• 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?

ImaginalDisc said:
If one does not have memories, or a way to catalog experiances, how exactly does one experiance anything? Do rocks experiance anything?
Click to expand...
Ummm...I must be missing your point. We do remember, and we do experience. These are things we do, not things we "have". We can (and do) study the physiological mechanisms of these particular behaviors. For instance, we can look at the role of the hippocampus and cortex areas in remembering particular events or things; we can see that we "re-experience" experiences, re-generate an imperfect copy of the original experience. The notion of "a memory" that is stored somewhere is flawed.

Your question implies a relationship between memories and experience that is exactly backwards, and flawed in the same manner as Iacchus's logic. Without our experiences, we would not infer the concept of "a memory" as a mental entity. We cannot say that "without memories we could not experience".

Just because our language speaks in that manner does not mean that it works that way.
 
Mercutio said:
Ummm...I must be missing your point. We do remember, and we do experience. These are things we do, not things we "have". We can (and do) study the physiological mechanisms of these particular behaviors. For instance, we can look at the role of the hippocampus and cortex areas in remembering particular events or things; we can see that we "re-experience" experiences, re-generate an imperfect copy of the original experience. The notion of "a memory" that is stored somewhere is flawed.

Your question implies a relationship between memories and experience that is exactly backwards, and flawed in the same manner as Iacchus's logic. Without our experiences, we would not infer the concept of "a memory" as a mental entity. We cannot say that "without memories we could not experience".

Just because our language speaks in that manner does not mean that it works that way.
Click to expand...

I never meant to suggest that memories cause experiance. Clearly, we agree, just misunderstanding one another.

P.S. "Your question implies a relationship between memories and experience that is exactly backwards, and flawed in the same manner as Iacchus's logic." Come on now Mercutio, I'd have to try very hard to use logic as flawed as Iacchus's.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I never meant to suggest that memories cause experiance. Clearly, we agree, just misunderstanding one another.

P.S. "Your question implies a relationship between memories and experience that is exactly backwards, and flawed in the same manner as Iacchus's logic." Come on now Mercutio, I'd have to try very hard to use logic as flawed as Iacchus's.
Click to expand...
No offense intended. I meant simply that this was the same sort of circularity, not that you were assuming your conclusions and building castles in clouds.
 
Mercutio said:
No offense intended. I meant simply that this was the same sort of circularity, not that you were assuming your conclusions and building castles in clouds.
Click to expand...

Well, if we could discuss such things using Loglan, or anothre prefectly logical language, I'd be for it. The english, she is funny as she is spoken.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Come on, it took you less than 60 seconds to; read my post, think about it, and respond?

You skipped a step, didn't you?

Listen, you didn't even address any of my points, you just responded to the first scentence. There's more in there. I also have another post, which I repeated, just for your benefit, to illustrate the silliness of your reasoning. Are you skipping a step in that too?
Click to expand...
You ask me to prove to you, that which you can only prove to yourself ... through an experiential mind that is.
 
Iacchus said:
You ask me to prove to you, that which you can only prove to yourself ... through an experiential mind that is.
Click to expand...
Thank you for illustrating my point.

ImaginalDisc, I think we are back to complete agreement.
 
Iacchus said:
I'm afraid I don't follow? So, what part of you folks, exactly, finds agreement with each other? :confused:
Click to expand...
Sorry, Iacchus--before you would be able to understand that, you would first have to understand what circularity is, and you have not demonstrated that you are able to understand that despite many, many opportunities to do so.

I'm afraid you will have to remain in the dark here.
 
Iacchus said:
I'm afraid I don't follow? So, what part of you folks, exactly, finds agreement with each other? :confused:
Click to expand...

You see, I made an innacurate statement, Mercutio pointed it out, we then exchanged ideas, and we realized where the confusion had arrisen from.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this experiance?
 
So, what part of you folks, exactly, finds agreement with each other? Can you give a specific frame of reference here? For example, that you both are to able conclude this with "your minds?" :confused: Now, if per chance you can agree with what I'm saying here, what exactly do you think (there's your clue ...) about all the rest of the things that are spoken on this forum?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
So, what part of you folks, exactly, finds agreement with each other? Can you give a specific frame of reference here? For example, that you both are to able conclude this with "your minds?" :confused: Now, if per chance you can agree with what I'm saying here, what exactly do you think (there's your clue ...) about all the rest of the things that are spoken on this forum?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. I could give a more complete answer, but ImaginalDisc already understands, and you, Iacchus, likely would not understand the more complete answer. The very phrasing of your question indicates that you are unwilling to address the circularity that is at the heart of your misunderstanding and ID and my agreement.

Yes, I understand that you are trying to ask more with your question than what is on the surface, but until you are willing to ask it in a straightforward and honest manner, I see no need to answer any question but that on the surface.
 
And yours is none other than double-speak. We all speak from the (alleged) circularity of our minds.
 
Iacchus said:
And yours is none other than double-speak. We all speak from the (alleged) circularity of our minds.
Click to expand...
ImaginalDisc (and others) understood me. I would wager that most speakers of our language could understand it. If you did not, perhaps the problem is not in what I wrote.
 
Mercutio said:
ImaginalDisc (and others) understood me. I would wager that most speakers of our language could understand it. If you did not, perhaps the problem is not in what I wrote.
Click to expand...
We must be speaking of two separate things then.
 
Iacchus said:
So, what part of you folks, exactly, finds agreement with each other? Can you give a specific frame of reference here? For example, that you both are to able conclude this with "your minds?" :confused: Now, if per chance you can agree with what I'm saying here, what exactly do you think (there's your clue ...) about all the rest of the things that are spoken on this forum?
Click to expand...

I'm not directly addressed here, but since I think I am in general agreement with Mercutio and IMaginalDisc and probably a few others, I hope by speaking for myself I will not step on any feet. I suspect that my mind agrees with their minds. As far as I know, none of us deny that there is such a phenomenon, though we may choose different ways to view it, as an entity or not. It is only in the world of Iacchus that our minds appear to be impossible to maintain without the mystical jumper cables.

That said, what I think about the rest of the things that you at least have spoken on this forum is that:

your febrile imaginings, dreams, hallucinations and misconceptions have not revealed to you or anyone else the content or meaning of reality, but rather the reverse;

that your promiscuous mishmash of half-digested mythology, numerology and the mystical nonsense of fellow lunatics such as Swedenborg has not brought you wisdom or understanding, but rather the reverse;

and that your apparenly implacable inability to grasp the simplest logical ideas, such as that "A cannot be not-A" as well as your intransigent insistence on ducking direct questions and addressing issues as presented do not make you a competent or useful advocate for your point of view or any other, but rather the reverse.
 
bruto said:
I'm not directly addressed here, but since I think I am in general agreement with Mercutio and IMaginalDisc and probably a few others, I hope by speaking for myself I will not step on any feet. I suspect that my mind agrees with their minds. As far as I know, none of us deny that there is such a phenomenon, though we may choose different ways to view it, as an entity or not. It is only in the world of Iacchus that our minds appear to be impossible to maintain without the mystical jumper cables.
Click to expand...
The mind is capable of observing time and space. Does that put it inside of time and space? Or, outside of time and space? Why do you refer to the things that exist within time and space as your being objective then?
 
Iacchus said:
The mind is capable of observing time and space. Does that put it inside of time and space? Or, outside of time and space? Why do you refer to the things that exist within time and space as your being objective then?
Click to expand...
The mind is the physical process of observing time and space. It is an evoked property, not a causal entity. It is dependent on time and space, and could not exist "outside" of time and space, whatever that might mean.

Did you watch the videos yet? You will see that one major difference between your view and mine is that mine is supported by evidence, whereas yours is pure conjecture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom