uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
How does this say anything of the non-existance of an external universe?
If my senses tell me I am standing 6 feet away from a horse., then everything in my perception tells me I am standing 6 feet away from a horse (as a mermaid has yet to be discovered). I am justified in saying that I am 6 feet away from a horse. And other people will agree with my assesment if they are standing around also.
If the world is an illusion. it is an illusion that behaves EXACTLY like an external world. Since we can not percieve anything else other than this world.(unless you have any evidence to show that we can percieve something other than this world) I am perfectly justified to deal with and talk about this world as if it actually exists. You are percieving yourself as sitting in front of a computer typing away at a keyboard, If I was standing next to you I would make the same assesment as you. You can not violate the laws that govern this world. You can not percieve the realm of god. You can only percieve this existance. How can you not talk about this world as if it does not exist. Can you percieve something else? Let me add to Berkeley(if I may be so bold) "To rationalise something is one thing but percieve it is something else."
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
[QUOTE(2). "and even between the particle and the wave".
"Things" do not exist, definitely and singularly, until seen within consciousness/awareness. We see "things". Until we observe anything, it behaves as a wave. Hence, without conscious observation no "thing" exists anyway.
[/QUOTE]
You've just contradicted yourself here.
First you say: "Things" do not exist, definitely and singularly, until seen within consciousness/awareness.
Then you say:Until we observe anything, it behaves as a wave.
You are saying that "things" exist (behaving as waves) before we observe (see) them. Hence things exist before they come into our awareness.
You really need to pay attention to what you are saying.
also if it is "ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind."
Then why do you instist on using QM and relativity in your arguments since they make the fundamental assumption that the universe is real and external to the mind?
Even you have to deal with this world as if it is real in order to communincate with us and live your life. It seems ludicrous to argue against the existance of something you have to accept by default in order to make your argument known to others. (i.e you argue against the reality of the "real world" yet you have use an "imaginary" device to communicate with us.)
The rest of you post is too silly to respond to. (let's see if you enjoy an ad hominim statement as much as we do.)
"Things" do not exist, definitely and singularly, until seen within consciousness/awareness. We see "things". Until we observe anything, it behaves as a wave. Hence, without conscious observation no "thing" exists anyway.
[/QUOTE]
You've just contradicted yourself here.
First you say: "Things" do not exist, definitely and singularly, until seen within consciousness/awareness.
Then you say:Until we observe anything, it behaves as a wave.
You are saying that "things" exist (behaving as waves) before we observe (see) them. Hence things exist before they come into our awareness.
You really need to pay attention to what you are saying.
also if it is "ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind."
Then why do you instist on using QM and relativity in your arguments since they make the fundamental assumption that the universe is real and external to the mind?
Even you have to deal with this world as if it is real in order to communincate with us and live your life. It seems ludicrous to argue against the existance of something you have to accept by default in order to make your argument known to others. (i.e you argue against the reality of the "real world" yet you have use an "imaginary" device to communicate with us.)
The rest of you post is too silly to respond to. (let's see if you enjoy an ad hominim statement as much as we do.)
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
It's funny but there seems to be a pattern. Before lifegazer we had Franko, Win and UCE. I actually got along well with all of them. I found the quality of their arguments far superior to lifegazer though I am sure that there are many here who would disagree and say that they were no better.uruk said:
In the end the were upset that the skeptics on this forum did not see the brilliance of their various philosophies. And I say that plural because they were all different. Like I said, in the end they were abusive and resorted to the same bullying tactics that lifegazer is using. The posters here were simply too stupid to grasp the concpets.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
That is one of the differences between science and dogma or religion or even certain philosophical beliefs.
Science is willing to admit to error and attempt to correct itself and further itself. Religion and other dogma can not admit to error or advancement of knowlegde lest it contradict itself or negate itself. Look at lifegazer and the rest. they are unable to admit to any error in their reasoning or beliefs since all that they hold would crumble if they did.
Science is willing to admit to error and attempt to correct itself and further itself. Religion and other dogma can not admit to error or advancement of knowlegde lest it contradict itself or negate itself. Look at lifegazer and the rest. they are unable to admit to any error in their reasoning or beliefs since all that they hold would crumble if they did.
What a bozo. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.uruk said:
Firstly, science is simple the discernment of perceived order. Got that? I hope so, because I'm tired of repeating the same old obvious stuff time after time after time. There isn't a scientist that's ever lived who has any real idea whether reality is internal or external. And to be honest, the nature of reality is an entirely philosophical pursuit. Like I say, science can tell you that x follows w follows v follows u, but science cannot tell you what the essence of all effects is or even whether there is an external reality.
My original post was spot on. A few members here had the honesty to admit that the universe they perceive is within them - subjective. Even you! Yet here you are giving me a load of old tosh about dogma and religion and how great science is.
I've had enough of giving my valuable time to plonkers like you and Rand. Talk amongst yourselves. Jump into the abyss together, for comfort's sake.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
More of your patented ad hominem statements to skirt or divert from my question. How typical, when you are confronted by a question you can't answer you resort to insults and evasion. how sad. I thought you were much more of an ethical debater than this. But I am willing to admit to my errors.
I have never said that science could explain anything outside of this universe. I agree with you that science only deals with the workings of this universe. science does not try to answer the big "philosophical" questions. It's usually philosophers who get one scientific discovery and "runs" with it. (Like you do when you try to use QM or relativity to prove your point.) Philosophy deals with the relationship our mind has with reality. It does not PROVE that it does not exist, It only questions it's existance. And it does not deny that we have to deal with it.
Rationalization may all be fine and dandy, and it may be internaly logicaly consistant. But it don't mean a thing if it can't bear practical fruit or make a testable prediction. It just all becomes a facinating academic puzzle. Like a Rubics cube; ingrossing and consistant, but ultimately useless. (no offense to philosophers, this is just my opinion)
Name one philosophy which corrects itself after an error has been detected in it's reasoning. Science!
Name one philosopher or religion that has ever said "oops! we got that wrong" about their fundamental beliefs. None! (unless someone knows something I don't. Which is alot)
I challenge you. I am willing to admit that I could be wrong about everything I believe. Are you? Can you?
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
D'OH!!!!!!!!
I forgot about that one. And with my mother being a staunch catholic and all.
Vatican two announced that the Roman catholic church officially recognized "big bang" and evolution as the method inwhich god created the universe and man. Steven Hawking was invited to that shindig. The pope praised him for his work on big bang but warned him not to look into the moments before big bang. Which of course Hawking is.
uruk said:
I wonder how that conversation went?
"All these moments are yours. Except T minus 1. Attempt no discernment there."
Edit to add: I just had a mental image of Stephen Hawking being torn apart by sprits like in that scene in the first Indiana Jones movie. I don't know why that makes me giggle. Maybe I'm a Sick Bastard.
It has been established that the actual experience of existence is internal to awareness and that all "things" therein are not real in themselves, but are seen amongst our inner-sensations. The universe we actually perceive of is not really there. It's an intangible illusion of "things".uruk said:
That was the point of my first post and this: "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another.".
Several members, including yourself, even admitted that this was true.
You then asked: "But how do you know that there isn't a real universe of "things" existing externally to our abstract awareness of a universe?".
I responded that it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established]intangible realm.
You cannot be next to or external to an abstract/imaginary object.
I mentioned that you cannot be 6 feet from the tooth fairy to drive home my point. The tooth fairy does not occupy real space since she isn't really there. Thus, you cannot find her, let alone be 6 feet from her.
Of course, this went right over your head.
Don't accuse me of circular reasoning just because you lack the brains to understand my point of view.
Also, let me drive home - just for clarity's sake - that science knows jack all about the nature of reality. Science only knows about the order within perceived existence. This forum is full of fools who think science lends philosophical weight towards an external (to awareness) reality. Science lends zilch towards such a reality. Absolute jack.
Got that?
Atlas
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2004
- Messages
- 2,223
Lifegazer,lifegazer said:
Most people agree that we perceive or have an experience of reality. You are the only one who says that the reality does not exist.
It is common sense that leads the human toward an appreciation of the existence of objective reality. Science serves to support and expand that common sense notion with explanations of objective reality beyond our immediate senses.
Common sense also tells us that your version of reality offers nothing in the way of human advancement, in that it denies human existence and badmouths science (and religion).
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Just because our experiences are subjective does not negate objective reality.lifegazer said:
There is no evidence that the tooth fairy exists even in our virtual world.
This is just bullying.
You are accused of circular reasoning because your argument assumes your conclusion.
It is also non sequitur because you go from point "a" to point "c" without any rationale.
An assumption on your part.
And makes a conclusion that it is real. Which counters your conclusion that it is false. Just because you choose to disregard what your senses tells you is correct is not a reason to suppose that you are right.
It has been pointed out to you time and time again that what science understands about perceived reality is consistent. Further it is consistent to all of us who are in this perceived reality. Finally our conclusion that reality exists does not violate the rule of parsimony that you so conveniently ignore.
You have yet to respond to many of the points made in this and the last thread you started.
evildave
Unregistered
E
Ahh, the position posted.
Now I can examine it.
I can't just "assume" you are correct. First off, for pure communication's sake, I must ask a few questions. Otherwise, I may assume I understand what you meant, but actually believe you said something different than what you meant to communicate.
Therefore, a few questions will be inserted into your statements, with useful keyword labels to refer back to.
MINDGOD: On what basis do you make this "free-will" claim?
EnergyUnpredict: Does this really follow?
SCHROEDINGER: Actually, physics tells us we can know the position and not the state, or the state, and not the position, among other things.
Fundamentally, all physics tells us is we can't know both with the techniques and models available to us right now, because the measurement of very small things changes them. This bit of trivia is often misinterpreted.
On a larger scale than singleton atoms, or singleton subatomic forces, the collective reactions are very, very predictable. So much so that your computer can be made of relatively small bits of matter, yet work.
Our senses work on a very, very large scale.
TREEFOREST: A tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to see? Just because you didn't see the car comming, it makes you no less crushed.
MEASURE: A single electron can not be observed by human senses. It requires devices that can lend their own artifacts to the observation. It should be noted that the "unobserved" electron's traversed paths were observed, or they wouldn't know where it went.
DOPPLER Physics predicted, and experiments confirmed that the frequency of light changes relative to fast-moving objects. It's also known as the 'doppler effect'. You can't personally see it because there is no device on which you have ever ridden that went more than the tiniest fraction of the speed or light relative to something emitting light.
The doppler shift of light is used in commonplace items, such as laser and RADAR devices that measure SPEED. Do a quick search on 'doppler'.
Also, don't forget that radio waves, invisible to you, me and everyone else, are detectable.
INTANGIBLE:
The fact that what I perceive about what my senses tell me is artificial does not necessarily make all things my senses tell me about artificial.
Knowing that a photograph is composed of chemical dyes on paper, does that prove that ANY subject of a photograph is actually composed of "chemical dyes on paper". The grand canyon is made of chemical dyes on paper? Your mother is chemical dyes on paper?
The rest about 'formlessness' does not appear to follow.
I do not see a connection between faulty, error-prone senses and deity status. I still don't have a workable definition of what that 'God' is supposed to be.
And about your other posts to people about being 'stupid', I find that it's usually the fault of the speaker not making themselves clear enough, rather than the listeners, who misunderstand.
Please define your terms.
Either use human senses all the way through in your examples, or physics experiments (with citations) all the way through.
If you can, come up with a repeatable experiment that can demonstrate what you're asserting.
Now I can examine it.
lifegazer said:
I can't just "assume" you are correct. First off, for pure communication's sake, I must ask a few questions. Otherwise, I may assume I understand what you meant, but actually believe you said something different than what you meant to communicate.
Therefore, a few questions will be inserted into your statements, with useful keyword labels to refer back to.
MINDGOD: On what basis do you make this "free-will" claim?
EnergyUnpredict: Does this really follow?
SCHROEDINGER: Actually, physics tells us we can know the position and not the state, or the state, and not the position, among other things.
Fundamentally, all physics tells us is we can't know both with the techniques and models available to us right now, because the measurement of very small things changes them. This bit of trivia is often misinterpreted.
On a larger scale than singleton atoms, or singleton subatomic forces, the collective reactions are very, very predictable. So much so that your computer can be made of relatively small bits of matter, yet work.
Our senses work on a very, very large scale.
TREEFOREST: A tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to see? Just because you didn't see the car comming, it makes you no less crushed.
MEASURE: A single electron can not be observed by human senses. It requires devices that can lend their own artifacts to the observation. It should be noted that the "unobserved" electron's traversed paths were observed, or they wouldn't know where it went.
DOPPLER Physics predicted, and experiments confirmed that the frequency of light changes relative to fast-moving objects. It's also known as the 'doppler effect'. You can't personally see it because there is no device on which you have ever ridden that went more than the tiniest fraction of the speed or light relative to something emitting light.
The doppler shift of light is used in commonplace items, such as laser and RADAR devices that measure SPEED. Do a quick search on 'doppler'.
Also, don't forget that radio waves, invisible to you, me and everyone else, are detectable.
INTANGIBLE:
The fact that what I perceive about what my senses tell me is artificial does not necessarily make all things my senses tell me about artificial.
Knowing that a photograph is composed of chemical dyes on paper, does that prove that ANY subject of a photograph is actually composed of "chemical dyes on paper". The grand canyon is made of chemical dyes on paper? Your mother is chemical dyes on paper?
The rest about 'formlessness' does not appear to follow.
I do not see a connection between faulty, error-prone senses and deity status. I still don't have a workable definition of what that 'God' is supposed to be.
And about your other posts to people about being 'stupid', I find that it's usually the fault of the speaker not making themselves clear enough, rather than the listeners, who misunderstand.
Please define your terms.
Either use human senses all the way through in your examples, or physics experiments (with citations) all the way through.
If you can, come up with a repeatable experiment that can demonstrate what you're asserting.