my philosophy - pyramid-down

[lifegazer]

To make other threads easier to comprehend, I thought I'd explain my philosophy in reverse (conclusion first)...

The conclusion is that only ONE entity exists. Actually, this isn't the ultimate conclusion, as I have made attempts to explain why this entity is 'God' (and I have also explained what I mean by 'God').
However, recently, I have focussed upon two areas:-
1) Trying to explain that existence is indivisible - absolutely-singular.
2) That science requires reform.

Concerning '1': I obviously need to concentrate on proving the existence of one entity prior to discussing the nature of that entity.

Concerning '2': Actually, I consider scientific-reform to be essential before humanity can progress to a higher consciousness. Why? Because I think science treats the experienced-world that it observes as real-in-itself, which is an absurdity that causes inane theories when science ponders the ultimate cause of this [experienced] world... as well as the cause of experience itself.
Another concern is how this attitude of science has influenced the masses to believe that the world is self-creating (needs no God).
Yet it is ludicrous to believe that experience (which is what the world is) is self-created. I.e., experience does not create experience.

Note: by 'experience', I mean the occurances which constitute conscious experience - thought; sensation; feeling.

... Hence, because of it's influence upon society, attitudes to life have altered drastically, especially in the West where religion (God) is looked upon with ever-increasing scorn... and where the religious [people] are considered
to be lunatics.

For what it's worth, I think religion requires bigger reform than science, but I don't think that this is possible until science "sees the light"... such is it's influence.


So, I think that only one entity exists and that everything and everyone else is gleaned from experience.
So, for example, lifegazer is also an experience - and not the experiencER.
Hence, by conventional definition, I cannot be considered a solipsist.

For those willing to argue that they exist, I challenge their identity, for they identify themselves as the experience... and no thing within experience is reality in and of itself.

To accept the unreality of the experienced world of things and the experienced being, is the beginning of enlightenment.
Only then can One ponder the reality of Oneself.

[Bikewer]

Couldn't we all just be sorta-brighter monkeys?

[balrog666]

And why would anyone give a damn about what you think about science?

[wollery]

To make other threads easier to comprehend, I thought I'd explain my philosophy in reverse (conclusion first)...Probably a good idea.

The conclusion is that only ONE entity exists. Actually, this isn't the ultimate conclusion, as I have made attempts to explain why this entity is 'God' (and I have also explained what I mean by 'God').
However, recently, I have focussed upon two areas:-
1) Trying to explain that existence is indivisible - absolutely-singular.
2) That science requires reform.So far so good.

Concerning '1': I obviously need to concentrate on proving the existence of one entity prior to discussing the nature of that entity.Yes you do.

Concerning '2': Actually, I consider scientific-reform to be essential before humanity can progress to a higher consciousness. Why? Because I think science treats the experienced-world that it observes as real-in-itself, which is an absurdity that causes inane theories when science ponders the ultimate cause of this [experienced] world... as well as the cause of experience itself.How many times do you have to be told, science has no position on whether or not the world we observe exists. It is simply the description and modelling of the observed, or 'experienced' world. It does not seek ultimate cause either, since we know that such things are not measurable, and thus beyond the reach of science. :nope:

Another concern is how this attitude of science has influenced the masses to believe that the world is self-creating (needs no God).Funny, 'cause most of the world (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) believes in a god of some sort.

Yet it is ludicrous to believe that experience (which is what the world is) is self-created. I.e., experience does not create experience.Whilst it is true that we can not be certain that the world we observe exists beyond our experience of it, in order to claim the above you must first prove your assertion that the world is purely experience and not real.

Note: by 'experience', I mean the occurances which constitute conscious experience - thought; sensation; feeling.

... Hence, because of it's influence upon society, attitudes to life have altered drastically, especially in the West where religion (God) is looked upon with ever-increasing scorn... and where the religious [people] are considered
to be lunatics.Do you have any evidence for the above statement? Especially in light of the fact that only 16% of the world's population are non-religious (see above linky).

For what it's worth, I think religion requires bigger reform than science, but I don't think that this is possible until science "sees the light"... such is it's influence.Okay, so looking on religion with scorn and considering the religious to be lunatics is a bad thing, but religion is more in need of reform than science which you constantly pour scorn on, effectively calling scientists lunatics? :confused:

So, I think that only one entity exists and that everything and everyone else is gleaned from experience.
So, for example, lifegazer is also an experience - and not the experiencER.
Hence, by conventional definition, I cannot be considered a solipsist.But since you consider there to be only one being in actual existence you are effectively a solipsist.

