate a philosophy on a rock-solid foundation, why do you assert this?

Even if reason were unable to discern 'reality', there is no basis for declaring this.

Shoddy grounds for making such a conclusion.

But you do not reason, you merely assert.

You spent time browsing the "trolling" thread but did not have time to reply to everything here, why was that?

You have no rock-solid foundation because you do not hold your philosophy to the standard of evidence to which you insist science holds. About time we bumped Upchurch's Question again, isn't it?

And what do you mean by "by default"?

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Perfectly logical - well reasoned. My congratulations, Cosmo - I bow my wings unto you!

There are those here who far outshine me in logic and reason; I merely do what I can. Thanks, however. :)

[JAK]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Voila: talking to brick walls.


Finally, LG has discovered how we all feel.

Even so, after reading this thread - every entry - as well as other threads, I am gratified to see such heart-warming caring by the others on this thread. It speaks well of humanity.

I am also intrigued by the pull of LG that brings all of us back again. It might be useful for each of us to reflect upon "What is it that keeps bringing me back?" That insight into our own psyche and humanity may be more worthwhile than trying to "help" LG.

Just a thought ...

[Z]

I can tell you what pulls me back - that I honestly hope one day that some insightful thinker will post incontrovertable proof of God's existence. I long for it. However, I'm not one to grasp at cloud castles - if someone has a 'proof' of God, it'd better damned well be unshakable and unmistakable.

I think LG has an interesting idea - but the means by which he gets there and the details are all messed up. So I argue these 'niggling points' until maybe, just maybe, he comes to a God conclusion WITHOUT all these blatant errors and flaws.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I can tell you what pulls me back - that I honestly hope one day that some insightful thinker will post incontrovertable proof of God's existence. I long for it. However, I'm not one to grasp at cloud castles - if someone has a 'proof' of God, it'd better damned well be unshakable and unmistakable.

I think LG has an interesting idea - but the means by which he gets there and the details are all messed up. So I argue these 'niggling points' until maybe, just maybe, he comes to a God conclusion WITHOUT all these blatant errors and flaws.

Heh, if there HAS to be a deity, better yours than LG's. And either of those over 1inC's. :D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Cosmo
"And as I replied to you earlier, we have the ability to reason, which I say can touch 'reality'. You obviously don't think so, but why?"

If indeed every single thing we know is merely information about the sensed-universe, how can you say that we could ever "touch reality"? How would you use reason to learn about "reality"?

The ability to reason (the ability to formulate knowledge) precedes the acquisition of all knowledge.
You cannot learn a single thing unless you have the ability to reason prior to learning that thing.
The ability to do anything precedes the occurance of that thing.

Our limited knowledge about the universe does not necessitate a limit upon our ability to reason or a limit upon our ability to formulate new knowledge.

Furthermore, reason encapsulates all manner of concepts that are not observed to exist within the sensed-world. Concepts such as: infinity; nothing; timelessness; spacelessness; spirit; love (indeed, all emotions); 'thought' itself; memory; imagination; sensations; justice; dreams; purpose; meaning; absolutes; 'God' itself.
The ability to reason and the concepts gleaned within that ability, are not wholly-dependent upon what we observe... clearly.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The ability to reason and the concepts gleaned within that ability, are not wholly-dependent upon what we observe... clearly.

And as clearly can be completely wrong.

[Z]

What LG refers to as 'reason' is clearly not what the rest of us consider reason. By his definition, we are also free to reason out faeries, dragons, Nordic Thunder Gods, and Sta-Puff Marshmallow Men.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
What LG refers to as 'reason' is clearly not what the rest of us consider reason. By his definition, we are also free to reason out faeries, dragons, Nordic Thunder Gods, and Sta-Puff Marshmallow Men.
What are you talking about?
What is this a response to?

[Wudang]

So much waffle and still no answer to the questions. Is your reason unable to provide answers?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
So much waffle and still no answer to the questions. Is your reason unable to provide answers?
About what?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
About what?

What is the title of this thread?

Duh!

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Furthermore, reason encapsulates all manner of concepts that are not observed to exist within the sensed-world. Concepts such as: infinity; nothing; timelessness; spacelessness; spirit; love (indeed, all emotions); 'thought' itself; memory; imagination; sensations; justice; dreams; purpose; meaning; absolutes; 'God' itself.

Are you stating that just because we can't "see" something means it's not there? Do you honestly think that because we can't "see" love, that means it doesn't exist? We can see *all* the effects of it, and to help our poor minds out, we've given them a collective name. The same can be said for the other concepts you've listed.

Yes, these are all concepts, and indeed we could spend many hours happily listing them. They are, however, concepts (save that silly 'god' one on the end) that exist in our sensed-universe, and they are concepts that can be shown to exist.

You have *still* said nothing of...

a) whether these concepts exist in the real universe
b) what method you would use to determine this.

Answer the question, LG, stop dancing around it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Cosmo
Are you stating that just because we can't "see" something means it's not there? Do you honestly think that because we can't "see" love, that means it doesn't exist? We can see *all* the effects of it, and to help our poor minds out, we've given them a collective name. The same can be said for the other concepts you've listed.

Love, like all other emotions, emanates from within ourselves.
You said:
"If indeed every single thing we know is merely information about the sensed-universe, how can you say that we could ever "touch reality"?"

... My response indicates that not every single thing we know about exists apart from the observer.

Yes, these are all concepts, and indeed we could spend many hours happily listing them. They are, however, concepts (save that silly 'god' one on the end) that exist in our sensed-universe, and they are concepts that can be shown to exist.

God is a concept too, easily defined by reason when comparing It to ALL that it creates.
Regardless, tell this forum where - in their sense of the world and beyond the mind of man - they will find:
Nothing.
Infinity.
Any emotion.
Thought.
Justice.
Dreams.
Purpose.
Meaning.
Absolutes.

... to name a few.
Clearly, at least some concepts are conceived regardless of what we sense beyond ourselves.

You have *still* said nothing of...

a) whether these concepts exist in the real universe
b) what method you would use to determine this.

Answer the question, LG, stop dancing around it.
I have answered the question. Man's ability to reason precedes man's acquisition of all knowledge.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Regardless, tell this forum where - in their sense of the world and beyond the mind of man - they will find:
Nothing.
Infinity.
Any emotion.
Thought.
Justice.
Dreams.
Purpose.
Meaning.
Absolutes.

... to name a few.
Clearly, at least some concepts are conceived regardless of what we sense beyond ourselves.

And what does conception of concepts, abstracts, or ideals have to do with objective sensation? One thing, we can show that the physical manifestation of the working of some of these.

Abstract ideas:

Nothing.
Infinity.
Justice.
Purpose.
Meaning.
Absolutes.


Verifiable manifestations of physical processes:

Any emotion.
Thoughts. - these then can be tied back into realization of Abstract ideas.
Dreams.


You are confusing the objective existence of something with the results of that objective existence. It can be shown that 'abstract ideas' are caused by processes within an objective reality. In other words, the concept of 'infinity' cannot be conceived without having the hardware required to construct such concepts (i.e.: a homo sapien brain or equivalent) - well, until and unless someone can show an alternative or independent existence of such concepts.

Robert

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have answered the question. Man's ability to reason precedes man's acquisition of all knowledge.

All I can get from that is that you are saying that your inability to reason precludes you answering.

For the 5th or 6th time, what do you mean by "by default"?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
It can be shown that 'abstract ideas' are caused by processes within an objective reality.

No it can't. There's a difference between showing how a process actually works and merely saying "Outside processes caused this or that.".
You take the latter stance and merely assert that any and all experience and/or concepts are caused to exist via external processes.

In other words, the concept of 'infinity' cannot be conceived without having the hardware required to construct such concepts

How does a universe which knows not nor cares for of any of the listed concepts, come to 'programme' our computer-like brains to know of them?

Indeed, given that the ability to know must precede the acquisition of any and all knowledge, how does a universe which knows nothing come to programme our brains 'how to know'?

[Z]

Ahhh... the old 'intelligence exists, ergo, intelligent design must exist.'

Boring.

Intelligence is the end-product of millions upon millions of random realizations of probability. Intelligence imposes its own order and concepts to things which, themselves, do not possess said concepts. Does an apple know itself to be red? Certainly not. Does the Sun know that the Earth is approx. 8 light-minutes from us? Of course not. Our brains are hard-wired, for survival sake, to be able to consider abstract and concrete concepts, not because the universe made us to be this way, but because this sort of wiring turned out to be most beneficial for our survival as a species.

Consider lust, for a moment. Do you really think the Universe hard-wired lust into our being? Or is it more reasonable to assume that those of our ancestors who participated in lust i.e. had sex and reproduced were more successful than those who never had sex and therefore never passed on the lust-free aspect of their nature?

Intelligence was not 'designed' - it just happened.

All within our 'sensed-awareness', of course... :D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
For the 5th or 6th time, what do you mean by "by default"?
If you think I'm going to have another week-long debate with you about the meaning of a phrase or word, then you're mistaken.
I'll tell you what I think it means. If you think this is wrong, then sobeit:-
Offtimes, the acknowledgement of a fact means that a proceeding conclusion is inevitable.
... For example, if God exists and is omnipresent, then inevitably (by logical default... "by default"), only God can exist.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Intelligence is the end-product of millions upon millions of random realizations of probability.

Here we go again - more unfounded mantras being passed-off as actual reason or knowledge.

Consider lust, for a moment. Do you really think the Universe hard-wired lust into our being? Or is it more reasonable to assume that those of our ancestors who participated in lust i.e. had sex and reproduced were more successful than those who never had sex and therefore never passed on the lust-free aspect of their nature?

How can ANY entity have sex unless it first has the ability and desire to do so?
Your claim is that 'lust' was programmed before the origin of 'sex'.

Intelligence was not 'designed' - it just happened.

Two rocks collided (or atoms or molecules, whatever) and up popped ~intelligence~?
How can you believe this nonsense?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Offtimes, the acknowledgement of a fact means that a proceeding conclusion is inevitable.
... For example, if God exists and is omnipresent, then inevitably (by logical default... "by default"), only God can exist.

Okay - just trust me. Don't use that. Just say
"then it follows"
or
"then necessarily"
or "as a consequence".

"default" carries other baggage that could obscure your intent.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Piscivore
What is the criteria for determining which sensations are real or not?

Why is god's dream real and mine are not?

Why can an all-powerful god not start his dream over? Why can't he start an entirely different dream? How can you be certain he's not dreaming thousands of different "worlds" at the same time?

If "morality" is irrelevant in my dreams, why should morality have any meaning in god's?

Isn't your "proposal" "to extinguish the ego of man and swap it for the ego of God" just a slave changing masters? Why is "god's ego" better than mine?

Why can I not love my neighbor as I love myself without god?

Given the amount of brutality and suffering perpatrated by your dreaming god's avatars, can we conclude that It has, subconciously at least, a nihilistic personality? That this god-ego does love us as he loves himself- thus we die the death he craves and cannot have?

Regarding "humanity defined as a unified-harmony": If all are alike, what difference would there be to love or to hate? If everybody is thinking the same thing in the same way, what need is there of intellectual or creative pursuits?

How can competition exist in the framework of "humanity defined as a unified-harmony"

What benefit is it to your dreaming god to have six billion dreams, all alike?

Also, I'm going to quote Ms. Bradley's question, because I want to know as well:


Are you man enough to answer?

Back to the point?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Okay - just trust me. Don't use that. Just say
"then it follows"
or
"then necessarily"
or "as a consequence".

"default" carries other baggage that could obscure your intent.
Okay, I'll try and remember that though I'm not sure what this other baggage might be. No doubt habit will get the better of me and I'll be using it again in no time.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Back to the point?
Okay. I'll have another look at his OP but don't expect a response tonight since it's getting late and his post needs a lengthy reply.

[Edit: I also want to watch match of the day and see ManU kick Arsenal's butt]

I cannot answer every post of every thread. It's impossible. But since I've had so much grief for avoiding his OP, I'll take the time to respond.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Here we go again - more unfounded mantras being passed-off as actual reason or knowledge.

No different from your mantras.

How can ANY entity have sex unless it first has the ability and desire to do so?

Which is exactly what I am saying - and those without the desire do to so failed to pass their desirelessness on; only those who possessed this desire passed it on.

Your claim is that 'lust' was programmed before the origin of 'sex'.

No, I'm claiming that lust was the necessary desire for sex, and had to be passed on for survival to occur.

Two rocks collided (or atoms or molecules, whatever) and up popped ~intelligence~?
How can you believe this nonsense?

I don't. But, then, I never claimed this over-simplification of process.

Rather, the process has taken billions of years and billions of permutations of probability to occur. Methinks, perhaps, you simply lack the intelligence to grasp such concepts.

[uruk]

The mind does not need a 'real model' to create Its abstract portrait. If you don't believe this, then ask yourself how the mind creates your dreams each night.
Well that has not been established yet. But there is something external to our minds that is source of or instigates our sensations of a universe.
What we percieve in dreams are very different from our waking perceptions. Our dreams do not follow or conform to any logical or rational sequence, do not conform to any physical laws, do not affect our waking world, do not affect our bodies or health, they cannot be shared by another person (except by verbal or graphic relation). The dreaming process is getting to be well understood by neurologists.
And to use your argument, the fact that we dream does not in any way shape or form mean that our universe exsists inside us or that we are the source of stimulus that instigates our perceptions of the universe. In fact dreams kind of suggest the opposite.


The existence of an internal abstract-world does not necessitate the need for a real external world.
. But as some else put it: It doesn't exclude the need ether.

You still haven't grasped my philosophy: there is no 'we'... there is only God. You are God, perceiving (sensing) yourself to be uruk.

(*sigh*)Look LG, I was using "we" in refrence to your philosophy (i.e. "we" as in that part of god that is having the illusion of being "us"). Please read my post before making a rebutal. This is your typical strategy of using red herrings to divert from the actual issue. It is very hypocritical of you to criticize us for using the term "we" when you also use the same reference term.

Even under your philosophy "we" are still "internal" to god. Under your philosophy, "Uruk" is still an illusion existing within god. God is the ultimate identity. "Uruk" is subordinate to the primary identity. Therefore "Uruk" is "internal" to god.

It is my position that an abstract representation of a universe exists within/upon awareness.
Well then why did you say this?:
My philosophy
The universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract-respresentation (sensed) of a universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).
emphasis mine

Also, You still haven't grasped your own philosophy: there is no 'I'... there is only God. You are God, perceiving (sensing) yourself to be Lifegazer.:p

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
What is the criteria for determining which sensations are real or not?

No thing sensed is real in itself.

Why is god's dream real and mine are not?

'You' don't exist, therefore you have no dreams.
Only God exists... only God dreams.

Why can an all-powerful god not start his dream over?

It could. But if God chooses absolute armageddon to expression/being, then why would God change It's mind?

Why can't he start an entirely different dream?

It is not my position that God is unable to do this, but that God would be unwilling to do this.

How can you be certain he's not dreaming thousands of different "worlds" at the same time?

The point of a [dream of a] world is to facilitate the evolution and climax of God's expression and choice.
God does not need a thousand worlds to make one choice.

The outcome is already known (by God). Do you think that the omniscient God does not know how its own creation will work out?!
Then what's the point, I hear you ask. If God already knows what choice will be made, then why bother?
Because this world facilitates 'experience' which God cannot have until God actually has the experience. And because when the choice is made, God will experience the aftermath.

If "morality" is irrelevant in my dreams, why should morality have any meaning in god's?

Only God exists. 'You' don't have any dreams. 'You' are a dream.

Isn't your "proposal" "to extinguish the ego of man and swap it for the ego of God" just a slave changing masters? Why is "god's ego" better than mine?

'You' don't have an ego. Only God has ego. So, is God better-off with the persona of 'God', or the persona of 'Piscivore'?

To extinguish the ego of Piscivore is to free God from the slavery that 'Piscivore' imposes upon God. To reclaim the ego of God is to reclaim sovereignity of existence.

Why can I not love my neighbor as I love myself without god?

Try it. Try loving the WHOLE world as much as you love yourself whilst believing you are different and separate to everyone. Try working for the whole, instead of for yourself.
It cannot be done.
When the world actually realises that everyone is the same being, the world will completely change overnight.

Given the amount of brutality and suffering perpatrated by your dreaming god's avatars, can we conclude that It has, subconciously at least, a nihilistic personality?

We're talking about an omnipotent God here. The ability to be evil is inherent within God as much as is the ability to be good.
The world facilitates expression for both.
The "final choice" will be a victory for one over the other.

That this god-ego does love us as he loves himself- thus we die the death he craves and cannot have?

There is no such thing as the death of existence. There is only death to perception and expression and choice. Since only God exists, then only God is having these experiences.

God does not love 'us' since there is no 'us' to love.

Regarding "humanity defined as a unified-harmony": If all are alike, what difference would there be to love or to hate?

Heaven on earth... or armageddon to being.

If everybody is thinking the same thing in the same way, what need is there of intellectual or creative pursuits?

I never said that each individual experience was the same. My philosophy recognises the diversity of life but acknowledges the singular essence of that life.

How can competition exist in the framework of "humanity defined as a unified-harmony"

Why not compete against the problems which threaten to destroy life, rather than against life itself?

What benefit is it to your dreaming god to have six billion dreams, all alike?

There is more than one way to enjoy heaven.

[Wudang]

" Originally posted by Piscivore
What is the criteria for determining which sensations are real or not?

lifegazer:
No thing sensed is real in itself. "

That does not address the question. You claim, as Upchurch and others pointed out last year, that some sensations are real and some are not. I refer you, again, to the thread "Upchurch's question", which question you still have not come close to answering.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
You claim, as Upchurch and others pointed out last year, that some sensations are real and some are not. I refer you, again, to the thread "Upchurch's question", which question you still have not come close to answering.
I make no such claim.
Yes, Something is really experiencing sensations.
No, the "things" depicted by those sensations are not real.

As for upchurch's question, I don't know what it is.
If you know what it is, then I ask you again to tell me what it is. Here.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
What is the criteria for determining which sensations are real or not?
No thing sensed is real in itself.

That is not an answer, that is a restatement of the assertion my question adresses. And I did not ask you about "sensed things", I asked about sensations. You have several times stated that certain sensations are real and others not. I want to know by what criteria you can state that the sensations I have that the present King of France, Pierre, who lives on my couch and reeks of cheap wine and stinky cheese, is not "real".


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
Why is god's dream real and mine are not?

'You' don't exist, therefore you have no dreams.
Only God exists... only God dreams.
But yet you use "my dreams" as evidence in your philosophy.


