PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
We live in hope.
"Intelligence is Self Teaching" A paranormal experience into A.I and Intelligence.
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
you say "brain activity", but this sounds like an object to me, and with object comes subject my friend...
If I understand correctly, you're saying this is no one's point of view, but that is quite impossible as it took someone to say it (you), and is itself only a point of view from "somewhere" (an objective POV comes from nowhere and is therefore nothing).
I'll try to explain this again, I'll try to be more succinct if thats possible.
Let's say I decide to develop a description(or "theory") of what a shoe is. The only way I can define a shoe is to develop criteria that separate the footwear I'm looking for from everything else. As can be plainly seen, this criteria is arbitrary. Anyway, I establish the criteria and separate everything I see as either shoe or non- shoe. We can note that there will be no limit and that we could classify shoes for eternity, if need be. We see also that what makes a shoe a shoe is the fact that there exists something that is also not a shoe (am I looking at a shoe or everything that isn't a shoe?!?!). We can see that in creating the criteria for a shoe, we've assumed (a priori) the existence of non- shoe. If you would look towards math, mathematicians have come to the same conclusions(rational vs. irrational number). The moral of the story is for a shoe to be a shoe, non- shoe must exist, just as for a reality to be a reality, non reality must exist, because you assumed it in saying there was a "reality". Furthermore, the point at which reality becomes un- reality is not defined anywhere, just like if a shoe morphed into a non- shoe, there would be no specific definable point at which the shoe became a non- shoe, and the reason is a concept only has a meaning in the context of everything that concept is not. But if we can't as i've pointed out say where that concept begins and where it ends, that what are we really explaining? You actually can't say anything without directly referring to every possibility imaginable, because in assuming what you've said, you've assumed everything, physical or non physical, that isn't what you've said.
If you can't understand its because you won't take the sentences literally, or you're too deluded in materialism! materialism is a concept, reality is a concept. everything is itself and nothing more, nothing less. no matter created or destroyed.
Remember plato's allegory about the people in the cave? those people are us, we created the cave as a means of representing "life", but both the inside and the outside exist. I invite you to experience the openness, the vastness, and the inexpressible beauty of the unknown, outside the cave, free from the shackles of ideology and materialism.
Peace!
Last edited:
you're a COWARD, I challenge you to use your reason and intellect to defeat the things you only seem to be able to mock.
Plato's cave is on dodgy grounds these days. There doesn't appear in reality to be a "stream of consciousness." The old "brain in a vat" scenario looks to be increasingly untenable. Self is merely an emergent phenomenon, meaning in reality there is no observer.
I invite you to take on the challenges of the real world and not hide in delusion and fantasy.
A philosophical perspective does not have to be a shackle. Materialism has a better chance to set you free than recycled Idealist philosophy or spiritual flim-flam. What appears to set you free will usually most imprison you. "If it's bitter in the start, then it's sweeter in the end", to quote Madonna and Gautam Buddha.
Nick
TempleJohn
Student
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 30
Nothing like the comfort of mater's warm embrace. But we all have to grow up one day!
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
And you, madam, are ugly, but in the morning I... Wait, that doesn't work.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
It's not an object, it's a process.
No. A theory explains how something happens, not what something is.
Yeah, and if you look to eternity, you find the ephemeral instant. And everything that is not nothing is not everything that *is* something. Do you even know what a concept *is* when in reality the objective subject of a non-thought is time itself?
I mean, living is a part of death, and death--a part of the universe. And mathematics and quantum theory show how the ancients knew that intelligence is *self teaching*, and that the dualities of male and female reflect the infinite one and zero of binary code!
And time is space and space is a vacuum and the world is a vampire...duh-nuh-nuh...sent to dray-ay-ain...
You know, one day, I'm going to write a Random Pseudo-Mystical Nonsense Generator. I could harvest content from all over the JREF threads.
i've been through my materialism phase, trust me this quote is truer than you dare to believe. you talk of spiritual flim flam, but I don't actually believe anything at all, so i guess im off the hook for that one. if were trading buddha quotes heres a duzzie:
"Believe nothing! Belief is a confession of ignorance! Therefore do not even believe what even I tell you ! All I can do is to teach you to enlighten yourselves. Your first duty is to abolish your ignorance, and only you yourselves can do this."
and how can a metaphor be on dodgy ground? he's only showing that we only know what we know in this instance, therefore we perceive relative to our "cave", the intuition pump is pretty strong in this sense. when we find something true it makes us realize how what we were seeing before was closed off, its a big wide world out there, not a flat one.
how about a response to the fact that you can't prove something to be true, or "real" if you like that word better. ive said this many times but it doesn't seem to be a problem for you. If you prove it true you could well have been proving a falsity, you could not know, yet you seem to somehow have overcome this, how???
Last edited:
nonsense generators are old news, just read some dan dennett!
Please reread my post once more, there is sense in there!
One day you will realize that every term is still under debate, that for all the fancy language and ten letter words we don't have definitions for a single one of them. my post was merely trying to allude to how we create the problem by asking the question. If you follow any scientific theory to its conclusion you will find it is very much up in the air, we don't know how subatomic particles work, we don't know how consciousness works, we don't know ANYTHING! everytime someone claims to know something they explain it as others things they also dont know about, but in the end, this is all we can do.
Last edited:
then the process is your object, what is the difference? its an object in the sense that it had to be experienced, spoken, etc
this is completely unrelated to the context and the point, and is how something happens not a part of what it is?
How about this thought: what do reality and non- reality have in common?
if you say nothing, it would appear that they both are worthless, if you say everything, then they become the same. So which is it?
(reality/nothing)+(non-reality/nothing)=nothing
(reality/everything)+(non-reality/everything)=everything
even when two things have nothing in common, they still have something in common: nothing!
if you say nothing, it would appear that they both are worthless, if you say everything, then they become the same. So which is it?
(reality/nothing)+(non-reality/nothing)=nothing
(reality/everything)+(non-reality/everything)=everything
even when two things have nothing in common, they still have something in common: nothing!
Last edited:
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
Only if you play games with the meaning of the word "nothing," using it to mean one thing and then another.
You can get around this by rephrasing "two things have nothing in common" by saying that "the set of all things that they have in common is empty." Then, you can't get to "they still have something in common: nothing."
The word "reality" in the name?
It's called a "false dichotomy".
Silly reeceh, you can't divide by zero.
Congratulations! You've somehow managed to find a way to combine the boring with the absurd!
If you want something that will really blow your mind...
P1: Nothing is better than diamonds.
P2: Toast is better than nothing.
Therefore (wait for it...):
QED: Toast is better than diamonds! Tada!
ETA: Paul2 beat me to it.
Last edited:
blobru
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 6,900
Makes sense (after a few toasts):
Burnt toast is carbon.
Diamonds are carbon.
Therefore, diamonds are burnt toast.*
And toast is better than burnt toast.
I'll drink to that.
Last edited:
it only seems like there are two meanings of nothing, but you're only avoiding the problem by creating a new circumstance. "the set of all things that they have in common" is still what they have in common, if it is empty, then that is what they have in common. this doesn't change or avoid anything, you just have trouble understanding that things can have nothingness in common, meaninglessness in common. nothing is still something in itself, it is nothing. when you can understand what I said without trading definitions of nothing, you will understand.
what could the only unifying principle for everything(and i truly mean everything you could ever imagine) be? only nothing. what is can only be by what is not. positive means nothing without negative.
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
But if they have something in common, then the set of all things that they have in common cannot be empty. But your example is founded on the idea that they have nothing in common. So which is it, do they have something in common, or not? You're explanation above is trying to get your reader to believe that the set of what they have in common is both empty and not-empty Not too many people will bit on that.
now we're getting somewhere, you're right, this is the essence of what i'm saying. we can see that there are two possibilities, if it is founded on the possibility of nothing, then that is still something(a concept of nothing). if it is founded on the possibility of something, then the argument loses its meaning and also becomes nothing. as the buddha has said:
"When there is the view that the soul is the same as the body, there isn't the leading of the holy life. And when there is the view that the soul is one thing and the body another, there isn't the leading of the holy life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata points out the Dhamma in between: From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death."
Everything comes down to an either/or scenario: real vs. not real, but like the example above, choosing one necessitates the existence of the other, not because I say it does, but because it must, it is assumed a priori. the middle path is to not go to the extremes of us vs them, and realize that picking sides creates the duality that leads to delusion, suffering, and wrongviews.
But don't take my word for, here's a much clearer description: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.035.than.html
Last edited:
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
Not yet.
[Bows]
Nothing is not the same thing as the concept of nothing.
There are times in which contradiction is meaningful, and there are times in which it is meaningless. Here's one of the times in which it is meaningless:
Is that set empty? To be coherent, you need to answer yes or no.