• 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.

Individual experience for The One

lifegazer said:
BS.
Without people like me, you cannot even have a forum like this. How can you be skeptical unless ideoligies opposed to yours, exist?
Click to expand...
Oh, what a wonderful dream I had. Everyone in the world demanded proof of bald assertions, they expected medicine & science to be evidence based, and they all asked questions of the religious leaders (who were few and far between).

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?
Click to expand...
Well it's blatantly obvious that you do.

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.
Click to expand...
I'll bet The Atheist is just quaking in his boots now. Lifegazer, please don't destroy his credibility, please, please, pretty please! :rolleyes:
 
Tricky said:
I don't regard Wollery as a savior of anything. I hardly know the fellow. (Or lady. I don't always check the profiles.)
Click to expand...
Fellow, definitely.

{has a quick look}

Yep, all still there!

And I'm very good at saving! :D

Why don't you ask him. He seems to have uncommon tolerance for your babbling.
Click to expand...
I just don't think such stuff should go unanswered, and the best way to answer it is to point out the obvious flaws. That they're obvious to me just shows how inane they are.

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.
Click to expand...
OI, who are you calling an inconsid....... oh, yeah. Okay.

LOL. Well, I will concede that you are the local expert on drivel, at least from a creative standpoint.
Click to expand...
Creative? :confused:
 
nescafe said:
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?
Click to expand...

In another thread long ago before lifegazer threw a drama queen fit and announced his departure for a grand experiment that he now pretends never happened. You can draw what conclusions you will regarding honesty and integrity - anyway Upchurch patiently and persistently tried to help lifegazer firm up his ideas and got the usual insults in return when lfegazer failed to get the point.
LG insists that subjective reality is all we can rely on therefore noumenal reality must be singular (a word which he thinks has something to do with singularities thouh quite what is unclear). He has no explanation at all for the subjective reality of others or intersubjective reality.
In particular lifegazer had trouble with (from Uppy)
Upchurch said:
Silly and old hat though it may (or may not) be, the paradox remains unanswered.

lifegazer has stated that a "thing" only has existance because it is sensed. Therefore, an "object", of which no one is aware, cannot exist.

However, it is certainly the case that people have been struck by "objects" (paint cans, anvils, large rocks, etc.), of which they were totally unaware prior to the moment of impact. This implies that either (1) the mind randomly and unpredictably generates the hitting "object" out of nothingness or (2) there exists something outside the awareness of the mind.

(1) suggests that the mind is a tad masocistic and that the laws of the mind do not match up with the laws of physics (i.e. conservation of energy and matter). (2) contradicts lifegazer's fundamental assertion that only the mind exists.
Click to expand...
 
Hello Lifegazer

I don't know if you ever caught my very first thread I created when I joined but based on your very strong beliefs, I think you might like some of the ideas I brought to the table back then. You may have already thought along the same lines but I would be interested in your opinion.

Here's the link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51483

Hello everyone else

Just so that we're clear here, I'm not concerned what anyone else may think of my ideas in the my first thread, in case you decide to take a look, as I pretty much happily accepted any/all critical comments made back then and for me it is a closed topic. I am though, genuinely interested in what Lifegazer does think on a purely person to person exchange of ideas.

So, if everyone else here would kindly skip over my post here, I'll just hold on for some feedback from Lifegazer, or not.

Thank you.
 
Yum. A big bowl of circumlocutory dissemblement topped with herbed, freshly toasted soupçons would go great right about now.
 
Please, lifegazer, destroy my credibility!

Thanks for crediting me with some, I wasn't aware that I had it, but as you've offered it, I'll take it!

Quaking in my boots wouldn't begin to describe it.
 
Wudang said:
In another thread long ago before lifegazer threw a drama queen fit and announced his departure for a grand experiment that he now pretends never happened. You can draw what conclusions you will regarding honesty and integrity - anyway Upchurch patiently and persistently tried to help lifegazer firm up his ideas and got the usual insults in return when lfegazer failed to get the point.
Click to expand...
Yeah, after reading through some of LG's older threads (including the "I'm leaving, and will come back with Enormous Cosmic Powers, neener neener neener" thread), I have a better idea of his lack of grasp on reality.
Wudang said:
LG insists that subjective reality is all we can rely on therefore noumenal reality must be singular (a word which he thinks has something to do with singularities thouh quite what is unclear).
Click to expand...
Well, I have no problem with there being just one noumenal reality. Having more than one would kinda defeat the point. He does seem to be stuck in the stage of philosophical development where All is One is the most important statement in existence.
Wudang said:
He has no explanation at all for the subjective reality of others or intersubjective reality.
Click to expand...
Quite a shame, then -- those ones are what make life interesting. :)
 
lifegazer said:
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.
Click to expand...


That's cool with me - perhaps if you get sick enough you can barf out the old brain pan.......oops, sorry, already did (but that's o.k, you're not real anyway!!)!! Best - get over yourself - and love, Me :) :) :) :) :) :D
( Sorry, thisis just too easy - I'm going to some functional threads for awhile)
 
fuelair said:
That's cool with me - perhaps if you get sick enough you can barf out the old brain pan.......oops, sorry, already did (but that's o.k, you're not real anyway!!)!! Best - get over yourself - and love, Me :) :) :) :) :) :D
( Sorry, thisis just too easy - I'm going to some functional threads for awhile)
Click to expand...

And then I remembered I had not answered your points, rude of me.

Philosophy is wordgames, it can be fun but in the end it is just words - that's why although I have had philosophy courses I stay on the science/reality end of things. If you want to use up lots of time on word games about stuff science has nicely handled, feel free. My reason for suggesting the courses/degree is so you will have some vague notion of your formers and betters in that kind of word play.
 
Imaginative said:
I'll just hold on for some feedback from Lifegazer, or not.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Hello.
We are not on the same wavelength, I'm afraid.
I believe that existence is absolutely singular and that every ~thing~ else is a concept/thing gleaned from the relative relationships that are comprehended from within consciousness of the appearance of the world (appearance of divided existence).
In other words, there's no world, other than the experienced one.

I'm surprised you asked me for support. I can only assume you imagined I would support you due to my 'lonely position' within this forum.
Unfortunately, I do not side with theists for the sake of it. I'm a rationalist at-heart and would rather gather the truth than friends. Christians abhor me more than atheists, believe it or not.
Sorry.
 
nescafe said:
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.
Click to expand...

  • You won't find me denying the existence of any One here. My proclamation to 'all', is that you are not who you think you are.
    How could you be, since you think you are that ~thing~ which is experienced... and all experienced things have no reality in and of themselves.
    You are the experiencER - not that ~thing~ that is experienced.
    [*]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.
    Click to expand...
    [underlined emphasis, mine]
    This is incorrect. Why? Because something outside experience has to be separate from it, rather than intrinsic to it.
    [*]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.
    Click to expand...
    All entities that are experienced are phantoms/dreams - 'dancing sensations' [of an orderly nature] that create the inner-movie of the world and of humanity.
    [*]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.
    Click to expand...
You communicate with dozens of beings, every night when you sleep.
Please don't use the ability to communicate with 'other beings' as a proof for the actual existence of those beings.

You've never escaped the world of your mind, where sensations and thoughts and feelings entice the experiencER to believe that 'it' is a being within the experience.

Let's be clear here:-
The experienced-being is not the experiencER... just as the experience of the Moon is not 'the Moon'.

Objective reality is actually the experiencER.
Subjective reality is everything else that 'it' experiences or gleans via experience.
 
lifegazer said:
My proclamation to 'all', is that you are not who you think you are.

How could you be, since you think you are that ~thing~ which is experienced... and all experienced things have no reality in and of themselves.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur. The only thing we know is that we can't prove that what we experience isn't real.

You are the experiencER - not that ~thing~ that is experienced.
Click to expand...
(emphasis most definitely not mine) To the extent that I exist I actually agree. I think the experiencer is an illusion. The experiencer or the sense of the experiencer is an emergent property of the brain.

Because something outside experience has to be separate from it, rather than intrinsic to it.
Click to expand...
Why? This is just asserted. This is a conclusion without any supporting premises or inference.

All entities that are experienced are phantoms/dreams - 'dancing sensations' [of an orderly nature] that create the inner-movie of the world and of humanity.
Click to expand...
Some people think so. Many if not most who study this notion don't agree.

You've never escaped the world of your mind, where sensations and thoughts and feelings entice the experiencER to believe that 'it' is a being within the experience.
Click to expand...
This is true but you have never demonstrated that the consistent experience that you and I share are not what it seems to be. You only assert that it is all an illusion.

The experienced-being is not the experiencER... just as the experience of the Moon is not 'the Moon'.
Click to expand...
I don't follow you. Are you saying the moon has experiences the way humans do? I have experiences. How is my sense of experience analogous to a largely, if not completely, inert moon that has little or no anima and is without, as far as I know, without the ability to experience?

Objective reality is actually the experiencER.
Subjective reality is everything else that 'it' experiences or gleans via experience.
Click to expand...
So when I quantify something I'm quantifying myself? A football field is 100 yards of me?
 
lifegazer said:
You won't find me denying the existence of any One here. My proclamation to 'all', is that you are not who you think you are.
How could you be, since you think you are that ~thing~ which is experienced... and all experienced things have no reality in and of themselves.
You are the experiencER - not that ~thing~ that is experienced.
Click to expand...

Fair enough -- you appear to accept that subjective reality exists. Your statement that all experienced things have no reality in and of themselves, while true in a certian very strict sense, is missing the point.

lifegazer said:
This is incorrect. Why? Because something outside experience has to be separate from it, rather than intrinsic to it.
Click to expand...

OK, then how is the Experiencer sufficent to explain itself?
Please reply with something a bit more rigorous than "it just is" or "fiat ego".

lifegazer said:
All entities that are experienced are phantoms/dreams - 'dancing sensations' [of an orderly nature] that create the inner-movie of the world and of humanity.
Click to expand...

While it is true that my experiences themselves could be considered on par with phantoms and dreams, it does not follow that the things that caused those experiences must have the same phantasmal status. If you think that the causes of my experiences must be as phantasmal as the experiences themselves, then you are a solipsist.

lifegazer said:
You communicate with dozens of beings, every night when you sleep.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have of this? The mere fact that you do not know the contents of my dreams or what I do in my sleep should tell you something important about the nature of intersubjective reality.

Nothing else in your response in answerable without answers to these questions.

As an aside, are you certain you understand the difference between reality as experienced in dreams and reality as experienced when awake?

(ed. spelling)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom