Do brains really exist?

[lifegazer]

The perception of all things (including brains), is via sensation (primarily that of the sensation of light). When we 'see a brain', for instance, we are actually seeing the sensation of light organised to give the impression of a brain. Likewise for any 'thing' we see.
Therefore, the only established truth here is that there is a link between sensation [of a brain], thought & feeling.

What seems to be happening in this convo is that a number of people are arguing the case between the link that exists between real brains and thought & feeling.
But the important point to regard here is that scientists can only study the sensations that give the impression of our world/brain. Hence, the only truth science establishes is that which I mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph.

This is very important. What we see here is that science does nought but establish a link (order) between sensations thoughts & feelings. Science does not and cannot establish a link between real brains and thoughts/feelings, because science cannot study real brains.

So we see that this long discussion about split-brains has been a complete waste of everyone's time, because the most that anyone can prove here - even if we (Ian and myself) believe everything you tell us - is this:

Within the awareness of an observing individual, it appears as though there might be evidence that supports the notion that there is a link between each half of a sensed-brain and thought/feeling. So:
(1) "We SENSE Paul (the subject of the initial claim by Bod). Note that the sense-of-Paul within the observer's awareness, is not the reality of Paul. This applies to any 'thing' sensed.
(2) We SENSE sense-of-Paul's brain.
(3) We note that each half of this sensed-brain is possibly linked to separate thoughts/feelings.

... From the above observations/sensations, we cannot even be sure that Paul exists, least of all his brain. Therefore, if we cannot even prove the reality of one [external] individual from our studies, we certainly have no evidence for the existence of two separate individuals.

The only truth that anybody can establish, is that of Individual awareness; of 'things' sensed therein and of a set of thoughts & feelings experienced by that individual.
We're back to page 1. An argument that has been completely overlooked and by-passed for 6 pages of completely irrelevant material.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:
There's not a single scientific fact in any science book in the world which lends merit to the philosophy of materialism/realism (whatever you wanna call it).

Thankyou.

[Donks]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
There's not a single scientific fact in any science book in the world which lends merit to the philosophy of materialism/realism (whatever you wanna call it).

Thankyou.
Yes, I agree with you. If you start from the premise that the universe is an illusion (or a god-dream), and that the observations made in it correspond exactly with a material universe, then there is no evidence that can refute your position. From my POV what you did in this thread was, when confronted with the patients with split-brain syndrome and faced with arguments you couldn't refute, you withdrew back into your philosophy where, by definition, everything is explained and works just as you say it does.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The perception of all things (including brains), is via sensation (primarily that of the sensation of light). When we 'see a brain', for instance, we are actually seeing the sensation of light organised to give the impression of a brain. Likewise for any 'thing' we see.
Therefore, the only established truth here is that there is a link between sensation [of a brain], thought & feeling.

What seems to be happening in this convo is that a number of people are arguing the case between the link that exists between real brains and thought & feeling.
But the important point to regard here is that scientists can only study the sensations that give the impression of our world/brain. Hence, the only truth science establishes is that which I mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph.

This is very important. What we see here is that science does nought but establish a link (order) between sensations thoughts & feelings. Science does not and cannot establish a link between real brains and thoughts/feelings, because science cannot study real brains.

So we see that this long discussion about split-brains has been a complete waste of everyone's time, because the most that anyone can prove here - even if we (Ian and myself) believe everything you tell us - is this:

Within the awareness of an observing individual, it appears as though there might be evidence that supports the notion that there is a link between each half of a sensed-brain and thought/feeling. So:
(1) "We SENSE Paul (the subject of the initial claim by Bod). Note that the sense-of-Paul within the observer's awareness, is not the reality of Paul. This applies to any 'thing' sensed.
(2) We SENSE sense-of-Paul's brain.
(3) We note that each half of this sensed-brain is possibly linked to separate thoughts/feelings.

... From the above observations/sensations, we cannot even be sure that Paul exists, least of all his brain. Therefore, if we cannot even prove the reality of one [external] individual from our studies, we certainly have no evidence for the existence of two separate individuals.

The only truth that anybody can establish, is that of Individual awareness; of 'things' sensed therein and of a set of thoughts & feelings experienced by that individual.
We're back to page 1. An argument that has been completely overlooked and by-passed for 6 pages of completely irrelevant material.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:
There's not a single scientific fact in any science book in the world which lends merit to the philosophy of materialism/realism (whatever you wanna call it).

Thankyou.

While this is true, it basically means that, without assumptions, nothing certain can be known. Even your so-called 'truth' relies on base assumptions, as demonstrated previously.

One key assumption which must be decided is whether or not the sensations that the individual has in any way relate to real things. For the purposes of survival, the apparent answer is that they do; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that sensations are reflections of real things.

However, we are free to reject this assumption; which leaves us with the concept that our sensations are either an inaccurate reflection of a real world; an illusion which disguises the real world from us; or pure illusions founded on nothing. If the first were true, then we might be able to discern clues that tell us the true nature of the world, and how our illusions are different from what is real. This, in fact, is much more accurate as a description of our world, as there is much that our senses cannot tell us, much that we must infer from what we can detect with our senses.

The second case is the classic 'Matrix' scenario, which of course can have numerable variations; but the key problem with this case, as illustrated in those films, is if this IS some illusion disguising a real world, then the possibility must exist to transcend the illusion of reality and sense the real world. And, once you do that, you're left once again with the same choices all over again. Anyone here seen eXistenZ?

The third case - which is what lifegazer tries to postulate as 'Truth' - leaves us unable to learn anything from our sensations, whatsoever. We are then forced to either obey the illusion, or attempt to resist it; obviously, no one so far has been able to resist the illusion and survive. Further, if there is nothing we can learn through our senses, then there is nothing we can learn, period. Without sensations, we have nothing; even 'thought' and 'reason' become empty and meaningless if we have no sensory data, stored or otherwise, to work with. We see examples of this problem in almost every lifegazer thread, where he attempts to employ some sensed-phenomenon as support for his theories; which, of course, is an absurd course of action.

In any of the four cases, however, there is the practicality issue. Which of the four cases results in the greatest practical benefits? In any of the four, can we defy the observed laws of physics, sustain ourselves without observed food or water, etc? Apparently not. In every case, food, water, shelter, etc. are vital requirements. And in every case, obtaining these basic needs requires us to behave as if sensed-information is fairly accurate.

Unless Darren or other acosmists can demonstrate either the ability to transcend laws of physics, or survival without normal means of obtaining food, drink, shelter, etc... then their theories are irrelevant.

Back to his title thread - Do brains really exist?

Within our sensed reality, brains really exist. There is no means of detecting any other form of reality, so the answer, simply, is 'yes'.

Thank you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
While this is true,

Thankyou.

Back to his title thread - Do brains really exist?

Within our sensed reality, brains really exist. There is no means of detecting any other form of reality, so the answer, simply, is 'yes'.

Within sensed-reality, sensed-brains exist. Not real brains.

Note also that a sensed-entity is not the cause of anything else within/upon awareness. Nay, the cause of anything within/upon awareness must be the owner of that awareness - or, something external to that owner. But I won't get into that right now. All I'll say right now is that no 'thing' studied within awareness is the cause of anything else observed within awareness. Conclusion:
Sensed-brains (which is what scientists actually study) are not the cause of any thoughts or feelings that exist within awareness.
This of course means that sense-of-Paul's sensed-brain is not the cause of any of sense-of-Paul's apparent thoughts/feelings.

Furthermore, my previous post negated the fact that any scientific knowledge provided evidence for the existence of ANY individual existing beyond awareness, least of all 2 (or more).

So all in all, I reckon it's time for these discussions about split-brains to cease altogether so that the discussion can progress to a higher and more meaningful level with regards the title of this thread.
Yours hopefully,
Me.

[Piscivore]

LG, none of that is meaningful without you telling us what your definition of "real" is.

ETA: What is the difference between a " sensed-brain" and a "real brain"?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Donks
Yes, I agree with you. If you start from the premise that the universe is an illusion (or a god-dream), and that the observations made in it correspond exactly with a material universe, then there is no evidence that can refute your position.

The post you are agreeing with is sound. Scientific observation is of sensations within/upon awareness, that give the impression/appearance of the world.
No thing you have ever experienced (sensed) is real in itself.
That is a telling statement.

From my POV what you did in this thread was, when confronted with the patients with split-brain syndrome and faced with arguments you couldn't refute, you withdrew back into your philosophy where, by definition, everything is explained and works just as you say it does.
No, what I did in this thread was fall asleep to the fact that scientific knowledge carries zero weight with regards proving the existence of a real world (real brains).
Due to this lapse on my part, 6 pages of irrelevant and unnecessary discussion followed.

I now apologise for falling asleep and allowing this to happen. Tonight, I seek to make amends and raise the discussion to a higher level. For in case you didn't understand the message in my previous posts, tonight, no scientific-knowledge presented within that discussion has proved the existence of anything - least of all the reality of brains or the reality of ANY individual (never mind 2 or more!).

The bold-type was necessary. We need to move on. And moving-on has been justified.

[Z]

Piscavore hit it again.

Darren, read what I said.

Within our sensed reality, brains really exist. There is no means of detecting any other form of reality, so the answer, simply, is 'yes'.

Now, let me break this down for you:

We know that there is a 'sensed-reality'. You even agree to this.

Do we know of any other reality? No.

Hence, we can dispense with the 'sensed' portion - it is unnecessary to differentiate it since we have no other models of reality to compare it to - and state, simply, that brains exist within reality.

Note also that a sensed-entity is not the cause of anything else within/upon awareness. Nay, the cause of anything within/upon awareness must be the owner of that awareness - or, something external to that owner. But I won't get into that right now. All I'll say right now is that no 'thing' studied within awareness is the cause of anything else observed within awareness. Conclusion:

Actually, there is some confusion in your statement here.

Clearly, the sensations I have of a light bulb do not, themselves, generate light. But the bulb which my sensations tell me is there, generates light which I then sense. In this aspect, you have made a semi-correct statement: the cause of that which we sense is external to the owner of those sensations.

Now, you completely muff it after that - We do not study things within awareness. We study the sensations of things - as you, yourself admit - and relationships between those sensations. If, as illustrated above, we accept some relationship between sensations and real things causing those sensations, then clearly the things we study can be causes of other things - or, to clarify, the things which we observe can cause other things which we observe. The observations do not cause the other observations, but rather the things which generate those observations do.

If, however, we reject our sensations as representative of what is 'real', then we can know nothing. There are no causes, no effects, and no things. We can then know absolutely nothing, and have no means for interacting with reality, whatsoever.

It really is very simple - for those with brains.

[lifegazer]

No 'thing' (sensed object) within awareness is the cause of anything else within awareness.
I stand by this statement and will present a short analysis of 'The Sun' (as I've done before), for your contemplation:

'The Sun' is an object that we see because of the sensation of yellow [light], within/upon awareness.
In other words, the sensation of [a ball of] 'yellow' [light], is what we call 'The Sun'.
The interesting thing about this is that we've always thought that 'The Sun' (that we experience) was the cause of the light that we actually sense. But we were wrong!!!!!!!!!
The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' that we see!!!!!

Amazingly, I've never seen evidence that a single person ever understood this fact before. Certainly, the masses do not. Probably because they have never heard anyone explain it to them.
This fact has alsorts of implications for many things, not least of which is Relativity, since if the objects that we sense are not the source of the light that we observe, some very profound conclusions follow. But I'll say no more about that tonight.
What I will say again, though, is that 'The Sun' that we sense is not the cause of our sensation of it. Neither is it the cause of anything else within/upon awareness.

And of course, the same logic applies to the sense-of-a-brain. No sensed-brain is the cause of any thoughts/feelings.
Yet the amazing thing is, scientists claim to observe that sensed-brains are the cause of all manner of things (that are also perceived within awareness).

Some of this stuff, above, is seriously profound. I mean it. The implications of what I'm writing here have far-reaching effects for science itself, never-mind philosophy.

If you want to take this discussion to a higher level, you have to accept what is being said here and try and let go of your desire (for whatever reason you would have it), that a real world/brains exist.

I'm going to bed shortly. Tomorrow, if I see evidence that people are willing to move on, I might continue. But if I see more crap about split-brains or statements like "we have to assume that a real world exists", then I'm jumping ship.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Amazingly, I've never seen evidence that a single person ever understood this fact before.

*Sigh* yes, they did, and they called it SOLIPSISM, you stupid, ignorant, illiterate, arrogant, lying pig-stinky!


ETA:
"Your methods are stupid, your intelligence is stupid, your progress has been STUPID!"

[lifegazer]

Well somebody forgot to tell Einstein and the rest of the clueless scientific-establishment then. Not to mention the materialists/atheists that hung onto their coat-tails.

Sensed-brains are the cause of NOTHING.
Sensed-Suns are the cause of NOTHING.

Pick up your phone and tell the scientists that are wasting $£$£ and their time trying to prove that sensed-brains & sensed-Suns are the cause of many things to read my posts tonight.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well somebody forgot to tell Einstein and the rest of the clueless scientific-establishment then. Not to mention the materialists/atheists that hung onto their coat-tails.

Sensed-brains are the cause of NOTHING.
Sensed-Suns are the cause of NOTHING.

Pick up your phone and tell the scientists that are wasting $£$£ and their time trying to prove that sensed-brains & sensed-Suns are the cause of many things to read my posts tonight.

That's because- as has been explained to you over and over and over, once more by ZG above, no-one else thinks Solipsism is of any merit. It's useless, meaningless woolgathering.

Answer the question, you illiterate chump: what is the difference between "sensed-things" and "real things", and how do you tell the difference?

Answer it, you ignorant intellectual coward!

[Atlas]

I am looking forward to your revealing the implications. You have made it sound compelling. I have made some inferences from what you've revealed so far about causality and it seem to point to a pointless existence as puppets unable to even cause our own emotional states. We are nothing, can do nothing and have no responsibility.

Causality is determined by what comes after not before. There is nothing that can be predicted.

Even if you could prove it, which you cannot, who'd buy it.

Well, maybe you will have some uplifting implications so I'll wait to pass judgement. I hope you weren't just trying to sell us on the great ideas you have by telling us that there are tremendous implications. We want to know what you have found out. Don't let us down.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No 'thing' (sensed object) within awareness is the cause of anything else within awareness.

The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' that we see!!!!! These statements seem at odds with one another. It seems to suggest that babies are the cause of their parents.

[Z]

Actually, it's very simple.

Imagine, for a moment, that awareness is a canvas.

Now, upon that canvas, we see a sun appear. The 'light' is the paint which placed the sun there - actually, even this is untrue.

What science assumes that 'light' - another painting on the canvas - came from the sun, creating a reaction causing paint to spill across our canvas and create the sun. Then we see more light - well, more paint that they think causes paint to spill across our canvas creating a painting of light coming from the sun.

So under this analogy, let's re-state his 'profound' statement, and see if we can better grasp what he's actually saying:

No 'thing' (painted object) upon the canvas is the cause of anything else upon the canvas.
I stand by this statement and will present a short analysis of 'The Sun' (as I've done before), for your contemplation:

'The Sun' is an object that we see because of the painting of yellow [light], within/upon the canvas..
In other words, the painting of [a ball of] 'yellow' [light], is what we call 'The Sun'.
The interesting thing about this is that we've always thought that 'The Sun' (the painting) was the cause of the light upon the canvas. But we were wrong!!!!!!!!!
The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' upon the canvas!!!!!

So there we have it. He's not arguing about the sun. He's arguing about the mental representation of the sun.

And as far as I know, very few people actually think that the representation of the sun within our minds caused light.

No, squire Darren, this is the actual chain we believe occurs:

The Sun causes Light. This Light causes a series of signals in our brains, creating a representation of light which, in turn, becomes a representation of the sun. Since the entirity of our awareness is of these representations, our only means of understanding Reality is by looking at the relationships between these representations, and comparing our observations with the observations of other people.

Look at this set of lines, in the new analogy:

Painted-brains are the cause of NOTHING.
Painted-Suns are the cause of NOTHING.

A-ha! So, actually, Darren is right - but does this have anything to do with anything? Only if what causes the paint to appear is NOT what the painting represents.

There it is - his whole system of thought requires the reader to continually confuse real things with mental representations of things.

It is true - we don't know for certain what causes the mental representations we observe. That's why it becomes necessary to make at least one assumption - that the representations of things which we observe are fairly accurate representations of real things.

Simple, really.

edited to fix something I missed.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You dont know this Lifegazer, because you are never interested in what happens in the -perceived- world. After all, why be interested? it is just an illusion.

Anyway, you say that your view is "profound", yet you ignore that, in the past, your "profound" and presumable "new" view regarding perception was exactly how it was supposed to be. "Light" was consider to be a projection from the eye to the object.

Of course, intuitively it sounds as "correct" as the opposite view. Doesnt it?

I do not feel quite right, I have a cold, otherwise I would argue more about this, explaining you how they arrived to the conclusion is that the light "emanates" from objects, and not the other way around.

Maybe, for a change, you can do your own homework? Please do so, hopefully, avoiding us to waste our time in trying to educate you.

[Z]

I hope you get better soon, Bodhi.

I do wonder what his thoughts are about the 'painting' analogy above... I'm sure he will have some 'profound' insight as to why that analogy is fatally flawed, as well.

Just remember, Gentle Reader, that this is the same person who would have us believe that a paradox is not really a paradox, due to the fact that a contradictory conclusion is reached via LG-logic; that infinite space requires infinite distances between fixed points; and that comprehension of God and reality can be had without any assumptions whatsoever. :rolleyes:

What's really sad, is that I feel, intuitively, that Darren is close to realizing a very profound concept - but he's unwilling to change one of his key premises to reach that concept, and would be unhappy if he did realize it. After all - it would reduce him to another speck in the universe, and make him realize how much valuable time he's been wasting pursuing this chimera.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Atlas
I have made some inferences from what you've revealed so far about causality and it seem to point to a pointless existence as puppets unable to even cause our own emotional states. We are nothing, can do nothing and have no responsibility.

I've told you several times that you are the sovereign of all that you perceive. You do exist. You are not a puppet. Atlas is the puppet - but 'you' are not 'Atlas'. The expressions of your life are not meaningless.
In a dream, everything/everyone perceived is a different expression of your potential self (since nothing/nobody in a dream is real). Thus, your relationships with other characters within your dreams are relationships with yourself.
Whatever you do unto others, you do unto yourself. Heard that before? You bet. Heard anyone try to explain it before to the same depth as myself? I doubt it, since you wouldn't be asking me these questions if you already comprehended the philosophy behind it.
Love your neighbour as yourself... was not a command. It was a goal for you to understand and then shoot for.

Causality is determined by what comes after not before. There is nothing that can be predicted.

Nonsense. Causality is determined by comprehending the events prior to everything that you presently know.

Even if you could prove it, which you cannot, who'd buy it.

I have nothing to sell you. I don't want your money or your worship. I'm here for the sake of God - since my philosophy states that only God exists.
I think that you are God. I'm trying to save you from further hellish experience of believing in death.
Only those that understand my philosophy, can "buy it". But they don't have to pay. Not £$£$, anyway.

Well, maybe you will have some uplifting implications so I'll wait to pass judgement. I hope you weren't just trying to sell us on the great ideas you have by telling us that there are tremendous implications. We want to know what you have found out. Don't let us down.
Okay. But stop changing the subject. I've had 6 pages of that already.
My next post shall deal with the implications of the posts I made last night.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
What's really sad, is that I feel, intuitively, that Darren is close to realizing a very profound concept - but he's unwilling to change one of his key premises to reach that concept, and would be unhappy if he did realize it. It's funny but I have had the same suspicion. Of course such a view is a presumptuous but I've been in this situation before, on both sides, and I base that assumption on that experience. The likelyhood of grasping that concept depends on how invested one is to one's world view. Considering the sheer number of posts and all of the different forums and an attention to pretty much only this subject it seems reasonable to assume he is pretty invested.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've told you several times that you are the sovereign of all that you perceive. You do exist. You are not a puppet. Atlas is the puppet - but 'you' are not 'Atlas'. The expressions of your life are not meaningless. I am not a puppet. I agree with that. But clarify the terms you use here please: Atlas, 'you', and 'Atlas' - The first and last seem similar. ... Love your neighbour as yourself... was not a command. It was a goal for you to understand and then shoot for. I believe it was the second part of Jesus' answer to the question: "What is the greatest commandment?"
Nonsense. Causality is determined by comprehending the events prior to everything that you presently know. Yah, Yah, Goddidit. We know that. My next post shall deal with the implications of the posts I made last night. I'm looking forward to it. I've thought about it myself. I'm sure you'll take me in another direction.

[Z]

OK, so let's recap:

All that exist are perceptions - paintings on canvas.

Individual sets of perceptions - human beings - believe that they are individual sets of perceptions who are perceiving a representation of things painted across the canvas. Most believe there are real things that these paintings represent.

According to lifegazer, the individual sets of perceptions are all unified - how, he refuses to consider - by being a singular entity, who is also the canvas, AND the paint. But no things exist which the paintings portray, and the individual sets of perceptions are not individuals at all.

So... does that mean that the individual sets of perceptions gain anything from this awareness? Apparently not - the paintings remain unchanged. The individual sets of perceptions suffer and die, and nothing appears to change, not even for that set of perceptions that calls itself 'lifegazer'.

Irrelevant, then.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thanks Zaayr, a lot better now.

Oh, LG, have fun while you think about the implications of your babbles. You can also answer this, maybe?

If light goes from "someone" to the sun... how is that that "someone" will go blind if he stares directly the light that doesnt exists?

Oh, yes. Because he chooses to. :)

[Atlas]

From what he saud last night, and what he seems to be stuck on tonight, I'm expecting Lg to reiterate that God is all-experience. We are experiences of God like His sense of smell.

When we act as God's experience we have the perceptions God created like the smell of bacon and eggs. Having that experience of the smell of bacon and eggs calls into being God's extended creation. Poof, a plate of bacon and eggs appears. In addition, all the prior causes are called into being down through the past.

There is the butcher shop and the butcher, the chicken and the pig, the livestock truck, the farm and the farmer...

For every experience of light God relives the idea of the sun back to it's initial creation. Perception then prior cause, and since He IS causality, all related prior caused effect relived within His Awareness.

[Z]

Originally posted by Atlas
From what he saud last night, and what he seems to be stuck on tonight, I'm expecting Lg to reiterate that God is all-experience. We are experiences of God like His sense of smell.

When we act as God's experience we have the perceptions God created like the smell of bacon and eggs. Having that experience of the smell of bacon and eggs calls into being God's extended creation. Poof, a plate of bacon and eggs appears. In addition, all the prior causes are called into being down through the past.

There is the butcher shop and the butcher, the chicken and the pig, the livestock truck, the farm and the farmer...

For every experience of light God relives the idea of the sun back to it's initial creation. Perception then prior cause, and since He IS causality, all related prior caused effect relived within His Awareness.

Pardon me, Atlas... I must now go pry my eyes out of my scull and stomp upon them.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Pardon me, Atlas... I must now go pry my eyes out of my scull and stomp upon them. It won't be enough unless your ears, tongue, nose and skin are already gone. But just to be safe, crush your genitals too. Then buy a new pair of tennis shoes and tell people you're just waiting for a comet - otherwise they'll think you're crazy or something.

[Z]

Well, I wouldn't want to be accused of being half-hearted. So the eyes stay put for now.

I will, however, have to take several largish pills as a result of reading your post r.e. causality. And I may still crush my tennis shoe's genitals, for good measure...

OK somethingis wrong wth me to night. I feel drunk but am sober. Someone prey for me?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I feel drunk but am sober. Someone prey for me? Ooohhhh.... sounds exciting. I'll be the antelope and you be the big strong leoperd... that is to be prey right? Or do you want me to be the predator and you be the prey? Grrrrrr....

[Z]

YOu take your pick. But you'll not find me easy prey! :growl:

[lifegazer]

First, reconsider this:

'The Sun' is an object that we see because of the sensation of yellow [light], within/upon awareness.
In other words, the sensation of [a ball-shape of] 'yellow' [light], is what we call 'The Sun'.
The interesting thing about this is that we've always thought that 'The Sun' (that we experience) was the cause of the light that we actually sense. But we were wrong!!!!!!!!!
The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' that we see!!!!!
... 'The Sun' that we sense and which scientists observe (since they can observe no other) is not the cause of our sensation of it (which means that it is not the cause of the light within/upon our awareness). Neither is it the cause of anything else within/upon awareness.

... And of course, the same logic applies to the sense-of-a-brain. No sensed-brain (which is what scientists study!!) is the cause of any thoughts/feelings (or of anything else within/upon awareness).


... This is of immense significance for science (and philosophy). Why? Well...

No [sense of a] 'thing' (an object deduced from the experience of sensations) within/upon awareness is the cause of anything else within/upon awareness... and yet scientists can only observe the sense of a thing.
Conclusion: All 'things' seen within/upon awareness are devoid of causal power.
Consequence: Scientific paradigm-shift is required that eliminates theories that give causal power to things observed within awareness.
Science, being (amongst other things) the pursuit of the understanding of the cause of the things that we experience, needs to acknowledge that no 'thing' within/upon awareness is the cause of anything else therein.
So, for example, a scientist who devotes his/her life to studying a sensed-brain (can't study any other!!!) to observe how 'it' causes sensations/thoughts/feelings within/upon awareness, is foolishly wasting his/her time and someone's £$£$.

The most a scientist can establish is the link/order that exists between sensations (of brains) and thoughts/feelings. But sensed-brains cause NOTHING that also appears within/upon awareness.

Now, anybody with a brain (boom boom) must surely see why science (the establishment of scientists and it's habitual methods and bias towards the reality of things) has hit a brick wall.
Science cannot prove that anything within/upon awareness is the cause of anything else because all things within/upon awareness are devoid of causal power. So science MUST change or die.

For centuries, science has worked upon the basis that the objects observed had causal power. Now, at this critical point, scientists (and philosophers) must acknowledge that the cause of the world that we sense is Whatever it is that is causing sensations within/upon awareness.

What caused the universe that exists within our minds? A "big bang"? *laugh*
The laugh is justified. Scientists have studied the world in our minds and - having attributed causal-power to the things seen therein - have come-up with this theory.
The world in our minds (the only world we can study) was caused by the imposition of sensations by Whatever it is that is causing sensations.
That is the absolute truth. The game is coming to an end. Maybe not today, but in the coming years these facts will infest the cracks of science and will eventually force the shell to split.

[Z]

*sigh*

Wrong again, Darren.

Boy, this is getting predictable.

Corrected by zaayrdragon
First, reconsider this:

'The Sun' is an object that we see because of the painting of yellow [light], within/upon the canvas of awareness.
In other words, the painting of [a ball-shape of] 'yellow' [light], is what we call 'The Sun'.

Except that it's not. We don't call our sensation of the Sun the Sun; we accept that it is the perception of a Sun.

Strawman noted.

The interesting thing about this is that we've always thought that 'The Sun' (the painting) was the cause of the light that is also painted on the canvas. But we were wrong!!!!!!!!!

Again, wrong. We have always thought that the Sun - which we induce to exist from comparing our observations to those of other beings - was the cause of light, which allows us to induce the existence of a sun.

No one believes that our perception of the sun IS the sun; no one believes that our perception of the sun generates light; certainly, most of us can fully grasp that a perception doesn't generate light. Only you, Darren, seem to have a problem with this concept.

The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' in the painting!!!!!

Is this the yellow light we sense, or actual yellow light? Which, by the way, would be contradicting what you are trying to say.

After all, we don't see 'light' either, but the painting of light upon the canvas of our awareness. So light cannot cause the Sun either, by this understanding.

... 'The Sun' in the painting and which scientists observe (since they can observe no other) is not the cause of the painting of it (which means that it is not the cause of the light painted upon the canvas). Neither is it the cause of any other painting else within/upon the canvas.

See how meaningless this becomes when you clarify it? Of course, our perception of the sun is not the cause of our perception of the sun. That is moronic.

However, by comparing our perceptions of the sun with the perceptions being experienced by others, we can come to objective conclusions about what this sun must be like, by collating our shared perceptions.

This is really breaking down fast, Darren. Got those knee-pads ready?

... And of course, the same logic applies to the painting-of-a-brain. No painted-brain (which is what scientists study!!) is the cause of any thoughts/feelings (or of anything else within/upon the canvas).


Of course not. And no one says it is.

... This is of immense significance for science (and philosophy). Why? Well...

No [painting of a] 'thing' (an object deduced from the experience of paintings) within/upon the canvas is the cause of anything else within/upon the canvas... and yet scientists can only observe the painting of a thing.

See, here again, you're making a huge mistake. The object deduced from the experience of our shared perceptions is not the sense of an object. The very fact that it must be deduced from shared perceptions proves that it is not, in fact, the sensed-object itself, but an objectively existing object of some sort. If we remove the poorly constructed language and replace it with the painting/canvas analogy, we quickly see where your logic is all fluttery.

Conclusion: All 'things' seen within/upon the canvas are devoid of causal power.

Duh.

Consequence: Scientific paradigm-shift is required that eliminates theories that give causal power to things observed within the canvas.

Oh, well, that's easy - there are no theories that give causal powers to our perceptions.

Science, being (amongst other things) the pursuit of the understanding of the cause of the things painted upon the canvas, needs to acknowledge that no 'thing' within/upon the canvas is the cause of anything else therein.

They do.

So, for example, a scientist who devotes his/her life to studying a painted-brain (can't study any other!!!) to observe how 'it' causes sensations/thoughts/feelings within/upon the painting, is foolishly wasting his/her time and someone's £$£$.

Ah, see, but scientists aren't studying the painting - er, I mean, the perceived-brain. They are studying the relationships between their perceptions and the perceptions of others to come to an understanding of how a real brain might cause sensations/thoughts/feelings within awareness. This is where the sensations = real world assumption comes into play. If we make the base assumption that perceptions of a real world are fairly accurate, then we can progress scientifically; otherwise, we can know or do nothing.

The most a scientist can establish is the link/order that exists between paintings (of brains) and thoughts/feelings. But painted-brains cause NOTHING that also appears within/upon the canvas.

Now, anybody with a brain (boom boom) must surely see why science (the establishment of scientists and it's habitual methods and bias towards the reality of things) has hit a brick wall.
Science cannot prove that anything within/upon the canvas is the cause of anything else because all things within/upon the canvas are devoid of causal power. So science MUST change or die.

The rest of your post, founded as it is upon a tremendous misundrestanding, is meaningless and irrelevant.

No, science is doing just fine. Only you, Darren, are too ignorant and moronic to understand what it is that scientists do.

So - no points here, either.

Zero for zero so far, Darren. Keep up the good work.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Again, wrong. We have always thought that the Sun - which we induce to exist from comparing our observations to those of other beings

What other beings? How have you deduced that beings exist separate and apart from each other?
The only fact reason can establish is that there are different experiences of being - not different beings!!

Of course, if you ASSUME that there are different beings, you can then go on to ASSUME that there is a real Sun. But this is higher-level philosophy squire and you must stop ASSUMING things to declare conclusions of your preference!!

No one believes that our perception of the sun IS the sun

Scientists do, apparently. Here's a link I found:

http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html

Here's some "facts" from that link:

... Sunspots are caused by complicated and not very well understood interactions with the Sun's magnetic field.
... In addition to heat and light, the Sun also emits a low density stream of charged particles...
... The Sun is about 4.5 billion years old.
... It will continue to radiate "peacefully" for another 5 billion years or so.
... It will then be forced into radical changes which, though commonplace by stellar standards, will result in the total destruction of the Earth.

Now since science can only study the sensation-of-Sun, where do facts like these come from?
I've already explained why a 'thing' within/upon awareness is devoid of causal power. It's simple logic and indisputable. Yet we can find a whole host of "facts" about the sensation-of-Sun which attribute causality to that 'thing' sensed (The Sun).

Sunspots are actually caused by Whatever it is that imposes the sensation of [ball-shaped] yellow within/upon awareness, also imposing the sensation of black-dots-upon-yellow within/upon awareness.
The Sun we can study is the Sun within/upon awareness. And as I've explained, that 'thing' is the cause of NOTHING.
Please address my posts in future and stop telling porkies. Science MUST think that the Sun it can study is real since science attributes causal power to that entity.

So science is either ignorant of what I'm telling you here, or science ASSUMES the reality of a world beyond awareness.
In either case, science MUST change. Science has a responsibility to the truth and to people. It cannot go around making-up realities and teaching people "facts" about these realities... thus having radical effects upon the culture and history of our planet.
The movement towards atheism and indifference has been fueled by science. Science has had an enormous effect upon the attitudes of people. And the attitudes of people are what shape our history.

TRUE science - being the study of what we observe - should have acknowledged that 'things' observed are devoid of causal power.
That is a FACT. And it is the basis for our future progression.

You're aren't going to progress Z until you cease clinging to your assumptions. But whether you continue to do so is not really significant for experience as a whole. Whether science does, is.
That is why I will continue to press for scientific revolution as part of my philosophy.

[Donks]

Originally posted by lifegazer
snip...
Sunspots are actually caused by Whatever it is that imposes the sensation of [ball-shaped] yellow within/upon awareness, also imposing the sensation of black-dots-upon-yellow within/upon awareness.
The Sun we can study is the Sun within/upon awareness. And as I've explained, that 'thing' is the cause of NOTHING.
What you are proposing is to forgo the predictive power of science by assigning the cause of everything to an unknown and unknowable entity.

snip...
TRUE science - being the study of what we observe - should have acknowledged that 'things' observed are devoid of causal power.
That is a FACT. And it is the basis for our future progression.
No, that is an ASSUMPTION. You protest that science assumes that there is a real world "out there" and in the same breath assume that there is no real world "out there."

[Chris O.]

Science is doing just fine with these assumptions, and will continue to do so. In fact the only brick wall science and scientists could run into would be to adopt your philosophy, and thus be paralyzed in doubt and uncertainty
.
"I think the ball was going 5mph"
"How can you be sure?"
"I read the stop watch, and divided the time from the distance it travelled"
"How do you know it went that far?"
"I saw it pass the beginning point and the end point"
"How do you know what you saw is true?"
"Did you see something different?"
"No, but How do I know what I saw was true?"
"umm, 'cause we agree on what we saw.."
"SO?"
"What?"
"It's just a perception"
"Do you want someone else to verify it?"
"No, because it would just be their perception"
"I quit"
"Me too."


And mankind has righted all of the evils caused by scientists ever since


The nice thing about science is that if someone begins "making-up realities and teaching people "facts" about these realities..." other people, independantly of the first person can test to see if the attrubutes of reality he describes appear to be true, or not. If they hold to be true, we may then move forward from that point, and build machines with these facts in mind, or adjust current technology, and thus progress as we have done for centuries. If the initial description of reality is found to be faulty, it is either thrown out, or adjusted to a more accurate description. The main point is, science WORKS! Your computer is proof of this process, your car is proof of this process, the torque wrench is proof of this process, solar panels are proof we understand the nature of the sun.
"I think X is true, if x is true, then when I put x into action I should get y"
Puts X into action, y comes out
"Yup I was right."
It's something we all learned in elementary school, no philosophy required. Trial and error is all we'll ever need. Something either works or it doesn't.

Edited for spelling

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Donks
What you are proposing is to forgo the predictive power of science by assigning the cause of everything to an unknown and unknowable entity.

I am telling you FACTS that are indisputable, such as the sense-of-a-brain is NOT the cause of thoughts & feelings.
It is impossible to observe the sense-of-a-brain and discover how 'it' produces thoughts or feelings, because 'it' does not.
Would you rather the establishment of science ignore this FACT and continue wasting time and £$£$ regardless?!!!
To what ends?!!!!

"TRUE science - being the study of what we observe - should have acknowledged that 'things' observed are devoid of causal power.
That is a FACT. And it is the basis for our future progression."

No, that is an ASSUMPTION. You protest that science assumes that there is a real world "out there" and in the same breath assume that there is no real world "out there."
I never said that. Not in this thread, anyway. And even when I did say it, I gave reason for saying it. Thus, when I said it, it wasn't an assumption - it was the conclusion of reason.

My protest against science is absolutely sound. It doesn't matter whether science has been useful to us throughout the past - that has ZERO bearing on what I'm saying here.

[Robin]

Contrary to what lifegazer claims science gives zilch weight to the sensations within a single awareness. What is important is that independent observations from individuals should agree. (Call these individuals "experiences" if you like, makes no difference whatsoever).

Now true I do not have evidence that other awarenesses than my own exist, that is an assumption, but it seems a pretty reasonable one, and one that lifegazer makes himself (try to deny it LG, so that I can quote again where you did). And if other awarenesses exist then then all of science really does constitute evidence.

OK what evidence do we have for the sun? Don't forget gravity, it was calculations based on gravity that allowed scientists to predict planets that existed on nobody's awareness.

That's right, science predicted they were there before they existed on anyone's awareness.

Happens all the time, science predicted most of the properties of DNA long before we had the technology to have the sensations of DNA.

OK so we have evidence, even if not proof beyond unreasonable doubt, for things such as the sun, DNA, brains etc.

What evidence do we have for the One that knows all experiences?

None, zilch, zero! Lifegazer bails from a thread when asked for any (or starts quoting the Bible).

So is it more reasonable to believe lifegazer's "One" for which we have neither proof nor evidence, or to believe in the independent existence of such things as brains or the Sun, for which we at least have evidence?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Robin
Contrary to what lifegazer claims science gives zilch weight to the sensations within a single awareness. What is important is that independent observations from individuals should agree. (Call these individuals "experiences" if you like, makes no difference whatsoever).

Of course it makes a difference. The former allows for many separate entities, each with individual awareness; whereas the latter allows for a Single entity having many experiences.

Now true I do not have evidence that other awarenesses than my own exist, that is an assumption, but it seems a pretty reasonable one, and one that lifegazer makes himself (try to deny it LG, so that I can quote again where you did). And if other awarenesses exist then then all of science really does constitute evidence.

My philosophy isn't dependent upon the existence of other experiences.
I do suspect though that there are other experiences.
However, read my comment above: 'other experiences' don't require more than one entity.

I do not dispute that there is order/law in the world of sensed-things. But this order emanates from Whatever it is that creates the sensations that lead to the deduction/judgement of 'things'. It is the essence of all Law seen within/upon awareness.

OK what evidence do we have for the sun? Don't forget gravity, it was calculations based on gravity that allowed scientists to predict planets that existed on nobody's awareness.

Read my previous paragraph.
All known order mirrors that observed within/upon awareness.
'Gravity' is not a proof of a real Sun. Gravity appears to exist in the sensed-world, since that's the world we observe and make deductions about.

That's right, science predicted they were there before they existed on anyone's awareness.

Predicted "they" were there? What's "they"?
'Gravity' is a label which simply mirrors the order which appears to exist between sensed-things.

OK so we have evidence, even if not proof beyond unreasonable doubt, for things such as the sun, DNA, brains etc.

We have ZERO proof for anything external to awareness. Stop perpetuating the lie.

[Donks]

Originally posted by lifegazer
continue wasting time and £$£$ regardless?!!!
To what ends?!!!!
It doesn't matter whether science has been useful to us throughout the past - that has ZERO bearing on what I'm saying here.
Those two statements are contradictory. If the usefulness of science has no bearing, then its wastefulness has no bearing either.

Your argument is that science must change because it assumes a world "out there" and that it attributes casual power to observed things. Then you go further and state things like "it is impossible to observe the sense-of-a-brain and discover how 'it' produces thoughts or feelings." By saying it's impossible what you are saying is that either there is no brain, or that our observations of brains (sense-of-a-brain) are so inaccurate that any information we get from them would not allow us to understand how the brain works. Science assumes that our observations represent a physical brain accurately enough, and that those observations may be sufficient to allow us to eventually explain how that brain produces thoughts or feelings. You assume that is wrong.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Donks
Those two statements are contradictory. If the usefulness of science has no bearing, then its wastefulness has no bearing either.

Don't play games with me or I'll just pass you by. You know for a FACT that my statement was made with regards the sense-of-a-brain.
I have NEVER said that science is totally useless.

Your argument is that science must change because it assumes a world "out there" and that it attributes casual power to observed things. Then you go further and state things like "it is impossible to observe the sense-of-a-brain and discover how 'it' produces thoughts or feelings." By saying it's impossible what you are saying is that either there is no brain, or that our observations of brains (sense-of-a-brain) are so inaccurate that any information we get from them would not allow us to understand how the brain works.

I'm saying neither of those things.
I have said that we can ONLY observe the sensed-brain. The sensed-brain has zero causal power. Consequently, it is impossible to observe the sensed-brain being the cause of thoughts/feelings.
Therefore, any effort to do so is futile.

Science assumes that our observations represent a physical brain accurately enough, and that those observations may be sufficient to allow us to eventually explain how that brain produces thoughts or feelings. You assume that is wrong.
I assume nothing of the sort. Go to the quote where I assume this or stop telling lies about me.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I am telling you FACTS that are indisputable, such as the sense-of-a-brain is NOT the cause of thoughts & feelings.
It is impossible to observe the sense-of-a-brain and discover how 'it' produces thoughts or feelings, because 'it' does not.I don't know why you think they are indisputable, unless perhaps you're more than a little looney. Everyone here disputes your 'facts'.

You promised that you would reveal far reaching implication for science. But all you gave us was more of this drivel.

Don't you see what your theory suggests? There are no LAWS of physics. If, in your awarenss, you see an Earth centered solar system, it will become so. You are the experience of God! As such, we don't need science. All we need are people who will exercise this power for good in our world. Will you?. No? Why not? Because no matter how much you want it to be true you are deluded. What you believe is not true. That is a FACT indisputable. Would you rather the establishment of science ignore this FACT and continue wasting time and £$£$ regardless?!!!
To what ends?!!!! I want science to continue spending $$$. To what ends? Better anti psychotic drugs for my pal Lg, for one. And to continue bringing us better tools for brighter lives.

[Donks]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don't play games with me or I'll just pass you by. You know for a FACT that my statement was made with regards the sense-of-a-brain.
I have NEVER said that science is totally useless.
Pass me by.

I'm saying neither of those things.
I have said that we can ONLY observe the sensed-brain. The sensed-brain has zero causal power. Consequently, it is impossible to observe the sensed-brain being the cause of thoughts/feelings.
Therefore, any effort to do so is futile.
Let me try again. Assume for a second that a real world "out there" exists, with brains capable of producing feelings and emotions. What science attempts to do is figure out how those, which would have casual power, produce such feelings and emotions. This is done the only way available to us, by using our observations.
I assume nothing of the sort. Go to the quote where I assume this or stop telling lies about me.
No need to go very far, you just gave an example this very post. "Therefore, any effort to do so is futile." If a real brain exists, if it produces thoughts and feelings, and if our observations of it are accurate, then we can (eventually) observe the brain producing thought and feelings. This is not futile unless you assume one of my ifs is wrong.

[Z]

And even after having it revealed that his insistance on 'sense of a brain' vs. 'painting of a brain' is just confusing double-talk, he STILL reverts to this primitive form of argument.

No, Darren, you did not conclude through reason that nothing se sense reflects the real world; you assumed. Every single piece of reason ever concocted has had to rely on at least one single assumption - yours as well.

Now, let's compare the practical aspects of assuming other beings exist - by beings, I mean sets of perceptions, experiences of being, etc. - vs. assuming they don't.

By assuming they do, we can safely compare and contrast perception and experience. If things we sense consistantly and reliably are reported to us by other beings as being the same, we may conclude that there is an objective state for that sensation - in other words, that there is some reality behind that sensation.

By assuming they don't, we must conclude that only we exist - which is the assumption, of course - and that, as a result, everything we observe is illusion, generated by ourself, and that nothing these other perceived beings is doing is relevant to that. Hence, we can never be sure of anything at all.

Let's compare the practical aspects of assuming there is an underlying reality behind our sensations.

If we assume there is, then we can observe and analyze what we sense, and come to conclusions about the nature of that reality, allowing us adequate predictive powers. We can understand relationships between objects, and learn new ways to recombine naturally occuring things to make newer and better things.

If we assume there is not, then we can never know anything.

I do not dispute that there is order/law in the world of sensed-things. But this order emanates from Whatever it is that creates the sensations that lead to the deduction/judgement of 'things'. It is the essence of all Law seen within/upon awareness.

Whether this is true or not, whether your theory is true or not, has no bearing on science whatsoever. If all the sensed-evidence points to fire as being a thing destructive and hot, then every single time we encounter fire, it will be hot and destructive. It is the order of sensations imposed upon us by whatever is causing these sensations - whether a real, external physical world, or the Matrix, or a psychotic God. Likewise, if every bit of evidence tells us that the universe started in a Big Bang - mind, this is the sensed-universe, of course - then that is how the sensed-universe started. It doesn't matter if that universe is real, or an illusion of the Matrix, or a dream in the head of God; this sense-of-a-universe works as it is programmed to work or designed to work or how it happens to work.

You've stated before that there's no way a Big Bang happened in your head. But your head doesn't exist, either, according to you. So are you inferring that God can't have dreamed up a universe by first dreaming of a Big Bang, followed by all the events that scientists believe must have happened, to lead to the modern day? And if so, why? What limitations are there to a supposedly omnipotent Deity that keep this universe - whatever it is - from being exactly what all the evidence says it is, whether a dream or not?

I am telling you FACTS that are indisputable, such as the sense-of-a-brain is NOT the cause of thoughts & feelings.

No, it isn't. But a brain is an inferred object - like all objects - which we deduce exists from our sensations and from the assumption that other beings exist who share consistant and reliable observations with us. So whatever it is causing the sensation of a brain - whether a real brain in real space through our sensory processing, or whether the dream of an introexistential god - is the cause of the thoughts and feelings associated with that brain - or, should we say, the inferred thoughts and feelings which we deduce exists. Because no one can ever have the sensation of their own brain - at least, not yet.

In other words, Darren, you're not saying something profound at all; you're saying something childishly simple, that comes down to a simple 'duh!' moment.

Of course, a painting of a tree is not the cause of a painting of the shadow beneath the painted tree. Of course, the painted sun is not the cause of the painted light. No one in their right mind disputes that. It's ridiculous to accuse anyone of doing so.

But when we assume that other sets of perceptions exist relative to this set of perceptions, and every one of them reports the same shadow under the same tree, or the same light coming from the same sun - then we can deduce that the REAL tree casts a REAL shadow, and a REAL sun gives off REAL light. On the other hand, if every set of perceptions came back with a different answer, then we'd have reason to deny our sensations.

Yes, those deductions may be wrong. There's no doubt of that, either. But when you have the sensation of being uncomfortably hot from standing in the sensation of sunlight, and you seek a tree for shade, and rest in its sensed-shadow, and find relief, every single time - why treat it as anything different than what it seems to be?

This is why the only way your theories will ever do more than annoy intellectuals is if you can circumvent the laws of physics, or the nature of reality, by demonstrating the power of your Will or Thought or whatever in violation of observed-reality. Can you do it? Can you bypass this reality and invoke whatever reality you desire instead? Can you do miracles?

Unless the answer is a demonstrated 'yes', there is no reason for science not to stay the course and move forward.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]Of course it makes a difference. The former allows for many separate entities, each with individual awareness; whereas the latter allows for a Single entity having many experiences.
You are saying that it makes a real difference what word you use. It doesn't, if you called butter jam it would still taste like butter. The term arbitrarily choose to use is irrelevant unless you can provide some underlying justification. So whether we are an 'individual' or an 'experience' makes no difference, each 'individual' or 'experience' has a slightly differing awareness of things like the sun, but they agree after careful measurement. So these things are independent of me, or independent of the experience of being me.
My philosophy isn't dependent upon the existence of other experiences.
I do suspect though that there are other experiences.
However, read my comment above: 'other experiences' don't require more than one entity.
Nothing you have ever said in this forum makes any kind of sense if we have no existence outside of words on a screen - which is all the awareness you have of us. Why address us at all then?

I do not dispute that there is order/law in the world of sensed-things. But this order emanates from Whatever it is that creates the sensations that lead to the deduction/judgement of 'things'. It is the essence of all Law seen within/upon awareness.
But I neither have the awareness of this law, or the 'whatever it is' that creates them, it is outside of my awareness so:
We have ZERO proof for anything external to awareness. Stop perpetuating the lie.
Quite.
Read my previous paragraph.
All known order mirrors that observed within/upon awareness.
'Gravity' is not a proof of a real Sun. Gravity appears to exist in the sensed-world, since that's the world we observe and make deductions about.
And as I have shown, the un-sensed world.
Predicted "they" were there? What's "they"?
Planets that were not observed when Newton first made his calculations. But this could cover many things in science - the return of a comet, DNA which was found because scientists knew exactly what they were looking for.
'Gravity' is a label which simply mirrors the order which appears to exist between sensed-things.
And I have shown, the order between sensed things and things not-yet-sensed. Whatever it is that defines that order may be ourselves, but it is not even remotely in our awareness. So:
We have ZERO proof for anything external to awareness. Stop perpetuating the lie.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

LIFEGAZER, what will happen if you stare at the sun for ten minutes?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
LIFEGAZER, what will happen if you stare at the sun for ten minutes?


... ?

[Atlas]

I wonder if you'd create 10 suns. Anyway that's my guess.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

He does it again!

