Does Matter Really Exist?

[ImaginalDisc]

As if to say, we should not examine who is doing the examining? Whereas if we are to examine it, shouldn't the ability to examine be tantamount and come first? Because of whatever we examine, it will always be contingent upon our ability to examine, regardless of where it takes us.

The principles of scitenific rigor, the scientific method, and peer-review make the nature of the person doing the examining superfluous. If you don't think Bob is a good scientist, do Bob's observations yourself.

 

[Mercutio]

As if to say, we should not examine who is doing the examining? Whereas if we are to examine it, shouldn't the ability to examine be tantamount and come first? Because of whatever we examine, it will always be contingent upon our ability to examine, regardless of where it takes us.

I wholeheartedly agree with your post as written, although frankly I do not think that you mean it as you have written it. Combining your post with the excellent advice from thesyntaxera:

Your asking the "what does it all mean" question in an attempt to either have your worldview validated, or to find out the flaws in your worldview so you can adapt it to be more acceptable....at least it appears so, but that is only an assumption...either way, what you should do is simply learn as much as you can about the world and universe from a cautious, cross referencing, double blind point of view, anyone who tries to tell you what it all means, and claims they can back it up has an agenda of drawing attention to themselves for having figured it out.

Don't get caught up in the mysticism, because any examination of the universe and it's workings is metaphyiscal enough for most scientists.

good luck.

It would be a very good idea to study "the examiner" in a scientific manner. This is precisely the job of psychology, more precisely the areas of sensation & perception, memory, and social cognition. Studying the examiner has allowed us to demonstrate clearly that our introspective accounts are biased an inaccurate. The more you know about this, the better fit you are to discount the less accurate means of gathering knowledge, like--just as an example--dreams and numerology.

 

[Iacchus]

I wholeheartedly agree with your post as written, although frankly I do not think that you mean it as you have written it. Combining your post with the excellent advice from thesyntaxera:

It would be a very good idea to study "the examiner" in a scientific manner. This is precisely the job of psychology, more precisely the areas of sensation & perception, memory, and social cognition. Studying the examiner has allowed us to demonstrate clearly that our introspective accounts are biased an inaccurate. The more you know about this, the better fit you are to discount the less accurate means of gathering knowledge, like--just as an example--dreams and numerology.

Sorry, I happen to be immersed in the media right now, not the means by which to display it. This, in fact, will never change.

 

[Belz...]

Why must one assume anything, outside of the fact of not knowing that is?

First off, that could also be construed as an assumption. Second, the assumption that what we perceive is real, insofar as we can confirm its existence by verifying it with other people, is crucial to our ability to reach ANY conclusion by using objective evidence.

If we assume that what we perceive is false, then nothing is true, or anything goes, depending. How would that be useful ?

As if to say, we should not examine who is doing the examining?

We are. Science has shown quite a lot about the biology and psychology of human consciousness. Only you seem to remain in your dark-age philosophy. That said, it's no surprise that you find all this mysterious. We've moved on.

Sorry, I happen to be immersed in the media right now, not the means by which to display it. This, in fact, will never change.

Why are you so damned happy about flaunting your close-mindedness ?

 

[Mercutio]

Sorry, I happen to be immersed in the media right now, not the means by which to display it. This, in fact, will never change.

Hehehehe...you finally write something I can agree with wholeheartedly, and when the meaning of your words is exposed, you break land speed records for backpedalling.

 

[RandFan]

Wow, I didn't realize there were multiple threads with the same topic by the same person, and this one is over 20 pages! I am amazed, is it safe to assume that the content of this thread is repetitive?

Assume that you know nothing, because you could always be proven wrong, assume that what appears real is real, no amount of philosophical meandering and pondering is going to make matter inconsequential.

Your asking the "what does it all mean" question in an attempt to either have your worldview validated, or to find out the flaws in your worldview so you can adapt it to be more acceptable....at least it appears so, but that is only an assumption...either way, what you should do is simply learn as much as you can about the world and universe from a cautious, cross referencing, double blind point of view, anyone who tries to tell you what it all means, and claims they can back it up has an agenda of drawing attention to themselves for having figured it out.

Don't get caught up in the mysticism, because any examination of the universe and it's workings is metaphyiscal enough for most scientists.

good luck.

Good post.

 

[Iacchus]

First off, that could also be construed as an assumption. Second, the assumption that what we perceive is real, insofar as we can confirm its existence by verifying it with other people, is crucial to our ability to reach ANY conclusion by using objective evidence.

Yes, it all depends on who's doing the assuming.

If we assume that what we perceive is false, then nothing is true, or anything goes, depending. How would that be useful ?

How do you know for a fact that I've assumed anything ... outside of the fact that you've assumed this was so?

We are. Science has shown quite a lot about the biology and psychology of human consciousness. Only you seem to remain in your dark-age philosophy. That said, it's no surprise that you find all this mysterious. We've moved on.

It is not possible for me to know anything until it is given to me to know. And by that, it means I have to be able to see if for myself.

Why are you so damned happy about flaunting your close-mindedness ?

As the ghost in the machine, I am quite happy.

 

[DreadNiK]

It is not possible for me to know anything until it is given to me to know. And by that, it means I have to be able to see if for myself.

Could you clarify this?

 

[Iacchus]

Hehehehe...you finally write something I can agree with wholeheartedly, and when the meaning of your words is exposed, you break land speed records for backpedalling.

Really? Read it again. I said the whole thing is contingent upon our ability to examine things, first and foremost, not what we examine. And, that no matter where it takes us, this will always be tantamount. In other words, it is not possible to approach our lack of knowing, unless we approach it from the standpoint of a greater knowing than our own. This in fact is what speaks to us and makes sense of it all.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it all depends on who's doing the assuming.

No it doesn't. Unless we assume that reality is real, no conclusion can be reached. It doesn't matter WHO does the assuming.

How do you know for a fact that I've assumed anything ... outside of the fact that you've assumed this was so?

You said it yourself. You believe that your subjective assumptions are more important than objective evidence... presumably because it makes you feel better.

It is not possible for me to know anything until it is given to me to know. And by that, it means I have to be able to see if for myself.

Really ? That explains why you know so little. I know, for example, that beign paralysed SUCKS, though it never happened to me.

As the ghost in the machine, I am quite happy.

That was quite a clumsy dodge, you did there. You're close-minded. You say so, yourself, time and time again. You're happy to be close-minded because you would otherwise feel doubt. It has nothing to do with your silly theories. It has everything to do with putting your mind at ease, as if that could tell you anything about reality.

 

[Iacchus]

That was quite a clumsy dodge, you did there. You're close-minded. You say so, yourself, time and time again. You're happy to be close-minded because you would otherwise feel doubt. It has nothing to do with your silly theories. It has everything to do with putting your mind at ease, as if that could tell you anything about reality.

What, that I am the ghost in the machine and won't recant? Again, it is merely an assumption on your part to suggest I have no grounds for saying it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

What, that I am the ghost in the machine and won't recant? Again, it is merely an assumption on your part to suggest I have no grounds for saying it.

No, it's a conclusion. Case in point, my grand aunt had a massive stroke a few years ago. One day, she was as sharp as a tack, the next day, she couldn't remember anyone's name. The woman I had known vanished. Her memories, experiances, and much her presonnality was wiped away. You, Iaachus, are physical being. Your mind is susceptible to physical influences.

 

[Mercutio]

What, that I am the ghost in the machine and won't recant? Again, it is merely an assumption on your part to suggest I have no grounds for saying it.

You are quite simply wrong.

You have had ample opportunity to make your case. You have not. You have failed in evidence, logic, and even consistency. You disagree with even yourself.

You have demonstrated that you have no grounds for believability. Time and time again. The above-quoted post is merely the most recent bit of evidence.

 

[Iacchus]

No, it's a conclusion. Case in point, my grand aunt had a massive stroke a few years ago. One day, she was as sharp as a tack, the next day, she couldn't remember anyone's name. The woman I had known vanished. Her memories, experiances, and much her presonnality was wiped away. You, Iaachus, are physical being. Your mind is susceptible to physical influences.

So, where did she go, if she wasn't in fact the ghost in the machine?

 

[Iacchus]

You are quite simply wrong.

You have had ample opportunity to make your case. You have not. You have failed in evidence, logic, and even consistency. You disagree with even yourself.

You have demonstrated that you have no grounds for believability. Time and time again. The above-quoted post is merely the most recent bit of evidence.

The only answers we can hope to find are within the experience of consciousness itself, not outside of it.

 

[RandFan]

The only answers we can hope to find are within the experience of consciousness itself, not outside of it.

{sigh} We can come to conclusions based on observations of the external world. Answers that are consistent and coherent. So what if all of the information must be processed through our consciousness itself? Once we stop relying on objective data then all notions of god, fairies, demons, unicorns or the matrix are equally valid.

I choose to rely on objective data.

 

[Iacchus]

{sigh} We can come to conclusions based on observations of the external world. Answers that are consistent and coherent. So what if all of the information must be processed through our consciousness itself? Once we stop relying on objective data then all notions of god, fairies, demons, unicorns or the matrix are equally valid.

I choose to rely on objective data.

All the world's a stage. So what? ... Neither does this tell us who staged it or, what it's trying to teach us. There is nothing about its understanding, however, that does not entail the conscious experience.

 

[Iacchus]

I choose to rely on objective data.

Which of course tells us nothing about who is at home watching the show.

 

[Iacchus]

It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based on ignorance. It is perfectly fine to conjecture and speculate but bear in mind that absent evidence or a logical proof one conjecture is as good as another. I choose to conjecture that I'm in the Matrix and that I am Neo. I am the savior of humanity awaiting my awakening. I'm looking for the white rabbit.

Ok?

I am self-aware. All the evidence must be filtered through this first. If we have to look outside of self-awareness to establish what it is, then we can only conclude it's a phenomenon, just like everything else. Meaning, we have totally lost touch with ourselves.

 

[Belz...]

What, that I am the ghost in the machine and won't recant? Again, it is merely an assumption on your part to suggest I have no grounds for saying it.

No it's not. It's based on conclusive evidence. You have no grounds for saying anything. As I've said before, you're only believing this to make yourself feel better.

So, where did she go, if she wasn't in fact the ghost in the machine?

She didn't go anywhere. His point is that, if it was a "ghost", she wouldn't have changed after the accident.

All the world's a stage. So what? ... Neither does this tell us who staged it or, what it's trying to teach us. There is nothing about its understanding, however, that does not entail the conscious experience.

There is nothing about it that does, really.

I am self-aware. All the evidence must be filtered through this first.

Again, a powerful-enough computer can analyse data and come to conclusions, then re-interpret that with NEW data and improve itself. It doesn't need to be sentient in order for it to do that, unless you contend that we created a new form of consciousness.

If we have to look outside of self-awareness to establish what it is, then we can only conclude it's a phenomenon, just like everything else. Meaning, we have totally lost touch with ourselves.

??? Huh ? Or perhaps we have hit a mark. Awareness IS a phenomenon, too.