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
Why can an all-powerful god not start his dream over?
It could. But if God chooses absolute armageddon to expression/being, then why would God change It's mind?
Why shouldn't it?


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
Why can't he start an entirely different dream?

It is not my position that God is unable to do this, but that God would be unwilling to do this.
By what "logic" can you know the will of this god?


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
How can you be certain he's not dreaming thousands of different "worlds" at the same time?
The point of a [dream of a] world is to facilitate the evolution and climax of God's expression and choice.
God does not need a thousand worlds to make one choice.
Should a painter create only one canvas? A composer one song?
Leaving aside the fact that you are imposing your own values (and constrained and limiting values at that; wonder why?) on god, who are you to say what god "needs"? How are you making this determination? By logic? Revelation? or just that's the way you want it to be?


Originally posted by lifegazer
The outcome is already known (by God) . Do you think that the omniscient God does not know how its own creation will work out?!

Because this world facilitates 'experience' which God cannot have until God actually has the experience. And because when the choice is made, God will experience the aftermath.

I bet you really do not see the contradiction inherent in those statements, do you?


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
If "morality" is irrelevant in my dreams, why should morality have any meaning in god's?
Only God exists. 'You' don't have any dreams. 'You' are a dream.

Weak dodge. Nevertheless, I dream. Even if it is god dreaming he is Pesky dreaming he is Conan the Barbarian, "Pesky" dreams. My question is, why can "Pesky" dream he is Conan and slaughter humans by the dozen and be subject to no moral reprecussions, but if god were to dream he is "Pesky" and do the same, "Pesky" would be subject to moral reprecussions?


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
Isn't your "proposal" "to extinguish the ego of man and swap it for the ego of God" just a slave changing masters? Why is "god's ego" better than mine?
'You' don't have an ego. Only God has ego. So, is God better-off with the persona of 'God', or the persona of 'Piscivore'?

Your call therefore to "extinguish the ego of man"- that is meaningless then? How can one "extinguish" what doesn't exist?


Originally posted by lifegazer
To extinguish the ego of Piscivore is to free God from the slavery that 'Piscivore' imposes upon God. To reclaim the ego of God is to reclaim sovereignity of existence.

Funny idea of "omnipotent" you have there. You are contradicting yourself again- you have previously claimed that "god" has created this "ego" of Pesky to experience things, then you say the "ego" of Pesky's does not exist, now it is superior to the ego of God? And that is all in this post.
Do you even know what the hell you believe yourself?


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
Why can I not love my neighbor as I love myself without god?

Try it. Try loving the WHOLE world as much as you love yourself whilst believing you are different and separate to everyone.

Even were I to fail at this admittedly Herculean task, that does not mean it cannot be done. I cant climb Everest either, that does not render the mountain unclimbable.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Try working for the whole, instead of for yourself.

Which "whole"? Whose terms? God's? You can't tell me what those are, you cannot even be consistant within your own "philosophy". And again, you are assuming that I only "work for myself". Where is your evidence of this, other than your own need to diminish others to elevate yourself?

Originally posted by lifegazer
It cannot be done.

I agree with you, but not because of your reasons.

Originally posted by lifegazer
When the world actually realises that everyone is the same being, the world will completely change overnight.

Nonsense. Pure and utter BS. And this statement contradicts the "fact" that since your god continues to dream this dream, this must be how he wants it, else, as above, he is just a dream of ours, and completely in our power.

Hmm... kinda like a fictional character, maybe?


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
Given the amount of brutality and suffering perpatrated by your dreaming god's avatars, can we conclude that It has, subconciously at least, a nihilistic personality?
We're talking about an omnipotent God here. The ability to be evil is inherent within God as much as is the ability to be good.
The world facilitates expression for both.
The "final choice" will be a victory for one over the other.

Well, you are assuming a "final choice" is necessary- why? Wouldn't that restrict an "omnipotent" god"?


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
That this god-ego does love us as he loves himself- thus we die the death he craves and cannot have?

There is no such thing as the death of existence. There is only death to perception and expression and choice. Since only God exists, then only God is having these experiences.

What is "existence" minus perception, expression, and choice? Wouldn't the loss of "Pesky" diminish this all-encompassing "god" of yours?


Originally posted by lifegazer
God does not love 'us' since there is no 'us' to love.

John 14:23 (Biblegateway.com)
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

You once said that nothing Jesus said contradicted your philosophy. Did you take that back?




Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
Regarding "humanity defined as a unified-harmony": If all are alike, what difference would there be to love or to hate?
Heaven on earth... or armageddon to being.

That's not what the question is. On what basis can I "love" one being and "hate" anoter being that is identical? What is the basis of love and hate in your philosophy?


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
If everybody is thinking the same thing in the same way, what need is there of intellectual or creative pursuits?
I never said that each individual experience was the same. My philosophy recognises the diversity of life but acknowledges the singular essence of that life.

Explain how "diversity" can exist within "unity".



Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
How can competition exist in the framework of "humanity defined as a unified-harmony"
Why not compete against the problems which threaten to destroy life, rather than against life itself?

Why not indeed. But in your "humanity defined as a unified-harmony" you postulated all those problems would vanish. Where does that leave a nice game of chess, if both players are "one"?


Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
What benefit is it to your dreaming god to have six billion dreams, all alike?
There is more than one way to enjoy heaven.

Once again, you fail to understand the exclusionary nature of the terms "diversity" and "unity".

Do you want to give it a go on those definitions we requested? Those would be your definitions of Existence, Infinity, Entity, and Absolute.




Edited to correct spelling and tag errors

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

As for upchurch's question, I don't know what it is.
If you know what it is, then I ask you again to tell me what it is. Here.

That is a bare-faced lie and you know it. You started the thread entitled Upchurch's Question so for you to claim ignorance of it is, not disingeneous, not dissembling but a frank, bare-faced and deliberate lie. Very very disappointing lifegazer.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
That is a bare-faced lie and you know it. You started the thread entitled Upchurch's Question so for you to claim ignorance of it is, not disingeneous, not dissembling but a frank, bare-faced and deliberate lie. Very very disappointing lifegazer.
Just tell me what the question is. Do it and I shall answer you.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Just tell me what the question is. Do it and I shall answer you.

I've bumped the thread as you prefectly aware.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
You have several times stated that certain sensations are real and others not. I want to know by what criteria you can state that the sensations I have that the present King of France, Pierre, who lives on my couch and reeks of cheap wine and stinky cheese, is not "real".

You're comparing imagination, which uses memory in its constructs, to actual sensations?
Well we could argue about this all night, but I don't think that imagined sensation is the same as a true sensation. I think the mind uses it's memory of what sensations are like to construct imagined images.
Regardless, this isn't relevant to the meat of my philosophy in the slightest.

But yet you use "my dreams" as evidence in your philosophy.

Maybe I do, but who do I say that you are?

If God chooses absolute armageddon to expression/being, then why would God change It's mind?

Why shouldn't it?

Do you think it reasonable to suggest that an omniscient God would have second-thoughts about a past decision?

By what "logic" can you know the will of this god?

By the same logic which defines me as that God.

Should a painter create only one canvas?

The world doesn't hang on God's wall whilst God sits there admiring it. My philosophy places God in the world to facillitate divine expression and choice.

A composer one song?

Your comparisons are meaningless since they don't differentiate between art and the purpose of the world (for God).

How are you making this determination? By logic? Revelation? or just that's the way you want it to be?

Logic.

I bet you really do not see the contradiction inherent in those statements, do you?

There is no contradiction. Knowledge is not dependent upon personal experience. I know lots of things about people I've never met and about places I've never visited. I'm sure you do too.

Only God exists. 'You' don't have any dreams. 'You' are a dream.

Weak dodge.

What's weak about it? In my philosophy, Piscivore isn't existence, but is the experience had by existence (God).

Nevertheless, I dream.

Yes you do, God.

Even if it is god dreaming he is Pesky dreaming he is Conan the Barbarian, "Pesky" dreams.

Rubbish. You're falling apart.

My question is, why can "Pesky" dream he is Conan and slaughter humans by the dozen and be subject to no moral reprecussions, but if god were to dream he is "Pesky" and do the same, "Pesky" would be subject to moral reprecussions?

There is no judgement in my philosophy. No hell. There are no 'men' to suffer.

Your call therefore to "extinguish the ego of man"- that is meaningless then? How can one "extinguish" what doesn't exist?

Having the ego of man is real, but the man is not. Ego is what one thinks of oneself.

"To extinguish the ego of Piscivore is to free God from the slavery that [believing itself to be] 'Piscivore' imposes upon God. To reclaim the ego of God is to reclaim sovereignity of existence."

Funny idea of "omnipotent" you have there. You are contradicting yourself again-

Okay, I wasn't clear enough. I've added a qualifier for clarification.

[uruk]

Knowledge is not dependent upon personal experience. I know lots of things about people I've never met and about places I've never visited. I'm sure you do too.
True, but how do you know that those people and places that you have never met or visited are real and not fictional? How do you verify they're existance? Logic and reason alone is insufficient. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By what "logic" can you know the will of this god?

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


By the same logic which defines me as that God.
But if the logic is faulty? A house of cards may be built upon a solid granite stone but it still a house of cards and just as flimsy.You're comparing imagination, which uses memory in its constructs, to actual sensations?
Well we could argue about this all night, but I don't think that imagined sensation is the same as a true sensation. I think the mind uses it's memory of what sensations are like to construct imagined images.
Regardless, this isn't relevant to the meat of my philosophy in the slightest.

Now you know the difference between dreaming and wakeing reality. Why they are two different things. You need to have experiance first before you can dream. You need something for the mind to draw on. And that is derived from wakeing experiance. (sorry, this refers to another debate in another thread)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should a painter create only one canvas?

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


The world doesn't hang on God's wall whilst God sits there admiring it. My philosophy places God in the world to facillitate divine expression and choice.

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

A composer one song?

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


Your comparisons are meaningless since they don't differentiate between art and the purpose of the world (for God).
Your purposely not trying to interpret the analogy because I think you really know what pesci is getting at.

And the rest is skip, dodge, misdirect and avoidance....

[Wudang]

Okay - case proven I think. Lifegazers philosophy has no answer for those questions.

[Wudang]

Oh dear, lifegazer was back but he didn't come back to this thread. I wonder why?

[Wudang]

Nope still not back.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Nope still not back.
Back for what? I'm busy proving God exists in my other thread. If you have an intelligent question, then fire away.

[Wudang]

No you're busy proving your grasp of biology is worse than your grasp of english. I refer you to the previous posts you have failed to answer above instead you have, as uruk said, used " skip, dodge, misdirect and avoidance....".

[Wudang]

Bump.
It is noted that lifegazer has started new threads and is talking of starting another bit still does not wish to address these questions. Indeed he has abandoned the thread that he claimed was taking all his time.

[lifegazer]

Is it possible for the mind to lose itself within the worlds it creates for itself? Yes. It does it every night, in brief dreams. Sometimes, the memory of 'this world' is so woven into the fabric of our being that we realise that we are dreaming (of another world), but for the most part, our dreams are as real as 'this world' and the mind loses itself within the dreams it doth create for itself.
So why all the doubts about whether the mind could lose itself within the sensations of 'this world'?

[Wudang]

That's your deep philosophical argument? Dreams seem quite real at the time? LOL.

How do you know you've ever had a dream? From memory? Why do you believe that your memories respresent a real dream when you don't believe your sensations represent a real thing? And address the question please.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
That's your deep philosophical argument? Dreams seem quite real at the time? LOL.

What?
I'm merely trying to cut-off the head of the incredulity which pops-up when I say the Mind creates its own sensations and loses itself within the world that those sensations speak of.
Dreams are the evidence that what I say is true, is occuring.

How do you know you've ever had a dream? From memory?

Sometimes memory. Sometimes we are woken whilst in the midst of a dream. And sometimes, though rarely in my own case, we have lucid dreams where we dream and are aware that we are dreaming.

Why do you believe that your memories respresent a real dream when you don't believe your sensations represent a real thing? And address the question please.
Dreams happen. Memory doesn't create them - memory remembers them. Don't you have any better questions than that?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What?
I'm merely trying to cut-off the head of the incredulity which pops-up when I say the Mind creates its own sensations and loses itself within the world that those sensations speak of.
Dreams are the evidence that what I say is true, is occuring.
This kind of unexamined assertion really frosts my windshield. If I dream that a friend and I just witnessed a building being razed and called him the next morning, he would report he had no such dream. If, on the other hand he and I witnessed a building being razed, he would report that, yes, indeed, he saw it, too. This is basic stuff. It is called intersubjective validation and is the most baisc evidence for the conclusion that there is an objective reality. You're just puffing out metaphysical fog.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What?
I'm merely trying to cut-off the head of the incredulity which pops-up when I say the Mind creates its own sensations and loses itself within the world that those sensations speak of.
Dreams are the evidence that what I say is true, is occuring.

Sometimes memory. Sometimes we are woken whilst in the midst of a dream. And sometimes, though rarely in my own case, we have lucid dreams where we dream and are aware that we are dreaming.

Dreams happen. Memory doesn't create them - memory remembers them. Don't you have any better questions than that?

You didn't address the question. All you have is your memory of a dream. Why do you trust the memory? How do you know your memory of a dream is a real memory? In semiotics terms: why do privilege memory above sensation?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
You didn't address the question. All you have is your memory of a dream. Why do you trust the memory? How do you know your memory of a dream is a real memory? In semiotics terms: why do privilege memory above sensation?
But you don't only have your memory as a proof that dreams happen. I specifically stated that one can actually be aware that one is experiencing a dream as it happens - or one can be awoken and have one's dreams broken in mid-flight, bringing the instantaneous realisation that one was dreaming.
So your question is meaningless.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
If I dream that a friend and I just witnessed a building being razed and called him the next morning, he would report he had no such dream.
If, on the other hand he and I witnessed a building being razed, he would report that, yes, indeed, he saw it, too.

So?
Yes, dreams are entirely personal - but the fact remains that the Mind both creates them and has the awareness of them. That's all we were discussing here: the Mind's ability to both create worlds and be lost amongst those worlds.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So?
Yes, dreams are entirely personal - but the fact remains that the Mind both creates them and has the awareness of them. That's all we were discussing here: the Mind's ability to both create worlds and be lost amongst those worlds.

This leads back to the #1 unanswered question- what's the difference? Why is the dream world with Pierre, the present king of France in it "not real", and the dream-world without him "real"?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So?
Yes, dreams are entirely personal - but the fact remains that the Mind both creates them and has the awareness of them. That's all we were discussing here: the Mind's ability to both create worlds and be lost amongst those worlds.

No, you are trying to map dreams to reality. At least have the integrity to stand by what you are asserting rather than try to slip it in. This crap really frosts my windshield.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
But you don't only have your memory as a proof that dreams happen. I specifically stated that one can actually be aware that one is experiencing a dream as it happens - or one can be awoken and have one's dreams broken in mid-flight, bringing the instantaneous realisation that one was dreaming.
So your question is meaningless.

No, you aren't reading it. You are not dreaming now. You only think you dream because now you remember dreaming. You have a memory that tells you that you had a dream. You are not experiencing dreaming now. You only believe now that dreams happen because you trust your memory of having had a dream.
I'm running out of ways to say something rather simple.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
No, you aren't reading it. You are not dreaming now.

Who isn't? Who am I?
I am not lifegazer, since lifegazer is what I sense myself to be. And so, if I am immersed within this Mind-created world of the senses where I perceive myself to be lifegazer, then I am certainly lost to that creation - that dream.

You are not experiencing dreaming now.

Yes 'I' am, otherwise I wouldn't be fooled by all these sensations and the portrait that they paint within me.

You only believe now that dreams happen because you trust your memory of having had a dream.

Incorrect, since 'I' am dreaming now.

I'm running out of ways to say something rather simple.
Try another topic.

Edit:- Whatever you are is not 'Wudang' and this sensed-world is not real in itself. So if whatever you are believes that it is Wudang and that the world around you is real, then whatever it is that you are is most definitely dreaming.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Who isn't? Who am I?
I am not lifegazer, since lifegazer is what I sense myself to be. And so, if I am immersed within this Mind-created world of the senses where I perceive myself to be lifegazer, then I am certainly lost to that creation - that dream.

Yes 'I' am, otherwise I wouldn't be fooled by all these sensations and the portrait that they paint within me.

Incorrect, since 'I' am dreaming now.

Try another topic.

Edit:- Whatever you are is not 'Wudang' and this sensed-world is not real in itself. So if whatever you are believes that it is Wudang and that the world around you is real, then whatever it is that you are is most definitely dreaming.

This is so.... *yawn*..... uh... brilliantly sophomoric.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
This is so.... *yawn*..... uh... brilliantly sophomoric.
I think you'll find that such judgements should be reserved for statements made without reason... like yours, for example.

[Wudang]

Oh - so that's the dreaming you were talking about. In other words the support for your philosophy that this is a dream is that we are dreaming now. Circular.
So you admit that we have no direct experience of dreaming as commonly understood?

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Is it possible for the mind to lose itself within the worlds it creates for itself? Yes. It does it every night, in brief dreams. Sometimes, the memory of 'this world' is so woven into the fabric of our being that we realise that we are dreaming (of another world), but for the most part, our dreams are as real as 'this world' and the mind loses itself within the dreams it doth create for itself.
So why all the doubts about whether the mind could lose itself within the sensations of 'this world'?

The mind doesn't lose itself in dreams... Dreams are, as you have said, brief. They are flashes, usually illogical ones. Things occur in dreams which cannot occur within reality.

Reality pre-empts dreams. You cannot be forced to fall into a dream from a state of complete consciousness; but you can be forced awake from a dream. Plus, there are some of us who are never lost within the dream. I, for one, can recognize any dream I am in instantly, and never confuse a dream for reality.

Your assertions here are unfounded and patently incorrect - and demonstrate part of your problem. You place more value in dreams than in reality.

Besides - who verifies the things within your dream, when even people themselves are ephemeral? In reality, people remain, no matter what. Every time you wake up, you awake to the world you left. Not so, when you dream.

Really - up the quality or go back to school.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Who isn't? Who am I?
I am not lifegazer, since lifegazer is what I [b]sense myself to be. And so, if I am immersed within this Mind-created world of the senses where I perceive myself to be lifegazer, then I am certainly lost to that creation - that dream.

The first sentance is paradoxical. I am not me, since I seem to be me? That makes absolutely no sense. If that is an example of your 'reason' then I understand why you are so confused.

Yes 'I' am, otherwise I wouldn't be fooled by all these sensations and the portrait that they paint within me.

And here we see more confusion on your part - thinking that sensations are painting some kind of lie within you. When, in fact, you're simply processing mental representations of real things.

Incorrect, since 'I' am dreaming now.

That would infer that you are sleeping, and that none of us are real, either. Solipism.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I think you'll find that such judgements should be reserved for statements made without reason... like yours, for example.

I've reasoned with you for months. No, I've reasoned at you for months, no reason came back from you. On 10/29/2003, with your opening post you made it clear you were a crank and made it clear your sole purpose here was to prove to us skeptics all this blather about god-as-a-singularity-yada-yada-yada. Hey, if you want to spend your days smoking whatever your smoking, go ahead. Don't waste my time. Welcome to my ignore list. One vacancy remaining.

[lifegazer]

*Yawn*... how "sophomoric".

Another coffin sealed.

[AWPrime]

How can we sure that lifegazer isn't a bad dream?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Wudang
Oh - so that's the dreaming you were talking about. In other words the support for your philosophy that this is a dream is that we are dreaming now. Circular.
So you admit that we have no direct experience of dreaming as commonly understood?

I repeat.

[Wudang]

(looks round)
.....


(tumbleweed rolls by)


.......
(silence)

[Wudang]

Quiet, isn't it?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Wudang
Oh - so that's the dreaming you were talking about. In other words the support for your philosophy that this is a dream is that we are dreaming now. Circular.
So you admit that we have no direct experience of dreaming as commonly understood?

I repeat yet again.

[Wudang]

So anyway, all lifegazers assertions that we cannot rely on senses telling us about reality also apply to memory telling us about what has happened. Memory cannot be trusted so it is dishonest to assume that anyone has ever dreamed. Therefore we must assume, by lifegazers logical default (whatever that means), that nobody has ever had direct experience of dreaming therefore by logical default there are no dreams. Therefore we are all awake now.

[Anathema]

LG has branched out. He's actually interacting with people in threads other than his own, and showing glimpses of grounded realism. I hope he hasn't lost his faith.

Have a look over in Politics.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Anathema
LG has branched out. He's actually interacting with people in threads other than his own, and showing glimpses of grounded realism. I hope he hasn't lost his faith.

Have a look over in Politics.

Bump.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Wudang
So anyway, all lifegazers assertions that we cannot rely on senses telling us about reality also apply to memory telling us about what has happened. Memory cannot be trusted so it is dishonest to assume that anyone has ever dreamed. Therefore we must assume, by lifegazers logical default (whatever that means), that nobody has ever had direct experience of dreaming therefore by logical default there are no dreams. Therefore we are all awake now.

[Wudang]

From lg in another thread
"I cannot force anyone here to address the actual meat of this specific presentation - which is why nobody has - but that will not make it go away."

Mr Pot? Mr Kettle is returning your call.

[Z]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Here, as I see it, is the absolute problem with lifegazer's 'philosophy':

(Bear with me, for a moment - I'm no wordsmith)

This 'reality' may all be the 'dream of God'. There may be no actual 'Reality' out there, other than God. God may, ultimately, be the singularity that lifegazer insists it is, occupying non-space in a singular Divine dimension, dreaming away at this sensed-reality.

But the crush - the real problem - is that, for us, there is no difference between the Dream of God and Reality. THIS is the only Reality we can know, the only reality we can ever experience. THIS is the only reality from which we can gather facts, make conclusions, and thereby improve our quality of life.

Let's consider, for a moment, the true implications of God, at singularity, Dreaming our "Reality".

If God created this Dream, complete with fragmented essences to experience it, God either did so willfully or incidentally. If willfully, this mean that God also created the very conditions which cause suffering - hunger, cold, fire, disease, natural disasters... God, in fact, created a Reality that is 99.999% hostile to all known forms of life. Further, God willfully created avatars - fragmented essences - with free will, emotions, and the ability to cause even more pain and suffering. God, therefore, willingly causes God's own suffering at God's own 'hands'. Yet we have before us a mechanism by which we can end this suffering. That mechanism is science.

Every improvement in the quality of human life has come at the hands of either a social advancement or a scientific one - and if we consider sociology to be a branch of science, then EVERY improvement has come about via science. Lifespans have been greatly expanded. Hunger is an issue for a much smaller percentage of the world today than ever before. Many diseases have been nearly eradicated - some completely. Causes of many kinds of suffering are now understood, and precautions may be taken against them. And as science marches on, things only get better.

Yes, science also allows us to commit great atrocities, such as nuclear war - but in the decades since the nuclear bomb was developed, how many have been used? Relatively few. Most nations hold atomic weapons as deterrents alone - few honestly desire to make any use of them at all. Just think: of the thousands of aircraft flown since the Wright Bros. took to the sky, how many have been used as weapons? Almost none.

But science has quite possibly improved far more lives than it has devastated. Whereas religion and philosophy have been the cause of more conflict and war than science ever has. So what mechanism will cease God's suffering? Science.

Consider, then, if God incidentally created suffering in the universe. This, then, implies that God either a) doesn't care or b) is not truly 'omnipotent', in the sense of being able to do anything. God may be 'omnipotent' in the sense of being able to do anything which is able to be done within our reality - since, by this philosophy, God IS everything - but if God created conditions which causes God suffering, and did so incidentally and unintentionally, then God has obvious restrictions in what God can do. And what glory is there in a God that either doesn't care or isn't able to make a Reality without suffering?

Consider, also, the nature of a God whose individual avatars can realize the truth, when God itself, as a whole, cannot! Does that mean that lifegazer, having realized this truth, is greater than the God of whom he is an avatar?

lifegazer would like us to eliminate the personal ego and embrace all humanity as God. This means he would like us to overcome the very instincts, drives, and emotions which God has given us and become creatures that are not God's intended creations. If God had intended us to work together against suffering and hardship, would God have 'dreamed' us to be as we are?

lifegazer insists that if humans don't embrace this philosophy, that the pain to God will become so great that God will want to cease experiencing anything. Yet what evidence do we have of this? We are at a point today where fewer people suffer than ever before, yet lifegazer fears our effects on God. Why wouldn't God have brought Armageddon down upon the world during WWII? Or much earlier in Human history, when the entire known world was a place of suffering? lifegazer affirms the tale of Jesus in the Bible, yet this implies that, at least at one point in history, God was aware and able to manifest within the Dream. Why, in the two millenia since then, hasn't God taken a more active role in ending the suffering and propelling this philosophy? In short, if human behavior is such a source of pain for God, why does God do nothing at all about it?

