• 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?

Looking at the "receiver" problem as basic physics in 4d space, a human body does nothing except receive, process, and transmit energy via photon interactions, given that the interactions that constitute mass are also involve.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
When living in a "free society," and people are allowed to think for themselves, this is a given. When living under the auspices of a tyrant or external authority, perhaps not.
Click to expand...
Nice, but completely irrelevant. At least I had the courtesy to make sure my comment was actually related to yours.
 
Iacchus said:
And I suppose you're not familiar with any of the equipment they use in a sound studio? Those aren't the real voices of the cartoon characters that you see on TV you know. ;)
Click to expand...
I will take this as an admission that you are, in fact, defining things differently than the rest of us are....again.
 
hammegk said:
Looking at the "receiver" problem as basic physics in 4d space, a human body does nothing except receive, process, and transmit energy via photon interactions, given that the interactions that constitute mass are also involve.
Click to expand...
As does everything else, when you put it that way. Not a helpful level of analysis.
 
Yes, and there could very well be something substantial that exists on the other side of this "barrier" ... a continuum or, spiritual reality which, is not contingent upon time and space.
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, and there could very well be something substantial that exists on the other side of this "barrier" ... a continuum or, spiritual reality which, is not contingent upon time and space.
Click to expand...
Could very well be?

You say this based on what? There is absolutely no way for you to know this. If there "could very well be" this, then all bets are off. Any fantastical notion, the result of fever, mushrooms, hypoxia or lunacy has equal footing with this notion which you say "could very well be".

This dilutes the meaning of "could very well be" beyond a homeopath's wet dream. There is, nor can ever be, any evidence whatsoever to support your contention (by its very definition). Tell me, Iacchus, do you play the lottery? Your odds of winning the jackpot each week are essentially infinitely better than the odds of your conjecture here...and your conjecture you say "could very well be".

Do you even think about the things you write?
 
Mercutio said:
Could very well be?

You say this based on what? There is absolutely no way for you to know this. If there "could very well be" this, then all bets are off. Any fantastical notion, the result of fever, mushrooms, hypoxia or lunacy has equal footing with this notion which you say "could very well be".

This dilutes the meaning of "could very well be" beyond a homeopath's wet dream. There is, nor can ever be, any evidence whatsoever to support your contention (by its very definition). Tell me, Iacchus, do you play the lottery? Your odds of winning the jackpot each week are essentially infinitely better than the odds of your conjecture here...and your conjecture you say "could very well be".

Do you even think about the things you write?
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose I could say I were absolutely sure. Then what? :confused:
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, but why should you have to rely on science to tell you that you are conscious? It sounds to me like the ball is pretty much in your court. Seeing as how you own a piece of the original equipment, that is.
Click to expand...
I don't rely on science to tell me that I'm conscious. I rely on science to tell me how consciousness works. Big difference.
 
Iacchus said:
Well, I suppose I could say I were absolutely sure. Then what? :confused:
Click to expand...
With anyone else, I would ask how you could be absolutely sure of something that you yourself claim is not contingent on time and space, things which by definition are the boundaries of your own limits of knowledge. With you, though, I already know the answer--you had a really cool dream.

Again, I am compelled to ask: Do you even think about the things you write?
 
Mercutio said:
With anyone else, I would ask how you could be absolutely sure of something that you yourself claim is not contingent on time and space, things which by definition are the boundaries of your own limits of knowledge. With you, though, I already know the answer--you had a really cool dream.

Again, I am compelled to ask: Do you even think about the things you write?
Click to expand...
Actually, there really is no way I can answer this, for someone who refuses to believe it's possible to know of such things.
 
Iacchus said:
Well, you have the world of energy (spirit) on the one hand, and the world of matter (mass) on the other. Hence coinciding with the dualistic nature of reality.
Click to expand...
You are quite simply wrong.

Not only are you wrong, but you are wrong on multiple levels, each and every one of which you have had explained to you at length on many previous threads.

Are you a troll, Iacchus? Do you write these things merely to elicit an irritated response? Or are you an idiot? Have you honestly learned nothing in your time here? Or do you have another explanation?

Energy is not spirit. Not by any definition of energy. Definitions of spirit are a dime a dozen and all equally worthless. Matter and mass are not the same. Energy and matter are not elements of a dualistic nature. Spirit and mass are only combined in your fevered imagination.

Just when I think you have said the most ignorant thing you have ever said (how long ago was that? A day? Two? Three?), you top (or bottom) yourself with this.

Ed help me, I can't even find it in myself to pity you.
 
Iacchus said:
Actually, there really is no way I can answer this, for someone who refuses to believe it's possible to know of such things.
Click to expand...
Nobody refuses to believe you, Iacchus. All you have to do is provide good, independantly verifiable evidence of the things you say/claim and we will gladly believe you. It is that simple.
 
RandFan said:
I don't rely on science to tell me that I'm conscious. I rely on science to tell me how consciousness works. Big difference.
Click to expand...
So, do you believe that there is an actual "you" that exists? Or, is it strictly a matter of what's programmed into "it" by the physical/material environment? There's a big difference you see.
 
Iacchus said:
So, do you believe that there is an actual "you" that exists? Or, is it strictly a matter of what's programmed into "it" by the physical/material environment? There's a big difference you see.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Iacchus, but you have forfeited the privilege of being taken seriously. You will have to demonstrate that you understand the words that *you* use before we will take anything you have to say about *our* words as anything more than comic relief.
 
Tricky said:
Nobody refuses to believe you, Iacchus. All you have to do is provide good, independantly verifiable evidence of the things you say/claim and we will gladly believe you. It is that simple.
Click to expand...
Oh, I believe that it's possible for other people to know of such things, just that I don't know whether it's "I," who can get them to see it. For it is the spirit that leads us.
 
Mercutio said:
Sorry, Iacchus, but you have forfeited the privilege of being taken seriously. You will have to demonstrate that you understand the words that *you* use before we will take anything you have to say about *our* words as anything more than comic relief.
Click to expand...
I can both live with and, die with that. Thanks.
 
Iacchus said:
Oh, I believe that it's possible for other people to know of such things, just that I don't know whether it's "I," who can get them to see it. For it is the spirit that leads us.
Click to expand...

Iacchus, how can you not know what "I" means?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom