Former conspiracy believer here

[Nick227]

Nick, if it's not objectively substantiable, then it is a fantasy. That's pretty much the definition of the word.

Hi PM,

Then you're in the same boat as Volatile. You had better stop referring to yourself in the first person! Unless you can demonstrate that thought has possession, that is. Or accept that fantasies are used to construct objectivity.

I look. There appears to be a world. And if I don't believe that it is real, it kills me. Objectivity 1, Subjectivity 0.

Sorry, I'm obviously not explaining myself well enough. It has nothing to do with the world being real or not. I'm saying there is no evidence that thoughts, feelings, bodies or beliefs have possession. If you cannot demonstrate that thoughts have identity, you cannot have objectivity, because you no longer have a finite observer. The subject-object divide collapses and you are left with simple non-dualism. You can still be objective but you will now be aware that it is simply a construct, a learned behaviour pattern.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

Then you're in the same boat as Volatile. You had better stop referring to yourself in the first person! Unless you can demonstrate that thought has possession, that is. Or accept that fantasies are used to construct objectivity.

You're just playing semantics, now. "I" is a word that has a specific meaning. Even if you were correct, which you're not, the word would still have a use, because its purpose is to make the sentence clearer by either identifying the subject or object of said sentence.

Sorry, I'm obviously not explaining myself well enough. It has nothing to do with the world being real or not. I'm saying there is no evidence that thoughts, feelings, bodies or beliefs have possession.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "possession". What does it mean to "have possession", in this case ?

If you cannot demonstrate that thoughts have identity, you cannot have objectivity, because you no longer have a finite observer.

That's another semantics argument. Whether or not you are correct is irrelevant. The world, subjective or not, is consistent, and therefore empirical.

 

[Nick227]

You're just playing semantics, now. "I" is a word that has a specific meaning.

Hi Belz,

Care to state what that meaning is?

I know this sounds either stupid or mad, that's a normal reaction btw, but actually I think you will find that limited selfhood, I-ness, is purely an assumption. It cannot be substantiated empirically, and you cannot even find where it is coming from if you look. (And we are supremely well placed to look)

I am not simply bringing up some irrelevant paradox to hijack this thread. When considering the ultimate value of objectivity, and the liklihood or value of the subjective sciences, this is of considerable relevance.

The overwhelming majority of humans never examine in their lifetime this core presumption of the psyche, that there is an "I". We wake up in the morning and it's I this or I that. We just go for it. It's great, but if you go around stating that objectivity is truth...some day someone is going to call you on it. Back in the day, I've no doubt that Newton, Boyle, and Bacon all understood this, as Plato and Socrates did before them. The majority of today's scientists are just totally unaware of it, and the masses involved in science worship almost completely unaware. In truth they are actually just cult-followers like those of antiquity - albeit a cult with some nicer values than most!

Even if you were correct, which you're not, the word would still have a use, because its purpose is to make the sentence clearer by either identifying the subject or object of said sentence.

Now you're placing the cart before the horse. You cannot substantiate the "I." It sounds totally crazy, I know. But it is an assumption, a learned behaviour pattern, that is all.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "possession". What does it mean to "have possession", in this case ?

It means that personal pronouns are not ultimately valid, but assumed. Technically "my thoughts" are "the thoughts," "my beliefs" are "the beliefs."

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

But here's the thing: You can't provide basic rights. Basic rights are inherent. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of association. Freedom of assembly. Equality under the law.

Unfortunately this statement doesn't coincide with reality. I wish it did...but it's just a dream If they were inherent and respected then there wouldn't be a problem.

And if those inherent human rights aren't being infringed, then everyone is equal in the grander sense. They're merely unequal in the trivial sense.

Do explain, because it makes no sense at all. How does having your basic rights infringed upon create equality in a grander sense?

Which means what?

I mentioned this earlier I think. That part about those rights that you are claiming and I would agree are inherent, but are being dismantled regardless of the implications.

Freedom of trade of goods and services; freedom of capital.

No. Not just the ability to shuffle goods and services. The ability to set your own prices, demand decent wages, form unions...etc Things that are supposed to be inherent in a free market, but aren't.

