Indivisibility

[lifegazer]

So... how does your 'philosophy' intend to deal with that?

Looks like I'm going into the prophesy business too.

When's the next election?

 

[Anathema]

You don't believe it's out there? Fine - so what? What the hell does it matter, whether reality is all a sensed-illusion or not? You cannot escape this reality; you cannot change the nature of this reality through philosophy and reason. You certainly aren't going to convince anyone, anyone at all, that you're right, seeing as you are painfully and woefully ignorant about the one reality we CAN verify and sense. In short order, you're a fool, with a fool's idea, no means to convert anyone, no desire to learn about the world around you, and nothing to offer anyone except mindless solipsism.

Now, that's tough love. LG's principles distilled to their essence, arrayed to display their relevance to sensed-entities-who-sense-things, and thrown gauntlet-like at his feet.....again.....for like the 935th time. Fine work, Z!

Now, let's see how long it takes for the tape loop to resume. I prophesy familiar variations on the same old riffs:

1. You haven't understood me.
2. You willfully refuse to accept the truth I've presented.
3. You have a hidden agenda requiring you to resist at all costs.
4. The world must hear what I have to say --- or the worms! the worms! the worms!
5. You refuse to answer my questions.

ad nauseum...

LG, if you're serious about your crusade, you should be on your knees thanking Z --- if you weren't so thick, you'd see he is earnestly trying to help you mold this turd into something of consequence to actual humans......again.....for like the 935th time.

 

[Upchurch]

You don't understand the distinction between the illusion of a thing and the reality of a thing?

I understand it perfectly. I'm trying to understand what you mean by real when you say thing like "real event". For instance:

Yes, but let's not forget that mathematics (numbers and concepts) don't necessarily relate to the sensed-world or the possible existence of a real world.

In fact, they necessarily related to the "sensed-world" or the "real" world. That you think it does not means that (1) you do not understand what mathematics is and (2) have a fairly tenuous grasp of what "real" means. That's why I'm asking you to explain yourself.

The concepts of pi and perfect shapes and infinity and nothing, for example, spring to mind.

All logical consequences of studing the real or "sensed", if you prefer, world. Short hand for talking about real world things rather than going through labourious detail each time certain concepts are needed. They are a consequence of observing reality.

And what about the math of string theories? Now there's a prime example, if ever I saw one, of what math can do or attempt to do regardless of reality. Hell, you can even invent dimensions of existence if you want.

I don't know enough about string threory mathematics to comment too deeply, but what is it specifically about the mathemaitcs that you find objectionable? You mentioned "inventing dimensions", but do you understand what is meant by a "dimension" and how or why it was "invented" in this case?

Or are you, once again, rejecting it from a position of ignorance and lack of understanding?

Your problem - which you still haven't acknowledged - is that you constantly want to apply conceptual mathematics to the philosophical possibility of a specific reality.

Not at all. In this specific case, you asked me to describe an "sensed world" concept. I did so using "sensed world" language. There is no philosophy needed to describe an event. It can be easily described in terms of mathematics.

Example: I ask you to define an event that can really happen in spacetime without a "thing" and you tell me that mathetical points (concepts with no substance) in spacetime are ~defined~ as events, therefore you have somehow answered my question. Not.

Kiddo, just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it true. How else would define an event besides when it occurs and where?

I'm not the one saying that "things" have existence beyond my sense of them.

So you don't believe that there are real events, then?

 

[Z]

No, Anathema, LG should be on his knees praising HIMSELF for providing himself with a sensed-awareness discussion partner helping him hone his philosophy by pointing out its logical flaws and transparent errors. Anyone goes on their knees before ME will get a knee planted in the jaw.

No, not because I'm violent, but because I'm that clumsy.

 

[Wudang]

I'm not the one saying that "things" have existence beyond my sense of them.

No, you're the one saying that it's only things that you can't sense that have existence - i.e. god - because assuming that things you can sense have some relation to a real world is wrong, whereas assuming that they don't and that things you can't sense do, is not.
Have I missed something?

 

[RussDill]

LG, I take it this means you are unwilling/unanable to respond to my post, it does after all, contain many elements that you have been unable to respond to for months now.

 

[lifegazer]

LG, I take it this means you are unwilling/unanable to respond to my post, it does after all, contain many elements that you have been unable to respond to for months now.

I owe you a good response. I'll get to it shortly, or tomorrow, I promise.

 

[lifegazer]

It is made up of matter. The concepts and properties of matter seem to elude you.

What is the essence of [real] matter? The concepts and properties of matter don't really concern me here. I want to know what you think matter is. At one point, you even said that you thought matter was a "probability curve", but that's nonsense. A probability curve represents our understanding of where a particle will go - not what it is.

Even in your philosophy, you have this external reality where the laws of physics play out.

Correction: I have this "internal reality".

Your book that the great mind opens to the right page whenever we perceive something. This book is your external reality, within this book, the laws of physics play out. You've only added to the complexity, it is entirely possible that the whole of existence could be the book alone where the laws of physics play out, and we could be part of that book. But you have added the "Mind" which controls and observes the contents of the book, which if you purport exists, you must show that, otherwise, its just the book.

What the mind senses, the mind also creates.

Your argument does not apply to our reality, our laws of physics as we understand them.

My argument applies to the reality of things "out there", beyond the mind's sense of them. Your reality is sensed-reality and your physics is of sensed-reality: "in here".
Quantum physics reflects the essentially non-spatial properties of awareness, together with the fact that the Mind - the creator of the world we sense - has free will, so that the fundamental-energy of this mind is essentially non-determinable.

Cop out. You cannot point to a true logical inconsistency, so you say that even if you can't plug a god into the gaps between understanding, he exists anyway.

Inconsistency? I never said that there are any inconsistencies. I'm just pointing out that physics is the study of an illusionary world which exists within the mind.

QM is not only 100% random (is free-will merely random?)

"Random" is the worng word.
Consider that the energy of a Primal Cause must be non-determinable, by logical default.
QM - being a study of the sensed-world within the mind - is a proof that the Mind which creates that sensed-world is an absolute Primal Cause.
In fact, I might even use this proof as the basis for my next thread.

but the probability at which the events occured can be predicted with absolute certainty.

That's because the mind's energy is working towards producing the order we actually sense.

Guess what, I don't want my reality of things to be seperated by space time, I don't want reality to be anything, I'd rather study it and determine the truth.

You can only determine "the truth" of the sensed-world "in here".
Study physics for a thousand years and you will not be able to contribute towards a philosophical-discussion about the "out there".

 

[lifegazer]

In summary

The Mind creates its own actual sensations.
Quantum physics is a study of the mind's own non-determinable energy.
Physics is the study of "in here".

Quantum physics does not relate to a world "out there".

Scientific understanding of sensed-matter created by the mind is completely irrelevant when discussing the potential reality of "things" external to awareness.
Anybody who brings his physics book to the table in regards my OP is completely ignorant of these facts.

All we have is rationale my friends. Nothing else. And we must elevate that rationale above the limitations of what the sensed-world can tell us if we want to contemplate a world "out there".

Things "out there" either have concrete extension of being through 4 dimensions, or they do not exist... and there is no "out there".
It's as simple as that.

 

[Wudang]

Re: In summary

The Mind creates its own actual sensations.

Failed at the first premise. Every attempt you have made to show this has been disproven.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: In summary

Failed at the first premise. Every attempt you have made to show this has been disproven.

No it hasn't.
Sensations are both an internal experience and an internal creation.
An entity is not obliged to feel 'pain' when it is immersed in fire. It chooses to do so. So it creates the sensation of pain for itself.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: In summary

An entity is not obliged to feel 'pain' when it is immersed in fire. It chooses to do so. So it creates the sensation of pain for itself.

Oy. Are you still trotting this one out?

To what end, lifegazer? It isn't, as you've tried to argue in the past, to warn us of danger, because according to your little dream world scenerio, there is no danger present. Why does one choose to feel pain?

(I would be tempted to bring up the cliff diving/truck hitting tests here, but I don't want to promote that.)

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: In summary

To what end, lifegazer?

I'm trying to show that whatever it is that is having the sensed-experience of being lifegazer (or whoever) is the primal-cause of those senses.

It isn't, as you've tried to argue in the past, to warn us of danger, because according to your little dream world scenerio, there is no danger present. Why does one choose to feel pain?

The sensed-body is in danger of sensed-fire as is the sensed-body subject to the laws of gravity or as is the sensed-body subject to freezing.
The Mind imposes the sensation of 'pain' upon itself to ensure that the sensed-body stays away from sensed-fires and sensed-cliffs and sensed-freezing.
It is an internal response to an internal event.
Unless or until consciousness is sure that death is an illusion, then consciousness will continue to die to sensed-existence in response to sensed events.

(I would be tempted to bring up the cliff diving/truck hitting tests here, but I don't want to promote that.)

The Mind does not cease to exist - it just ceases to sense the world from particular vantage points, so to speak.
There is no death.

 

[lifegazer]

Comments about the rest of that post - quantum physics?

 

[Cosmo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In summary

The Mind imposes the sensation of 'pain' upon itself to ensure that the sensed-body stays away from sensed-fires and sensed-cliffs and sensed-freezing.

Evidence?

Unless or until consciousness is sure that death is an illusion, then consciousness will continue to die to sensed-existence in response to sensed events.

Evidence?

The Mind does not cease to exist - it just ceases to sense the world from particular vantage points, so to speak.
There is no death.

Evidence?


Sounds like you're making things up to fit in with your philosophy. Do you have any evidence to suggest that any of these assertions are in any way true?

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In summary

The sensed-body is in danger of sensed-fire as is the sensed-body subject to the laws of gravity or as is the sensed-body subject to freezing.
The Mind imposes the sensation of 'pain' upon itself to ensure that the sensed-body stays away from sensed-fires and sensed-cliffs and sensed-freezing.
It is an internal response to an internal event.
Unless or until consciousness is sure that death is an illusion, then consciousness will continue to die to sensed-existence in response to sensed events.

So the mind chooses to feel real pain in order to protect an illusionary body from an illusionary threat? And all this is self-inflicted by God? Riiiiiight. That's a crock.

I'm guessing that you are sure that that death is an illusion, then? Does that mean that you no longer feel pain?

 

[Z]

Re: Re: Re: In summary

No it hasn't.
Sensations are both an internal experience and an internal creation.
An entity is not obliged to feel 'pain' when it is immersed in fire. It chooses to do so. So it creates the sensation of pain for itself.

Show me any entity possessed of a nervous system and pain receptors that can choose to not create the sensation of pain for itself.

Likewise, show me any entity possessed of a nervous system and pain receptors, not exposed to a source of pain, that CAN create the sensation of pain for itself.

All sensations are caused externally by stimuli; a sub-class of sensation can be caused internally by memory, but only after having been previously exposed to an externally caused sensation.

Anybody who brings his physics book to the table in regards my OP is completely ignorant of these facts.

No, child, when you post information regarding real things, the only real things of which we are aware are those things which also exist within our sensed awareness; physics applies to this sensed-awareness (as you have agreed), and therefore must apply to these things you want to bring up.

Either up the quality or stop posting your tripe.

 

[Z]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In summary

I'm trying to show that whatever it is that is having the sensed-experience of being lifegazer (or whoever) is the primal-cause of those senses.

Well, that's clearly wrong.

After all, you can't cause sensations within yourself without some external stimulus. You cannot prove any mechanism for doing so. And verifiable communication with other persons gives us reason to believe that the world we sense is a decent representation of a real, exterior world. You cannot disprove this - NONE of your 'reasoning' has given us any valid reason to NOT believe that the world we sense is a representation of a real, physical world beyond our senses.

The sensed-body is in danger of sensed-fire as is the sensed-body subject to the laws of gravity or as is the sensed-body subject to freezing.
The Mind imposes the sensation of 'pain' upon itself to ensure that the sensed-body stays away from sensed-fires and sensed-cliffs and sensed-freezing.
It is an internal response to an internal event.
Unless or until consciousness is sure that death is an illusion, then consciousness will continue to die to sensed-existence in response to sensed events.

That makes absolutely no sense - why impose upon itself these experiences at all, then? What purpose does it serve? It's illogical and unreasonable.

The Mind does not cease to exist - it just ceases to sense the world from particular vantage points, so to speak.
There is no death.

Your proof of this is what? That's right - you have no proof whatsoever.

Really - come back and talk when you have something intelligent to say, little boy.

 

[RussDill]

What is the essence of [real] matter? The concepts and properties of matter don't really concern me here. I want to know what you think matter is. At one point, you even said that you thought matter was a "probability curve", but that's nonsense. A probability curve represents our understanding of where a particle will go - not what it is.

Matter exists as part of our universe, our reality. Our universe apears to be governed by a set of laws. Matter is thus governed by these laws. Matter is no more or less a thing that any other interaction within our universe (ie, fields). We just perceive it to be a solid "thing" made up of something. Our need to attribute some sort of stuff or thing property comes from our day to day interaction with our environment. We don't feel the same pull to apply some sort of "stuff" to light.