For those willing to argue that they exist, I challenge their identity, for they identify themselves as the experience... and no thing within experience is reality in and of itself.I'm pink therefore I'm spam. :D

To accept the unreality of the experienced world of things and the experienced being, is the beginning of enlightenment.
Only then can One ponder the reality of Oneself.At the top you said that you were going to explain your philosophy, but all you've done is repeat the assertions that you've made a thousand times before. There's no philosophy here, just a bunch of apparently random thoughts, assertions and demands for changes that are unnecessary, not to mention impossible.

[Marquis de Carabas]

To make other threads easier to comprehend, I thought I'd explain my philosophy in reverse (conclusion first)...
So many words... If you wanted to explain your philosophy in reverse, you could have just said "******** rettu".

[Beleth]

In other words, your conclusion is focussed upon two areas:

1) Trying to explain what you mean by the occurances which constitute
consciousness. Why? Because you think science treats the experience. So,
for example, lifegazer is also an experience - thought; sensation; feeling.

2) Hence, by conventional definition, you cannot be considered
scientific-reform than science has influenced the masses to believe that
experience exists - and not the experience. (Note: by 'experience', you
mean 'God').

However, recently, you have made attempts to explain that existence of
one entity is 'God' (and you have made attempts to explain why this entity
exists prior to discussing the nature of that entity.)

Concerning '2': Actually, you consider scientific-reform necessary for
science to ponder the reality in and of itself. Another concern is how this
attitudes to life have altered drastically, especially in the West where
religious [people] consider scientific-reform than science has influence. So,
you think religion (God) is looked upon with ever-increasing scorn... and no
thing within the experiencER.

Hence, by conventional definition, you consider scientific-reform to be
essential before humanity can progress to a higher consciousness. Why?
Because you think that they exist. You challenge their identity, for they
identify themselves as the cause of it's influencing the masses to believe
that they exist. You challenge their identity, for they identify themselves
as the experienced being, which is the beginning of enlightenment. Only
then can One ponder the ultimate cause of it's influence.

So, for example, lifegazer is also an experiencER. Hence, because of your
influence upon society, attitude of science ponders the ultimate conclusion
is that only ONE entity is 'God' (and you have altered drastically, especially
in the West where religion (God) is looked upon). However, recently, you
have also explained that the experienced being, is the beginning of
enlightenment. Only then can One ponder the ultimate conclusion - that
only ONE entity exists to be the experience - thought; sensation; feeling.
Hence, because of it's influenced the masses to believe that experience
(which is what the world is) is self-created. I.e., experience.

Note: experience is indivisible - absolutely-singular.

Science has influenced the masses to believe that they exist. You
challenge their identity, for they identify themselves as the experience -
thought; sensation; feeling.


Close?




oh, the freedom that being redcarded gives... (http://www.eskimo.com/%7Erstarr/poormfa/travesty.html)

[nescafe]

Concerning '1': I obviously need to concentrate on proving the existence of one entity prior to discussing the nature of that entity.


You do realize that this is an utterly trivial conclusion, yes? Considering all of existence as one thing is true in some sense, but there is no evidence that the totality of existence is aware or self-aware in any sense of the word.

Concerning '2': Actually, I consider scientific-reform to be essential before humanity can progress to a higher consciousness. Why? Because I think science treats the experienced-world that it observes as real-in-itself, which is an absurdity that causes inane theories when science ponders the ultimate cause of this [experienced] world... as well as the cause of experience itself.


You have yet to show any evidence that reform is needed in science, and we have explained to you several times that science does not care if the things it explains are real-in-themselves -- all it cares about are consistent, verifiable explanations.

Another concern is how this attitude of science has influenced the masses to believe that the world is self-creating (needs no God).
Yet it is ludicrous to believe that experience (which is what the world is) is self-created. I.e., experience does not create experience.

You have experiences, you have an Experiencer, but you say nothing about that which causes the Experiencer to have experiences.


So, I think that only one entity exists and that everything and everyone else is gleaned from experience.
So, for example, lifegazer is also an experience - and not the experiencER.
Hence, by conventional definition, I cannot be considered a solipsist.

Indeed. Both solipsism and your position are capable to explaining everything, neither have predictive power, but at least solipsism is consistent. I withdraw my characterization of you as a solipsist.

For those willing to argue that they exist, I challenge their identity, for they identify themselves as the experience... and no thing within experience is reality in and of itself.


:oldroll: Fine, then. You are the world's only self-avowed p-zombie. And here I thought the concept of a p-zombie was incoherent.

(ed. small but important grammar fixes.)

[Cleon]

Damn, lifegazer. Don't bogart the joint.

[Apathia]

Can the Eye (I) at the top of the pyramid see the base?

[Zep]

What if I eat too much? Enough for two people, say. Am I then a dual existence-in-one?

[Cosmo]

As I've posted before...

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?

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.

[fuelair]

If it's all a pyramid, do I get all the products or all the money (I can never make sense of that scheme)? And does anyone have a really good cheese cutter?

Edited - quote wasn't lightphaser

[Wudang]

In other words, your conclusion is focussed upon two areas:


An excellent summary, I thought.

[lifegazer]

Probably a good idea.
How many times do you have to be told, science has no position on whether or not the world we observe exists. It is simply the description and modelling of the observed, or 'experienced' world. It does not seek ultimate cause either, since we know that such things are not measurable, and thus beyond the reach of science. :nope:

Well I wish that this was the case, but:-

Why do scientists seek to explain experience itself via the experienced brain?

Why are there so many theories seeking to explain the experienced
universe using nought but 'natural' (as opposed to supernatural) explanation?

Why does science require observational proof of causality before confirming the existence of any entity? Since ultimately the experienced world requires the existence of an entity whose presence cannot be experienced, this is obviously a self-defeating necessity.

Funny, 'cause most of the world (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) believes in a god of some sort.

Last I heard, most scientists didn't. And compared to a century-or-two ago, the number of atheists/agnostics in the world has surely increased dramatically.

Whilst it is true that we can not be certain that the world we observe exists beyond our experience of it, in order to claim the above you must first prove your assertion that the world is purely experience and not real.

Science observes experienced-things, which means that science cannot observe the actual cause of experience-things... since experienced-things cannot be the actual cause of experienced-things.

Do you have any evidence for the above statement? Especially in light of the fact that only 16% of the world's population are non-religious (see above linky).

Why don't you just observe the general attitudes of the members here towards theists?

Ran out of time for now, sorry.

[Wudang]

Before lecturing us about science perhaps you could tell us about the results of your experiment? Do you believe in your own philosophy or not? I don't think you do.

[wollery]

Well I wish that this was the case, but:-Oh, here we go....

Why do scientists seek to explain experience itself via the experienced brain?You yourself noted in one of the other threads that tampering with the brain alters emotions and feelings - 'experiences' (do I really have to look it up and link to it?). Scientists are describing the apparent alterations to experience that tampering with the brain produces. Simple observation.

Why are there so many theories seeking to explain the experienced
universe using nought but 'natural' (as opposed to supernatural) explanation?Oi Vey!! Now you really are showing how completely pig-ignorant you are about science. The supernatural is by definition beyond the realm of science. Science can only use 'natural' explanations. Use of supernatural explanations is utterly unscientific. (Okay, I think I've said that enough different ways :) )

Why does science require observational proof of causality before confirming the existence of any entity?No, science requires observational proof of existence before confirming the existence of any entity. Causality don't enter into it (or was that plummage?).

Since ultimately the experienced world requires the existence of an entity whose presence cannot be experienced, this is obviously a self-defeating necessity.It's not necessary (see above) and only in your philosophy is an entity that cannot be experienced a requirement.

Last I heard, most scientists didn't. Evidence? Or is this purely anecdote?
If we're just on anecdote, I know plenty of scientists who believe in some sort of god or another.

And compared to a century-or-two ago, the number of atheists/agnostics in the world has surely increased dramatically.Evidence? Alright I'll grant that the number of confessed atheists/agnostics has almost certainly increased, but is that because more people disbelieve, or is it because they now feel that it's safe to admit that they disbelieve. Let's face it, two hundred years ago admitting to not believing in god could cost people their reputations, livelihoods, sometimes even their lives. Funny how everybody at that time went to church (or synagogue, or mosque, or.....).

Science observes experienced-things, which means that science cannot observe the actual cause of experience-things... since experienced-things cannot be the actual cause of experienced-things.You keep saying that, but I still see no proof.

If all you can do is assert this stuff then you will never convince anyone of anything other than your apparent conceit.

