A line from Berkeley...

[Atlas]

Thus, the universe we actually experience IS WITHIN US AND IS UNREAL.

All I have done is given you the starting-point of my philosophy. The conclusion towards God and the exclusion of an external reality is what follows this. But the reason I have done this is to try and get a reasonable foothold. The question by upchurch, for example, in the upchurch's-question thread is just silly, as I stated yesterday. In truth, this thread probably stems from the silliness of that question. What I aim to do here is convince you all of the intangibleness of your perceived reality.

Lifegazer, will you also be explaining why you trust the unreal - that is, what some here believe is delusional.

What gives you the feeling that on the street the people you see are not ghosts. Or if you saw a ghost inside your subjective reality did God put it there to expand you or confuse you or frighten you?

If we are not grounded in an external reality are we grounded in anything?

 

[lifegazer]

I'd like to apologize for calling you ignorant, lifegazer. I shouldn't do that - you're obviously very excited about philosophy and once you learn more, you might have a lot to contribute.

Scribble, do me a favour and say something worthwhile that is relevant to this very credible thread. Or go and annoy somebody else.
Thankyou, in anticipation of your co-operation.

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer, will you also be explaining why you trust the unreal - that is, what some here believe is delusional.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Actually, I am sure... that I don't understand the question.

What gives you the feeling that on the street the people you see are not ghosts. Or if you saw a ghost inside your subjective reality did God put it there to expand you or confuse you or frighten you?

Define what you think a ghost is.

If we are not grounded in an external reality are we grounded in anything?

Imo, we are grounded within ourselves... and the reality of the self = God. But you know this already.
You ask weird questions Atlas, but I like you.

 

[evildave]

All you're asking lifegazer to prove is that what we perceive is artificial.

Yes, it is.

For you to see that there is a monitor in front of you, your brain interprets and models and compares 'monitor' to previous experience with 'monitor' and makes correlations to other 'monitor' like things in your experience. Slapping a language label like 'monitor' onto the object in front of you is highly artificial, as is every perception about the monitor's quality, value, etc. The simplified model of what the monitor in front of you is discounts its microscopic and (usually) internal attributes. Are you sure that's REALLY metal it's made of? A lot of matallic looking parts are painted plastic nowadays. Is it really heavy, or are you just weak?

All you can ever have to go on is a good approximation of reality, as your brain interprets sensory data. This is compared against past experience in some ways we naturally compare, and many ways that we learned to compare.

For a silly example, take people's perceptions of cats. Bad experiences, such as being bitten or badly injured by an animal when young could cause two different people to see the same cat two different ways. One sees the cat as a 'pwecious widdle cuddly wuvum', and the other sees a 'vicious, sadistic killer'.

They're both right, and both wrong. The cat is what the cat is, but their perceptions of it are very different.

There are limits to what the two cat observers can agree to. They can both agree it's a cat. They can agree it is covered with fur. They can agree it's male. They can agree that the cat has a spiral on his side, and it's roughly brown/bronze. If they both accept that a scale is accurate and measures weight, then they can agree that it's 14 pounds.

Will they agree that it's cuddly, or vicious?

It's according to if they want to try petting it and either get purrs and rubs, or draw back a bloody, ragged stump. Put to the test, they might agree that THIS cat has certain personality attributes. They will never know what sort of cat this is if they don't bother to find out, and simply believe their assumptions and prejudices are reality.

Materialism simply states we FIND OUT WHAT WE CAN about the cat. Establish standards we can agree about. Improve those standards. When different observers look at a cat, they can agree on approximately the same definitions for "cat", and can measure it against pretty much the same standards.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

Why's that a problem? All you are saying here is that our perceptions are ordered. Since I contend that what we perceive is perceived by design, I would suggest that this is more of a problem for you!

I think you type and don't even grasp the implication of what you type.

I'm saying that there is a dichotomy. We both agree that the order can be explained by known laws of physics. You believe that there is also a mysterious process that you cannot explain.

Besides, you have completely overlooked everything I have just said. Do you agree with that or not, and if not why not?

No I didn't. And no I don't. Your statement is a non sequitur.

Premise: Even if things do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from how we perceive them.

Conclusion: Therefore, the things we perceive are not real in themselves.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Premise Even if the people we see on TV do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from their images on TV.

Conclusion: Therefore, the people on TV are not real in and of themselves.

The construct of dreams is largely founded upon the individual's emotional disposition. The construct of conscious reality is free from such emotional considerations and hence is universal in that the laws of physics remain unaltered by our emotions.

Agreed.

As I kept trying to tell you, these things would only happen within perception. Hence my perceived body is affected by perceived ill-treatment, etc..

That is one theory. Another is that our perceptions are representations of reality.

2 Theories.

1.) Laws of physics are all that we need to explain pain.

2.) The Laws of physics and mysterious, inexplicable processes are required to explain pain.

The second theory violates the rule of parsimony. It would help a bit if you could give us a working model of this "god brain". But you can't even do that. We must simply accept that we are part of god's mind and not part of a computer simulation, the result of a dream inside an invisible unicorn or that we are real.

This ongoing debate is not about who's right and who's wrong. It's about the truth and it's about our future. If you're serious about knowing the truth, then just accept the fact that your whole life has been spent inside your own mind. You know of absolutely nothing beyond your own self, and everything within yourself is completely intangible (without objective form).

For the last time. I understand your argument. I don't deny the subjective and abstract quality or our senses and perception. I accept that it is a real possibility that the real world doesn't even exist. You are arguing ad nauseam and preaching to the choir on this one aspect.

The point of debate is whether or not the external reality along with our perceptions also exists? The point of the debate is what conclusion can we draw from that which we both agree?

Your conclusion is without justification and is one of a number of possibilities, chief and most parsimonious being that our perceptions are a fairly accurate representation of the real world.

 

[Atlas]

Atlas asks: Lifegazer, will you also be explaining why you trust the unreal - that is, what some here believe is delusional.

Reply: I'm not sure I understand the question. Actually, I am sure... that I don't understand the question

One thing I've never been completely comfortable with in your philosophy is that there is no objective reality. Nothing substantial exists. It's not that there is a person in front of me that I perceive as an illusion of the "real" person because all I'm able to "sense" of the "real" person is the front surface exposed to my vision. I don't translate that apprehended external appearence into my subjective reality.

In your philosophy "I" only appear to be substantial and the experience I have of the person in front of me is a delusion of my insubstantial self. Nothing is real. I am not experiencing illusions of others and of things - I am a delusion of myself inside a delusion of my world inside a thought of God.

How do you trust the delusional or make sense out of things that are unreal in the experience. Ghosts or 6 foot bunnies or Santa Claus have an equal unreality to you as Atlas but you at least talk to me.

How do you know what is so real to you - your philosophy - if everything else you know is a lie - a lie that you perpetuate through your normal act of living, eating, talking, enjoying life, sleeping.... you real activities that you deny. It all seems backwards.

You ask weird questions Atlas, but I like you.

That's what my mama says too.

 

[lifegazer]

Actually Dave, it's very very important to my philosophy that you just acknowledge that the "things" you perceive are not real in themselves. I.e., that "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another.".

Once you do this Dave, I can explain the duality between classical and quantum physics, and even between the particle and the wave. I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity. And then I can show you why an entity which experiences an abstract universe = the creator of that universe = God.
I just need you to lend me your ears Dave. Or is the philosophy too dangerous for your worldly survival?

 

[Krandal2]

Lifegazer:

"A mind doesn't require direct contact with a thing in order to create the abstract awareness of a thing. Check-out your dreams and fantasies for confirmation of this."

But a distinction has to be made between perception (the mind observing something outside of itself) and cognition (the mind observing itself) of which dreams and fantasies are an example.

If you are arguing that ultimately all perception is cognition, then fine, but surely you must admit that even in this scenario, there must be a kind of greater reality from which a person draws there perceptions?

Take solipcism for example, suppose you are the only mind that exists, and everything you experience, including this post is being generated by it.
But, because you know didnt consciously create this post yourself, you would have to conclude that there is a part of your mind that is greater than your conscious self that generates reality "for" you, and that ultimatly that is what perception must mean; The act of this greater mind feeding information to the submind that is "You"

Now if this were true then you would be justified in calling your reading of this post ultimately an act of cognition, but you would still have to admit the fact that the things you observe still have a kind of existence beyond their observer (in this case you), and that a kind of perception is required to gain knowlege about whatever is observed, and that some connection between them must exist in order for perception to take place.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
Why not? Tell this forum (and me) of any knowledge you have gleaned of the universe beyond your perception.

The fact that you and I agree on 95% of what we perceive is an indication that we are perceiving something separate from either one of us. Or, at the very least, that the laws which dictate what we perceive are separate from us.

It is no more valid to assume that the objects of perception are within us than it is to assume they are external to us. If you define both viewpoints carefully, so that they both explain what we see, I think you'll find they are equivalent.

Why don't you continue on and explain everything else?

~~ Paul

 

[evildave]

Lifegazer, of course I accept that what I experience is not ultimately real.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that I'll accept that what YOU experience is any more real than what I experience, or accept that any conclusions you've reached about your experiences are real.

On top of that, we don't have a common frame of reference to define what we're even talking about.

With a cat, we can both point at the cat. We can repeat the "try and pet the cat" experiment as often as we care to (or until we run out of limbs and/or blood to offer up to kitty).

There are no repeatable and unambiguous "god" experiments. We don't even have a working definition for "gods" to operate with. No measurements for attributes of "gods" we can refer back to.

We have nothing to work with but conjecture and ambiguity.

As another silly model to operate with, imagine I saw a 'ghost'. (No need for it to be holy, have holes, or anything else.) You ask "Where?", I point and say "Just there, a moment ago." You ask "What did it look like?" I say, "Um, I don't know." You press for details, I can't give any. I can't describe what I allegedly saw.

Do you automatically believe that I saw a supernatural, etherial being? Or do you suggest maybe I saw *something*, or even suggest that perhaps I was "seeing things"?

If it's 3:00am, I can attest that I have hallucinated in the past given fatigue, boredom and low sensory stimulation, such as on a highway. This is actually common.

So, assume it's very late right now. How likely is it that I saw a "supernatural, etherial being", or even "something"?

Indeed, I have had downright fantastic ideas that I could not see a single problem with late at night that didn't make a bit of sense after a good night's sleep. I have even had these ideas *last*, but fall apart the moment I had to put them into words.

Finally, when I am presented with information, I take away from it what I choose to, and it's often quite different from what I'm "supposed to".

All you can do is post your opinion, and maybe I'll accept it, or maybe I'll reject it.

 

[RandFan]

Actually Dave, it's very very important to my philosophy that you just acknowledge that the "things" you perceive are not real in themselves.

There is no evidence that the things taht we perceive are not actualy real. In fact this model is far more understandable and is self consistent.

...that "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."

Which only proves that they are different not mutually exclusive.

Once you do this Dave, I can explain the duality between classical and quantum physics, and even between the particle and the wave. I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity. And then I can show you why an entity which experiences an abstract universe = the creator of that universe = God.
I just need you to lend me your ears Dave. Or is the philosophy too dangerous for your worldly survival?

Let's assume that you are correct. Please explain all of these concepts.

 

[Yahweh]

Even if things do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from how we perceive them. Therefore, the things we perceive are not real in themselves.

The second statement is not the logical conclusion of the preceding statement.

Everything we actually see is completely unreal and is just an abstract representation of a universe.
Thus, the universe we actually experience IS WITHIN US AND IS UNREAL.

Again, the second statement is not the logical conclusion of the preceding statement.

Absolute fact.

Only about half correct. In actuality, the things we perceive are sensory representations of the environment around us.

Always remember the Golden Rule: There is a distinction between mental facts and physical facts.

And the always remember the Silver Rule: There is no good reason to hold that every physical fact is logically dependent on mental facts, or that every physical fact is causally dependent on mental facts.

A bit of extraneous information:

Moore's Proof of the External World:

1) X is to be met with in space iff from the fact that it exists at time t it does not follow that any of us is having an experience at t. (Moore’s Realist claim)
2) There is one X, one of my hands, and here is another X, my other hand.
3) At least two X’s exist.
Therefore,
4) At least two external objects – things to be met with in space – exist.

Criteria to be considered an actual proof of the external world:

1) The premise(s) must be different from the conclusion
2) The premise(s) must be known to be true
3) The conclusion must follow logically from the premise(s)

 

[gentlehorse]

Re: Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

This ongoing debate is not about who's right and who's wrong. It's about the truth and it's about our future. If you're serious about knowing the truth, then just accept the fact that your whole life has been spent inside your own mind. You know of absolutely nothing beyond your own self, and everything within yourself is completely intangible (without objective form).

Hey, lifegazer.

You say that this debate is about truth and our future. Lets' say, for the sake of argument, that I accept what you posit above. What now? How does this truth affect me and my future?

I'm not trying to set you up for a slam dunk, my friend. I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

Hey, lifegazer.

You say that this debate is about truth and our future. Lets' say, for the sake of argument, that I accept what you posit above. What now? How does this truth affect me and my future?

I'm not trying to set you up for a slam dunk, my friend. I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

Well, if you accept that the whole experienced universe exists within yourself and that whatever "you" actually are is ultimately responsible for imposing this abstract universe upon itself (since nothing external to awareness/mind neither cares nor has the knowhow to impose such a subjective/abstract experience upon whatever you are), then it is quite easy to show that the creator of the perception that equates to or is reducible to "you", is a primal-cause... formless... boundless... omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient in relation to "your" own perceived existence. In fact, given a serious audience with these facts in mind, I could show you that you are God, who has imposed this experience of being gentlehorse upon itself.

Given that information Sir, it would be upto you to engage in a spiritual oddysey, the aim of which would be to transform the ego so that it would be content with the unity of mankind, as One.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

Well, if you accept that the whole experienced universe exists within yourself and that whatever "you" actually are is ultimately responsible for imposing this abstract universe upon itself (since nothing external to awareness/mind neither cares nor has the knowhow to impose such a subjective/abstract experience upon whatever you are), then it is quite easy to show that the creator of the perception that equates to or is reducible to "you", is a primal-cause... formless... boundless... omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient in relation to "your" own perceived existence. In fact, given a serious audience with these facts in mind, I could show you that you are God, who has imposed this experience of being gentlehorse upon itself.

Given that information Sir, it would be upto you to engage in a spiritual oddysey, the aim of which would be to transform the ego so that it would be content with the unity of mankind, as One.

I certainly dont feel omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient/boundless/endless, I dont feel like God.

In fact, it seems the only thing I immediate have any control over is this perception of mine which I call "my body". It seems there are some unconscious (percieved) physical limitations I've exacted upon myself that I would wish to rid myself of, how exactly can I do this? (I promise, I'll be benevolent.)

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

In fact, given a serious audience with these facts in mind...

I really resent this. It is both arrogant and presumptuous. My decision to seek truth regardless of the consequences has come at a cost.

Please have a little more respect for those on this forum.

 

[scribble]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

(I promise, I'll be benevolent.)

You've got a sh-tty track record, "Yahweh."


Seriously, good question.

 

[uruk]

Thus, the universe we actually experience IS WITHIN US AND IS UNREAL.

I agree as long you are talking about the internal mental representation of the universe and not assuming on the supposed existance or non existance of the universe.

 

[gentlehorse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

Well, if you accept that the whole experienced universe exists within yourself and that whatever "you" actually are is ultimately responsible for imposing this abstract universe upon itself (since nothing external to awareness/mind neither cares nor has the knowhow to impose such a subjective/abstract experience upon whatever you are), then it is quite easy to show that the creator of the perception that equates to or is reducible to "you", is a primal-cause... formless... boundless... omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient in relation to "your" own perceived existence. In fact, given a serious audience with these facts in mind, I could show you that you are God, who has imposed this experience of being gentlehorse upon itself.

Given that information Sir, it would be upto you to engage in a spiritual oddysey, the aim of which would be to transform the ego so that it would be content with the unity of mankind, as One.

Thanks for the response.

Okay, let's say you've shown me that I'm God and I've imposed the experience of being me on myself. With this in mind, I endeavor to transform my ego so that it is content with the unity of humanity. Let's say that I'm successful in doing so.

Would this transformation affect anyone other than me and those close to me?

Can an atheist successfully transform his/her ego so that it's content with the unity of humanity?

If so, would the affect be the same?

Edited to say that when I read this post it came across as rather cynical. That's not my intent. I'm curious about your worldview, that's all.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If everything is inside me and there is no external reality, where does my sense of time come from?

~~ Paul