• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Matter Really Exist?

Iacchus might have a point. There might be realms of thought that you can't apply logic to. You cannot decide everything by logical reasoning. Who you like, love and what you want for dinner for example.

Not sure why that matters though.
 
Mercutio said:
So, if you assume the conclusion is valid, then the steps that reach it must also be valid. Nice. Backwards, but nice.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I merely put it this way for the sake of all you non-mystics ... you know, in the hopes that you might understand?
 
Iacchus said:
Which type of evidence are you speaking about? The type that doesn't appear before your "physical" senses? ... albeit it is just as experiencable?
Click to expand...

You can experience a hallucination because of drugs. It doesn't mean that what appeared during the hallucination is real. That's why you need independent confirmation -- and why the type of evidence you mention is often viewed as suspect.
 
Splossy said:
Iacchus might have a point. There might be realms of thought that you can't apply logic to. You cannot decide everything by logical reasoning. Who you like, love and what you want for dinner for example.

Not sure why that matters though.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that just because you can't put your finger on it (in the physical sense), does that mean it does not constitute evidence? Because this is where the word "irrational" tends to come in.
 
Iacchus said:
I'm thinking more in terms of a circle within a circle. Is not the inner-circle a "sub-domain" of the outer-circle?
Click to expand...

You're thinking about sets again, an I sure as HELL won't get into that discussion.

However, I think I understand what you mean by that. But, do you understand the concept of there beign no space "outside" of the universe ?
 
Splossy said:
Iacchus might have a point. There might be realms of thought that you can't apply logic to. You cannot decide everything by logical reasoning. Who you like, love and what you want for dinner for example.

Not sure why that matters though.
Click to expand...

The point is, the causes behind "love" are logical/physical. In addition, love can be shown to be true by a number of actions. The reality of the dream-world cannot; not in the way Iacchus is trying to show it.
 
Iacchus said:
All I'm saying is that just because you can't put your finger on it (in the physical sense), does that mean it does not constitute evidence? Because this is where the word "irrational" tends to come in.
Click to expand...

It is possible that there is knowledge/evidence to be found in one's mind that will remain intangible. Science can only reasonably examine what it can measure. Areas of consciousness remain, as yet outside of it's grasp. The proof a deity's existence or non-existence is also such a thing.

Is that what you are talking about?
 
Belz... said:
You can experience a hallucination because of drugs. It doesn't mean that what appeared during the hallucination is real. That's why you need independent confirmation -- and why the type of evidence you mention is often viewed as suspect.
Click to expand...
And if these "monsters from the id" really did exist, then we may have a "rational" explanation for these types of experience.
 
Splossy said:
Iacchus might have a point. There might be realms of thought that you can't apply logic to. You cannot decide everything by logical reasoning. Who you like, love and what you want for dinner for example.

Not sure why that matters though.
Click to expand...

I have no problem at all with Iacchus's assertions as such. He can assert what he wants. Others can assert to the contrary. What I object to is that Iacchus insists on arguing his assertions as if they could be logically argued, using faulty arguments.

I fully agree that there are realms of thought that are impervious to logic. Faith and logic are incompatible. I'm not entirely convinced as the logical positivists are that metaphysics is inherently, by definition, nonsense from the logical point of view, but so far I have not heard arguments from Iacchus or anyone else for that matter that quite disprove the notion.
 
Belz... said:
You're thinking about sets again, an I sure as HELL won't get into that discussion.
Click to expand...
I am speaking in terms of realms of influence, one of which exists within the other. Sort of like the state of Montana, which exists within the United States as a whole.

However, I think I understand what you mean by that. But, do you understand the concept of there beign no space "outside" of the universe ?
Click to expand...
Yes, when thinking of the "material" Universe, I take that to mean both time and space. However, when trying to define this other domain that the (physical) Universe exists as a part of, a circle within circle may not be the best way to describe it, because we are speaking of an additional dimension perhaps. I am just trying to suggest that the one is fully enveloped by the other.
 
Iacchus said:
And if these "monsters from the id" really did exist, then we may have a "rational" explanation for these types of experience.
Click to expand...

No, we don't. We know, for a fact, that drugs mess up your brain, and that this may cause random neurone firing that can lead to hallucinations. That means that the content of the hallucination is due to meaningless data; the same process happens in dreams, though it's somewhat more coherent. The problem with your hypothesis about these things is, there is no need for another explanation, because there is no mystery.
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, when thinking of the "material" Universe, I take that to mean both time and space. However, when trying to define this other domain that the (physical) Universe exists as a part of, a circle within circle may not be the best way to describe it, because we are speaking of an additional dimension perhaps. I am just trying to suggest that the one is fully enveloped by the other.
Click to expand...

You seem to have progressed, somewhat. However, there are also no dimensions "outside" the universe.
 
Belz... said:
No, we don't. We know, for a fact, that drugs mess up your brain, and that this may cause random neurone firing that can lead to hallucinations. That means that the content of the hallucination is due to meaningless data; the same process happens in dreams, though it's somewhat more coherent. The problem with your hypothesis about these things is, there is no need for another explanation, because there is no mystery.
Click to expand...
Life is a mystery, and we are -- at least in part --the monsters from the id.
 
Belz... said:
You seem to have progressed, somewhat. However, there are also no dimensions "outside" the universe.
Click to expand...
If a circle can exist within a circle, then the outer circle exists on the outside of (as well as extends into) the inner circle.
 
Splossy said:
It is possible that there is knowledge/evidence to be found in one's mind that will remain intangible. Science can only reasonably examine what it can measure. Areas of consciousness remain, as yet outside of it's grasp. The proof a deity's existence or non-existence is also such a thing.

Is that what you are talking about?
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what I'm talking about.
 
Iacchus said:
Life is a mystery, and we are -- at least in part --the monsters from the id.
Click to expand...

See what I mean ? I try to give you rational arguments, which you seem to, at least, partly understand; and then when I say something that you don't like, you retreat back to your logic-immune assumptions.

There lays the problem with your hypothesis, Iacchus. Once again, you assign a high value to your dreams. People have been wondering their significance for millenia. Now that we're pretty sure what they are, do you really need to concoct such a wild, baseless theory ?
 
Belz... said:
See what I mean ? I try to give you rational arguments, which you seem to, at least, partly understand; and then when I say something that you don't like, you retreat back to your logic-immune assumptions.

There lays the problem with your hypothesis, Iacchus. Once again, you assign a high value to your dreams. People have been wondering their significance for millenia. Now that we're pretty sure what they are, do you really need to concoct such a wild, baseless theory ?
Click to expand...
You say that there's no mystery. I say that you're wrong. Because it's all a mystery, that exists in the space between our ears. So, when you get right down to it, we are, all in fact mystics.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Perhaps, but since there are no dimensions outside the universe, the analogy fails.
Click to expand...
And, has it not already been mentioned and/or explained that God exists outside of the parameters of Time and Space?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom