Do you believe in mental causation?

[Atlas]

It is a useless question. If it is an illusion, it is one that has remarkable staying power, and is indeed indistinguishable (to us) from an actual reality. So...when you look at the actual consistency of evidence over centuries of close examination, we can re-word your "valid question" as follows: How do we know that what we think of as reality is not, in fact, an illusion that is utterly indistinguishable from reality?

And that is a useless question.

I would add that the uselessness or valulessness of the question lies in how readily it lends itself to the generation of testable hypotheses that might prove or falsify the notion that the substance of reality is actually "dream" and that it is being manipulated by divine intelligence.

That is the illusion of which you speak, is it not Iacchus?

 

[Iacchus]

It is a useless question. If it is an illusion, it is one that has remarkable staying power, and is indeed indistinguishable (to us) from an actual reality. So...when you look at the actual consistency of evidence over centuries of close examination, we can re-word your "valid question" as follows: How do we know that what we think of as reality is not, in fact, an illusion that is utterly indistinguishable from reality?

And that is a useless question.

Do caterpillars turn into butterflies? Or do they in fact share one and the same reality?

 

[Mercutio]

Do caterpillars turn into butterflies? Or do they in fact share one and the same reality?

It is when you ask questions like this that I have a hard time remembering that you are actually older than I am.

If you really wish to learn anything about lepidoptera, I suggest you ask Bug_Girl for a list of readings. If you want to make up a bunch of stuff, keep dreaming.

How is it that you can take such a fascinating topic such as insect metamorphosis, and suck the empirical study completely out of it and turn it into the same boring mix of faux-philosophical claptrap?

You want meaningful questions? Go look at some entymology. You want useless questions? Search the forum, for posts by "Iacchus". (No, this is not an ad hom--your post, replying as it did to mine, allegedly asks about meaningful and meaningless questions.)

 

[Iacchus]

You want meaningful questions? Go look at some entymology. You want useless questions? Search the forum, for posts by "Iacchus". (No, this is not an ad hom--your post, replying as it did to mine, allegedly asks about meaningful and meaningless questions.)

So, do you think any of this will mean anything when you're dead?

 

[Mercutio]

So, do you think any of this will mean anything when you're dead?

To others, perhaps. Not to me. After I am dead, you and I will both understand it equally.

 

[Atlas]

To others, perhaps. Not to me. After I am dead, you and I will both understand it equally.

You are exposing your kind side tonight.

After you are dead Iacchus may still be just as wrong.

You, however, won't be.

 

[Mercutio]

You are exposing your kind side tonight.

After you are dead Iacchus may still be just as wrong.

You, however, won't be.

Interesting. I was thinking of understanding as on a ratio scale--that one could not understand less than nothing about an issue.

You raise a good point, though, with which I am not certain I agree. Can a degree of false belief serve, functionally, as a "less than zero" belief? Is Iacchus not just at ground level, but in a hole of his own digging?

How would one test this hypothesis?

 

[Atlas]

Interesting. I was thinking of understanding as on a ratio scale--that one could not understand less than nothing about an issue.

You raise a good point, though, with which I am not certain I agree. Can a degree of false belief serve, functionally, as a "less than zero" belief? Is Iacchus not just at ground level, but in a hole of his own digging?

How would one test this hypothesis?

Ok Hows this? Let's postulate a belief - um, Ok,Ok...

God supports us - something like that.

You and Iacchus stand at ground level on the edge of a precipice.
Actually you would be prone - as the dead guy.

To the extent of acceptance in the belief you both step off the edge.

I'm thinking that as the first dead guy you still end up looking smarter.

PS. I'm not really a scientist.

 

[Iacchus]

So, meaning is just a spurious event which occurs between two voids ... From nothing is whence we came, and nothing is whence we go ... which, is totally unfathomable.

 

[Iacchus]

To others, perhaps. Not to me. After I am dead, you and I will both understand it equally.

Yes, but as a relativist, you don't believe you'll only be dead in the relative sense?

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, but as a relativist, you don't believe you'll only be dead in the relative sense?

You have not once accurately demonstrated you understand what I think. Why should this time be any different?

Could you explain what you mean by "dead in the relative sense"? And could you also point out where I call myself a "relativist"?

 

[Iacchus]

You have not once accurately demonstrated you understand what I think. Why should this time be any different?

Could you explain what you mean by "dead in the relative sense"? And could you also point out where I call myself a "relativist"?

Well, if it doesn't apply to you, might I suggest it applies to most people on this board? Perhaps we should take a poll on it? By the way, I do understand what this relativism is about, since I subscribe to it to a relative extent as well ... obviously, since we can't all know everything. Now that isn't to say the knowledge of everything doesn't exist, for knowledge is merely evidence of an actual thing, illusory or otherwise.

 

[Pangloss]

So then, why is it so hard for you to accept that reality is just an elaborate dream of God's?

In response to my post:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pangloss
Whoa there a nanosecond. There's good reason to be suspicious of the obvious, especially of the blatant variety. After all, it's blatantly obvious that the sun wakes up in the morning, then flies across the sky before it goes to sleep at night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer: This is a puzzle, right? Let me see, if I answer, "because the Easter Bunny loves me", do I get another clue?

 

[Iacchus]

Answer: This is a puzzle, right? Let me see, if I answer, "because the Easter Bunny loves me", do I get another clue?

I'm sure he does.

 

[Atlas]

So, meaning is just a spurious event which occurs between two voids ... From nothing is whence we came, and nothing is whence we go ... which, is totally unfathomable.

You have a strange compaionship with meaning, Iacchus. You infer whatever you wish without evidence or implication.

This seems to be a direct result of your love affair with your own subjective idealism. Most of us believe that truth resides in objective reality. We prefer the particle theory of science to the spirit/illusion description of Iacchus. We find value in the former and delusion in the latter.

We do not deny subjective reality. We accept that it is a local appreciation of objective reality. It is truth with a small t.

Meaning resides in our subjective appreciation. It is not part of the external reality. It is found in us. We cannot escape it. It is part of our moment by moment appreciation of our existence.

You refer to 'meaning' where you mean the 'Meaning of Life.' You are always careless this way. As if your joy is not in exploring the underlying truth at all - it's more to obfuscate. You drop your responses out of a delusion disconnected from any real context. Your tone and terseness implies you think them gems and profound ones. But you dare not answer even the questions you yourself raise.

What do you fathom is the Meaning of Human Life?

 

[Iacchus]

You have a strange compaionship with meaning, Iacchus. You infer whatever you wish without evidence or implication.

Am I the one who insists that meaning is pretty much what we make of it? No, absolutely not.

This seems to be a direct result of your love affair with your own subjective idealism. Most of us believe that truth resides in objective reality. We prefer the particle theory of science to the spirit/illusion description of Iacchus. We find value in the former and delusion in the latter.

Do I believe that there's an underlying sense of meaning -- albeit we can only relate to it in the relative sense -- which underscores our existence? Of course. Which, is none than the objective reality you're referring to here, although we clearly interpret it differently.

We do not deny subjective reality. We accept that it is a local appreciation of objective reality. It is truth with a small t.

Yet you seem to be quite sure of what you're speaking about here. How so?

Meaning resides in our subjective appreciation. It is not part of the external reality. It is found in us. We cannot escape it. It is part of our moment by moment appreciation of our existence.

Is this to say that our lives are not shaped by those things which occur around us?

You refer to 'meaning' where you mean the 'Meaning of Life.' You are always careless this way. As if your joy is not in exploring the underlying truth at all - it's more to obfuscate. You drop your responses out of a delusion disconnected from any real context. Your tone and terseness implies you think them gems and profound ones.

And why do you insist on provoking me into arrogance? Is this really what you think you'll find?

But you dare not answer even the questions you yourself raise.

That's because, at least in my mind, they've already been posed ... and answered.

What do you fathom is the Meaning of Human Life?

That existence is not wholly arbitrary, to begin with ... and, that one thing is not capable of happening without its interaction with something else.

 

[Atlas]

Atlas:You have a strange compaionship with meaning, Iacchus. You infer whatever you wish without evidence or implication.[/b]

Iacchus: Am I the one who insists that meaning is pretty much what we make of it? No, absolutely not.

No you don't insist,... you just do it. You make your own meaning - like the rest of us.

Iacchus:Do I believe that there's an underlying sense of meaning -- albeit we can only relate to it in the relative sense -- which underscores our existence? Of course. Which, is none than the objective reality you're referring to here, although we clearly interpret it differently.

I take this as an agreement with my previous assertion.

Atlas:We do not deny subjective reality. We accept that it is a local appreciation of objective reality. It is truth with a small t.

Iacchus: Yet you seem to be quite sure of what you're speaking about here. How so?

What part do I need to address? I'm missing what you wish me to clarify. I'll be happy to do so. Let me know.

Atlas:Meaning resides in our subjective appreciation. It is not part of the external reality. It is found in us. We cannot escape it. It is part of our moment by moment appreciation of our existence.

Iacchus: Is this to say that our lives are not shaped by those things which occur around us?

I don't know exactly how you're thinking about these things so I'm guessing about how to formulate my response.

Let's say that you were in a coma. Many things would happen in and around your hospital room. If the doctors chopped off your legs and arms it wouldn't make a whit of difference until you awakened and made a subjective measure of reality as you now appreciate it. Meaning would flood in.

Atlas:What do you fathom is the Meaning of Human Life?

Iacchus:That existence is not wholly arbitrary, to begin with ... and, that one thing is not capable of happening without its interaction with something else.

This actually surprised me. For someone with a belief in God that you'll fight to promote as well as being someone who finds it so important to interject "meaning" into every observation and idea presented by non-idealists, the depth you fathom here seems decidedly shallow. There is nothing transcendent. It's even presented in the negative. It's not this and that. You agree that it's arbitrary but not completely arbitrary (whatever that means.) And, if I may paraphrase, nothing happens without a cause. Pretty mundane stuff. And very much divorced from our everyday existence. That is, your meaning of human life does not resonate with the "soul" nor with human individuality. For the casual reader it would be devoid of meaning. I would have given you higher marks had you answered: "The scent of a wild flower." This is what you point us toward all the time... "Just look around," you say. Somehow, to be convincing, you must articulate the transcendence you feel in you subjective appreciation of your life within creation. You've got a particular joy of life that comes through in many of your posts. Yah, you're a little crazy with the numerology stuff but I kinda get a kick out that kind of craziness. I don't like to find myself in arguments with you. I have a rich subjective appreciation of what is as well, and I am elevated by many of the same things you are, I'm sure. But you seem to enjoy the exchange more than the ideas inside the exchange. Am I right? Do you interject to awaken or just for the thrill of presenting an opposition. Your questioning style works best if you are able to articulate your own position when asked. You seem to use it as a shield to keep from having to articulate a clear position. Maybe I've sized you up wrong. Tell me.

Live well and enjoy the wild flowers.