What more rights? Really, what more rights? There are innate rights; they apply to everyone, equally. So, what more rights?

They don't apply to everyone equally. Again, thats the problem. In reality affected persons would probably have to fight tooth and nail to get reclaim what we term basic human rights. Look at the US. Did it start as a free society with no need of improvement? Obviously not. The same things applies to every one every where.

How? What?

Exactly what it says. It's not something that just happens all at once, as history has shown.

That's the inevitability of freedom. Sorry, but the only way around it is to give up that freedom.

I think the mistake you are making here is associating human freedom, with capitalism. If freedom is supposedly innate and respected then capitalism shouldn't be getting in the way, because it would hypothetically be operated in a manner respectful of human rights. So whats more important, human freedoms and liberties, or the freedom of capital? I would hope that you would select the first option. All we are talking about is finding where capitalistic business practices have soured, and infringed upon the things we are discussing which are more relevant than a persons ability to buy whatever they want or sell whatever they want, and then having those things restructured so that multiple parties can get what they want. It wouldn't infringe upon anyone's ability to gain and move capital, it would just infringe on how they are able to do it within the confines of a society that supposedly values human rights over selfish business practices.

Which is hardly a development confined to capitalism.

Any examples?

And if you try to mandate this by law, the end result is not necessarily what you wanted. Raising the minimum wage causes increases in unemployment and inflation. Try to mandate those by law as well, and the outcome will not be pretty.

How does it cause increase in unemployment and inflation? A minimum wage can be set in different ways. For instance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining

Seems like a pretty good idea to me. No legislation needed. It would also help secure some of the things we are talking about above. I just wonder what would happen if you abolished the minimum wage and then allowed anyone to unionize...can you perceive any potential consequences?

Thanks, but no. I'll keep my freedom of speech; you can have the mandatory paid holidays.

How is your freedom of speech going to be impaired?

 

[Belz...]

Hi Belz,

Care to state what that meaning is?

Look up a dictionary.

Language isn't perfect, and very often it doesn't fit well with reality. But it's a convention, and as long as everybody knows what the words mean, we can communicate.

I know this sounds either stupid or mad, that's a normal reaction btw, but actually I think you will find that limited selfhood, I-ness, is purely an assumption.

You keep saying that, but I don't see a reasoning.

It cannot be substantiated empirically, and you cannot even find where it is coming from if you look. (And we are supremely well placed to look)

Nick, you are confused, obviously. Let's look at the facts.

1) Reality is empirical. We can test it, and it has consistency.
2) People are part of reality.
3) "I" am part of the "people" subset.
4) My "point of view", i.e. the way I sense and interpret events from the empirical world, is called "subjective".
5) Using a proven methodology, we eliminate subjective bias when conducting experiments and investigating the truth value of a claim. That's objectivity.

That's what I meant. You're just having a different conversation.

The overwhelming majority of humans never examine in their lifetime this core presumption of the psyche, that there is an "I".

The "I" is not some sort of metaphysical entity. It's a localised point of view because the brain is a construct that is not direcly networked with other brains.

In fact, if you sever the connection between the two brain hemispheres, you get TWO "I"s. So it becomes obvious that "selfness" is an artifact of the brain's functions.

Now you're placing the cart before the horse. You cannot substantiate the "I." It sounds totally crazy, I know.

There's a reason why it "sounds" crazy, Nick. It IS crazy. You keep saying things but provide nothing to prove your claims. Typical wooness.

It means that personal pronouns are not ultimately valid, but assumed.

Of course NOT! They're a convention!

Technically "my thoughts" are "the thoughts," "my beliefs" are "the beliefs."

You are mistaken. Pronouns are used to distinguish whose beliefs or thoughts we're talking about. I'm sure you realise that Bob's thoughts aren't Bill's thoughts, since when one of them thinks, the other doesn't read those thoughts.

 

[Nick227]

Look up a dictionary.

Language isn't perfect, and very often it doesn't fit well with reality. But it's a convention, and as long as everybody knows what the words mean, we can communicate.

Hi Belz,

Well, just now you said that ""I" is a word that has a specific meaning." Now you seem to be moving away from this.

Nick, you are confused, obviously. Let's look at the facts.

1) Reality is empirical. We can test it, and it has consistency.

Reality is what is there, what is sensed. I mean, you can argue about these things but then we're into philosophy, which is a drag.

2) People are part of reality.

People are there, yes.

3) "I" am part of the "people" subset.

There is a body called Belz. At least I presume so. There are thoughts and feelings which the mind has learned to ascribe to Belz, to consider "my thoughts" or "my feelings."

4) My "point of view", i.e. the way I sense and interpret events from the empirical world, is called "subjective".
5) Using a proven methodology, we eliminate subjective bias when conducting experiments and investigating the truth value of a claim. That's objectivity.

For sure. But this methodology is based around a construct called the subject-object divide. In order to have objectivity you have to have a clear distinction between subject and object - you have to agree where the subject ends and the object begins. Agreed? Now, this is not done by any demonstrably scientific process, it is simply consensual and learned. There is actually nothing in your immediate experience of being alive which can demonstrate that any "I" exists. If you try and apply empiric method to locate this transcient "I", you may find that thoughts appear to have a quality of "I-ness" that there is somewhere the suggestion that there is a personal identity. But it is simply a concept. Simply a learned construct.

Reality is a priori non-dualistic and notions of selfhood merely learned behavioural patterns.

Now, of course, for the vast majority of stuff in our day-to-day lives no one gives a damn about this. People assume that objectivity is real and that it is truth, and there is very little in their experience to contradict this. But when you're assessing the possibility that subjective sciences like Alchemy could have furthered human development to a far deeper level that objectivity can allow, then, if you actually want to know the truth (as opposed to simply seek a means to throw unwanted ideas out of awareness) then, I submit, you're going to have to look at this.

The "I" is not some sort of metaphysical entity. It's a localised point of view because the brain is a construct that is not direcly networked with other brains.

The "I" reflects identification - the belief that thoughts or feelings are personal. We get very attached to our opinions yet mostly never stop to wonder just who it is that actually is attached! Where this mythological "I" might actually be or if it even exists. No one has ever found it and myriad mystics, philosophers, and day-to-day folk have tried.

In subjective science this "I" phenomena is often put down to a trickster-like agency known as the Astral Light - "the blind force each soul must conquer," as Eliphas Levi termed it. In objective science they can't even begin to examine this "I" because objectivity can't exist without the assumption that the "I" is solid and real. Subjective science can go where objective science cannot, for the simple reason that it does not proceed from so many assumptions.

This is what I mean. In order to be objective you need to assume certain things. And because of these assumptions many doorways into deeper areas of our being are inaccessible. If someone wants to seek out the Illuminati, or check out if they could exist or not, they would have to go back and open them up. There are too many assumptions in the objective mindset to allow it to do so.

You are mistaken. Pronouns are used to distinguish whose beliefs or thoughts we're talking about. I'm sure you realise that Bob's thoughts aren't Bill's thoughts, since when one of them thinks, the other doesn't read those thoughts.

I'm not saying people's thoughts are the same. I'm saying you can't demonstrate that they actually belong to anyone.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

Then you're in the same boat as Volatile. You had better stop referring to yourself in the first person! Unless you can demonstrate that thought has possession, that is. Or accept that fantasies are used to construct objectivity.

What's that supposed to mean? It's objectively verifiable that I have thoughts, and that those those thoughts can be reflective. We can't yet fully analyse the processes within a living brain, but we don't need to to accept that consciousness is objectively real.

Sorry, I'm obviously not explaining myself well enough. It has nothing to do with the world being real or not. I'm saying there is no evidence that thoughts, feelings, bodies or beliefs have possession.

Posession of what?

If you cannot demonstrate that thoughts have identity, you cannot have objectivity, because you no longer have a finite observer.

Identity, personal identity, is constructed of thoughts. Thoughts don't have identity; identity has thoughts.

 

[PixyMisa]

For sure. But this methodology is based around a construct called the subject-object divide.

The subjective is merely a subset of the objective.

In order to have objectivity you have to have a clear distinction between subject and object - you have to agree where the subject ends and the object begins. Agreed?

No.

Now, this is not done by any demonstrably scientific process, it is simply consensual and learned. There is actually nothing in your immediate experience of being alive which can demonstrate that any "I" exists. If you try and apply empiric method to locate this transcient "I", you may find that thoughts appear to have a quality of "I-ness" that there is somewhere the suggestion that there is a personal identity. But it is simply a concept. Simply a learned construct.

There is no "transient I". Personal identity is a process, not an object.

Now, of course, for the vast majority of stuff in our day-to-day lives no one gives a damn about this. People assume that objectivity is real and that it is truth, and there is very little in their experience to contradict this.

Saying there is "very little" suggests that there is something. What is this something?

But when you're assessing the possibility that subjective sciences like Alchemy could have furthered human development to a far deeper level that objectivity can allow, then, if you actually want to know the truth (as opposed to simply seek a means to throw unwanted ideas out of awareness) then, I submit, you're going to have to look at this.

There is no such thing as "subjective science". Alchemy as it pertains to the transmutation of metals, or more generally to pre-scientific attempts to study chemistry, was objective. Alchemy as it pertains to obscurantist mysticism is what we call "baloney".

The "I" reflects identification - the belief that thoughts or feelings are personal. We get very attached to our opinions yet mostly never stop to wonder just who it is that actually is attached! Where this mythological "I" might actually be or if it even exists. No one has ever found it and myriad mystics, philosophers, and day-to-day folk have tried.

Yes, indeed. Because they are all hopelessly ill-equipped to answer questions about the nature of reality. Neuroscientists and psychologists, on the other hand, have a very good understanding of what personal identity is and how it arises from brain function. That it does arise from brain function is not even in dispute.

In subjective science this "I" phenomena is often put down to a trickster-like agency known as the Astral Light - "the blind force each soul must conquer," as Eliphas Levi termed it. In objective science they can't even begin to examine this "I" because objectivity can't exist without the assumption that the "I" is solid and real. Subjective science can go where objective science cannot, for the simple reason that it does not proceed from so many assumptions.

In order: Perhaps so, but it is completely wrong. Completely wrong. There is no such thing as subjective science, so this is completely wrong.

This is what I mean. In order to be objective you need to assume certain things. And because of these assumptions many doorways into deeper areas of our being are inaccessible. If someone wants to seek out the Illuminati, or check out if they could exist or not, they would have to go back and open them up. There are too many assumptions in the objective mindset to allow it to do so.

Again, all of this is completely wrong.

Objectivity requires a single assumption, a working hypothesis: That the material universe that is reflected in our senses is what is real.

I'm not saying people's thoughts are the same. I'm saying you can't demonstrate that they actually belong to anyone.

And again, this is completely wrong.

Did you know, just to pick a single example, that we can experimentally determine the elapsed time between a conscious decision being made and the brain beginning to act on that decision?

And did you know that the brain begins to act about 200 milliseconds before the decision?

Scientists know vastly more about the mind than you can even begin to imagine, Nick. Immensely more than mystics, philosophers, and day-to-day folk could ever hope to offer us.

That's because science... actually works.

 

[Nick227]

What's that supposed to mean? It's objectively verifiable that I have thoughts, and that those those thoughts can be reflective. We can't yet fully analyse the processes within a living brain, but we don't need to to accept that consciousness is objectively real.

Hi PM,

I'm not disputing that thoughts are real. I'm disputing that thoughts have possession, or rather that it can be demonstrated that they have possession. These are thoughts is real. These are my thoughts is an assumption. Limited selfhood is an assumption.

Identity, personal identity, is constructed of thoughts.

Yes, the notion of limited selfhood is constructed, assumed to be real. Assuming itself to have a personal identity, the mind responds to situations in such a manner, assuming that it has something tangible to uphold or defend. Actually there is nothing there, just the assumption! Because it hasn't looked!

Thoughts don't have identity; identity has thoughts.

[/quote]

How does an identity have a thought? Could you demonstrate the relationship.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

There is no "transient I". Personal identity is a process, not an object.

It is neither. Perhaps "assumed I" would be a better description.

Saying there is "very little" suggests that there is something. What is this something?

People like me who are saying "Look!" Check it out! Your mind is functioning as though it has a personal identity....but have you checked?!

There is no such thing as "subjective science". Alchemy as it pertains to the transmutation of metals, or more generally to pre-scientific attempts to study chemistry, was objective. Alchemy as it pertains to obscurantist mysticism is what we call "baloney".

Anyone who has been conditioned to accept objectivity as truth would consider it baloney.

Yes, indeed. Because they are all hopelessly ill-equipped to answer questions about the nature of reality. Neuroscientists and psychologists, on the other hand, have a very good understanding of what personal identity is and how it arises from brain function. That it does arise from brain function is not even in dispute.

Perhaps you would care to share some of their insights.

I submit, you can study neurophysiology until you're blue in the face, you won't find the ego, the relative sense of selfhood. It's constructed by the mind from assumptions. Simply sitting still and becoming aware of your thoughts will demonstrate this.

There might be neural remnants resulting from the belief in personal identity, certainly it can be mirrored in the body. But it is an artificial construct.

In order: Perhaps so, but it is completely wrong. Completely wrong. There is no such thing as subjective science, so this is completely wrong.

Again, all of this is completely wrong.

It goes against what you have been conditioned to believe, yes.

Objectivity requires a single assumption, a working hypothesis: That the material universe that is reflected in our senses is what is real.

That's the first assumption, yes. The second assumption is that the observer and the observed can be distinguised. You need to assume a finite observer. Yet there is actually no evidence for this.

Did you know, just to pick a single example, that we can experimentally determine the elapsed time between a conscious decision being made and the brain beginning to act on that decision?

And did you know that the brain begins to act about 200 milliseconds before the decision?

Well, I wasn't aware of the actual time it took, but seems pretty reasonable to me.

Scientists know vastly more about the mind than you can even begin to imagine, Nick. Immensely more than mystics, philosophers, and day-to-day folk could ever hope to offer us.

That's because science... actually works.

Science is great, PM. But objectivity does proceed from assumptions. And if you're not aware of this that's because you haven't tested the assumptions for yourself.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

Well, just now you said that ""I" is a word that has a specific meaning." Now you seem to be moving away from this.

I'm not moving away from anything. "I" has a specific meaning in conversation. It's a word.

Reality is what is there, what is sensed.

That makes no difference, whatsoever.

There is a body called Belz. At least I presume so. There are thoughts and feelings which the mind has learned to ascribe to Belz, to consider "my thoughts" or "my feelings."

I'm not sure how that has anything to do with what you were responding to.

For sure. But this methodology is based around a construct called the subject-object divide.

No, no and no, Nick. I have assumed no such thing, and it DOESNT' MATTER if this vaunted divide of yours exists or not. You're not paying attention. The consistency of the experience versus what you'd expect from imagination, dreams or hallucinations makes "objective" reality reliable, and that's ALL we need to make things work.

In order to have objectivity you have to have a clear distinction between subject and object - you have to agree where the subject ends and the object begins. Agreed?

No, it is most assuredly not agreed. Your definition of this distinction assumes that it is a clear-cut thing -- something that is impossible. You are proceeding from a false premise.

Reality is a priori non-dualistic and notions of selfhood merely learned behavioural patterns.

Reality is a priori non-dualistic ? You should go back in time and tell that to the ancient mystics before we started to apply the scientific method.

But when you're assessing the possibility that subjective sciences like Alchemy could have furthered human development to a far deeper level that objectivity can allow, then, if you actually want to know the truth (as opposed to simply seek a means to throw unwanted ideas out of awareness) then, I submit, you're going to have to look at this.

No, because the question you're asking ASSUMES itself. You're going in circles, here.

The "I" reflects identification - the belief that thoughts or feelings are personal.

Uh-huh, and an objective analysis reveals that this is due to hormones flying about in your body, electrical discharges in the brain, and so forth. Clearly, those feelings ARE personnal.

And did you read what I said about severed brain connections ?

This is what I mean. In order to be objective you need to assume certain things.

You only need to assume one thing: something exists.

And because of these assumptions many doorways into deeper areas of our being are inaccessible.

"deeper areas" ? Now who's doing the assuming ? What's your "subjective evidence" ?

If someone wants to seek out the Illuminati, or check out if they could exist or not, they would have to go back and open them up. There are too many assumptions in the objective mindset to allow it to do so.

That's a nonsensical statement. Please make some sense.

I'm not saying people's thoughts are the same. I'm saying you can't demonstrate that they actually belong to anyone.

Define "belong" ?

 

[Belz...]

The subjective is merely a subset of the objective.

Sometimes, I get amazed at how someone can so succintly summarise an entire conversation in just a few words, when I try so hard and fail miserably.

Thanks, Pixy.

 

[Belz...]

Anyone who has been conditioned to accept objectivity as truth would consider it baloney.

Anyone who has been conditioned to question objectivity would say this.

I submit, you can study neurophysiology until you're blue in the face, you won't find the ego, the relative sense of selfhood.

"Objects that are heavier than air can never fly without flapping wings..."

It goes against what you have been conditioned to believe, yes.

That's one of the reasons I don't like psychologists. You think you know far more than you really do.

You know, Nick, rhetoric is fine, but you might want to actually, you know, support your theory. Because all you're doing, like it or not, is philosophy.

 

[Nick227]

I'm not moving away from anything. "I" has a specific meaning in conversation. It's a word.

Hi Belz,

For sure. But what does it refer to? Please substantiate any answers you might give.

(pause...)

Can you see the problem now? The "I" is assumed by the mind to exist.

No, no and no, Nick. I have assumed no such thing,

Belz, you're actually creating a non-sequitur here. You are assuming the subject-object divide when you use the word "I."

Now I am not saying don't communicate with personal pronouns! I'm not saying the ego is wrong! I'm saying that it cannot be substantiated.

and it DOESNT' MATTER if this vaunted divide of yours exists or not. You're not paying attention. The consistency of the experience versus what you'd expect from imagination, dreams or hallucinations makes "objective" reality reliable, and that's ALL we need to make things work.

Belz, can you objectively substantiate the "I" perspective itself? The consistency of experience, empiric validation, is of course a central aspect to ascribing objectivity. But without the divide it's pretty meaningless. Have you tried storing data on a disc with no partition?

No, it is most assuredly not agreed. Your definition of this distinction assumes that it is a clear-cut thing -- something that is impossible. You are proceeding from a false premise.

I am saying that it is assumed.

Reality is a priori non-dualistic ? You should go back in time and tell that to the ancient mystics before we started to apply the scientific method.

Why? What did they say about it?

Uh-huh, and an objective analysis reveals that this is due to hormones flying about in your body, electrical discharges in the brain, and so forth. Clearly, those feelings ARE personnal.

Can you empirically substantiate that the feelings are personal?

And did you read what I said about severed brain connections ?

The corpus callosum? I didn't really understand how it was relevant. Could you explain it to me more.

You only need to assume one thing: something exists.

I don't think this is particularly relevant.

You need to assume that the information you receive sensorily reflects reality. Then you need to assume that there is an observer and an observed. Then yo have objectivity.

"deeper areas" ? Now who's doing the assuming ? What's your "subjective evidence" ?

Let go of the subject-object divide, let go of the "I", and take a look! You will see for yourself. Objectivity is simply a construct. There are whole layers underneath. But you will have to look for yourself.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

That's one of the reasons I don't like psychologists. You think you know far more than you really do.

Hey Belz,

What I'm talking about does not really relate to how clever someone is, whether their mind can process lots of data or whatever. It has really nothing to do with knowledge, or whether someone has more of it than someone else. These things are pretty much irrelevant here. Indeed, for many people, the more knowledge they think they have the harder it is for them to examine the possibility that all of it is supposition.

Nick

 

[TjW]

Does anyone else think it's long past time to have this split or moved to Religion and Philosophy?

 

[Nick227]

Does anyone else think it's long past time to have this split or moved to Religion and Philosophy?

Well, to construct some form of defense here, I'd like to point out that I am offering a direct route to understanding just where one might find Illuminati and who they are.

