A line from Berkeley...

[lifegazer]

So... is there anything outside awareness?

I've just explained why there cannot be a reality external to intangible being. Whatever we are is the essence of all existence. There is nothing beyond us. Everything else is [perceived] within.

If not, what does posess true form?

Ask me what does possess true/real existence. That word 'form' is the source of some confusion, I see. Atlas' posts confirmed that for me.

The conclusion of my philosophy, as you know, is that God = existence.

 

[Dancing David]

My previous post deals with this. No thing within awareness is real so no thing within awareness possesses true form.

Dualism, dualism dualism, it ain't no passing craze.

If nothing within awareness is real then you have the real and the unreal and that is a dualism.

 

[uruk]

The language you are using is failing you again. look at your statement here: "An internal (to the self/mind) universe of unreal "things", formed from abstract/subjective sensations occuring within awareness, has been established as true.
This is a fact. It's not an assumption. "

"An *INTERNAL (TO the SELF/MIND)* universe of unreal things....."

Internal to the self/mind means that something is inside the self/mind. That means that the self/mind is external to the universe of unreal things.

This is a fact. It's not an assumption. "

And this has not been established as fact. What we define as "mind", awareness, sensation, differs depending on your particular praradigm. A materialist would have a different definition of "mind" then would you or an immaterialist, or a christian, or what ever philosophy or religion is out there. The definition of those concepts remain an assumption because we have difficulty in testing those assumptions. All we know for certain is that we have one (a mind). and even that statement is shakey.(especially if we consider your philosophy)

The experience of being lifegazer in the world I perceive, happens entirely within my awareness. I've never experienced any reality beyond that of my subjective sensations and my responsive thoughts & feelings. I.e., I know of no real "things"... I just know of the unreal things seen via my sensations.

And what I've have been trying to tell you is since we can not percieve anything but those things in our awareness. then those things are "real" to us. Your use of unreal is confusing because they are unreal as compared to what? If something is unreal, that implies that something else is real (again, this is a reference word). What is real? If there is nothing to compare it to then how can we tell if they are not real. All we know that if one of those "unreal" objects slams into our "unreal" body, we are going to feel it. It will affect us. (even things we do to our "unreal" bodies affects our awareness) How is this unreal?
If we have no way of determining otherwise, it makes no difference to us. The only way I could make a determination that the things in my awareness are unreal is if I can percieve something "beyond that of my subjective sensations and my responsive thoughts & feelings". But I can't. (you've said it yourself) I am locked into this realm, whatever this realm is. So what do I gain by disbelieving it? Oh yea, the realisaion that I am god. How is that any different from any other belief. And it is just a belief since I can not prove it because I can not percieve anything "beyond that of my subjective sensations and my responsive thoughts & feelings". God, if it exists, is beyond that(remember reasoning is not proof)

Hence Berkeley's: "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."

All this says to me is that existance and being percieved are two different things.

Now we come to the point of the essential question: What can exist externally to this established realm or awareness of formless entities/things? What exists outside of formless being?

You said it yourself here:"An internal (to the self/mind) universe of unreal 'things'...." By the use of your words; the self/mind is external to an internal universe.

Besides, Lack of evidence for the existance of something is not evidence for it's nonexistance.

Now we come to the point of my logic. A realm of formless being has been established and we want to know what embraces this and exists beyond it.
But our enquiries are in vain - pointless - for as I tried to explain to you on several occasions, a formless being occupies no real space or hence position in that space. Thus, such being cannot be embraced by a reality of space and occupy a position in that space.
**Thus, our being is not embraced by an external reality.**
Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!
.

Again, you have implied that the self/mind is external to this realm. therefore the formless being is within the self/mind. And it is unreal as compared to what? Once you find what it is unreal as it is compared to you will find what embraces it. And, of course, all this only applies to your particular paradigm.

Realise that all you are saying is that our perceptions and thoughts and sensations are internal. Internal to what? self/mind. Where is that self/mind. Might it be in a physical body? particularly a brain. You jump to the conclusion that a physical world does not exist simply on the idea that our perceptions are internal. You have to show how that is.

 

[scribble]

I've just explained why there cannot be a reality external to intangible being. Whatever we are is the essence of all existence. There is nothing beyond us. Everything else is [perceived] within.

Okay.

Ask me what does possess true/real existence. That word 'form' is the source of some confusion, I see. Atlas' posts confirmed that for me.

Okay, let's change the whole thing, then. Let's not switch horses mid-stream or we're likely to get washed away. So going back to the shore we'd just left, we'll restate the question and depart again on our new horse:

You say:
No thing within awareness is real so no thing within awareness possesses true form.

We can't use 'form' anymore, you suggest 'existence' as a replacement. So we get...

No thing within awareness is real so no thing within awareness posesses true existence.

Well, that's logically consistent, and I like it. But it doesn't do anything to address the questions it was meant to address anymore.

Feel free to restate it until you find something that works - I can't offer help, since I'm asking the question myself, not knowing the answer.


Edit to add: What I meant to say is it leaves us with the same question - if nothing within awareness exists, and there is nothing outside of awareness, what exists? And where?

The conclusion of my philosophy, as you know, is that God = existence.

Yes, and it's a cool one, I like it. Let's try to get there from here without assuming that we're already there. Otherwise the journey was meaningless.

 

[Atlas]

But you bring up a fascinating question - it will be interesting to see how he builds form out of formlessness.

Thanks, but I've got faith he can do it if anyone can. Heck, he built God with less.

 

[lifegazer]

In the realm of formlessness, which now I understand to be everything, how do you explain form.

How do I explain form? I explain it by saying that the formulaters of our languages were not aware that all of the things within their perception are not real. In fact, they - like you - assumed that they were real. Hence the misuse of language.

Nothing has it. It is as alien to your philosophy as the notion that formlessness can exist within it.

There is the appearance of form, like there is the appearance of "things" themselves. Our language is constructed around the idea that what we perceive is real. That's all.

 

[uruk]

...most basic premise - that the universe we sense is not a real universe.

Again, just because the universe we sense is not real (with relation to the universe) does not mean that the universe does not exist.
Remember lifegazer we are talking about two different things here. There is our perception and there is the universe. what is our perception of? The universe. where does that say that the universe does not exist?

 

[lifegazer]

Dualism, dualism dualism, it ain't no passing craze.

If nothing within awareness is real then you have the real and the unreal and that is a dualism.

1 real dollar + 1 unreal dollar = 1 real dollar.

 

[uruk]

The existence of a thing and the perception of that thing, are not the same thing.
Whatever we perceive is not the truth or reality of any thing.
The universe of things we experience is within us, not without.
We have no dealings with real things. We have our dealings with the things of the mind. We have our dealings with un-reality.
We live amongst our mind.
.

Well I got something very different from that quote. I agree, existance and perception are two different things. "a thing " exists. we do not know of it's existance untill we percieve it. Notice how our perception of the thing has no bearing on the existance of the thing. Just our knowledge of it.

we are percieving something. what is that something we are percieving? We recieve information. what is the source of that information?

 

[uruk]

There is the appearance of form

Then how is the "appearance" of form any different from "actual" form. (as it applies to our perceptions. Remember, that is all we can percieve.)

Our language is constructed around the idea that what we perceive is real. That's all.

Why, because those "things" are "real" to us. We can't percieve them as anything else.

 

[Atlas]

How do I explain form? I explain it by saying that the formulaters of our languages were not aware that all of the things within their perception are not real. In fact, they - like you - assumed that they were real. Hence the misuse of language.

There is the appearance of form, like there is the appearance of "things" themselves. Our language is constructed around the idea that what we perceive is real. That's all.

You dodge adroitly, but I don't yet know if you dodged to safe ground.

Language is a thing like form that God doesn't need. I might as well ask how it is different than form in it's origin. However, the Bible has God speak creation into being. Likewise, I think it is John that says, and the Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word dwelt among us - describing Jesus. That was a different God and that creation was our objective reality and not your truer reality.

Language and the words we use are that unreal "thought existence" made real. It is the stuff of thought made manifest in the invisible air as an unseen sound. Words carry our thought to others - on the wind, the wind of objective reality. Words have the many qualities of sound (speed, loudness, tone) and something more, meaning. That is, they are the same as thought, but are of a different qualty... they are substantial.

Uruk points out the redundancy inherent in the phrase: There is the appearance of form... but I think I know what you mean. Language is a tricky thing. We use it to make out ideas concrete. When we understand what a rock is we use the word rock. We have done this with all things in our objective reality. Words are, in a sense, the form of appearence. But words also objectify for us the ghosts, the pink unicorns, and the gods of our mind.

Reality could be the objectification experience spoken into being by God. Or God can be an objectification experience spoken into being by us. In your words <blockquote>...the appearance of "things" themselves. Our language is constructed around the idea that what we perceive is real. That's all. </blockquote>
We believe you have mistaken the appearance of a God with an idea you only perceive as real. Your language and thoughts lead you to an Ideal understanding but not a Real one.

You know something lifegazer, arguing with you has an effect of making me more sure God doesn't exist. I know this is not what you claim to want. Sometimes I wonder if you're John Cleese and I've stumbled in for an argument. One of these days you'll just say "Times Up - Argument is over" and then charge us money to flail at you with our best ideas on the nature of what is, while you sit back once again and say contrarily- "No, it isn't!!"

 

[RandFan]

RandFan
You assume that since we exist in an "internal realm" that there can be no external realm.

You assume that there is a god.

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's a lie. I gave a reason.

No, not really. You simply made a cliam. This is not reason.

The "things" you see are not real in themselves. That's a fact, not an assumption.

Prove it. This is a claim that you cannot prove. You could be right but you are unable to prove that you are right. How could it be a fact? Do you know the definition of fact?

The Mind [of God] created the sensations that are experienced.

Which works how? Come on gazer, at least have the balls to admit that you can't explain how god's mind works.

 

[RandFan]

You know something lifegazer, arguing with you has an effect of making me more sure God doesn't exist. I know this is not what you claim to want. Sometimes I wonder if you're John Cleese and I've stumbled in for an argument. One of these days you'll just say "Times Up - Argument is over" and then charge us money to flail at you with our best ideas on the nature of what is, while you sit back once again and say contrarily- "No, it isn't!!"

And now for something completly different...

There was a time when I was certain that Jedi Knight was a very clever ruse to get us all to find a corner in a round building to urinate in. In the end the truth turned out to be far more pedestrian.

But we can dream dear Horatio, we can dream.

 

[RandFan]

I've just explained why there cannot be a reality external to intangible being. Whatever we are is the essence of all existence. There is nothing beyond us. Everything else is [perceived] within.

Withing what?

And god? Does god exist?

Is god omnipotent?

Can god create a physical realm?

Can god create people of flesh and blood who live in a real world and exerience the world with their minds?

 

[uruk]

another thing lifegazer; the representation in our mind may be "formless" but what it represents is not.

 

[uruk]

Language is a thing like form....

Atlas, very interesting, and well put.

 

[Acrimonious]

That's not true.
Perhaps you had a blackout when you came to the part of my post which explained why it is ludicrous to enquire what embraces intangible being. Remember - the part about intangible being having no position in space therefore space not being around it. You see, if you are embraced by a reality of true space, then you must occupy a position within that space. Yet clearly, an intangible being cannot occupy a definite position in real space.

Thus, it's simply impossible, by rational default, to have an external reality embracing intangible being. Hence, no such reality exists = the Mind is the whole of existence.

I am imagining a great, black dragon. Assuming there is a material world, and that I am a part of it, tell me where this great, black dragon exists. Its exact position in space, if you could, please?

The great, black dragon is intangible. It is an imaginary being within a real universe. I cannot tell you the position of the great, black dragon in space. I can tell you the position of my keyboard in space. Or: my morning coffee mug. But not my imaginary great, black dragon.

I can imagine this dragon in such a way that he believes he exists. I can imagine him in such a way that he believes he lives in his own, custom-tailored material world. I can dictate his experiences, his thoughts, his opinions, and his actions.

You may claim that he exists within my mind. Could you cut open my mind to find the great, black dragon? Or would you only find grey matter?

------------

Your argument is akin to saying that neither I nor the world I live in are real, simply because the great, black dragon is imaginary.

 

[RandFan]

Please note that I am not ignoring this post or the concept.

Remember - the part about intangible being having no position in space therefore space not being around it.

Agreed. This is correct.

You see, if you are embraced by a reality of true space, then you must occupy a position within that space.

Only if YOU are a true reality.

Yet clearly, an intangible being cannot occupy a definite position in real space.

Ok, can you prove that I am an intangible being?

You only prove that my thoughts and perceptions are intangible. This does not prove that I am intangible.

Thus, it's simply impossible, by rational default, to have an external reality embracing intangible being.

This is really a straw man. It is true that we think of our abstract ideas as being inside of our mind. But they are intangible and can't really be said to be anywhere. However this fact doesn't obviate reality. You are merely trying to turn the abstract concept of our mind into a proof that materialism is false.

It doesn't really work that way. Please note that I have given allot of thought to your argument and I understand. I agree that it is possible that the material world does not exist. But there are just so many problems with such an assumption.

Hence, no such reality exists = the Mind is the whole of existence.

Non sequitur. Our senses in conjunction with the proof of prediction and verification of the workings of the material world lend considerable weight to the existence of the Material world. To believe that we do not actually exist we must conclude that the order of the universe is a lie created by god. We must also assume that this god is capable of creating this universe by processes that we can't explain.

Your "god did it" philosophy tells us nothing. It does not advance our understanding of the order of the universe in any way (your naive views on QM and other concepts not withstanding).

Others have said that your philosophy is interesting. I agree but I don't really give you the credit for it. You are just repackaging solipsism. There is only one mind, god's and god is a solipsist. Big deal.

 

[Gestahl]

What everyone seems to have missed...

I have been browsing LG's threads for weeks now... and you consistently argue him down to solipsism or nihilism, I can't tell which one (he very poorly distinguishes whether "he" is an illusion (something else perceiving itself in his mind or something like that) or is real). Why do you keep arguing with him? You cannot assail those two philosophies, nor anything built up upon it, simply because LG can claim langauge and even logic are illusion, etc. His philosophy is useless, because from his viewpoint there are no limitations to what can be the truth, because somehow through all the illusions *he* is able to see what he says.

*Sigh*.

Just like when an athiest argues with a Christian, he *cannot* accept the assumption of God's existence and prove the Christian wrong. God is too laden and too powerful an assumption to overcome.

Like I said, once you argue someone down to solipsism or nihilism, if this were a game, you would have "won".

 

[Upchurch]

Re: What everyone seems to have missed...

Why do you keep arguing with him?

There are a number of valid reasons to do so that have nothing to do with "beating" him (again and again and again...).

First and foremost, in my mind, is that nothing should ever be left to stand unchallenged, whether or not one personally believes that it is correct or not. That is the very essence of skepticism, endless questioning.

Second, in cases like lifegazer here, who endlessly repeats the same mistakes over and over, it is becomes an instructive exercise to try to approach the same argument from different tacts. Sometimes it leads you to question your own views and leads you to knew insights (even though it is rarely the one the woo would prefer).

Third, let's just admit it, sometimes there is a guilty pleasure in smakin' down a pompous self-righteous fool. I've heard it called "skeptomasochism". Although maybe "skeptosadism" would be more appropriate... I dunno.

(okay, so maybe the last one does have to do with "beating" him...)