Becasue of the way our universe is structured, a probability curve describes what a particle *is*. If you can describe something with a language, does it not exist? Does the tale of mody dick exist?

Correction: I have this "internal reality".

Occording to you, the great Mind has given up self, and forgotten mind and became lifegazer. The mind has left things behind in order to do this. The reality you sense, the book, is all contained in what was left behind. Therefore, it is external to lifegazer.

What the mind senses, the mind also creates.

Thats great, but it does so by following the laws of physics, and the portion of the mind that is not the lifegazer ego does this. Your individual ego senses reality, but it does not create it. For the mind to become the lifegazer ego, it has created a reality for that ego.

My argument applies to the reality of things "out there", beyond the mind's sense of them. Your reality is sensed-reality and your physics is of sensed-reality: "in here".

You misunderstand, your argument is based on notions of reality that are 2400 years old and do not truly reflect reality.

Quantum physics reflects the essentially non-spatial properties of awareness

Please, explain what property of QM has anything to do with non-spatiality. Every element of QM I've seen relates directly to spacetime. QM would not exist if it was non-spatial, the equations of QM are described in spatial form.

QM also has absolutely nothing to say about awareness, QM could not care less if self aware beings existed, or did not exist.

together with the fact that the Mind - the creator of the world we sense - has free will, so that the fundamental-energy of this mind is essentially non-determinable.

Lets take this piece by piece, because it is a bunch of non-sensical gobily gook.

You speak of the fundamental-energy of the mind. Why does the mind need energy in the first place? I don't know what the concept of energy would mean in the concept of the mind anyway, energy is a property of our universe. But lets say its similar in some way, would it not vary? If it varies, by what way would it vary? Could it vary over time, in our universe, energy cannot be created or destroyed, so does that mean it varies over a different quantity, like a spatial one? Also, you use the term fundamental, does that mean the mind has other types of energy? What are these other types of energy and what are their properties? Do they also vary from place to place?

You are attempting to talk about a quantity of something in our reality completely different from the one we perceive. You'll have to describe it in a bit more detail for your discussion to be meaningful.

Next, non-determinable, determinable:
Capable of being determined, limited, or fixed: determinable velocities.

So, this fundamental energy cannot be "limited", which means you cannot fix it to a certain set of results. Interesting, because that energy would be completely opposite of what energy and interactions are in our reality. Electron orbits, particle interactions, decay, etc, and comptelety determinable, because their results can be limited percisely. Perhaps you mean random? Is free will mearly random? I definately don't think my disicions come about by random chance.

Inconsistency? I never said that there are any inconsistencies. I'm just pointing out that physics is the study of an illusionary world which exists within the mind.

You are trying to prove that it is logically inconsistent to say that reality is made up of divisible things seperated by space, and thus reality must exist at singularity.

"Random" is the worng word.
Consider that the energy of a Primal Cause must be non-determinable, by logical default.
QM - being a study of the sensed-world within the mind - is a proof that the Mind which creates that sensed-world is an absolute Primal Cause.
In fact, I might even use this proof as the basis for my next thread.

A Primal Cause assumes a straight timeline that extends directly through, and exists before, reality. Non-sensical and assumes some reality outside of reality that created reality at the time of "Primal Cause". QM shows that time in our reality is not straightline. If QM shows that time is an integral part of our reality, our reality exists without some need for an external timeline, and that our timeline is not a straight arrow, then a primal cause does not apply to our reality.

Also, you are talking about the "Energy of a primal cause". What energy, what form can energy as we know it take if the universe does not exist. What energy are you talking about?

That's because the mind's energy is working towards producing the order we actually sense.

AKA, the mind is ordered reality as per the laws of physics. Thats fine, you already said that, but the statement was regarding the randomness of QM pointing to a free will. The response was indicated that the randomness of QM does not point to a free will because it can be predicted, free will cannot be predicted. If I can predict what a free will can do, with absolute accuracy, then the free will has no choice.

You can only determine "the truth" of the sensed-world "in here".
Study physics for a thousand years and you will not be able to contribute towards a philosophical-discussion about the "out there".

And thus, neither can you claim to make any proof as to what exists beyond your own ego.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In summary

There is no death.

Unless you count death of the ego. If you die, where is the lifegazer ego? If lifegazer would have made one descision, or felt a certain emotion given certain memories and sensory perception, but the mind feels something completely different in the same situation, with the same memories, the lifegazer ego and personality is gone. (Unless the mind becomes lifegazer again, in a rebirth)