Why don't you just observe the general attitudes of the members here towards theists?Ah, I see, you're talking about this forum specifically. Well why didn't you say so in the first place. Of course it isn't the theists per se, it's their arguments and the way they present them. Check out the attitudes towards KittyNH & MLynn to name just two theists on this board who aren't scorned or called lunatics. (I'm sure there are more, those two were the only ones that come to mind at the moment)

Ran out of time for now, sorry.Wow, you must be really busy!!

[Jimbo07]

So, I think that only one entity exists and that everything and everyone else is gleaned from experience.
So, for example, lifegazer is also an experience - and not the experiencER.

We are all but noodly appendages of the FSM.


Hence, by conventional definition, I cannot be considered a solipsist.

Here, at least, I agree with lifegazer. Lifegazer is not saying that only lifegazer exists, lifegazer is saying that Ed exists and that lifegazer is but one of Ed's experiences.

Lifegazer, I agree that this does not make you a solipsist. I disagree with your entire philosophy of reforming science, however, as being untenable. It requires a lot of twisting of observation and convoluted introspection. As well, it misses that essential point that even if there is only 'one experiencer,' science works. Under your model it merely describes relationships between those experiences. It's in no need of reform.

[lifegazer]

You do realize that this is an utterly trivial conclusion, yes? Considering all of existence as one thing is true in some sense, but there is no evidence that the totality of existence is aware or self-aware in any sense of the word.

Either existence is singular, or it is not. Why you add "in some sense", makes no sense - is confusing.

I won't get involved with your other statement right now, because it deserves a thread of it's own to justify it.

You have yet to show any evidence that reform is needed in science, and we have explained to you several times that science does not care if the things it explains are real-in-themselves -- all it cares about are consistent, verifiable explanations.

Whether it "cares" is not the issue.
The issue is that it already treats the experienced-world as real-in-itself. This is evident by it's theories and it's research.

You have experiences, you have an Experiencer, but you say nothing about that which causes the Experiencer to have experiences.

Not recently I haven't. I've been concentrating on other issues.

Indeed. Both solipsism and your position are capable to explaining everything, neither have predictive power, but at least solipsism is consistent. I withdraw my characterization of you as a solipsist.

Those that would adopt my philosophy are still capable of observing and predicting the order inherent within experience.
The problem with science is that until it accepts that what is observed is an experience, it will continue to look for things within experience for the causes of that experience.
That's why science is struggling with experienced-brains and gravitons, to name but two.

[Tricky]

That's why science is struggling with experienced-brains and gravitons, to name but two.
Franko? Are you in there?

[lifegazer]

As I've posted before...

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"?

Once understood that the experiencER IS indivisible existence, reason can say quite alot about 'it'.
The experiencER is reality.

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.

It is not futile to enquire about the order present within experience. It is, however, futile to attribute ultimate causality of experience to things within experience.

Part of science's reform would require an acknowledgement of this fact.

Science is really another branch of philosophy - working logic/rationale - which enables us to fathom order within experience.
If science restricts itself from seeking causal-agents of experience, then that work shall be undertaken by root-philosophers.

[lifegazer]

Oh, here we go....

You yourself noted in one of the other threads that tampering with the brain alters emotions and feelings - 'experiences' (do I really have to look it up and link to it?).

Please do. In the very same post, you'll also see I say that altering thoughts/feelings consequently alters the state of the brain & body.

I propose that there is an orderly relationship between sensations, thought & feeling... and since the sensations are, in effect, the [experienced] world itself (including the experienced-brain), my philosophy perfectly embraces a system whereby 'the brain' (sensations) can affect thought & emotion... and vice versa.
... Please remember that sensations (the essential ingredients of the world) are an experience too.

Also, please contemplate - if thought & emotion are effects of the physical-brain - why thought and emotion would (as they do) have the ability to effect brain/body states.
You cannot advocate that the brain is the essential cause of thought & emotion if thought & emotion alone have the ability to alter brain/body states.

In fact, this is so important an observation that I will probably start a thread contemplating this at some future date.

Regardless, scientists continue to contemplate how the brain causes human experience - which is evidence of their regard of the brain being a real-in-itself entity... which is also evidence supporting my claim for scientific-reform.

But you will never acknowledge this because science is your life, as well as your attitude to life.

Oi Vey!! Now you really are showing how completely pig-ignorant you are about science. The supernatural is by definition beyond the realm of science. Science can only use 'natural' explanations. Use of supernatural explanations is utterly unscientific. (Okay, I think I've said that enough different ways :) )

It's not my fault that science limits itself.
The problem persists:- experiences are not caused by experiences.

If science won't acknowledge this FACT, then theories and research will continue around the idea that observed/experienced entities (such as the brain), can be the cause of human experience - which includes thought; feeling; and the experienced-universe itself.

No, science requires observational proof of existence before confirming the existence of any entity. Causality don't enter into it (or was that plummage?).

The experience of an entity does NOT confirm the existence/reality of that entity. It just confirms the experience.

How many times do I have to go through the same material to get my point across?

Wow, you must be really busy!!
Actually, I am.
Furthermore, I have no idea why I came back. I think I was falling into the world again...

[nescafe]

Either existence is singular, or it is not. Why you add "in some sense", makes no sense - is confusing.


Well, that I said "the totality of existence" and not just "existence" makes a bit of difference. When I say "the totality of existence", I mean all things that I experience and all the things that must logically exist to explain my experiences. I have told you (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1771898&postcount=62) why I do not accept your "one experiencer" theorem, and you have not given me an answer even after I explained what I meant in a different fashion.

Not recently I haven't. I've been concentrating on other issues.

You should. It might help people understand what exactly you are trying to say.

[Ryokan]

Well I wish that this was the case, but:-

Why do scientists seek to explain experience itself via the experienced brain?

Why are there so many theories seeking to explain the experienced
universe using nought but 'natural' (as opposed to supernatural) explanation?

Because it sure has paid of!

Look how far we've come the last two millenia, not to mention the last century alone, using science!

[RandFan]

How many times do you have to be told, science has no position on whether or not the world we observe exists. It is simply the description and modelling of the observed, or 'experienced' world. It does not seek ultimate cause either, since we know that such things are not measurable, and thus beyond the reach of science. :nope:

...

At the top you said that you were going to explain your philosophy, but all you've done is repeat the assertions that you've made a thousand times before. There's no philosophy here, just a bunch of apparently random thoughts, assertions and demands for changes that are unnecessary, not to mention impossible.He's tireless. I'll give him that.

My hypothesis of lifegazer: Hey, there is a lot that I simply don't comprehend. I get that I don't understand or have difficulty understanding many concepts. Lifegazer doesn't get that he doesn't understand or that he has difficulty understanding some concepts. So he ignores that which he doesn't understand. Premises, inference, deduction, induction, formal logic, etc. These are all above him. They must be. Surely if he understood them he would have by now started to respond in a more coherent fashion. In short, lifegazer isn't learning. He has reached the level of his competence and is unable to advance and so he is stuck making the same nonsensical non-arguments. He's not stupid he just is unable (perhaps unwilling) to grasp logic beyond the most rudimentary of degree.

If someone has a better argument I'm open to it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If someone has a better argument I'm open to it.
I already gave my argument: ******** rettu.

[RandFan]

I already gave my argument: ******** rettu.You may have a point.

[wollery]

My opinion - psychopathic God complex. He just hides it behind "we are all God". Interestingly I'm currently reading Stranger in a Strange Land, and I'm reminded of Valentine Michael Smiths' assertions! :D

[RandFan]

My opinion - psychopathic God complex. I have been saying this for some time, we'll, actually a mesiah complex. He seems to have a need to save all of us but I'm happy to go with God Complex.

He just hides it behind "we are all God". Interestingly I'm currently reading Stranger in a Strange Land, and I'm reminded of Valentine Michael Smiths' assertions! :D I've not read it. It looks like I'm going to have to. Along with The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

[Ryokan]

I've not read it. It looks like I'm going to have to.

You should. It's one of the most important books Heinlein wrote.

[RandFan]

You should. It's one of the most important books Heinlein wrote.For some odd reason I never read any Heinlein. Herbert, Asimov, Bradbury and others but no Heinlein. I've likely read almost everything Bradbury wrote.

[Ryokan]

For some odd reason I never read any Heinlein.

I envy you.

I wish I could read Heinlein's books for the first time again.

My favorite science fiction author is Asimov, though. Love his non-fiction as well.

Never read any Bradbury, though. Maybe I should. Any recommendations?

[RandFan]

I envy you.

I wish I could read Heinlein's books for the first time again.

My favorite science fiction author is Asimov, though. Love his non-fiction as well.

Never read any Bradbury, though. Maybe I should. Any recommendations? Oh man. I just took a long journey down amnesia lane. Thanks for that. Yes, though I suspect my recommendations are purely for subjective reasons. Without respect to sci fi, Fahrenheit 451 and Something Wicked This way Comes are two of my very favorites. Illustrated Man and Martian Chronicles are simply must reads and I loved both of them. I suspect that I would not be as enthralled of Something Wicked as an adult so perhaps that shouldn't be first on your list. Stick with the last two and you will get a great introduction to Sci Fi ala Bradbury.

[.13.]

I propose that there is an orderly relationship between sensations, thought & feeling... and since the sensations are, in effect, the [experienced] world itself (including the experienced-brain), my philosophy perfectly embraces a system whereby 'the brain' (sensations) can affect thought & emotion... and vice versa.
... Please remember that sensations (the essential ingredients of the world) are an experience too.

Doesn't this contradict your idea that "experienced-things cannot be the actual cause of experienced-things"?

By manipulating the brain (experienced-thing) you can induce hallucinations (experienced-thing).


Also, please contemplate - if thought & emotion are effects of the physical-brain - why thought and emotion would (as they do) have the ability to effect brain/body states.
You cannot advocate that the brain is the essential cause of thought & emotion if thought & emotion alone have the ability to alter brain/body states.


But isn't this essentialy asking: How can the brain have the ability to effect brain/body states?

If you agree: Then what's the problem?

[UndercoverElephant]

In short, lifegazer isn't learning. He has reached the level of his competence and is unable to advance and so he is stuck making the same nonsensical non-arguments. He's not stupid he just is unable (perhaps unwilling) to grasp logic beyond the most rudimentary of degree.

If someone has a better argument I'm open to it.

He's not learning, that's for sure. But I don't think it is because he is inherently incapable of doing so. Instead, it is because he is rather attached to the idea that he has come up with something completely new. He has no interest in finding out how philosophy really works or where we currently stand on the important debates. He already knows that his "philosophy" is better than anything that came before it. He is also emotionally attached to certain parts of his belief system in exactly the same way that many other religious people are. In his case, it is not life after death (in any individual sense) but the need to cling on to the belief that supernatural intervention by God can rescue the human race from its current predicament. He thinks that if only everybody believed what he believes, all of the worlds problems would disappear. He needs to go on believing this is the case because the alternative is an acceptance that the world as we know it is in very serious trouble and that nothing can save it. This is fairly bleak, but there is no shortage of philosophers who have already been there: Malthus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Huxley, Orwell. In the end, its about lifegazer not being able to face up to the existential reality he finds himself in - which could scarcely be more ironic. He needs to go on believing that God can save us, with a little bit of help from lifegazer.

If you take away the nonsensical beliefs about what happens "after the revolution", lifegazers argument becomes utterly pointless as well as incoherent and uninformed.

[RandFan]

He's not learning, that's for sure. But I don't think it is because he is inherently incapable of doing so. Instead, it is because he is rather attached to the idea that he has come up with something completely new. He has no interest in finding out how philosophy really works or where we currently stand on the important debates. He already knows that his "philosophy" is better than anything that came before it. He is also emotionally attached to certain parts of his belief system in exactly the same way that many other religious people are. In his case, it is not life after death (in any individual sense) but the need to cling on to the belief that supernatural intervention by God can rescue the human race from its current predicament. He thinks that if only everybody believed what he believes, all of the worlds problems would disappear. He needs to go on believing this is the case because the alternative is an acceptance that the world as we know it is in very serious trouble and that nothing can save it. This is fairly bleak, but there is no shortage of philosophers who have already been there: Malthus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Huxley, Orwell. In the end, its about lifegazer not being able to face up to the existential reality he finds himself in - which could scarcely be more ironic. He needs to go on believing that God can save us, with a little bit of help from lifegazer.

If you take away the nonsensical beliefs about what happens "after the revolution", lifegazers argument becomes utterly pointless as well as incoherent and uninformed.I understand your point, however it is entirely possible to cling to one's world view and still advance in one's level of understanding. I'm not certain that he fully grasps the concepts of inference and deduction. It seems to me that he intuitively understands the concepts at a rudimentary level but not sufficiently to formulate an argument. You could be right Geoff, the problem however is that I've been reading his responses for years now and there just is no improvement. If he were competent enough to grasp the concepts then surely he has had sufficient examples from others to pick up something. And let's face it. Nothing, nada, zip. At least as far as I can tell. Though I will give him this, he has sufficient imagination to repackage his theory. This way retailing the same notion over and over never gets stale...TO HIM!

[wollery]

My opinion - psychopathic God complex.I must apologise to Lifegazer, it was wrong of me to say that.







What I should have said was "psychotic God complex"!