A crude question arrives, that demolish his ideas (no lifegazer, you DO NOT HAVE a philosophy) and what does he do? Ignore the thread and disappear for a few days.

Im a prophet, he will start soon another thread confident in that his strategy works. Everybody forgets the old thread and he pretend that no one could "break" his arguments.

What a joke.

Are you serious Lifegazer? You want me (us) to take you seriously. Then behave like an intelligent man, discuss, do not hide when you are cornered.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
...Im a prophet, he will start soon another thread ... :D :D Do you also have a prediction about whether the sun will rise tomorrow. :D :D

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience.



Agreed with that!
There seem to be at least 3 thread going on about the same problem ( " Where am I? ", " Where is the self ",.. )

Like an Italian singer ( Franco Battiato ) sang in one of his song: " Is it me who is living or are the cells inside my body who are? "

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Hello, Matteo!

How is Zen on this days?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ok Lifegazer. I will have to answer for your (sorry for not using colors, but it is to much work for this time in the morning)

~something~ creates the internal experience of perceived light that is then interpreted as "the sun". It is this internal experience what is real and nothing out there!

So, when I stare at the perceived sun for 10 minutes this ~something~ makes it appear as if my internal experience was produced by the false "external sun" (because it is just a perceived sun, not a real sun) and burns my perceived sensation of a retina and makes me believe that Im blind, this is, it blocks my internal capacity of creating the illusion of a "real sun".

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience.
Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Agreed with that! I disagree with this. Mobs, audiences for theater or sports events, military units, families at the human level all achieve at times the unitary experience where they are caught up in a single emotion and thought and thrill.

Ants and bees exhibit a remarkable singlemindedness. Their own survival is nothing, the colony or hive is the only thing.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Atlas

Even in a single brain, the very (simple) process of seeing an image is composed of different kind of receptors for specific things. Movement, color, shape, etc are created by different kind of neurons in different zones in the brain.

Yet, what we see is a coherent image. We experience what it appears to be just ONE image, ONE experience.

Another easy demonstration of the naiveness in Lifegazer ideas (No Lifegazer yo do not have a philosophy)

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Atlas

Even in a single brain, the very (simple) process of seeing an image is composed of different kind of receptors for specific things. Movement, color, shape, etc are created by different kind of neurons in different zones in the brain.

Yet, what we see is a coherent image. We experience what it appears to be just ONE image, ONE experience.

Another easy demonstration of the naiveness in Lifegazer ideas (No Lifegazer yo do not have a philosophy) I certainly agree. I thought of human body examples first but chose to use examples that were more 'seperate and oblivious' in Lg's terms.

It seems to me fans at a sports event act as one when their team succeeds on a play. And the teams themselves show an extraordinary unity of action and response even when the flow of their plans are disrupted.

But I've always been fascinated with mob mentality. Individuals with milquetoast personalities are suddenly swept into the same rage as the people surrounding them. And as one they charge forward like an angry single-minded giant bent on destruction.

Lg scores again. He racks up another point for the Wrongos.

[Z]

Boy, we haven't heard much from Darren for a few days. Hope he wasn't caught in those blasts in London.

...Not that they could have hurt him, anyway.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Boy, we haven't heard much from Darren for a few days. Hope he wasn't caught in those blasts in London.

...Not that they could have hurt him, anyway.

Maybe he took the opportunity to fake his own death. That would be one of the more rational excuses I've seen to end an uncomfortable debate.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Hello, Matteo!

How is Zen on this days?

Not so bad, thank you!

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Ok Lifegazer. I will have to answer for your (sorry for not using colors, but it is to much work for this time in the morning)

~something~ creates the internal experience of perceived light that is then interpreted as "the sun". It is this internal experience what is real and nothing out there!



What is this " something "?
God?
Schopenhauer` s " will "?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

According to Lifegazer, "god". He believes this is a "new" concept, that "his philosophy" is revolutionary, and truly novel. Of course, he ignores, basically, the whole history of philosophy in asserting this.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Zaayr

Actually it is a week of him not posting. I certainly hope it is not because of the explotions, but his costume of waiting for his threads to "chill" in order to open new ones, ignoring the fact that the older threads have proved he is wrong.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The sensed-brain has zero causal power. Consequently, it is impossible to observe the sensed-brain being the cause of thoughts/feelings.


This is an important point in my opinion.
i quite agree with lifegazer that there is no proof that are the molecules ( endofphines, I do not know how they are called ) in the brain which produce our feelings and not the other way around ( that is, that BECAUSE you have that feeling the brain " behaves " like that )

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What seems to be happening in this convo is that a number of people are arguing the case between the link that exists between real brains and thought & feeling.
But the important point to regard here is that scientists can only study the sensations that give the impression of our world/brain. Hence, the only truth science establishes is that which I mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph.

This is very important. What we see here is that science does nought but establish a link (order) between sensations thoughts & feelings. Science does not and cannot establish a link between real brains and thoughts/feelings, because science cannot study real brains.


Wait a minute, AFAIK this is a century-old discussion which already ended with Kant about 200 years ago.
What are " real brains "?
Whar are " real tables ", " real windows ", etc.?
You will never be albe to know what a " real brain " is because, in order to know something, you will have to experience it with your senses ( sight, .. ) but then you will only know the " illusory brain ", the " illusory table ", etc.
To know the " real brain " is a contradiction in temrs, because you pretend to know something without experiencing it with senses, it is like jumping away from your own shadow
Maybe it is even useless to talk about " real " things..

[Z]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Zaayr

Actually it is a week of him not posting. I certainly hope it is not because of the explotions, but his costume of waiting for his threads to "chill" in order to open new ones, ignoring the fact that the older threads have proved he is wrong.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm hoping for the best for Darren. I'd rather have him here spouting inanities and illogical syllogisms than have him dead or critically injured due to the inanities and illogical syllogisms of others.

[Z]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini

Maybe it is even useless to talk about " real " things..

Discussions of what is 'real' requires a framework in which something 'real' exists. In the absolute sense, there is nothing at all which can be confirmed to be real; it requires at least a few base assumptions - a premise or framework, if you will - that defines 'real' vs. 'unreal' and works from there.

Problem is, Darren's theory eliminates all possibility of a knowable 'reality', and forces the thinker to engage in fantasy which he then attempts to define as 'real'.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Discussions of what is 'real' requires a framework in which something 'real' exists. In the absolute sense, there is nothing at all which can be confirmed to be real; it requires at least a few base assumptions - a premise or framework, if you will - that defines 'real' vs. 'unreal' and works from there.

Problem is, Darren's theory eliminates all possibility of a knowable 'reality', and forces the thinker to engage in fantasy which he then attempts to define as 'real'.

Yes, I think we can only wait for him to come back posting here

[Z]

Well, he apparently is alive and well, having made a rude and senseless post in another thread.

Glad to hear you are well, Darren.

I expect, then, that your next angle of attack will be coming sometime by mid-August? And can we expect more of the usual rhetoric, or is there some chance you might have an original thought?

[Gestahl]

You know, the last time I was around people on acid, they sounded exactly like LG. Not trusting their senses, perceiving the God that is everything, that they were at one in the Singularity and all reality is an illusion... quite the interesting parallel.

Maybe LG just drops a bunch of LSD and posts here?? Really any kind of tryptamine would work... maybe he likes the shrooms...

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, he apparently is alive and well, having made a rude and senseless post in another thread.

Glad to hear you are well, Darren.

I'm also relieved to hear that he hasn't been physically harmed by the London bombings; but I wouldn't say he's well... I saw the post you are referring to quoted, and it seems he's collapsed into full on neurotic hatred. I may be wrong, but I've been expecting this to come for some time...

I expect, then, that your next angle of attack will be coming sometime by mid-August? And can we expect more of the usual rhetoric, or is there some chance you might have an original thought?

I believe that post is the archtype of all you'll get from him for a good while after this; He's not even trying to understand the external world any longer, let alone what he reads on the JREF... He didn't post on a thread about the historical Jesus because he knows anything about Jesus the man. Nor about Jesus the Prophet, whom states in the Book Lifegazer claimed we should read that we should mourn for the bereaved, in complete contradiction of his own claims. No, he's listening to his own internal voices now; Voices which tell him of how evil we are, how so disgustingly evil everything is... and listening above else to the siren voice mixed in with all the hatred and disgust which says "You are God. You are Jesus. Jesus shall... God shall... [b]You shall destroy all the evil ones."

