The brain & human experience

[lifegazer]

Scientists seek to understand how 'the brain' causes human experience.

Firstly, this is evidence supporting my claim that science views the [experienced] world-of-things as real-in-themselves.
... This is an error, of course, because nothing within experience is actually real. The distinction between experienced-things and real-things should be clear to any sincere reader, by now.
... Also, this is [a portion of] evidence supporting my claim for scientific-reform.

Anyway, read this interchange from another thread:-
Originally Posted by wollery :
"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?)."

... This was my response:
"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.


Observe how science errs. Bias towards worldly-reality results in a theory that the [experienced] brain causes human experience - which, laughably, includes the experienced-brain!
Further, contemplate my response to Wollery, explaining the relationship between sensation, thought & feeling. Science has no reason to believe that 'the brain' causes human experience.
Regardless, countless £$£$ & time are spent trying to solve the mystery and find the cause of human experience, via study of the experienced brain as the cause of it all!

It's gotten beyond a joke. And it's time for change.

[fuelair]

Lrod help us.

[Unholy_Mackerel]

My brain is numb after that. I need chocolate.

[Cosmo]

... Please remember that sensations (the essential ingredients of the world) are an experience too.

Cosmo's Five-Step Program for Recovery from Lifegazer:

1. Our senses are our only means of learning about the world.
2. Our senses will forever be our only means of learning about the world.
3. If there exists a "real" world or a "reality", we are forever barred from learning anything about it as a direct result of 1 and 2.

Therefore,
4. We must accept the "sensed-world" as the closest we'll ever get to reality.

And finally,
5. The concept of a "sensed-world" is redundant and Occam's Razor justifies our elimination of it, in favor of treating it as if it were the real world.

[lifegazer]

Cosmo's Five-Step Program for Recovery from Lifegazer:

1. Our senses are our only means of learning about the world.

Actually, you need the ability to discern order too, but never mind.

2. Our senses will forever be our only means of learning about the world.

The sensations paint an appearance. 'Learning' requires a trait distinct from those sensations.

3. If there exists a "real" world or a "reality", we are forever barred from learning anything about it as a direct result of 1 and 2.

That's a big "if".
However, if you open your eyes long enough to understand that the world you EXPERIENCE is not real-in-itself, I will then explain why the only reality is yourself.
That's a big request though. A bit like asking "a fundie" to forget all the religious claptrap he has ever learnt, in order for rationale to have any chance of making an impact upon his life.

Therefore,
4. We must accept the "sensed-world" as the closest we'll ever get to reality.

You need to wake-up to the FACT that NOTHING within experience is real-in-itself.
You also need to ponder the fact that The ExperiencER is "reality".

And finally,
5. The concept of a "sensed-world" is redundant and Occam's Razor justifies our elimination of it, in favor of treating it as if it were the real world.
I'm so bored of hearing about Mister Occam and his philosophy.
Why? Because science abuses his philosophy with ever-more complex theories about ever-more complex 'parts' in an ever-more complex existence.
There's nothing simple about science or it's theories. The latest ones - involving 10+ dimensions and strings & membranes, are a ludicrous example of science-gone-mad.

You cannot simplify existence any more than saying that it is absolutely singular.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm so bored of hearing about Mister Occam and his philosophy.
Why? Because science abuses his philosophy with ever-more complex theories about ever-more complex 'parts' in an ever-more complex existence.
There's nothing simple about science or it's theories. The latest ones - involving 10+ dimensions and strings & membranes, are a ludicrous example of science-gone-mad.
Have you considered the possibility that you're bored with Occam because you don't understand when it applies?

~~ Paul

[Cosmo]

Actually, you need the ability to discern order too, but never mind.

The sensations paint an appearance. 'Learning' requires a trait distinct from those sensations.
Then replace "learning" with "experiencing". The end result is the same.

That's a big "if".
However, if you open your eyes long enough to understand that the world you EXPERIENCE is not real-in-itself, I will then explain why the only reality is yourself.
Why does it matter if the world we experience is real or not? Due to the inherent limitations of our senses (limitations that we cannot, by definition, eliminate or even lessen), we cannot know whether or not the universe is real, unreal, sensed, turquoise, or some combination of the above.

Every possible indication we have or could, even in theory, have (through our senses, of course) suggests that the universe is real. It is irrational to presume or act otherwise.

I'm so bored of hearing about Mister Occam and his philosophy.
Why? Because science abuses his philosophy with ever-more complex theories about ever-more complex 'parts' in an ever-more complex existence.
Unfortunately, Mister Occam doesn't care what you think. And despite the increasing complexity of modern science, his razor is still as sharp - and as relevant - as always.

There's nothing simple about science or it's theories. The latest ones - involving 10+ dimensions and strings & membranes, are a ludicrous example of science-gone-mad.
Do you have any reason for not liking string theory, or do you just not understand it?

[Meffy]

Everything is ratios of small whole numbers. All else is manifestations. The mite, kyte, and syte are the basis of all physical reality.

http://www.buckminster.info/Index/M/Mite.htm

Oh, and poems. They're in there too.

[lifegazer]

Then replace "learning" with "experiencing". The end result is the same.

The ability to discern order (or, the ability to reason), is distinct from the ability to discern sensations. Sensations could be disorderly, for example.

Why does it matter if the world we experience is real or not?

Of course it matters. Humanity's belief in the reality of a divided & real world, has shaped the history of both the individual and the whole. And what a mess that history is.
Surely you must understand the significance of a truth that unifies everything and every being?

Due to the inherent limitations of our senses (limitations that we cannot, by definition, eliminate or even lessen), we cannot know whether or not the universe is real, unreal, sensed, turquoise, or some combination of the above.

The limitations of the sensations are irrelevant. Even if we had countless sensations, they would ALL speak of experienced things.

Every possible indication we have or could, even in theory, have (through our senses, of course) suggests that the universe is real. It is irrational to presume or act otherwise.

Nonsense.
I challenge you to provide a singular evidence of the world's reality. I promise you that it's ALL reducible to experience, with nothing left other than the experiencER to contemplate.

You're a victim of brainwashing. Open your mind to facts and stop listing intuition/feeling as truth.

Unfortunately, Mister Occam doesn't care what you think. And despite the increasing complexity of modern science, his razor is still as sharp - and as relevant - as always.

Really? Perhaps you could explain to this forum the 'simplicity' behind theories such as QM (string-theories etc.). Also, perhaps you could explain to this forum the simple steps required to produce human experience with 'brain-bricks'.

Science likes Occam because it thinks there's always a simpler answer than 'God'. Yet, when it tackles the important issues of existence, science falls into a pot of complexity that is laughable - and still fails to provide answers.

Do you have any reason for not liking string theory, or do you just not understand it?
Nobody understands string-theory. Don't let 'them' kid you. Strings don't explain the experience that we have. [emphasis full-stop]

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nonsense.
I challenge you to provide a singular evidence of the world's reality. I promise you that it's ALL reducible to experience, with nothing left other than the experiencER to contemplate.
Define what is meant by real and I'll see what I can do.


Science likes Occam because it thinks there's always a simpler answer than 'God'. Yet, when it tackles the important issues of existence, science falls into a pot of complexity that is laughable - and still fails to provide answers.
Thanks, you answered my question. You don't have the slightest notion when to apply Occam.

~~ Paul

[lifegazer]

Define what is meant by real and I'll see what I can do.

The existence of entities beyond the experience of them.

Thanks, you answered my question. You don't have the slightest notion when to apply Occam.

The application of the so-called philosophy is subjective - depending upon the individual's view of what the simplest explanation to anything is.

Occam's razor is not science - it's philosophy.

[lifegazer]

People are avoiding the OP.
C'mon...

[Foster Zygote]

Lifegazer, how is your view any different from religion? You point out something fragmentary from Descartes' method of doubt, namely that our senses are the only way our consciousness can relate to the universe. This is true, nobody here denies that. As Descartes pointed out, if an evil demon had control of our minds he could create our reality for us and we would never know the truth as it would be unknowable. If "the universe" doesn't exist, as you claim, then we would have no way of knowing this truth. Yet you claim to have objective knowledge of the fallacy of our senses. This strikes me as little different from a religious declaration. How is it that you seem to know the unknowable? Are you a prophet?

Steven

[Cosmo]

The ability to discern order (or, the ability to reason), is distinct from the ability to discern sensations. Sensations could be disorderly, for example.

That is another discussion entirely, certainly outside the scope of this thread and (arguably) irrelevant to the current discourse.

And what a mess that history is.
Surely you must understand the significance of a truth that unifies everything and every being?

Four billion christians and muslims have been (and are) absolutely sure that there is truth that unifies everything and every being.

And what a mess that history is.

The limitations of the sensations are irrelevant. Even if we had countless sensations, they would ALL speak of experienced things.

That is precisely what I meant by limitations of the sensations.

Nonsense.
I challenge you to provide a singular evidence of the world's reality. I promise you that it's ALL reducible to experience, with nothing left other than the experiencER to contemplate.

Aim yourself an a sensed-wall, start your sensed-legs running full speed, and see what happens. It is irrelevant whether the world is real or not; the results are the same. This is (again) where Occam comes in, regardless whether you want to hear what he has to say.

You're a victim of brainwashing. Open your mind to facts and stop listing intuition/feeling as truth.

Get over yourself. :rolleyes:

Really? Perhaps you could explain to this forum the 'simplicity' behind theories such as QM (string-theories etc.).

First, we simply do not know at this point whether QM is correct. It certainly seems to be, but science has a funny way of weeding out incorrect theories. We'll have to wait and see.

Second, we simply do not know whether or not QM is as simple as it gets. Your lack of understanding about QM is not an argument against its correctness.

Also, perhaps you could explain to this forum the simple steps required to produce human experience with 'brain-bricks'.

I really have no idea what you're talking about.

Science likes Occam because it thinks there's always a simpler answer than 'God'. Yet, when it tackles the important issues of existence, science falls into a pot of complexity that is laughable - and still fails to provide answers.

Science is concerned with describing the order we perceive in the universe around us. If you believe it is science's task to explain existence (beyond the big bang) or the nature of god, you are sorely mistaken on both counts.

Nobody understands string-theory. Don't let 'them' kid you. Strings don't explain the experience that we have. [emphasis full-stop]

1. Yes, clearly there are many hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who do.
2. Your second statement, more than any other thus far, demonstrates your absolute, undeniable ignorance of string theory.

[Wudang]

Of course it matters. Humanity's belief in the reality of a divided & real world, has shaped the history of both the individual and the whole. And what a mess that history is.
Surely you must understand the significance of a truth that unifies everything and every being?


And your philosophy will make things better how? And you know this because your great experiment produced what results?

Are you going to abandon this thread as well rather than answer?

[UndercoverElephant]

People are avoiding the OP.
C'mon...

:bgrin:

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer, how is your view any different from religion?


Religion has a purpose.

[kieran]

Scientists seek to understand how 'the brain' causes human experience.

Firstly, this is evidence supporting my claim that science views the [experienced] world-of-things as real-in-themselves.
... This is an error, of course, because nothing within experience is actually real. The distinction between experienced-things and real-things should be clear to any sincere reader, by now.

Woah woah woah. Slow down. I think you had some massive typos there .... you must have meant to write ... "This may be in error, because nothing within experience is necessarily real" ... :D

Your view of the world is neither more or less valid than others - but you seem to treat it as though only your view is viable. You might sound a bit less pontificating if you chose your words more wisely. ;)

[Wudang]

And lifegazer contradicts himself. There is no science. There is only the experience of science. And no scientists, only the experience .... you get the drift.

[wollery]

People are avoiding the OP.
C'mon...What's the point?

Seriously LG, if anyone tries to argue with your philosophy you either repeat one of your inane mantras or insult them. There's nothing of substance in your philosophy (pun intentional) and, as many, many people have told you, it's not even original.

You have no idea about how science works, yet you demand that it be "reformed". Your latest idea for reforming it is to include paranormal explanations!!! :jaw-dropp

I do agree with one thing in your opening post - it has gotten beyond a joke. You're not funny anymore. :nope:

[Bruno Putzeys]

@LG

Actually the only axiom of scientific inquiry is that not every single observation is wrong. I think that's reasonable. The scientific method then tells us how to make targeted observations, get better quality data, work towards a theory etc.

It is true that if one rejects even the notion that some observations are correct, one is left completely in the dark and anything goes. That also means that nothing is certain any longer. Every single thing you think you understand could suddenly cease to be, from reading to the function of the doorknob to the toilet flush.

Interestingly enough it works like that in dreams. In dreams there's only an internal representation without a corresponding reality. You can't read in a dream, because the letters weren't there until you tried to look (so they change all the time). The toilet flush may spew the whole thing in your face. The door may never open.

It is also the only way of holding on to religious beliefs in a logically consistent fashion. So here you go: do you want to believe in hypotheses that have never been logically required to explain any valid observation, and throw out everything else you think you know, or will you realise that the external world is just a bit too reliable to be totally imaginary, and learn to understand it and how to make your way through it?

[Jimbo07]

@LG

Actually the only axiom of scientific inquiry is that not every single observation is wrong. I think that's reasonable...

It is true that if one rejects even the notion that some observations are correct, one is left completely in the dark and anything goes.

Well said!

:clap:

[Imaginative]

Hi LG

If, everyone accepted your brand of philosophy and were all in agreement 100%, how would this all encompassing philosophy of yours change anything.

This would be a great opportunity for you to share with us what your vision of this shared philosphical ideology would mean to mankind.

I would be interested in where you take your philosphy next, after all philosophy in general wouldn't come to an end just because we might all agree with your idea.

[Dark Jaguar]

I'll spell it out. Occam's razor isn't "go for the simplest possible explanation at all times". That's "it is". It is "given multiple explanations where both explain a phenomenon to the same accuracy, go for the one that invokes less/already known/less complex entities". If an explanation does not accuratly explain a phenomenon, it doesn't matter how simple it is, occam doesn't apply.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'll spell it out. Occam's razor isn't "go for the simplest possible explanation at all times". That's "it is". It is "given multiple explanations where both explain a phenomenon to the same accuracy, go for the one that invokes less/already known/less complex entities". If an explanation does not accuratly explain a phenomenon, it doesn't matter how simple it is, occam doesn't apply.
Ah, but you see, "go for the simplest possible explanation at all times" is simpler than "given multiple explanations where both explain a phenomenon to the same accuracy, go for the one that invokes less/already known/less complex entities" and is therefore, according to Occam's razor, correct.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi LG

If, everyone accepted your brand of philosophy and were all in agreement 100%, how would this all encompassing philosophy of yours change anything.


I asked him that question nearly three years ago on philosophyforums.com, shortly before he was banned for "wasting bandwidth". He is yet to answer it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=21911&highlight=paradise+lifegazer


For the purposes of this thread, let us assume two things :

1) Idealism is true.
2) The observable/observed world behaves exactly as if Materialism is true.

Now, these two assumptions should please everybody. It pleases Lifegazer, because it saves him from trying to convince everybody that materialism is false. And it pleases the JREF skeptics because it renders the falsity of materialism a total irrelevance.

Science is the investigation of the observable Universe by repeatable methods. The fact that nobody has claimed Randis money, and the fact that nobody can ever provide experimental evidence that materialism is false strongly support assumption number 2. The observable world always behaves as if materialism is true, regardless of whether or not it is actually true.

The mind-body problem, and all the other logical proofs against materialism (e.g. Jackson, Chalmers) do not change (2), they merely support (1).

My question to Lifegazer is as follows :

If in fact Idealism is true, but the observed Universe behaves exactly as if materialism is true, then how should this change our behaviour, our ethics and our morality? What is the relevance of idealism being true if the Universe behaves exactly as if materialism is true? Does it change the way we carry out scientific investigation into the obserable Universe? I mean - if the observable Universe always behaves as if materialism were true, then what difference does it make to science that idealism is actually true? Does it change the way we decide what is right and wrong? How does ontology affect ethics?



First response from LG


Armed with the knowledge that the Mind imposes the awareness of the universe upon itself must affect science somehow. For starters, no more the belief that there is a causal agent "out there" for every perceived effect, for ultimately, the Mind is the causal agent of every-thing, as well as the laws/order itself.

I honestly believe that physicists are leading us down a garden path with their string theories. And I'm almost certain that there is no 'graviton'. And of course, scientists would need to step back from viewing the brain as the causal agent of perceived existence.
Presently, scientific bias towards "causal agents out there" has led us into looking for "things" that
I think simply do not exist.

If you want to play along with this, you're going to have to immerse yourself into the idea that we are all the same entity. Of course, that changes things completely.


etc...

[Ryokan]

I just want to remind everyone about the future, as seen by Lifegazer.


I foresee three possibilities:
(1) Enforced end: war, comet; climate calamity; or whatever.
(2) Profound revolution: philosophical/scientific (and hence, religious). Imagine that scientists & philosophers agree that an omnipresent God does exist. Now imagine the consequences to mankind. We would see the onset of a spiritual revolution unequalled in all history. Such a movement would [slowly] lead to some sort of world communist state.
(3) The Second coming of God, in man. That is to say, the second time that a man KNEW he was God. The next time, he won't come to cruxify himself. If he comes again, he will cruxify all that reject him for the final time.

That's right, if we don't believe Lifegazer, we'll all be crucified at the second coming.

Any idea when that will be, Lifegazer? I'd like to make long term plans, but if it's any time soon I'd like to know.

[Donks]

I just want to remind everyone about the future, as seen by Lifegazer.



That's right, if we don't believe Lifegazer, we'll all be crucified at the second coming.

Any idea when that will be, Lifegazer? I'd like to make long term plans, but if it's any time soon I'd like to know.
In scenario (3), is lifegazer the first or second coming of god (as defined by lifegazer)?

[Ryokan]

As for the second coming, it was supposed to come when Lifegazer returned to the JREF forum, at least that's what he explained in his farewell thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=44370) at the time.

I was an ordinary guy who discovered the truth and spent too much time trying to tell everyone else this, without realising that I should have ignored everybody else (with hindsight, it's easy to say) and concentrated upon the second-stage of the journey, for and by Myself.

The next era of my life will be devoted to this. Indeed, I'm going on "a retreat" next week which will herald the dawn of this new era. From now on, I will seek existential salvation from the inside, as Jesus suggested ("the kingdom of God is within you").
And if I ever find it, woe betide this ******* awful world that I have had to endure. I will not obliterate it, but I will change it... whether it likes it or not.

Those that prefer the status-quo of selfishness and greed and separation and injustice and inequality and war and death, had better hope that nobody like me is ever successful.
Unfortunately though, you're all **********. Because success is guaranteed. So enjoy the rest of your mingy experiences and don't come complaining when those four horses come riding over the horizon.

[Ryokan]

Oh, I also want to remind everyone that Lifegazer has superpowers. You too can have superpowers, if you just believe in his ideas.

One must strive to lose the belief in actual human identity and recognise that each individual human is nought but a different experience being had by God (Yourself). Hence, God is the essence of all mankind. Hence you now have legitimate (logically) reason to love your neighbour as yourself.

When/if one finally and completely accepts oneself as God, one will have Christ consciousness. Then, as The Christ himself said:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."

Believe that "I and the father are One", and you shall have the capacity to do greater works than those reported by the Christ.
Reassuringly, one cannot have such power whilst one still sees himself as man. Therefore, such power is used for the good of all existence... or not at all.

Of course, Lifegazer refuses to show those powers, because then we'd start to worship him, and he wants none of that.


Jesus (amongst many works) raised the dead - including the dead Jesus himself - and inspired 2000 years of worship in the man that was Jesus!!!

I don't want the next 2000 years devoted to discussion & worship of 'lifegazer'.

[Imaginative]

I asked him that question nearly three years ago on philosophyforums.com, shortly before he was banned for "wasting bandwidth". He is yet to answer it.

Oh well, at least I'm asking the right kind of questions, which is what philosophy is all about, right?

Any philosphy is only as good as the reasoning behind it and it's defence against criticism, in which case LG has a lot of work to do.

[wollery]

Oh well, at least I'm asking the right kind of questions, which is what philosophy is all about, right?

Any philosphy is only as good as the reasoning behind it and it's defence against criticism, in which case LG has a lot of work to do.He's had a very long time and, apparently, has yet to do any work at all. :oldroll:

[ImaginalDisc]

Scientists seek to understand how 'the brain' causes human experience.

Firstly, this is evidence supporting my claim that science views the [experienced] world-of-things as real-in-themselves.
... This is an error, of course, because nothing within experience is actually real.

Please provide evidence that nothing is real. Oh wait, then your evidence wouldn't be real either, would it? :boggled:
The distinction between experienced-things and real-things should be clear to any sincere reader, by now.
... Also, this is [a portion of] evidence supporting my claim for scientific-reform.

Anyway, read this interchange from another thread:-
Originally Posted by wollery :
"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?)."

... This was my response:
"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.


Observe how science errs. Bias towards worldly-reality results in a theory that the [experienced] brain causes human experience - which, laughably, includes the experienced-brain!
Further, contemplate my response to Wollery, explaining the relationship between sensation, thought & feeling. Science has no reason to believe that 'the brain' causes human experience. Aside from evidence. No one has been able to chat with us about their experiences and thoughts without a brain.
Regardless, countless £$£$ & time are spent trying to solve the mystery and find the cause of human experience, via study of the experienced brain as the cause of it all!

It's gotten beyond a joke. And it's time for change.

[lifegazer]

Woah woah woah. Slow down. I think you had some massive typos there .... you must have meant to write ... "This may be in error, because nothing within experience is necessarily real" ... :D

Your view of the world is neither more or less valid than others - but you seem to treat it as though only your view is viable. You might sound a bit less pontificating if you chose your words more wisely. ;)
Basic philosophy mate - sensations are distinct from real things, existing necessarily beyond consciousness.
All One can observe, are the ordered sensations within/upon consciousness, which themselves yield the impression of objects.
But the impression of an object within consciousness, is not the reality of an object existing beyond consciousness.

I repeat: NO THING within consciousness is real.

[lifegazer]

@LG

Actually the only axiom of scientific inquiry is that not every single observation is wrong. I think that's reasonable. The scientific method then tells us how to make targeted observations, get better quality data, work towards a theory etc.

It's the theories (and research towards confirming those theoies), which confirm that science is biased towards belief in the reality of the world that it observes.

It is true that if one rejects even the notion that some observations are correct, one is left completely in the dark and anything goes.

I have never said that.
I acknowledge that order exists between the appearance of things and that this order is understandable.
My gripe about science concerns theories regarding the absolute-causality of the [experienced] world and of the human experience too.
I am also concerned at the influence science has had upon cultural and moral change.

I'm not religious, so please don't lecture me about the problems of religion.

[lifegazer]

Hi LG

If, everyone accepted your brand of philosophy and were all in agreement 100%, how would this all encompassing philosophy of yours change anything.

This would be a great opportunity for you to share with us what your vision of this shared philosphical ideology would mean to mankind.

I would be interested in where you take your philosphy next, after all philosophy in general wouldn't come to an end just because we might all agree with your idea.
The problems of this world are due to belief in it's reality and the consequent belief in the reality of the human individual.
Salvation can only occur via acknowledgement of unity.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself."

... Great words, but impossible to do unless one sees thyself in thy neighbour.

[UndercoverElephant]

He's had a very long time and, apparently, has yet to do any work at all. :oldroll:

No noticeable progress so far. He appears to have learned nothing at all in the entire time I've been aware of him.

[Ryokan]

I'm not religious, so please don't lecture me about the problems of religion.

Oh, really? Could've fooled me. Especially since nearly half your threads are about God and/or Jesus.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43240

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=44069

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=41927

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=40588

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38586

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38086

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=37666

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33435

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=30567

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=28503

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=28953

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=17623

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=18211

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=13679

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=11804

You may call yourself non-religious, but that doesn't make it so.

[Jimbo07]

Basic philosophy mate - sensations are distinct from real things,

Yep. Your sensory impression is not the thing itself. I've agreed with you from the beginning.


existing necessarily beyond consciousness.

Assuming of course, that consciousness isn't an illusion, I'll agree.


All One can observe, are the ordered sensations within/upon consciousness, which themselves yield the impression of objects.

Nitpick: observation and sensation are probably somewhat synonymous, but I'll agree that a collection of sensations/observations can yield an impression.


But the impression of an object within consciousness, is not the reality of an object existing beyond consciousness.

Get rid of 'within consciousness' and I'll agree that an impression of an object is not the object.


I repeat: NO THING within consciousness is real.

Here we start to diverge. In a sense, if consciousness is real then all of the impressions within consciousness are real. This becomes stronger if consciousness is an illusion, because impressions would then be nothing more than something like a (perhaps very complex) electrical/chemical signal.

In short: all we can know about an object are impressions compiled from sensory data.

lifegazer: In all your posts, you have provided not one good reason as to why we should not assume that these impressions from sensory data are good approximations of real objects. Even if I granted you that impressions formed from sensory data are not good approximations of real objects, what of an apparent order in those data?


I acknowledge that order exists between the appearance of things and that this order is understandable.


Oh. So what's the problem then?


My gripe about science concerns theories regarding the absolute-causality of the [experienced] world and of the human experience too.

Oh.

How could something like a string theory, or M-theory or any newer, better faster theory answer absolute-causality? One question that the 'laws of physics' can't answer is: why are there laws of physics? Some sort of multiverse could explain why there are these laws of physics, but not why any should exist in the first place... or...

Why something rather than nothing?

Physics necessarily needs something to study. It's the study of something, regardless of whether that something is real objects or just our collected set of observations.

It's the theories (and research towards confirming those theoies), which confirm that science is biased towards belief in the reality of the world that it observes.

If you're uncomfortable with the tacit acceptance that physics must have something to study (read: the universe just is, it's existence is a fact), so be it. Science can't answer questions about unobservable things, and conversely, anything observable can be studied by science. Why does science need to reform?


I am also concerned at the influence science has had upon cultural and moral change.

Ah... now we're getting somewhere.

My first question is: if we're all just experiences of a common being, why should we care about cultural change? Anyway, that's a trivial objection on my part...

On a philosophical (ethics) level: what cultural and moral changes has science influenced? How has it influenced them? What, if any, influence should it have? What other influences should be given equal voice? These would be good questions for another thread.


I'm not religious, so please don't lecture me about the problems of religion.

Wouldn't dream of it. :cool:

ETA: I'm an idiot

[lifegazer]

Oh, really? Could've fooled me. Especially since nearly half your threads are about God and/or Jesus.

Doesn't prove a thing.
To be religious, I would have to be affiliated to any one of man's many religions, believing and parroting the mantras fed to me by the hierarchy of said establishment and participating in their rituals... frequenting their services.
I do no such thing.

Do not equate belief in the existence of Jesus to being a Christian. There's alot more to it than that.

[Wudang]

And your philosophy will make things better how? And you know this because your great experiment produced what results?


I make it 13 times I've asked lifegazer the question. Obviously he lacks sincerity.

[UndercoverElephant]

I make it 13 times I've asked lifegazer the question. Obviously he lacks sincerity.

Keep at it. I once asked him the same question 18 times without getting an answer. The question was about what carnivores were going to eat in a world without death or suffering. The 19th time, he answered: There will be no eating after the revolution.

[lifegazer]

Yep. Your sensory impression is not the thing itself. I've agreed with you from the beginning.

Okay... but many have not.

Here we start to diverge. In a sense, if consciousness is real then all of the impressions within consciousness are real.

That's not the point.
The point is that the object which one observes is not a real object in itself, existing beyond and apart from consciousness. Hence, 'the world' [of objects] are ALL unreal in themselves. I.e., we do not observe a real world [of real objects].

Conseqently - as per my OP - we cannot attribute ultimate-causality for human experience itself to anything (i.e. the [experienced] brain).
... Notwithstanding my statement (as per my OP):
"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.".

Thus, scientific theories and research about the observable brain are not only invalid and a waste of resources, they confirm that science is bias towards a belief in the reality (and hence causal potential) of the things that it observes.

... Which is evidence supporting the case for reform.

lifegazer: In all your posts, you have provided not one good reason as to why we should not assume that these impressions from sensory data are good approximations of real objects.

I could write alot about this. Perhaps I will.
But for now, let's stick to the issue-at-hand as per my OP.

[Molinaro]

The problems of this world are due to belief in it's reality and the consequent belief in the reality of the human individual.
Salvation can only occur via acknowledgement of unity.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself."

... Great words, but impossible to do unless one sees thyself in thy neighbour.


I strongly disagree with that statement. It is my belief in the reality of the human individual that leads me to act in a respectfull and responsible way. It is not because of some perceived threat of punishment in the afterlife. It is not because of any sense of unity among myself and others. It is our individual existance that leads me to rationalize that treating them with respect is the right thing to do.

I don't need to think of us as part of some greater unity. I merely have to be aware of my own experiences and feelings and acknowledge that my actions can, and often will, affect other person's experiences and feelings.

Nothing more is needed, and to presume that more is needed indicates a lack of faith in an individual's ability to reason.

[Ryokan]

And your philosophy will make things better how? And you know this because your great experiment produced what results?

Are you going to abandon this thread as well rather than answer?

Don't you know? You'll get superpowers if you realize Lifegazer is right! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1177296#post1177296)

[Ryokan]

Doesn't prove a thing.
To be religious, I would have to be affiliated to any one of man's many religions, believing and parroting the mantras fed to me by the hierarchy of said establishment and participating in their rituals... frequenting their services.
I do no such thing.

Do not equate belief in the existence of Jesus to being a Christian. There's alot more to it than that.

That's a definition of religious I haven't heard.

The dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religious) defines religious as:

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

Seems the first definition applies, and the second might as well.

Just face is, Darren. You're a religious man.

[UndercoverElephant]

Just face is, Darren. You're a religious man.

Of the sort who give a bad name to religion. He thinks he's got the solution. He hasn't. He is the problem.

[lifegazer]

I strongly disagree with that statement. It is my belief in the reality of the human individual that leads me to act in a respectfull and responsible way. It is not because of some perceived threat of punishment in the afterlife. It is not because of any sense of unity among myself and others. It is our individual existance that leads me to rationalize that treating them with respect is the right thing to do.

I don't need to think of us as part of some greater unity. I merely have to be aware of my own experiences and feelings and acknowledge that my actions can, and often will, affect other person's experiences and feelings.

Nothing more is needed, and to presume that more is needed indicates a lack of faith in an individual's ability to reason.
Yeah right. You'll be telling me next that your whole life is devoted to selfless acts and promoting equality and injustice.
You'll also be telling me next that the majority of people upon this Earth have had the same attitudes as yourself.

Do me a favour - read some history books and then watch the evening news.

[Molinaro]

I'm well aware of the success of religious teachings in this respect. Most people discount the idea out of hand and make no effort to make the right choice when a choice is needed. God forbid, literaly, that anyone expects to be able to choose right because they believe that they can.

Too many actualy believe that they are too weak minded to think for themselves, and take the easy way out, and choose not to think for themselves.

[Foster Zygote]

Well, I've now seen enough to know that Lifegazer will never present a cogent argument supporting his position because there isn't one. His declarations are as arbitrary as any other religious declaration. He simply claims to have an absolute knowledge of things that are, by definition, unknowable. The rhetoric he employs is indistinguishable from that of any other religious justification as well. If he wore a white robe and preached his assertions to crowds of people he would certainly acquire a small band of followers eager to pretend they comprehend his message. I for one don't care for Kool-Ade.

Steven

[RandFan]

People are avoiding the OP.
C'mon... Let's go baby c'mon.

Avoiding what? You repeat the same tired... stuff. Your argument (if you can call it that) goes nowhere.

Your... uh, whatever, doesn't appeal to the intelect. Your statements are disjointed (not cohesive). Your argument, for lack of a better word, doesn't appeal to the intelect in a reasoned way that would cause me to seriously consider it.

[RandFan]

If he wore a white robe and preached his assertions to crowds of people he would certainly acquire a small band of followers eager to pretend they comprehend his message. I for one don't care for Kool-Ade.

Steven I think you give him far too much credit. But, you could be right. Hell, there are people that believe in Xenu and thetans so I guess anything is possible.

[kieran]

I strongly disagree with that statement [snip] ... I don't need to think of us as part of some greater unity. I merely have to be aware of my own experiences and feelings and acknowledge that my actions can, and often will, affect other person's experiences and feelings.

I personally disagree with your disagreement. You said:
"my actions can, and often will, affect other person's experiences and feelings"
I agree with that, and conversely other peoples actions can/will affect mine. So why should I expect others to respect my feelings if I don't respect theirs? That is my element of seeing myself in others. We are part of a unity - we are occupying the same space and time and we interact.

[Z]

I'm honestly not sure if this is really Darren or not. His approaches this time are even weaker and more poorly presented than usual. Granted, I never expected him to integrate the points made in earlier discussions; I fully expected he'd return, spouting the same old rhetoric to a crowd of new faces. But I didn't expect his material to degrade this badly, either.

Maybe his new wife has taken to posting under his name? --if she exists, that is...

[lifegazer]

I'm honestly not sure if this is really Darren or not. His approaches this time are even weaker and more poorly presented than usual. Granted, I never expected him to integrate the points made in earlier discussions; I fully expected he'd return, spouting the same old rhetoric to a crowd of new faces. But I didn't expect his material to degrade this badly, either.

Maybe his new wife has taken to posting under his name? --if she exists, that is...
Why not edit your post by simply calling me a liar?

There's nothing wrong with the material I have presented here.
... It exposes the actual belief in the reality of 'the brain' (the reality of any 'thing', actually) as a sham. There's ZERO rationale for claiming any material object exists, least of all the brain!
... Also, the fact that experienced objects are reducible to sensations means that "tampering with the brain" (e.g., drugs or axe etc.) to show that emotions & thoughts are affected by such an activity, ONLY proves that thinking-experience & emotional-experience is affected by sensory-experience. It does NOT prove that 'the [real] brain' controls thinking & emotions.
This should be apparent when one observes the effects thoughts & emotions can have on the physical state of the brain & body. However, this is reducible to the fact that thoughts & emotions have the potential to effect the sensations [of there being a brain & body and the current states of them].
Your fears/loves etc., have the potential to alter the state(s) of your brain & body as much as tampering with the structure of the brain/body has the potential to alter the state(s) of your thoughts & emotions.
This obvious fact is overlooked by materialists/scientists. Nevertheless, it is true. Moreover, philosophy can reduce all experience to the fact that there is an intrinsic relationship between thought, feeling & sensation (of body/world).

In other words, there is ZERO evidence (scientific or rational) to suggest that there is a relationship between a real brain and thought & emotion. That is just the obsolete outlook. The neanderthal view.

... The view which you still harbour in spite of sound analysis by myself.

And for what it's worth, I really don't give a **** whether you believe I'm married or not. Regardless, your judgement of my personal life or my character, is meaningless with regards the philosophy I present on this board.
So don't make a complete t**t of yourself by trying to attack my character as a means to attack my philosophy.
It just exposes you for the s******d that you are.

[Dredred]

Lifegazer, you seem to keep trying to convince people that nothing is real. Please tell me, is there any benefit in believing that? You'd still have to function in the same world, in the same way, wouldn't you?

You'd still experience yourself as the center from which you perceive (un-)reality, and you'd still have to interact with your perceived (un-)reality outside of that center. Nothing's changed, has it?

[Dave1001]

I'm disappointed that such a great thread title is wasted on this.

[fuelair]

Keep at it. I once asked him the same question 18 times without getting an answer. The question was about what carnivores were going to eat in a world without death or suffering. The 19th time, he answered: There will be no eating after the revolution.

"While trolling through the thread one day
In the merry, merry month of August (sorry about that)
I was taken by surprise by some silliness and lies -
While trolling through the thread one day!!"

[qayak]

Basic philosophy mate - sensations are distinct from real things, existing necessarily beyond consciousness. All One can observe, are the ordered sensations within/upon consciousness, which themselves yield the impression of objects.

I agree 100%.

But the impression of an object within consciousness, is not the reality of an object existing beyond consciousness.

I repeat: NO THING within consciousness is real.

It doesn't have to be real to be true though. Did Einstein have to really travel at the speed of light in order for his idea to be true?

Every person is capable of thought experiments. That is, they have the ability to say "what if?" and the further ability to figure out exactly what the results would be. This is what Einstein did.

Now, scientists and non-scientists can both do this. What seperates the two is that a scientist does not assume that his result is true until it aligns with what he observes in the physical world. A non-scientist just assumes that anything he can dream up is true. It turns out that science is the most effect tool we have for collecting information and finding out what is real and what is not.

Very early in science it became obvious that an observer's senses could be fooled and they were not to be trusted. Science developed tools that extended the limits of our senses and made them much harder to fool. mathematics was developed as the ultimate tool for deciding what is real although it cannot always be applied.

In the everyday world that we live in, it is pretty hard to beat the human senses as a way for deciding what reality is. Our senses were accurate enough and fast enough to allow us to climb to the top of the food chain. Outside these areas we have tools and techniques that extend our senses.

In fact, we have come to the point where we may have reached the limit of what we can understand simply because our senses rely on past experience to help us understand new experiences. Some new experiences maybe so different from what we have so far observed that all the experience in the world will not help us. We are left to rely on a "luck guess."

But make no mistakes, the system of science is very accurate, if not exactly correct, at solving the mysteries that surround us. How do I know? Because I am communicating with you on a device thats very existence relies on everything I mention in this post being correct.

You pooh-pooh science's abilities even as you enjoy the marvels of its success.

[RandFan]

I agree 100%.



It doesn't have to be real to be true though. Did Einstein have to really travel at the speed of light in order for his idea to be true?"If I could ride a beam of light..."

Thank you, I repeat this argument 2 or 3 times a year. Oh, and welcome to the forum.

ETA: You pooh-pooh science's abilities even as you enjoy the marvels of its success.Exactly, the guy is using a computer tied into the interent to argue that the computer and the internet are not real.

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer, you seem to keep trying to convince people that nothing is real. Please tell me, is there any benefit in believing that? You'd still have to function in the same world, in the same way, wouldn't you?

Actually, if and when the majority of the people on this earth ever came to believe the ultimate conclusion of this philosophy, you wouldn't believe the changes that would take place. No more borders, wars, inequalities, etc..
There's a massive difference between identifying the self as a localised body within the experience of the world (distinct and apart from everything else)and identifying oneself as The ExperiencER that embraces the totality of that experience - seeing The Experiencer as the essence of all experience.

[lifegazer]

It doesn't have to be real to be true though. Did Einstein have to really travel at the speed of light in order for his idea to be true?

The laws of physics actually relate to the order that exists amongst the experienced world. A scientist can only observe his experience.
So no, it doesn't have to be real to discern order. And your comment is irrelevant.

It turns out that science is the most effect tool we have for collecting information and finding out what is real and what is not.

There's a specific order inherent within the experienced world. All one can say is that science collects info which enables to understand more of this order. However, science has zero information regarding the actual reality of anything.

You pooh-pooh science's abilities even as you enjoy the marvels of its success.
Completely irrelevant. That mankind can understand the order inherent within experience and then manipulate that order for the benefit of experienced beings is not even an issue nor a counter to anything I have said.

I "pooh pooh" the attitudes of science to the essential causality of experienced things/forces.
... When an establishment reaches the point of pondering the essential causality of human experience and then studies an experienced object (the brain) as a cause of that experience, the folly of it all must be pointed out.

One cannot find the cause of human experience within experience!

[Dredred]

Actually, if and when the majority of the people on this earth ever came to believe the ultimate conclusion of this philosophy, you wouldn't believe the changes that would take place. No more borders, wars, inequalities, etc..
There's a massive difference between identifying the self as a localised body within the experience of the world (distinct and apart from everything else)and identifying oneself as The ExperiencER that embraces the totality of that experience - seeing The Experiencer as the essence of all experience.

I'm sorry but that sounds very vague to me. Could you give an example of how I would handle a situation differently when I 'identify myself as The ExperiencER that embraces the totality of that experience' ?

[lifegazer]

I'm sorry but that sounds very vague to me. Could you give an example of how I would handle a situation differently when I 'identify myself as The ExperiencER that embraces the totality of that experience' ?
Perhaps it is vague, though surely you understand the implications for mankind given the distinction between identifying oneself with The One as opposed to a small and separate part of the whole?

The mindset (attitudes/emotions/desires) of humanity - generally speaking - has always reflected a mass of different individuals all with different agendas and in competition with one another. Many groups have formed, of course (nationalities/religions etc.), but even these have their own specific agendas and are in competition with one another. Hence wars & inequalities etc..
This specific self-belief is associated with what has been labelled 'the [selfish] ego'.

... It doesn't require much consideration to realise that identifying oneself (and all others) with The One is the beginning of the end for egotistical attitudes/emotions/desires and the beginning of the end for borders/wars etc., which equates to a drastic change in the way a human being thinks & acts - both individually and as a whole.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Perhaps it is vague, though surely you understand the implications for mankind given the distinction between identifying oneself with The One as opposed to a small and separate part of the whole?


If science is based on a monism then this statement is meaningless. There would be no separate part of the whole. There would only be a monistic whole of which individuals are a part. Since there is no way to objectively tell the difference between Berkleyan idealism and monistic materialism why should anyone believe your take on reality over their own? Monism is monism. There can be no separation, only folks who misidentify themselves as separate from the monistic whole.

*edit to add*

Egoism is the result of dualism. There is no room for egoism in any monism, whatever its stripe.

[wollery]

Lifegazer, you claim that anyone who comes to this realization would be able to affect the world around them, move mountains etc.

You left the forum to concentrate on an experiment, claiming that you wouldn't be back if it didn't work, and that if it did you would change the world. You're back, and as far as I can tell the world hasn't changed. You also now claim to be a gnostic acolyte, and as such do have the true realization mentioned above.

So how's the mountain moving coming along?

[lifegazer]

Egoism is the result of dualism. There is no room for egoism in any monism, whatever its stripe.
The ego is an idea or belief, held by the self. There is always room for mistaken notions regarding self-identity within monism.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The ego is an idea or belief, held by the self. There is always room for mistaken notions regarding self-identity within monism.

Technically speaking there is no self in monism, properly viewed. Certainly not in material monism, whatever matter is. In Berkleyian idealism since everything depends on the mind of God the self seems also to be a misnomer. Hammegk's version of objective idealism seems to contain the same idea since he is fond of repeating Atman=Brahman. Of course there is room for mistaken notions of self-identity within monism, but that is true of all monisms. People can make mistakes. Properly viewed, however, self is non-existent in all monisms, at least the way I look at it.

[Dredred]

The mindset (attitudes/emotions/desires) of humanity - generally speaking - has always reflected a mass of different individuals all with different agendas and in competition with one another.

I'm sorry, it still sounds very vague to me. I'm trying to understand what you mean. I'll give some examples of situations. I'm interested how someone with the belief you're talking about (let's call him mr. L) would handle those situations.

So, mr. L 'identifies himself with The One as opposed to a small and separate part of the whole'.

During a famine, if L finds a bit of food, would he share it with his son or with a stranger if he had to choose? Or with the stranger's starving dog?
If there wasn't enough drinking water, and L only has one glass of water to last an entire day, would he drink it himself or pour it in an almost dried up mud puddle to save the dying population of microbes in the puddle?

[qayak]

Completely irrelevant. That mankind can understand the order inherent within experience and then manipulate that order for the benefit of experienced beings is not even an issue nor a counter to anything I have said.

Do you realize how absurd what you just wrote is? The only reason we can manipulate things is because they are, in fact, real.

My senses, though flawed in some cases, are very good indicators that an event has taken place. If I drop a hammer on my toe, I get the visual imput from my eyes of it alling and hitting my toe, the audio input from my ears, the pain input from my toe, etc.

This event was real despite all the input from my senses. My senses simply recorded it. They may have been very accurate or only slightly accurate but the event they recorded was very real.

If the same thing happens to you, what evidence are you going to put forth that the event wasn't real?

Remember, science is based on probability not proof. Can you raise the probability that the event didn't happen higher than my senses raised the probability that it did?

It is now incumbent upon you to explain away my evidence and not simply ignore it. Don't worry, I have a bunch more evidence to come.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Define what is meant by real and I'll see what I can do.

The existence of entities beyond the experience of them.
No problem. Entities clearly exist beyond your experience of them, or you would be required to experience everything around you, constantly and continuously, in order to keep them coherent. You do not have to do this. Therefore these things exist without your experiencing them. They are real.

~~ Paul

[Z]

Why not edit your post by simply calling me a liar?

I was expressing doubts, not asserting a belief. But, you proved yourself in the rest of your message...

There's nothing wrong with the material I have presented here.

There's Darren's famous denial of facts...

... It exposes the actual belief in the reality of 'the brain' (the reality of any 'thing', actually) as a sham.

... his token straw-man...

There's ZERO rationale for claiming any material object exists, least of all the brain!

... his highly erroneous beliefs...

.. Also, the fact that experienced objects are reducible to sensations means that "tampering with the brain" (e.g., drugs or axe etc.) to show that emotions & thoughts are affected by such an activity, ONLY proves that thinking-experience & emotional-experience is affected by sensory-experience. It does NOT prove that 'the [real] brain' controls thinking & emotions.
This should be apparent when one observes the effects thoughts & emotions can have on the physical state of the brain & body. However, this is reducible to the fact that thoughts & emotions have the potential to effect the sensations [of there being a brain & body and the current states of them].
Your fears/loves etc., have the potential to alter the state(s) of your brain & body as much as tampering with the structure of the brain/body has the potential to alter the state(s) of your thoughts & emotions.

...the hilarious conclusions resulting from his erroneous beliefs and strawmen arguments...

This obvious fact is overlooked by materialists/scientists. Nevertheless, it is true. Moreover, philosophy can reduce all experience to the fact that there is an intrinsic relationship between thought, feeling & sensation (of body/world).

... even more straw men and erroneous beliefs...

In other words, there is ZERO evidence (scientific or rational) to suggest that there is a relationship between a real brain and thought & emotion. That is just the obsolete outlook. The neanderthal view.

... his famous 'Down-the-nose/zealous-repetition-of-strawman' move...

... The view which you still harbour in spite of sound analysis by myself.

... his trademarked ego-stoking...

And for what it's worth, I really don't give a **** whether you believe I'm married or not. Regardless, your judgement of my personal life or my character, is meaningless with regards the philosophy I present on this board.
So don't make a complete t**t of yourself by trying to attack my character as a means to attack my philosophy.
It just exposes you for the s******d that you are.

And, of course, could it ever really be Darren if he didn't stoop to insults, name-calling, and thinly-veiled cursing once he realizes - at whatever level - that his post is another steaming pile of errors, straw-men, and general dung?

Welcome back after all, Darren!

As to your posts - nope. Nothing new here. These are all OLD arguments, long ago reduced to rubble. And, as usual, he cannot demonstrate a single actual benefit which arises from his beliefs, short of what might happen if enough people convert and he happens to be right..

And, of course, his flat denial to speak of the 'miraculous event' or whatever he left the forum to 'allegedly attempt'.

Yeah, whatever. Nothing to see here, people... move along.

[fuelair]

Perhaps it is vague, though surely you understand the implications for mankind given the distinction between identifying oneself with The One as opposed to a small and separate part of the whole?

The mindset (attitudes/emotions/desires) of humanity - generally speaking - has always reflected a mass of different individuals all with different agendas and in competition with one another. Many groups have formed, of course (nationalities/religions etc.), but even these have their own specific agendas and are in competition with one another. Hence wars & inequalities etc..
This specific self-belief is associated with what has been labelled 'the [selfish] ego'.

... It doesn't require much consideration to realise that identifying oneself (and all others) with The One is the beginning of the end for egotistical attitudes/emotions/desires and the beginning of the end for borders/wars etc., which equates to a drastic change in the way a human being thinks & acts - both individually and as a whole.

I am Borg, I want 7 of 9.

[Dark Jaguar]

This isn't really a new idea though. It's just the same old "hippy ideal" of everyone realizing "we're all in this together man!". True enough, except for one small problem. They ARE seperate beings. Even if you yourself are fully and completely aware that we are all in this together, how are you going to convince crazy religious guy with the gun over there to work together with you for the sake of harmony and so on and so forth? You probably won't. You may become one with a bullet, but that's about it.

Your philosophy won't do jack. On the other hand, if we network all our brains and do the borg thing, THEN you can see the truth of it. Too bad your individuality will be utterly destroyed in the process.

Look at it this way. You yourself believe what you say, but we don't. Doesn't that ALONE tell you that this ideal won't actually result in harmony among all peoples?

[Filip Sandor]

Scientists seek to understand how 'the brain' causes human experience.

Firstly, this is evidence supporting my claim that science views the [experienced] world-of-things as real-in-themselves.
... This is an error, of course, because nothing within experience is actually real. The distinction between experienced-things and real-things should be clear to any sincere reader, by now.

LG, please explain how you make this distinction between what is real and what is sensed?

[RandFan]

I am Borg, I want 7 of 9.Me too.

[RandFan]

Doesn't that ALONE tell you that this ideal won't actually result in harmony among all peoples?You are too impatient sir. So what if it has been years and no one has embraced his philosophy. Each journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Now, granted, if you count people as steps then no steps have been taken. However there are only, just a minute...

OMG, there are 6,500,000,000+ people in the world.

You know what? Never mind. Gazer philosophy isn't going anywhere.

[Dark Jaguar]

What I mean to say is that this particular philosophy suggests that we are all one single being and when we realize that, wars stop.

Well aside from the fact that simply working together alone would be enough to do that, there's hte issue that if we actually were connected to this odd degree lg seems to suggest, only one person would need to figure out it and it would spread like some sort of magical trippy wave to everyone else becuase since we are all one, "we" finally figured it out.

[RandFan]

What I mean to say is that this particular philosophy suggests that we are all one single being and when we realize that, wars stop.

Well aside from the fact that simply working together alone would be enough to do that, there's hte issue that if we actually were connected to this odd degree lg seems to suggest, only one person would need to figure out it and it would spread like some sort of magical trippy wave to everyone else becuase since we are all one, "we" finally figured it out.Yeah, and that is my point. It isn't happening. FWIW, this isn't the only forum gazer has visited and I believe he has even been kicked out of more than one. My apologies if I'm wrong.

It just isn't happening. If gazer is our savior he's not doing a very good job of it. We need a Kant or Aquinas...

Actually, no.

[fuelair]

Coconuts are very good. You can make a delicious cake with coconuts and flour and sugar and oil and milk or you can use a box mix. But it doesn't really matter because i transcend what you think of as reality because of the duality of matter when constructed of heavy energy particles which aren't really real because I just thought of them but they aren't really there I just think they are but I am probably oh wait I can't be wrong because I am the gazer on life and have a neat degree - or not- perhaps that was a dream but it certainly felt like rain. I'm going home or somewhere to think this out.