It is simply to point the mind back to before the arisal of the objective mindset, not chronologically, but here and now. Becoming aware that objectivity proceeds from an assumption about the nature of selfhood a considerable vista is opened up, one that was travelled by the Alchemists themselves on route to transcending their seeming confines and becoming illuminated.

Believing that objectivity is truth the passage shuts down again.

Nick

 

[Stout]

Religion and Philosophy might be a good place for it seeing as I don't understand why people feel the need for religion, the fact that in university, I ran, screaming, from philosophy class, and this is where I come for my daily dose of WTF? .

But every once in a while, something pops up on this thread that keeps me interested.

Like, Nick, your suggestion that we're being ruled by the Illuminati using some sort(s) of ancient woo. Fascinating, even though most of the time I have no idea what you're on about and rely on the responses to your posts for some sort of clarification.

I mean, if this Illuminati/woo thing is real.. I want a piece of it and if joining the Rosecrusians is the route to a mega yacht. sign me up

 

[Belz...]

Hi Belz,

For sure. But what does it refer to? Please substantiate any answers you might give.

Sure. It refers to the speaker. In short, I'm sure you have no problem distinguishing a rock from another rock, so I don't understand why you have so much trouble distinguishing a person from another or a thought from somebody else's thoughts.

(pause...)

Can you see the problem now? The "I" is assumed by the mind to exist.

Belz, you're actually creating a non-sequitur here. You are assuming the subject-object divide when you use the word "I."

No, I'm not. Not any more than I'm assuming that a car has butt cheeks when I say "it's just sitting there!"

Now I am not saying don't communicate with personal pronouns! I'm not saying the ego is wrong! I'm saying that it cannot be substantiated.

You keep using different words. What do you mean by "ego", now ?

Belz, can you objectively substantiate the "I" perspective itself?

We know it exists in other people, so why is it so surprising that it exists in you ?

The consistency of experience, empiric validation, is of course a central aspect to ascribing objectivity. But without the divide it's pretty meaningless.

No, it's not. It has all the meaning in the world, whether or not the "I" exists, or whatever, or whether solipsism is true. That's why it's useless and pointless to argue about these things. It changes NOTHING about empirical science and evidence-gathering.

The only thing in question here is your contention that "subjective" evidence exists.

Have you tried storing data on a disc with no partition?

Yes. Works great. I think you meant no formatting. But then that's the worst analogy ever.

Why? What did they say about it?

Dualism ? That it was self-evident.

Can you empirically substantiate that the feelings are personal?

You mean, without mentioning hormones and brain functions ? Why would I want to ?

The corpus callosum? I didn't really understand how it was relevant. Could you explain it to me more.

When you sever the corpus, you get two brains, each with its own consciousness, its own point of view, and its own "mind". The reason is that by severing the link you create two distinct, discrete neurological centers. Where you had one mind, you now have two. If the mind wasn't the way we think it is, this wouldn't happen.

I don't think this is particularly relevant.

Of course it is. And it isn't an assumption, because something obviously exists. From that point on, the mere fact that this something, namely reality, is consistent, is enough for inquiry to proceed. This "divide" you keep insisting is a construct is irrelevant.

You need to assume that the information you receive sensorily reflects reality.

No, I don't, because I can tell that, when it doesn't, it loses its consistency. Didn't you ever notice that you were dreaming while you were still asleep ?

Then you need to assume that there is an observer and an observed. Then yo have objectivity.

Uh-huh, but that is self-evidence since you're there to to the assuming.

Let go of the subject-object divide, let go of the "I", and take a look!

Sorry, I can't log on to the universe via network. I'm stuck in this brain of mine.

You will see for yourself. Objectivity is simply a construct.

Saying "you'll see" is not an argument.

here are whole layers underneath.

I think you're giving your thoughts too much credit.

 

[1337m4n]

Yourself aside, my case with the NWO, or whatever you wish to call them is that they could exist at a level beyond the perception of the five senses, in a manner that objectivity cannot penetrate.

Nick

So now the NWO is LITERALLY a magic, supernatural entity?

I hope you don't mind, but I'm nominating you for a Stundie.