• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Matter Really Exist?

Belz... said:
Actually, some of us have the ability to think in straight lines. Our ideas get from point A to point B. Yours go from point A to point A again, which is worthless.
Click to expand...
Yes, but with the curvature of space-time, straight lines wind up in cirlces don't they? Indeed, look at the curvature of the earth. There was a time when we all thought the earth was flat, and it was simply a matter of predicting what occurs between point A and point B. Guess again ... In fact, staight lines (in nature) do not exist.
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
The mind is the physical process of observing time and space. It is an evoked property, not a causal entity. It is dependent on time and space, and could not exist "outside" of time and space, whatever that might mean.
Click to expand...
So, what does time and space mean outside of the label the mind puts on it? Are you suggesting that the mind is not capable of being objective then? If not, then what exactly are we referring to by the nature of time and space? How is it possible to explain anything, without some degree of objectivity towards it?

Did you watch the videos yet? You will see that one major difference between your view and mine is that mine is supported by evidence, whereas yours is pure conjecture.
Click to expand...
Evidence that exists outside of the mind that observes it? No.
 
Iacchus said:
The mind is capable of observing time and space. Does that put it inside of time and space? Or, outside of time and space? Why do you refer to the things that exist within time and space as your being objective then?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it follows that the observer must be outside time and space. Indeed, how would this observer have any sense of time OR space if it was ?
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, but with the curvature of space-time, straight lines wind up in cirlces don't they? Indeed, look at the curvature of the earth. There was a time when we all thought the earth was flat, and it was simply a matter of predicting what occurs between point A and point B. Guess again ... In fact, staight lines (in nature) do not exist.
Click to expand...

Are you purposely trolling, Iacchus ? Or do you genuinely don't understand anything that anyone is saying ? Stop moving things around. I wasn't talking about spacetime or the actual existence of straight lines relative to the curvature of the universe. I was talking about your circular logic.
 
Iacchus said:
So, what does time and space mean outside of the label the mind puts on it? Are you suggesting that the mind is not capable of being objective then? If not, then what exactly are we referring to by the nature of time and space? How is it possible to explain anything, without some degree of objectivity towards it?
Click to expand...

You're redefining terms again. You CAN be objective by examining evidence and agreeing with other "minds" as to what it means. I don't know what you think "objective" means, but I'm sure that...

...you are quite simply wrong.

Evidence that exists outside of the mind that observes it? No.
Click to expand...

Nothing exists "inside" your mind. Again, you're just continuously, aggressively, as Mercutio put it, assuming your conclusion.
 
Iacchus said:
So, what does time and space mean outside of the label the mind puts on it?
Click to expand...
What does it mean? In what sense? Do you mean mean to mean something other than just what it is? Can something be X, but mean something other than X?
Are you suggesting that the mind is not capable of being objective then?
Click to expand...
Your question presupposes the existence of mind in the first place; my contention is that it is illusory, and that your question is meaningless. But...in normal parlance, the "mind" is by definition subjective, not objective.
If not, then what exactly are we referring to by the nature of time and space?
Click to expand...
Again with the redefined words...what are "we" referring to? I don't know what you are referring to, so I can't answer that.
How is it possible to explain anything, without some degree of objectivity towards it?
Click to expand...
Intersubjective validation. Search for it. Hoyt has some good posts on the concept.
Evidence that exists outside of the mind that observes it? No.
Click to expand...
So, you have not watched them, then.
 
Mercutio said:
What does it mean? In what sense? Do you mean mean to mean something other than just what it is? Can something be X, but mean something other than X?
Click to expand...
Pick up hammer.
Strike yourself in the head.
Wait a few minutes.
Repeat steps until loss of consciousness or until you tire of the exercises.

Myself, I have to take a break for awhile.

Have fun.

ETA: I'm sure I'll be back. There's nothing like talking to a brick wall or striking ones self in the head with a hammer.
 
Belz... said:
You're redefining terms again. You CAN be objective by examining evidence and agreeing with other "minds" as to what it means. I don't know what you think "objective" means, but I'm sure that...
Click to expand...
When I look at a pop can, I am looking at it from the outside, not from within it. Therefore I am objective to, not subjective to, the pop can.
 
Iacchus said:
It does not add anything to fact that I am conscious ... and, that this is the only cue that I have, towards anything.
Click to expand...
Without watching them, you cannot know this.

They may--you cannot be certain they do not--add quite a bit to that "fact". They may--unless you have seen them, you cannot know--change your entire perspective on consciousness.

There are none so blind as those who will not see...
 
Iacchus said:
When I look at a pop can, I am looking at it from the outside, not from within it. Therefore I am objective to, not subjective to, the pop can.
Click to expand...

Ok, you're making me open a dictionary for you.
ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.

1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
...
Click to expand...

Main Entry: sub·jec·tive
Pronunciation: (")s&b-'jek-tiv
Function: adjective
1 a : relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience <subjective reality> b : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind c : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
2 a : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> b : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes and not observable by an examiner <a subjective symptom of disease> <caused objective or subjective clinical improvement or both —Journal of the American Medical Association> —compare OBJECTIVE 2 —sub·jec·tive·ly adverb
Click to expand...

Is it clear now that you're badly misusing both words?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I don't see how it follows that the observer must be outside time and space. Indeed, how would this observer have any sense of time OR space if it was ?
Click to expand...
By observing it of course. Does the table observe that it's a table, sitting amidst a bunch of chairs? I seriously doubt it.
 
Iacchus said:
The mind is capable of observing time and space. Does that put it inside of time and space? Or, outside of time and space? Why do you refer to the things that exist within time and space as your being objective then?
Click to expand...
I never used the word "objective," so I have not referred to things that exist in time and space that way. I view things subjectively, and hope by the use of reason to understand them objectively. I do not know what that word means to you, except insofar as it appears that it means something to you that it does not mean to anyone else.

Things within space and time can interact with each other. You do not have to be outside of the universe to experience it, and in fact one might argue the reverse. Whether a process or an entity, my mind certainly exists or occurs in time, and if the term "within" can apply to it at all, then it exists within space or as a consequence of something that is within space. "Within" is a word of space. There is no within without space. If you use the word "within" you are referring to space. There is no space without space. If we are to engage in sane discourse, we must have some common logic. a cannot be not-A.
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, to observe the phenomenon called the pop can. This is called being objective.
Click to expand...

I would contend that the observation is subjective. It is always a product of your senses, your position, your bias, your choice of objects to observe, the context of the can, and your faculties. It is the appraisal that may or may not be objective, depending on what your mind attributes to the pop can other than what is actually there.
 
bruto said:
I never used the word "objective," so I have not referred to things that exist in time and space that way. I view things subjectively, and hope by the use of reason to understand them objectively. I do not know what that word means to you, except insofar as it appears that it means something to you that it does not mean to anyone else.
Click to expand...
An awareness of anything "other" is the begining of its classification, and therefore becomes a phenomenon.

Things within space and time can interact with each other..
Click to expand...
Yes, and within the realm of a conscious Universe (let's say hologram), these things exist at a lower threshold.

You do not have to be outside of the universe to experience it, and in fact one might argue the reverse. Whether a process or an entity, my mind certainly exists or occurs in time, and if the term "within" can apply to it at all, then it exists within space or as a consequence of something that is within space. "Within" is a word of space. There is no within without space. If you use the word "within" you are referring to space. There is no space without space. If we are to engage in sane discourse, we must have some common logic. a cannot be not-A.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Universe is one big interactive experience. Which, is why it lends itself so well to the notion of being conscious.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
I would contend that the observation is subjective. It is always a product of your senses, your position, your bias, your choice of objects to observe, the context of the can, and your faculties. It is the appraisal that may or may not be objective, depending on what your mind attributes to the pop can other than what is actually there.
Click to expand...
Then you are merely guessing when you claim to be objective ... Which is to say, outside of what's in your mind, there's nothing out there.
 
Iacchus said:
Then you are merely guessing when you claim to be objective ... Which is to say, outside of what's in your mind, there's nothing out there.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be objective. You will never find any such claim in anything I have so far written. I believe that there is a world outside my mind. If I did not, I would be insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom