A line from Berkeley...

[lifegazer]

You have been told over and over again. Atlas tried again there. I tried by analogy but I overestimated (again) your limitted comprehension skills

I've asked you three times now to tell me exactly what I have assumed, and you just can't tell me, can you?
This is your last chance. I want you to quote the axioms I have used and assumed as true.

 

[Wudang]

"If you reject the idea that there is an external-reality on the basis that everything you perceive is shown to exist abstractly, in awareness, then why do you accept the existence of your own awareness when the only basis you have for it is the abstract entities (sensations, thoughts, feelings) which do exist therein?"

Okay the first problem I have is that you are assuming a lot about "awareness". You have failed to explain what you mean by abstractly. The word "shown" is unwarranted.
In fact "everything you perceive is shown to exist abstractly, in awareness" is a completely meaningless statement until you define your terms. There is also an assumed "only" missing in the above phrase.

 

[lifegazer]

I don't think you even know what I am supposed to have assumed. I'm certainly no more enlightened by that waffle.

When you can tell me, without any confusion, give me a call.

 

[Wudang]

I'm sorry lifegazer but every time I increase my estimate of how stupid you are, you prove you are even stupider than I thought. What part of "explain what you mean by abstract" is beyond your comprehension?

 

[RandFan]

I don't think you even know what I am supposed to have assumed. I'm certainly no more enlightened by that waffle.

It's obvious you don't know. Odd since you have been told over and over.

• You assume that since we exist in an "internal realm" that there can be no external realm.
  
• You assume that there is a god.
  
• You assume that our senses lie to us.
  
• You assume that there are mysterious processes that allow for the aparent order that we see in our "internal realm".
  
• You assume that people will ignore their own intuition and believe you without any evidence.
  
• You assume that people should leap from one premise to a conclusion without any reason to reach that conclusion.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm sorry lifegazer but every time I increase my estimate of how stupid you are, you prove you are even stupider than I thought. What part of "explain what you mean by abstract" is beyond your comprehension?

I asked you to tell me which part of my philosophy I had assumed, and you respond by asking me a question. Then you have the gall to call me stupid.

 

[lifegazer]

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

That's a lie. I gave a reason.

[*]You assume that there is a god.

That's a lie. I gave reasons.

[*]You assume that our senses lie to us.

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

[*]You assume that there are mysterious processes that allow for the aparent order that we see in our "internal realm".

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

[*]You assume that people will ignore their own intuition and believe you without any evidence.

Plonkerism.

 

[uruk]

That's a lie. I gave a reason.

The reason you gave was to restate your first premise, this is called circular reasoning. lets look at what you wrote:

"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.".

In the first sentance, "it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities", we are talking about two things which are not contigent upon each other, meaning one does not have anything to do with the other. You can have an external reality (i.e. the realm of our concious awareness, meaning awake.)and an intangible entity such as an object in our dream. (the intangible realm). Now remember intangible is a reference qualifier, so in reference to our conciouse awareness which is external to our dream, the object in our dream is intangible in reference to our waking conciousness.
So we can talk about an external reality (our waking conciousness) to an intangible realm(our dream conciousness) to contrast how one is intangible in reference to another.
the proof? The objects you dream about do not follow you into the wakeing realm. This shows your first statement to be fallacious.

The second sentence: "The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less." This is not a reason. This is just restating part of the definition of the word 'intangible'. It does not add any usefull information to the first sentence or make any implications or conclusions.

The last sentence:"It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established] intangible realm" is just restating the first sentence.
look at the first sentence again:"it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities".

Ok now let us compare:
"it is completely nonsensical" = It is ludicrous"; "to enquire" = "to discuss"; "of a reality external" = "a reality external"; 'to an [established] intangible realm" = "to an intangible entity or entities".
See? you are just repeating the same statment as a proof or a conlusion. This is the same as saying "I hate dogs because I hate dogs." This is a textbook example of what is called circular reasoning. Pleas do look it up. it will help you in the futur.