This is really what it's been all about all along; If "Lifegazer's" brain ever existed, it was a product of the destruction of his prior mind, a reaction to something he couldn't face as the person he was... and now he's become unable to face the person he's become either. He couldn't be "Darren", or "Lifegazer"... So now, he's Jesus. And we're all going to burn for our stupidity.

And really, truly honestly, I wouldn't wish this form of sickness upon anybody... so I'm not actually relieved to have heard from him like this, now.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Lifegazer

After your break from this forum, will you answer my question?

Thanks.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

(sorry folks, for the BUMP)

Lifegazer... So? can you please take time to explain why my question does not annihilate your assumption?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Gestahl
You know, the last time I was around people on acid, they sounded exactly like LG. Not trusting their senses, perceiving the God that is everything, that they were at one in the Singularity and all reality is an illusion... quite the interesting parallel.

Maybe LG just drops a bunch of LSD and posts here?? Really any kind of tryptamine would work... maybe he likes the shrooms...

If so, we'll probably have to wait until his next payday.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Robin
Contrary to what lifegazer claims science gives zilch weight to the sensations within a single awareness. What is important is that independent observations from individuals should agree. (Call these individuals "experiences" if you like, makes no difference whatsoever).

Now true I do not have evidence that other awarenesses than my own exist, that is an assumption, but it seems a pretty reasonable one, and one that lifegazer makes himself (try to deny it LG, so that I can quote again where you did). And if other awarenesses exist then then all of science really does constitute evidence.

OK what evidence do we have for the sun? Don't forget gravity, it was calculations based on gravity that allowed scientists to predict planets that existed on nobody's awareness.

That's right, science predicted they were there before they existed on anyone's awareness.

Happens all the time, science predicted most of the properties of DNA long before we had the technology to have the sensations of DNA.

OK so we have evidence, even if not proof beyond unreasonable doubt, for things such as the sun, DNA, brains etc.

What evidence do we have for the One that knows all experiences?

None, zilch, zero! Lifegazer bails from a thread when asked for any (or starts quoting the Bible).

So is it more reasonable to believe lifegazer's "One" for which we have neither proof nor evidence, or to believe in the independent existence of such things as brains or the Sun, for which we at least have evidence?

Wait, wait..

The existence of a " sun ", of a " planet " this is something that we call " factual ".
The assumption that brain " generates " the self, this is something not supported by any assumption

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

LIFEGAZER, what will happen if you stare at the sun for ten minutes?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

(Dear forum members, sorry for the insistence, but its typical from Lifegazer to ignore key questions, thats why I keep alive this thread) :p

LIFEGAZER, what will happen if you stare at the sun for ten minutes?

[lifegazer]

It depends upon whether I KNOW that I am sovereign over all that I perceive within/upon myself, or whether I am serf to those things.
If the former, I can make the Sun blind. My mind surely has the power to extinguish the subjective-image of the Sun that IT creates.
You want me to extinguish the Sun, no doubt.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It depends upon whether I KNOW that I am sovereign over all that I perceive within/upon myself, or whether I am serf to those things.
If the former, I can make the Sun blind. My mind surely has the power to extinguish the subjective-image of the Sun that IT creates.
You want me to extinguish the Sun, no doubt.

Um... the Sun cannot see anyway. So how could you make the Sun blind?

And, for my own part, I'd be happy with the Miracle of the Slice of Bread.

But you can't do that, either. Why? Because you're not even sovereign over yourself, Darren. Because you, like everyone and everything else, are completely trapped in this reality, and have no power over it.

You're a weak, powerless, defenseless loon who is doomed to wither and die, just like everyone else, and you can't deal with those basic facts.

Oh, hell. Go ahead. Extinguish the Sun. Impress me. Why not?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It depends upon whether I KNOW that I am sovereign over all that I perceive within/upon myself, or whether I am serf to those things.
If the former, I can make the Sun blind. My mind surely has the power to extinguish the subjective-image of the Sun that IT creates.
You want me to extinguish the Sun, no doubt.

Thanks for answer. Now lets see. Im happy because here you have another way to jump from mere speculations (your ideas) to a demonstration about your truths (if they are true, this is).

No. I dont want to to extinguish the sun, thats to radical, to many life forms would banish. But it would be a good way to prove what you say if the ~something~ that experiences Lifegazer and the sun could make that what is sensed as "lifegazer" wouldnt become blind after staring at the sun.

Easy!

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
(Dear forum members, sorry for the insistence, but its typical from Lifegazer to ignore key questions, thats why I keep alive this thread) :p

LIFEGAZER, what will happen if you stare at the sun for ten minutes?

Sorry, I tried to read this thread but still do not understand how this " staring at the sun " relates to the problem of generation of selfconsciousness.
The light of the sun merely damages the nerves of your eyes and provokes ( hopefully temporary ) blindness.
That is it.
What happens if you put your hand on the fire for five seconds?
Same kind of question

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It depends upon whether I KNOW that I am sovereign over all that I perceive within/upon myself, or whether I am serf to those things.
If the former, I can make the Sun blind. My mind surely has the power to extinguish the subjective-image of the Sun that IT creates.
You want me to extinguish the Sun, no doubt.

If the former, why other people can still " see " the sun after you have made " the Sun blind "?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Sorry, I tried to read this thread but still do not understand how this " staring at the sun " relates to the problem of generation of selfconsciousness.
The light of the sun merely damages the nerves of your eyes and provokes ( hopefully temporary ) blindness.

Thats the point. Lifegazer says its the other way, the light is "projected" to the sun, no light has ever come from "the sun", light is an experience that ~something~ (not the sun) is causing.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

And so... can the ~something~ do it? Lifegazer? I believe this needs one to be aware about the light comming from ~something~ to the perception of the sun (lets remember, there is no real sun), and that a special awareness of this ~something~ is also a required step in order for "it" ~read god~ to recover a (let me speculate) .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of his powers. Or something like that.

Note. the speculation is wrong, because this ~god~, being infinite, cant be measured in percentages, but I guess you get the idea.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
And so... can the ~something~ do it? Lifegazer?

Make no mistake: the ~something~ DOES DO IT...

It either understands the world beyond Itself prior to creating the perception of that world; or It has knowledge/understanding/planning of the world (that doesn't exist) before it creates the perception of that world.

... In either case, knowledge/understanding precedes the creation of perceptions.
In other words, Whatever it is that you are MUST understand or know of the world it seeks to create a subjectively inner-creation of, before It creates that perception.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Make no mistake: the ~something~ DOES DO IT...

It either understands the world beyond Itself prior to creating the perception of that world; or It has knowledge/understanding/planning of the world (that doesn't exist) before it creates the perception of that world.

... In either case, knowledge/understanding precedes the creation of perceptions.
In other words, Whatever it is that you are MUST understand or know of the world it seeks to create a subjectively inner-creation of, before It creates that perception.

But this only applies IFF God is The Only Thing.

Hey, Darren - where've you been hiding lately? I've had to resort to arguing with alien conspiracy theorists and Bigfoot supporters to get my weekly fix of stubborn argumentation! Or have you actually been trying for a few miracles and maybe a piece of bread or two? Hmm?? No??? Well... didn't expect it of you anyway.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Make no mistake: the ~something~ DOES DO IT...

It either understands the world beyond Itself prior to creating the perception of that world; or It has knowledge/understanding/planning of the world (that doesn't exist) before it creates the perception of that world.

... In either case, knowledge/understanding precedes the creation of perceptions.
In other words, Whatever it is that you are MUST understand or know of the world it seeks to create a subjectively inner-creation of, before It creates that perception.

LG,
Where is this " it "?
Where does it come from?
How do you know it exists?

[Checkmite]

In my clinical for EMT class, I got to hold a brain in my (gloved) hands. I'm fairly certain brains exist.

[Trifikas]

BRRRRAAAAIIINNNNSSSS......

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Make no mistake: the ~something~ DOES DO IT...

I guess this was an answer to my question. So, are you saying that this ~something~ can protect you (I pick you because as the proposer of this truth you would be the ultimate authority regarding it) from become blind if you stare at the sun for ten minutes?

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
I guess this was an answer to my question. So, are you saying that this ~something~ can protect you (I pick you because as the proposer of this truth you would be the ultimate authority regarding it) from become blind if you stare at the sun for ten minutes?

Maybe ~something~ does not want to protect you from become blind if you stare at the sun for ten minutes

[c4ts]

After reading all this, I realize that Lifegazer is living proof that you can think without a brain.