So, to summarize: lifegazer insists that sensed-reality is not true reality; yet for us, for humans, who are part of that 'sensed-reality', there is no difference; there is no reality which we may aspire to interact with which is NOT sensed-reality - so this fine distinction between the natures of realities is itself irrelevant. Further, lifegazer's definition of God either makes God out to be a) uncaring or b) incapable; his philosophy reduces God to something to be pitied, not loved; or worse, something to be hated and feared. Why worship a God who causes suffering willfully? Or worse, who is incapable of ending God's own suffering? Or who simply doesn't care? So God is also rendered irrelevant and unworthy through this philosophy.

Take just a moment to ignore lifegazer's painful ignorance of basic concepts, such as space, infinity, nothing, etc. Consider the philosophy as a whole, without taking too hard of a look at the 'proofs' he laughingly tries to offer. I think it's pretty plain to see that this is a philosophy which is either irrelevant, or very denigrating towards God. Either way, it ought to be rejected out-of-hand. It does not serve to glorify God... and those who do love God should reject such philosophies. Nor does it, in any way, serve to make our 'reality' a better place to live. In fact, lifegazer wants a revolution against science. He has demanded that science basically give up, and accept 'Goddidit' as an answer for everything - thereby providing a framework on which stagnation may be constructed. Hence, for the greater good of humanity AND for the Glory of God, lifegazer's 'philosophy' ought be rejected out of hand. Add back in his obvious lack of knowledge on basic subjects, and we further see that his 'philosophy' is unsupportable and in direct contradiction of the facts of this 'reality'.

THIS, then, is the core problem with this philosophy:

lifegazer's philosophy is irrelevant and offensive towards God.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Wudang
So anyway, all lifegazers assertions that we cannot rely on senses telling us about reality also apply to memory telling us about what has happened. Memory cannot be trusted so it is dishonest to assume that anyone has ever dreamed. Therefore we must assume, by lifegazers logical default (whatever that means), that nobody has ever had direct experience of dreaming therefore by logical default there are no dreams. Therefore we are all awake now.

And yet again. I'm getting more convinced that [he] is taking the P.



Edited to remove posters name. Forum rules do not allow for a posters identity to be revealed unless that person has allowed for it or the information is otherwise readily availible.
Consult the forum rules for further information or appeal to Darat if this descision is objectionable to you.

[Wudang]

Apologies. I'd used his first name before without comment and he used it in other places. I shall not do so again.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Piscivore
What is the criteria for determining which sensations are real or not?


Just been browsing this thread. It appears as if lifegazer's philosophy starts with the realisation that there is no objective reality (perhaps lifegazer can clarify this). If so then the first question on the list is meaningless because under this philosophy, all sensations are real. There can be no true reference to an objective reality if such a reality does not exist. One can of course concede that science has the ability to describe and predict certain types of experiences, but experiences is all that they would be. They would be no more or less real than any other type of experience.

[uruk]

There can be no true reference to an objective reality if such a reality does not exist. One can of course concede that science has the ability to describe and predict certain types of experiences, but experiences is all that they would be. They would be no more or less real than any other type of experience.

Lifegazer makes the assumption that what our experiance tells us of the world around us is false. That there is no "real" world around us. Ok fine, but he does not support that assumption with any evidence or proof, and more over, he asserts this assumption as true. He is at heart a nihilistic solipsist.
He goes even further to say that the individual identity is not real.
But rather a fraction of a god indentity.
So by his philosophy our sense of self is just as "unreal" as our sense of the world around us. Yet he holds that the sense of self is of something "real" and that it exists, but the sense of the world around us is not of something that is real and therefore does not exist. So that leads him to a double standard that he claims he does not hold.

Others have pointed out to him that (in his philosophy) "we" are just as unreal as the world we percieve. Also that, to us, there is no real distinction. If we are just as unreal as the world we percieve than for all practical porposes that univers is "real".

But even though he claims to follow hard logic and reason, he claims he can prove the existance of his god. Through Particle physics no less. His latest farce can be seen in the QM and Mind thread.

The only logic he has been able to master the logical fallicy. But don't take my word for it. See for your self. But be warned he also mastered the art of ad hominim and obfuscation. He'll also out right ignore questions and requests for clarification.


Enjoy!

[Wudang]

Darat clarified that I'm allowed to post material that someone may have posted elsewhere but not when the purpose is just to provoke a reaction, only to counter factual claims etc. Fair enough.

I think I've demonstrated that lifegazer is unable to answer the question of why he trusts his memory of having had a dream but not sensations of an external world. Amongst other questions of course. As he said:
"I cannot force anyone here to address the actual meat of this specific presentation - which is why nobody has - but that will not make it go away."
Enough said.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Darat clarified that I'm allowed to post material that someone may have posted elsewhere but not when the purpose is just to provoke a reaction, only to counter factual claims etc. Fair enough.

I think I've demonstrated that lifegazer is unable to answer the question of why he trusts his memory of having had a dream but not sensations of an external world. Amongst other questions of course. As he said:
"I cannot force anyone here to address the actual meat of this specific presentation - which is why nobody has - but that will not make it go away."
Enough said.
I've never publicised my full name. Whoever got the info did it in an unscrupulous manner. Moreover, what reason would you have to give for publicising my name in this forum, other than to intimidate me?
I don't want my personal info brandished about here or anywhere. Don't do it again.

I don't intend to participate in this thread any more. So stop wasting your time Wudang.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't intend to participate in this thread any more. So stop wasting your time Wudang. [/B]

Thereby verifying that these questions, in fact, cannot be addressed by lifegazer's philosophy.

Thank you, lifegazer, for conceding the point.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Thereby verifying that these questions, in fact, cannot be addressed by lifegazer's philosophy.

Thank you, lifegazer, for conceding the point.
Rest assured that the only fact that can be verified from my non-participation in this thread, is that I simply cannot be bothered.

[Paul]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Rest assured that the only fact that can be verified from my non-participation in this thread, is that I simply cannot be bothered. Yet again you demonstrate a basic lack of comprehension of the language.

There is no fact evident, and one can certainly not be verified. However, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn from your non-participation; that you have no answers or that you do not wish to enter into discussions for which you are ill prepared.

Of course, if you really simply cannot be bothered, that demonstrated an incredible intellectual laziness for someone who so forcefully expounds his own theories.