In another post I showed you why reasoning is not proof. Reasons are assumptions based on a premise. They become fact when there is evidence to support them. That is why the belief in god is essentialy an assumption because there is no established way of proving one or the other of gods existance. The same applies to most philosophies. Especially yours.

 

[lifegazer]

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.
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.

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

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?

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!!!!!!!!!

There is nothing external to our own being.

Behold, you are existence.
Say hello to your Godself.

 

[Acrimonious]

Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the reiteration of the definition of the word "formless."

There is nothing external to our own being.

1) Your philosophy mandates that there is no external reality, that we are all God, and our senses are internal, subjective imaginations of that one same being.
2) If {1} is true, then, by definition, these senses cannot be used to detect an external reality. Being imaginary, they can only experience the imagination fed to them.
3) If {2} is true, then, by definition, "humans" are not even equipped to be able to sense an external reality.

I can follow, and actually agree with the logic behind all of the above statements, even if I don't believe a single one of the premises. Here's where you go circular:

4) Instead of admitting that, if everyone is an imaginary construct of an all-God, our imaginary senses would be ill-equipped to detect an external reality even if there was one, you re-state the premise that there is no external reality.

[Insert obligatory "Get an Education" quip and "Random Ad Hominem" here.]

 

[Wudang]

I asked you to tell me which part of my philosophy I had assumed, and you respond by asking me a question. Then you have the gall to call me stupid.

You assume all of it, not part of it. I think that you fail to grasp the difference between showing your ideas are internally consistent (I.e. if you start by assuming my philosophy then it all makes sense) and showing that your philosophy is provable - i.e. that it fits with what we know and can deduce.
You have asked the same question umpteen times and different people have tried different tacks at explaining your errors to you. I really hate to think of people as unhelpable but ..... I tried showing you the difference between inference and implication and just got insults and incomprehension.
I think scribbel may be right.

 

[Atlas]

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.

Lifegazer,
I can agree with you if by your statement you mean: "Humans experience their reality subjectively."
Perhaps short clear sentences would help get your ideas across. We're not trying to be obtuse. You present your ideas here for everyone's illumination, I'm sure. You are a recipient of some of that light too, you've said so.

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.

I can agree that we are all ignorant of the true nature of the reality that appears to surround us. Life is very much dependent on sensation and thought for apprehending the reality we perceive.

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

You use "Hence" like "Presto" - You have expected that we get your exact meaning but you know we're stupid to you. This is something central to your thread. Take pity on us. You make us guess and chase you for explanation. What is obvious to you escapes us. Always expand, but use short sentences and bullet points for your logical explanations.

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?

We say, formless and formed entities... Light, gravity, thought, rocks, air, animals and us..

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.

We're not at God yet, right? We're just agreeing that thought and imagination are part of the human experience.

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.

I'm not with you on this. If I look at it just the opposite... First, The solar system appears to hang in formlessness, that is - space. So form can rest in formlessness. That is similar to your point.

Next, Heat is given off by my body. The moon dances against the gravity of Earth. Heat and gravity are formless but existing both within and outside of form. Formlessness can rest in form.

It seems that you got hooked on the idea that you perceive a reality that you cannot know so that reality doesn't exist and you assume a reality does exist that can support intellection so you manufactured God to fill this role. Nothing that you've stated up to this point implies God though.

**Thus, our being is not embraced by an external reality.**
Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!

There is nothing external to our own being.

Behold, you are existence.
Say hello to your Godself.

This last part is what you want us to believe but it's all assumptions based on a logic that does not necessarily lead here. You've got some gaps to fill. Somehow you've got to find language to bridge those gaps, Lifegazer. We're pretty attached to the reality around us. We live and die there. If you could predict faster than light travel through unreal space or something else that was a useful upshot to your way of thinking, that would help.

But you offer nothing. No life after death. No existence. I must accept that what I see is delusion. And unless we all see it together, Armageddon. You offer nothing but utter hopelessness. The nature of Human beings is to look at things with different perspectives. They will never all see your complex philosophy. So it is Armageddon. And when we ask you about that - You're worried about God.

As it stands right now, to my mind, you've still got to overcome two obstacles. Your philosophy is illogical and it offers nothing. If you can reach out to us effectively on either of those, I'm sure you'll experience a more favorable reception.

 

[Atlas]

Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!

I want to hit this line, with all the exclamation points, one more time.

Air is considered formless. Yet you can pack it in a spaceship and fly it into space. Space is formless too.

Air in a spaceship is like thought in the human mind.


Air in a spaceship in space is like thought in the human mind in a summer breeze.

Formlessness in form in formlessness.

And I didn't need Dream or God in the metaphor.

 

[lifegazer]

You assume all of it, not part of it.

You're king of the plonkers Wudang. I give up on you. You clearly haven't been reading this thread, for starters, since most of the members here agree with my most basic premise - that the universe we sense is not a real universe.
Fade away Wudang. There's no point in us having any more discourse. Take care.

 

[lifegazer]

Here's where you go circular:

4) Instead of admitting that, if everyone is an imaginary construct of an all-God, our imaginary senses would be ill-equipped to detect an external reality even if there was one, you re-state the premise that there is no external reality.

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.

 

[lifegazer]

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

You use "Hence" like "Presto" - You have expected that we get your exact meaning but you know we're stupid to you. This is something central to your thread. Take pity on us.

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.

We say, formless and formed entities... Light, gravity, thought, rocks, air, animals and us.

You must adjust your thought to the realisation, above. You must take note that all things, as experienced, are intangible. We experience the reality of no thing.
When I said that the things of our mind are without form, I was of course refering to the fact that they are unreal. Thus, even rocks (of the mind) are without true form. Yes, they have the appearance of form, but appearances are not reality (we're back to Berkeley's quote again).

I'm not with you on this. If I look at it just the opposite... First, The solar system appears to hang in formlessness, that is - space. So form can rest in formlessness. That is similar to your point.

Nothing in awareness has true form. So you should understand that your statement is worthless.

Next, Heat is given off by my body. The moon dances against the gravity of Earth. Heat and gravity are formless but existing both within and outside of form. Formlessness can rest in form.

You're way off track. The moon you perceive is as formless as the space you perceive it within.

But you offer nothing. No life after death.

Not true. I offer you the realisation that there is no death.

No existence.

Not true. I tell you that you are God.

I must accept that what I see is delusion. And unless we all see it together, Armageddon. You offer nothing but utter hopelessness. The nature of Human beings is to look at things with different perspectives. They will never all see your complex philosophy. So it is Armageddon. And when we ask you about that - You're worried about God.

The absolute death to being is what worries me. God cannot die. But God can cease to be, if God so chooses, through "we".

 

[lifegazer]

"Formless being does not occupy position or space within formed being!!!!!!!!!"

Air is considered formless. Yet you can pack it in a spaceship and fly it into space. Space is formless too.

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

 

[scribble]

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

So... is there anything outside awareness?

If not, what does posess true form?

 

[Atlas]

Lifegazer, you counter inquiry with assertion not explanation.

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

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

Our perceptions of self and of reality depend on form. We can recognize nothing without it, yet you cannot explain it's origin to us.

If Objective Reality is true and real and substantial it will necessarily have form.

But for you nothing exists - everything is formless in the mind. Why and how does it enter our awareness?

Oiginally your logic took us to a deity that was formless and was the substructure of everything. You, in another thread, talked of Intent and Will that had to exist in God for us to see them in our reality. But you have left no room for form and yet our reality depends on the perception of it.

[edit] Scribble beat to the question. [/edit]

 

[scribble]

But you have left no room for form and yet our reality depends on the perception of it.

Vague metaphysics are like Jell-O: there's always room for more.

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