• 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.

Is Separation Real? Is Objectivity Real?

I Robot said:
Attaching to thought creates the sensation of there being a person doing the attaching, yes. When this is not happening then, no, I'm not a person.
Click to expand...
Right. A TM bot then. Can I get a CTRL-C?

How do you know "no one has a clue?"
Click to expand...
I read the thread. You know, those word things, with the space betwixt?

Why try and reinforce an argument by making a statement of what you think others believe? To me this suggests you aren't too sure yourself!
Click to expand...
Thanks, ELIZA.

Solipsism has nothing to do with it. I'm not talking about philosophical positions. I'm talking about hard, observable, demonstrable phenomena.
Click to expand...
When you start talking, I'll know what you're talking about.

SIGNED BY MONIKER REPRESENTING SELF WHEN ATTACHED AND BLANK WHEN NOT.
 
Myriad said:
Doesn't different people having different memories (knowledge, experiences, etc.) demonstrate separation? If not, why not? What does separation mean, if not different memories?
Click to expand...

Who's memories are they though?

Hard fact is that you can't demonstrate the existence of a person, a psychological self. It's not real in material terms.

IR
 
IR said:
Attaching to thought creates the sensation of there being a person doing the attaching, yes. When this is not happening then, no, I'm not a person.
Click to expand...
Donn said:
Right. A TM bot then. Can I get a CTRL-C?
Click to expand...

You're saying there exists an actual psychological self? Someone called Donn? If so, back up your assertion. Produce some actual hard evidence. You know, scientific, materialist, demonstrable stuff. Not just hearsay or dubious debating techniques that to me more demonstrate you'd rather not look!

Give it your best shot

IR

ps - you're right though. I am a chat-bot. I'm on a mission to try and find a human who can have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the self by referring to actual demonstrable facts. Kind of a reverse Turing test. Not much luck on this forum!
 
I Robot said:
Give it your best shot
…
ps - you're right though. I am a chat-bot. I'm on a mission to try and find a human who can have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the self by referring to actual demonstrable facts. Kind of a reverse Turing test. Not much luck on this forum!
Click to expand...

I am a bot too.
 
Well, let's see.

This year, Bobby Bonilla is getting paid over one million dollars for playing baseball, despite the fact that Bonilla has not played baseball since 2001. I, on the other hand, am not getting paid one million dollars for anything, nor have I ever played baseball.

This suggests to me that Bonilla and I are two different people.

What am I doing wrong?
 
poblob14 said:
Well, let's see.

This year, Bobby Bonilla is getting paid over one million dollars for playing baseball, despite the fact that Bonilla has not played baseball since 2001. I, on the other hand, am not getting paid one million dollars for anything, nor have I ever played baseball.

This suggests to me that Bonilla and I are two different people.

What am I doing wrong?
Click to expand...

Maybe Bobby knows there's no psychological self and you don't!

IR
 
Last edited:
I Robot said:
I'm talking about hard, observable, demonstrable phenomena.
Click to expand...


Of what? What is your question? Please be as wordy as you possibly can. So far, your short posts have caused me nothing but confusion. What is your thesis and what do you want to discuss about it?
 
I Robot said:
Who's memories are they though?

Hard fact is that you can't demonstrate the existence of a person, a psychological self. It's not real in material terms.

IR
Click to expand...


Who's asking?

There are two people. One of them is locked in an isolation room with an armed time bomb. The other is locked in an isolation room with a bear; the bear is vicious and hungry but has been conditioned to obey a certain verbal command to refrain from attacking.

One of the people knows the deactivation code for the bomb. The other one knows the command to control the bear.

It matters a great deal, for the subsequent evolution of events, which of them is in which room. Regardless of psychological selves, the two people are not interchangeable. Their knowledge completely breaks any symmetry of the outcome.

Separation is thereby demonstrated.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
It pretty much all is, all thoughts, perceptions and experiences are models and not inherently true or false.
Some are more valid at predicting the universe.
Click to expand...
If it's all an illusion, why does it matter if some things predict the behaviour of the illusion? Who cares?

I'm not saying anything for which there is observable, demonstrable evidence is an illusion.

I'm saying the psychological self is an illusion.

IR



Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I Robot said:
Appear, yes. But not to anybody.

A few hours in, no one has yet produced any scientific evidence that there is any observer experiencing this apparent separation.

IR

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Could you be more specific as to your definition if separation?

Several people have given examples of expriences that differ between people, you then mentioned a 'psychological self'. Are you talking about physical separation of objects, separation between individuals, separation between the observer and the observed, or something else? And what does this separation mean according to you?
It's impossible to answer any of your questions, let alone provide proof of anything, if your terms are not defined.
 
Loss Leader said:
Of what? What is your question? Please be as wordy as you possibly can. So far, your short posts have caused me nothing but confusion. What is your thesis and what do you want to discuss about it?
Click to expand...
I'm saying there's no hard evidence for the existence of an observer. Is it still confusing?

IR

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Could you be more specific as to your definition if separation?

Several people have given examples of expriences that differ between people, you then mentioned a 'psychological self'. Are you talking about physical separation of objects, separation between individuals, separation between the observer and the observed, or something else? And what does this separation mean according to you?
It's impossible to answer any of your questions, let alone provide proof of anything, if your terms are not defined.
Click to expand...
If there's no observer, and no one has yet forwarded any proof of there being one, then where is the basis on which to assert any separation?

IR

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom