Individual experience for The One

[Wudang]

and Lifegazer still hasn't told us the results of his experiment, remember?

Increased font size as lg missed it somehow

 

[RandFan]

and Lifegazer still hasn't told us the results of his experiment, remember?

IT'S TRUE! (see emphasis)

Gazer?

 

[lifegazer]

Paging Captain Obvious, you are needed in the latest LG thread...

You mean the thread where I state that science requires reform because it's theories & research are dependent upon the necessity of the reality of the world being a given, and everyone just mocks me? That thread?
No, I am not needed there except for people here without an outlet for their mockery. But thanks anyway.

Given that (no matter what your philosophical stance is) the fact that the brain, the body, the mind, subjective reality, intersubjective reality, and objective reality are part of the same system, what you are saying is patently obvious to anyone who has done even a minimal amount of thinking on the topic.

Excuse me, but only the exceptionally astute realise that the experience of 'a brain', cannot be the cause of the experience of thought/emotion.
I've been discussing these things/concepts for several years now; and I can - hand-on-heart - promise you that I've yet to meet an exceptionally astute person; since I have yet to meet anybody in here who does not attribute the causality and control of thought/emotion to the [experience that is the] brain!

Pardon me for being negative or cynical.

Um, no. We have a staggering amout of evidence that reality actually exists.

Sighhhhhhhhh.
You have ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOO evidence that 'reality' exists. And considering your previous statement, this statement just amounts to stupidity or ignorance.
LISTEN to me - there is NO experience that provides evidence of a reality!!!!! Contemplate, or diminish.
I'm awaiting higher response.

If we have no relationship with objective reality (no matter how defined), how do you explain the apparent coherence of other people's experiences with yours? Your definition above is that of solipsism.

What "other people"?
You automatically proclaim the existence of other beings, separate to 'me'. Yet even 'i' (lifegazer) am an experience unto Myself.

Same ol' same ol'.
What's up with you guys? Why don't you understand that your notion of 'yourself' is a judgement made in the face of experience?

The reality of our being, like the reality of any-thing else, cannot be that which is experienced.

 

[lifegazer]

I know this is pointless, but take a degree worth of courses on philosophy and on psychology before you continue doing these pointless things. We are all sorry you don't get it, we keep trying to help you get it, you apparently have no interest in getting it. Goodbye and have an interesting life.

What a ******* bozo.
Explain to this forum how a degree in philosophy will benefit me except for the following listed qualities:
1) I will be able to parrot many of the thoughts/words of famous philosophers and will appear to be serious about philosophy.
2) I will appear smart because the establishment will have bestowed upon me an award worthy of themselves, even though that establishment has done nothing to serve humanity as a whole... as of yet.
3) Errr, sorry, I cannot think of any other benefits.

The facts of the matter are:
a) Philosophy hasn't matured yet. We still consider philosophers who had assumed the reality of the world, to have had something substantial to say, just because they used big words in their literature and sounded clever.
b) Parroting a famous man's words doesn't make you worthy.
c) Philsophy is split, remember. Some clever philosophers actually believed in the existence of God!!!!!!!!! Perhaps they were on drugs, eh.
d) Philosophy requires reform too. There should be zero tolerance for PHILOSOPHICAL theories borne of assumption. Let's stick with the ******* evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are times when swearing should be legitimate.
When some ******* idiot informs me that I will benefit from a degree from an establishment that cannot even understand - even in the 21st century - that the world is, without doubt, an internal experience, then I really really wanna blow out some hot air.

I'm soooooooooo ******* sick of ******* bozos like you mate.

 

[lifegazer]

Here's how it is...

My philosophy negates all responses which claim 'the brain' creates and controls experience.
There isn't a philosopher on Earth - dead or alive - that can negate anything I have said.
... And certainly, scientists are included in this judgement.

We ONLY have evidence of the 'experience' of a brain.
An experience cannot be the cause of all other experience!!
We also know that thoughts/emotions alter the state of brain/body as much as vice-versa.

Now, we have to seriously study the content of my opening-post!

 

[Tricky]

I don't have much use for the formal study of philosophy either, but you should at least be aware that the ridiculous stuff you spout here is philosophy, and it's not particularly original either. Those like Geoff who do study philosophy can probably tell you what "clever philosopher" was most closely associated with your ideas. So in reality, you are not even quoting famous guys, but just paraphrasing them.

As for me, I'm more interested in science because it is a better way of finding truth than classical philosophy (yeah, I know science is a philosophy.) However, even without formal training I can smell BS. Even over the internet.
***
ETA

Now, we have to seriously study the content of my opening-post!

Wollery already did. (He has more patience than I.) Nowhere in your pompous, windy rant, did you ever address his comments.

 

[RandFan]

You mean the thread where I state that science requires reform because it's theories & research are dependent upon the necessity of the reality of the world being a given, and everyone just mocks me? That thread?

No, I am not needed there except for people here without an outlet for their mockery. But thanks anyway.

Excuse me, but only the exceptionally astute realise that the experience of 'a brain', cannot be the cause of the experience of thought/emotion.
I've been discussing these things/concepts for several years now; and I can - hand-on-heart - promise you that I've yet to meet an exceptionally astute person; since I have yet to meet anybody in here who does not attribute the causality and control of thought/emotion to the [experience that is the] brain!

Oh, it's OUR fault. We're not astute. Please.

You have ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOO evidence that 'reality' exists.

I have a lot of evidence. I simply choose to accept the evidence. You choose to ignore it, well, to an extent you ignore it. You eat, you sleep, you work, you find shelter.

The fiddler plays and you dance. Now you can believe that there is no fiddler but you go on dancing.

And considering your previous statement, this statement just amounts to stupidity or ignorance.

Yep, when everyone disagrees with you it is because everyone is stupid. Same thing happened to Reverend Jim Jones and David Koresh.

LISTEN to me - there is NO experience that provides evidence of a reality!!!!! Contemplate, or diminish.

(see emphasis)

I'm awaiting higher response.

Hale-Bopp isn't due for another 2000+ years.

What "other people"?
You automatically proclaim the existence of other beings, separate to 'me'. Yet even 'i' (lifegazer) am an experience unto Myself.

Same ol' same ol'.
What's up with you guys? Why don't you understand that your notion of 'yourself' is a judgement made in the face of experience?

The reality of our being, like the reality of any-thing else, cannot be that which is experienced.

So you say. Why should anyone agree with you? Because of your fancy COLOR AND EMPHASIS

 

[RandFan]

My philosophy negates all responses which claim 'the brain' creates and controls experience.
There isn't a philosopher on Earth - dead or alive - that can negate anything I have said.
... And certainly, scientists are included in this judgement.

We ONLY have evidence of the 'experience' of a brain.
An experience cannot be the cause of all other experience!!
We also know that thoughts/emotions alter the state of brain/body as much as vice-versa.

Now, we have to seriously study the content of my opening-post!

No. But thanks for the heads up anyway.

 

[RandFan]

I'm soooooooooo ******* sick...

You are not the only one sick my confused friend.

 

[lifegazer]

Let's get serious...

Okay. No more BS. No more nonsense about 'brains' creating thoughts and feelings. 'Brains' are no less an experience than the thoughts and feelings we have about them.
The whole world is an experience - brains included!

So, where do we stand now?
... Singularness embracing complex experience, is where we stand!

'You' are singular.

Contemplate the previous statement for more than 0.01 of a second, for a change. Once you understand the profundity of the singularness of Self, there is nothing else to contemplate - since there is no-thing else in self!

You aren't yet ready for anything else. I shall finish at this point, for now.

 

[The Atheist]

Ok, so I'm new here and haven't yet probed the depths of ignorance available from some of the members, but I have to wonder how someone with thousands of posts in here could still get this rubbish even discussed.

As has already been pointed out, this person is undertaking a philosophical argument without even understanding that it is philosophy - and a very weak brand of it at that.

Still, I guess everyone likes to take a potshot at dairy cows with an AK47 every now and then, easy targets are occasionally irresistable.

 

[lifegazer]

Wollery is the saviour of atheism and selfishness?
Why?
Tell me, what does Mr. W have to say that sustains the reality of the world via our experience?
I saw nothing in his post that justifies such idolatry, except the desire in the person who posted that drivel to sustain the reality of his own cartoon-character.

You are not 'Tricky'.

 

[RandFan]

Okay. No more BS. No more nonsense about 'brains' creating thoughts and feelings. 'Brains' are no less an experience than the thoughts and feelings we have about them.
The whole world is an experience - brains included!

So, where do we stand now?
... Singularness embracing complex experience, is where we stand!

'You' are singular.

Contemplate the previous statement for more than 0.01 of a second, for a change. Once you understand the profundity of the singularness of Self, there is nothing else to contemplate - since there is no-thing else in self!

You aren't yet ready for anything else. I shall finish at this point, for now.

Ooohhh.... look at all of the emphasis.

I stand in the state of reality. I choose to accept that it is real. Like you I don't have many choices. Like you I live as if it is real. You want to believe that it isn't real because you lack a way to prove it outside of our perceptions. I don't see the point to that.

So color me not-astute.

 

[lifegazer]

but I have to wonder how someone with thousands of posts in here could still get this rubbish even discussed.

BS.
Without people like me, you cannot even have a forum like this. How can you be skeptical unless ideoligies opposed to yours, exist?

As has already been pointed out, this person is undertaking a philosophical argument without even understanding that it is philosophy - and a very weak brand of it at that.

Philosophy is the pursuit of truth.
You cannot judge my brand of philosophy unless you have a preconceived idea of what 'truth' is.
Do you?

Still, I guess everyone likes to take a potshot at dairy cows with an AK47 every now and then, easy targets are occasionally irresistable.

I've faced all manner of extreme abuse from a multitude of people for quite a while now.
Since this is our first meet, I give you the chance to grow or to diminish.
I will not destroy your credibility until you have had a chance to ponder everything.
Next time you address me, I will not give you such freedom.

 

[lifegazer]

I stand in the state of reality. I choose to accept that it is real.

Emotion has zero influence in a philosophical debate about 'truth'.

Put reason before emotion. Stop talking like a ******* dork.

 

[RandFan]

Ok, so I'm new here and haven't yet probed the depths of ignorance available from some of the members, but I have to wonder how someone with thousands of posts in here could still get this rubbish even discussed.

As has already been pointed out, this person is undertaking a philosophical argument without even understanding that it is philosophy - and a very weak brand of it at that.

Still, I guess everyone likes to take a potshot at dairy cows with an AK47 every now and then, easy targets are occasionally irresistable.

Welcome Atheist. Gazer understands that it is philosophy, what he doesn't understand is philosophy.

 

[RandFan]

I've faced all manner of extreme abuse from a multitude of people for quite a while now.

Martyr complex, already? Being away didn't help much.

 

[RandFan]

Emotion has zero influence in a philosophical debate about 'truth'.

I did not appeal to emotion neither did I display it. Oh, and gazer, spiffy colors, underligned type, bold type, etc., don't have much influence either.

Put reason before emotion. Stop talking like a ******* dork.

Maturity gazer style.

 

[nescafe]

Given that (no matter what your philosophical stance is) the fact that the brain, the body, the mind, subjective reality, intersubjective reality, and objective reality are part of the same system, what you are saying is patently obvious to anyone who has done even a minimal amount of thinking on the topic.

Excuse me, but only the exceptionally astute realise that the experience of 'a brain', cannot be the cause of the experience of thought/emotion.
I've been discussing these things/concepts for several years now; and I can - hand-on-heart - promise you that I've yet to meet an exceptionally astute person; since I have yet to meet anybody in here who does not attribute the causality and control of thought/emotion to the [experience that is the] brain!

So you are violently agreeing with me, then? Drugs and brain surgery affect the physical brain, and therefore can affect the bundle of thoughts, experiences, memories, etc. that comprise the self. You just think that it takes an especially sharp cookie to figure that out, and I think that anyone who does at least a minimal amount of experimentation and reflection on the topic can come to this conclusion.

You have ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOO evidence that 'reality' exists. And considering your previous statement, this statement just amounts to stupidity or ignorance.
LISTEN to me - there is NO experience that provides evidence of a reality!!!!! Contemplate, or diminish.

Well, since you did not state what you meant by 'reality', I will just run down my usual list of what people normally mean by 'reality':

• Subjective reality: Denying that I exist is a purely logical error, because if I did not exist I would not be thinking these thoughts about my nonexistence.
• Noumenal (sometimes Objective) reality: By itself, subjective reality does not seem to be sufficent to explain the suprising and often counterintuitive regularities in my experiences, and the even more suprising complexity that can be explained in terms of those regularities. Even more suprising, my experiences by themselves do not seem be sufficent to explain why those experiences happen. Hence, some form of reality outside my experiences is needed to explain these regularities.
• The subjective reality of other people: In my experiences, I have experiences of entities who appear to have similar thoughts, memories, experiences, etc. as me. They appear to communicate with me in a language that is mutually (thought not perfectly) intelligeble. Since they appear to be at least as complex as me in their motivations, I assume that they do (while knowing that I can neither prove nor disprove that they do) in fact, posess the same sort of inner complexity that I have.
• Intersubjective (also sometimes Objective) reality: Since I can communicate with these other people, we can talk about our respective experiences and what we find we have in common, and what we do not have in common. In the course of this communication, I find that we have a whole lot of experience in common, and can in fact describe vast swaths of this shared experience in terms that are as unambiguous as we can make them.

So, which sense of 'reality' are you claiming that I have no evidence for?

What "other people"?
You automatically proclaim the existence of other beings, separate to 'me'. Yet even 'i' (lifegazer) am an experience unto Myself.

Well, then, you seem to be having quite a lively and interesting discussion with yourself. However, the Moderators might take exception to the huge number of apparent sock puppets you use to debate yourself.

Same ol' same ol'.
What's up with you guys? Why don't you understand that your notion of 'yourself' is a judgement made in the face of experience?

Oh, I, at least, am quite aware of it. The concept of the self as a constructed entity (as in not existing except as the sum of all ones thoughts, emotions, memories, etc.) is at least 2500 years old (and probably much older).

The reality of our being, like the reality of any-thing else, cannot be that which is experienced.

Hence the requirement for some sort of reality outside ourselves.

 

[Tricky]

Wollery is the saviour of atheism and selfishness?
Why?

You were the one who was complaining that there hadn't been serious replies to your OP, but you didn't respond to the ones that were there.

I don't regard Wollery as a savior of anything. I hardly know the fellow. (Or lady. I don't always check the profiles.)

Tell me, what does Mr. W have to say that sustains the reality of the world via our experience?

Why don't you ask him. He seems to have uncommon tolerance for your babbling. But if he answers and you ignore him, as he did and you did earlier, then that tends to make one avoid wasting the energy to answer an inconsiderate lout.

I saw nothing in his post that justifies such idolatry, except the desire in the person who posted that drivel to sustain the reality of his own cartoon-character.

LOL. Well, I will concede that you are the local expert on drivel, at least from a creative standpoint.

You are not 'Tricky'.

No, that's just my name. I'm pretty much straightforward in real life. I try to eschew obfuscation.