Does Matter Really Exist?

[Mercutio]

I can both live with and, die with that. Thanks.

Another content-free post brought to you by the good people at Iacchus.

 

[Iacchus]

Another content-free post brought to you by the good people at Iacchus.

Am merely stating that if I take this with me to the grave, that's fine with me. It's not for me to tell people what reality is. If they truly need to interpret it, that interpretation must come from within.

 

[bruto]

Oh, I believe that it's possible for other people to know of such things, just that I don't know whether it's "I," who can get them to see it. For it is the spirit that leads us.

I'm afraid your spirit lacks leadership potential, Iacchus.

By the way, I thought you believed above all in your self, as an object of actual knowledge and all the rest of that drivel you've been going on about for the last 22 pages. Why, then have you enclosed the pronoun in quotation marks as if to distinguish it as not quite what the pronoun would be expected to mean? It certainly isn't an actual quotation. Are you a self only in the ironic sense, or a putative self, or perhaps only a word and not a person at all (oh that it were so)? Are you, perhaps, a monster from someone else's id? Is there, in every sane man, a Iacchus, struggling to get out?

 

[RandFan]

So, do you believe that there is an actual "you" that exists? Or, is it strictly a matter of what's programmed into "it" by the physical/material environment? There's a big difference you see.

I can only tell you the results. It sure seems that I do exist. There is simply no emperical way to know. There is reason to believe that the sense of me is simply an illusion.

 

[Iacchus]

I can only tell you the results. It sure seems that I do exist. There is simply no emperical way to know. There is reason to believe that the sense of me is simply an illusion.

And if it were not an illusion, then, what is it? Indestructible perhaps, as is any other form of energy?

 

[Iacchus]

I'm afraid your spirit lacks leadership potential, Iacchus.

By the way, I thought you believed above all in your self, as an object of actual knowledge and all the rest of that drivel you've been going on about for the last 22 pages. Why, then have you enclosed the pronoun in quotation marks as if to distinguish it as not quite what the pronoun would be expected to mean? It certainly isn't an actual quotation. Are you a self only in the ironic sense, or a putative self, or perhaps only a word and not a person at all (oh that it were so)? Are you, perhaps, a monster from someone else's id? Is there, in every sane man, a Iacchus, struggling to get out?

The important thing I think, is that you learn to have faith in yourself ... which, I think most people on this forum are incapable of doing.

 

[RandFan]

And if it were not an illusion, then, what is it? Indestructible perhaps, as is any other form of energy?

I could only speculate. At best I could only answer by arguing from ignorance. I choose not to engage in that fallacy. Feel free if you want.

 

[Iacchus]

I could only speculate. At best I could only answer by arguing from ignorance. I choose not to engage in that fallacy. Feel free if you want.

Yes, thinking is the process by which we speculate about the possibility of the unknown. Am not sure why you wish to deem this a fallacy, however. Ultimately one has to acknowledge it for oneself don't you think? Or, is it that you think it's not possible? How would we know otherwise?

 

[Solitaire]

Answers To Odd Questions


1.(a) Rumplestiltskin is his middle name.
1.(b) He can only spin straw into hay.


3. This is the unordered Venn diagram.

5. The proper recipe is:

One part Welches peach and white grape juice
One part White House apple juice
One part Grey Goose vodka
Mix and serve


7. As Declaration Of Independence shows that the Universal Mind cannot be outside of Nature.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

9. The kitten photo is:

Bonus question answer: The following sounds were recorded from his mind using a Nasa satellite mind-probe technology.

Iacchus.mp3 (4.8MB, 5:20.25)

 

[RandFan]

Yes, thinking is the process by which we speculate about the possibility of the unknown. Am not sure why you wish to deem this a fallacy, however. Ultimately one has to acknowledge it for oneself don't you think? Or, is it that you think it's not possible? How would we know otherwise?

It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based on ignorance. It is perfectly fine to conjecture and speculate but bear in mind that absent evidence or a logical proof one conjecture is as good as another. I choose to conjecture that I'm in the Matrix and that I am Neo. I am the savior of humanity awaiting my awakening. I'm looking for the white rabbit.

Ok?

 

[Iacchus]

It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based on ignorance. It is perfectly fine to conjecture and speculate but bear in mind that absent evidence or a logical proof one conjecture is as good as another. I choose to conjecture that I'm in the Matrix and that I am Neo. I am the savior of humanity awaiting my awakening. I'm looking for the white rabbit.

Ok?

So, what constitutes evidence, outside of your own experience that is? If you can't see and acknowledge it for yourself, what point is there to it? What do you really know in other words? Well, at the very least, you will never come to know God ...

 

[RandFan]

So, what constitutes evidence, outside of your own experience that is? If you can't see and acknowledge it for yourself, what point is there to it? What do you really know in other words? Well, at the very least, you will never come to know God ...

Well, let's start with assumptions that we can both agree on.

Either:
1.) What appears to be real is real.
or
2.) What appears to be real is not.

If I assume #2 then I don't know anything. If I assume #2 then it leads to no conclusions. Any supposition is as valid as any other. I might be a computer program. I might be the dream of a dragon. I might be god asleep.

If I assume #1 then I can use logic and observe the natural world to deduce what is likely and what is not likely.

Neither assumption logically leads me to god to the exclusion of any other possibility.

 

[RandFan]

Neither assumption logically leads me to god to the exclusion of any other possibility.

And BTW, I can come up with one hell of a better flight of fancy than most versions of god including the Chrstian, Muslim or Jewish one. So what's the point?

 

[Belz...]

Isn't it strange though, how the night sky is not visible when our atmosphere is bombarded (and overridden) by radiation "signals" from the sun?

Just because you can substitute one word with another and put it in quotation marks doesn't mean it's a good analogy.

Whereas if we were to isolate ourselves, and put ourselves in a dark room for an extended period of time, we may begin to see and experience things that we wouldn't ordinarily see, correct?

I seriously have no idea WHAT you're talking about. Must be monsters from the id.

So why should this be any different (necessarily) than our viewing of the night sky? How do we know for a fact that these "signals" that the brain receives are not external to it?

The signals ARE external to the brain until they get there. How does this support your "spirit" hypothesis ?

Yes, and there could very well be something substantial that exists on the other side of this "barrier" ... a continuum or, spiritual reality which, is not contingent upon time and space.

However, in order for this to be a serious subject, you'd have to show that this "barrier" exists at all.

Actually, there really is no way I can answer this, for someone who refuses to believe it's possible to know of such things.

Well, it's not in any way, shape or form worst than you, Iacchus, who refuse to understand that you can be wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Because the brain doesn't know anything. It is "I" who knows.

What is this "I" of which you speak ?

 

[Belz...]

It's not for me to tell people what reality is. If they truly need to interpret it, that interpretation must come from within.

How will that help anyone ? If science worked that way, we'd have achieved nothing by now.

And if it were not an illusion, then, what is it? Indestructible perhaps, as is any other form of energy?

Matter is also indestructible. In fact... if you think about it, EVERYTHING is indestructible. Pretty much makes the word useless when you use it that way.

The important thing I think, is that you learn to have faith in yourself ... which, I think most people on this forum are incapable of doing.

How the HELL does that relate to our discussion, here ? We're talking about evidence vs assumption, and you throw in an unrelated thing like "faith in yourself". You truly are a Troll, then.

Yes, thinking is the process by which we speculate about the possibility of the unknown.

Thinking can also be the process by which we use actual evidence to answer our speculations. Something you seem incapable of.

Thinking, that is.

So, what constitutes evidence, outside of your own experience that is? If you can't see and acknowledge it for yourself, what point is there to it?

It's not a question of point or purpose, Iacchus. Your "purpose" in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. In order for evidence to be of any use, we must be able to confirm it.

Think about it. If I told you that I own a TARDIS and use it to travel to many places and time periods; and I told you that I know this, would it make this true to you ? Just because I claim to know and also claim that YOU can't know what I know ?

Well, at the very least, you will never come to know God ...

???

 

[Iacchus]

And BTW, I can come up with one hell of a better flight of fancy than most versions of god including the Chrstian, Muslim or Jewish one. So what's the point?

Why must one assume anything, outside of the fact of not knowing that is?

 

[RandFan]

Why must one assume anything, outside of the fact of not knowing that is?

One need not assume anything. However one must assume something if one is to come to any conclusion about anything. There is simply no logical way out of the conundrum you are painting here.

So, what do we have?

1.) I assume that what appears to be real is real.
or
2.) I assume that what appears to be real is not.
or
3.) Assume that I know nothing.

Still no god to the exclusion of all other possibilities. So, I ask again, what's the point? What good is your non-logical approach to questions about the existence or non existence of god? Why not assume that we are in the Matrix?

 

[thesyntaxera]

One need not assume anything. However one must assume something if one is to come to any conclusion about anything. There is simply no logical way out of the conundrum you are painting here.

So, what do we have?

1.) I assume that what appears to be real is real.
or
2.) I assume that what appears to be real is not.
or
3.) Assume that I know nothing.

Still no god to the exclusion of all other possibilities. So, I ask again, what's the point? What good is your non-logical approach to questions about the existence or non existence of god? Why not assume that we are in the Matrix?

Wow, I didn't realize there were multiple threads with the same topic by the same person, and this one is over 20 pages! I am amazed, is it safe to assume that the content of this thread is repetitive?

Assume that you know nothing, because you could always be proven wrong, assume that what appears real is real, no amount of philosophical meandering and pondering is going to make matter inconsequential.

Your asking the "what does it all mean" question in an attempt to either have your worldview validated, or to find out the flaws in your worldview so you can adapt it to be more acceptable....at least it appears so, but that is only an assumption...either way, what you should do is simply learn as much as you can about the world and universe from a cautious, cross referencing, double blind point of view, anyone who tries to tell you what it all means, and claims they can back it up has an agenda of drawing attention to themselves for having figured it out.

Don't get caught up in the mysticism, because any examination of the universe and it's workings is metaphyiscal enough for most scientists.

good luck.

 

[Iacchus]

Don't get caught up in the mysticism, because any examination of the universe and it's workings is metaphyiscal enough for most scientists.

good luck.

As if to say, we should not examine who is doing the examining? Whereas if we are to examine it, shouldn't the ability to examine be tantamount and come first? Because of whatever we examine, it will always be contingent upon our ability to examine, regardless of where it takes us.