Light things.

[RandFan]

If Gazer's philosophy is true the there is no need for electrons, quarks, electron shells, relativity, black holes, back ground radiation, red shift, vacuum, bacteria, molecular synthesis, etc., etc..

All of these things were predicted before they were confirmed (I could be wrong on one or two. It's late). Prior to that the world just worked and it was god that made it work. If it is the mind of god that is making our reality then all of these things are superfluous and just excess baggage. They do NOT further our understanding of anything sine they describe the physical world and the physical world is not real.

Take dreams for example. My dreams are not dependant on known laws of physics. I can fly and travel through space without reliance on science or technology.

If Gazer philosophy is real then the physical world violates Occam's Razor.

Lifegazer,

You must denounce Occam's Razor or admit that your philosophy violates it.

 

[riverlethe]

If Gazer's philosophy is true the there is no need for electrons, quarks, electron shells, relativity, black holes, back ground radiation, red shift, vacuum, bacteria, molecular synthesis, etc., etc..

All of these things were predicted before they were confirmed (I could be wrong on one or two. It's late). Prior to that the world just worked and it was god that made it work. If it is the mind of god that is making our reality then all of these things are superfluous and just excess baggage. They do NOT further our understanding of anything sine they describe the physical world and the physical world is not real.

This strikes me as something of a strawman.

I'm sure God would have an interest in understanding his own dream.

Take dreams for example. My dreams are not dependant on known laws of physics. I can fly and travel through space without reliance on science or technology.

If Gazer philosophy is real then the physical world violates Occam's Razor.

Lifegazer,

You must denounce Occam's Razor or admit that your philosophy violates it.

Perhaps God's dream necessarily requires deterministic order.

 

[riverlethe]

I don't use "hope" as the basis of my philosophy, pal. I wouldn't waste anybody's time - least of all my own - on the back of a complete wager. I come here, taking all ◊◊◊◊, as the harmonica of a profound truth.

Lifegazer, how can you deny your egotism after a statement like that?
"Egotism" does not require that you believe yourself to be acting selfishly. For example, you could exaggerate the importance of all humanity, consequently raising your own significance (Edit: That goes for you too, RandFan. ).

My so-called "bedrock" is not arbitrary. Everone here of average+ intelligence (who has actually made an effort to understand my philosophy) understands that sensations, as experienced, are distinctly separate from the external world they are meant to represent. They should thus recognose that what is sensed, abstractly, has nothing to do with any presumed external universe.

I freely grant this. And I've sometimes had the feeling myself (psychologists might call this "dissociation").
Now, how does your philosophy follow from it?

 

[lifegazer]

Do you have proof that my senses are betraying me? That I'm not really typing on this keyboard?

I do not doubt that you see a lightshow that gives the impression of a keyboard therein. Your sense of touch conspires to speak of the same "thing".
But this thing - this keyboard - exists amongst your sensations which themselves exist inside of your awareness, which means that the keyboard you are experiencing is embraced by your own existence.
Same applies to all "things", so that the whole universe exists within you. Amazing, innit.

YOU HAVE YET TO EXPLAIN WHY I SHOULD BELIEVE YOU AND NOT MY SENSES?

Your senses give testimony of my philosophy. They exist within you and are the essence of all "things" experienced by you.

Yes, everything all of our senses are subjective. This does not prove that the real world does not exist.

What real world are you talking about? No man knows of any world except for the one residing within his own awareness.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: Light things.

The different colors are a result of different wavelengths (in the case of the difference of red or orange, a minute difference in wavelength) that react with different cells within the eyes.

Colour is like pain in that an entity must choose to have the experience itself and thus create it, even as a response to external events. Those events are not the cause of pain (or colour).

 

[lifegazer]

What you say here is true if and only if you assume a priori the primacy of experience. If we assume a priori the external world, I can get to the exact same set of sensations.

Excuse me for laughing, but are you suggesting that I can only assume that something is having the abstract experience of being lifegazer? What about yourself? Are you denying the reality of your own sensations, thoughts & feelings? How absurd.

 

[lifegazer]

You must denounce Occam's Razor or admit that your philosophy violates it.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
Occam's Razor:
"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Since I posit that only One entity exists, I suggest that you be the one who do the denouncing.

 

[riverlethe]

Re: Re: Re: Light things.

Colour is like pain in that an entity must choose to have the experience itself and thus create it, even as a response to external events. Those events are not the cause of pain (or colour).

You keep using the words "entity" (singular) and "choice." What is your basis for doing so? Are you deliberately ignoring this question?

External events are not the direct cause of pain, for example, but they are the environment that life has filled, adopting an internal symbolism to interpret stimuli. That arbitrary symbolism is not based on a choice , but simply a result of trial and error, where organisms responding "inappropriately" have failed to flourish. (I do not mean to imply volition with the phrase "trial and error." It is very difficult not to imply volition when using English, so please forgive me.)

You are correct in asserting that we are ultimately only aware of our sensations. But what use would those sensations have if they did not describe the world around us? I find it much easier to accept a causal chain based on my perceptions of this world, than a causal chain for which I perceive no basis.

Another question: If this world is a dream of God, is that not sufficient to give it actual existence?

 

[RandFan]

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
Occam's Razor:
"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Since I posit that only One entity exists, I suggest that you be the one who do the denouncing.

Sorry gazer,

We don't need "god's mind" to explain life. Your philosophy is the same as realism but with added baggage. We both agree in the known laws of physics. You just add something else, something inexplicable.

Your philosophy, by definition, volates Occam's Razor

 

[RandFan]

This strikes me as something of a strawman.

I'm sure God would have an interest in understanding his own dream.

Why? It isn't necassary. I don't think it is a straw man at all. But I could be wrong.

Perhaps God's dream necessarily requires deterministic order.

Why? It can be what ever he want's it to be?

How about my original argument? That gazer's philosophy is the same as realism with added unexplained processes? Would you agree that my premises are correct and that his philosophy violates Occam's Razor under those circumstances?

 

[Mercutio]

Excuse me for laughing, but are you suggesting that I can only assume that something is having the abstract experience of being lifegazer? What about yourself? Are you denying the reality of your own sensations, thoughts & feelings? How absurd.

'gazer, you can laugh all you want to. Doesn't bother me a bit, except that I realize I have to explain it all again in simpler terms. Why would anyone deny sensing, thinking, feeling? I am simply pointing out that they are not necessarily the starting point that you claim they are. You claim that experience gives rise to the appearance of an external world. I simply point out that this external world (including your body, since it is external to your concept of mind) easily explains the appearance of a sensing, thinking, feeling mind. Thus, which is caused and which is causal is a matter of assumption. Your bedrock is not bedrock, it is assumption.

In addition, this assumption of an actual external world has allowed us, as other posters in this thread have pointed out to you, to make predictions about our universe which have subsequently been shown true. What predictions does your world-view make?

I am still waiting to see your explanation of how, if you manage to convince the world that you are right, this would lead to peace & harmony. Thus far, belief in a god has not seemed to lead in this direction.

 

[riverlethe]

Why? It isn't necassary. I don't think it is a straw man at all. But I could be wrong.

Why? It can be what ever he want's it to be?

How about my original argument? That gazer's philosophy is the same as realism with added unexplained processes? Would you agree that my premises are correct and that his philosophy violates Occam's Razor under those circumstances?

It's necessary because God has to dream something , and it might as well be a Universe obeying a particular arbitrary set of physical rules, as opposed to a different set, or many sets. Even dreams have an internal logic, right? I just thought it was a strawman to suggest that God's dream would have no internal consistency or predictability.

But yes, I'd say that denying the senses and adding God to the model certainly violates Occam's Razor.

 

[riverlethe]

'gazer, you can laugh all you want to. Doesn't bother me a bit, except that I realize I have to explain it all again in simpler terms. Why would anyone deny sensing, thinking, feeling? I am simply pointing out that they are not necessarily the starting point that you claim they are. You claim that experience gives rise to the appearance of an external world. I simply point out that this external world (including your body, since it is external to your concept of mind) easily explains the appearance of a sensing, thinking, feeling mind. Thus, which is caused and which is causal is a matter of assumption. Your bedrock is not bedrock, it is assumption.

In addition, this assumption of an actual external world has allowed us, as other posters in this thread have pointed out to you, to make predictions about our universe which have subsequently been shown true. What predictions does your world-view make?

Very well put Mercutio, but the utility that you speak of is only proof of... utility. (Not that I think you're suggesting otherwise) How on earth do you get someone to flip their basic assumptions? Have you ever seen it happen?

 

[lifegazer]

Why would anyone deny sensing, thinking, feeling?

Thank goodness for that. I thought you'd flipped.

I am simply pointing out that they are not necessarily the starting point that you claim they are.

The sensations are the beginning of the human experience. We do not experience anything until we have the sensation of that thing. This is a fact and I won't allow you to tango your way around this - not on my dancefloor, anyway.

You claim that experience gives rise to the appearance of an external world.

Not a claim - a fact. We have sensory-experiences and we discern of "things" within those sensations.

I simply point out that this external world (including your body, since it is external to your concept of mind)

What external world? The "things" we see are internal to our awareness since they exist amongst our sensations. The body you see exists within your awareness.

easily explains the appearance of a sensing, thinking, feeling mind.

Firstly, you just blatantly assume the existence of a reality beyond your awareness. Secondly, you tell a complete pork-pie - there is no proper scientific explanation for the experience of intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings, from material processes. There is just another assumption that this is indeed the case.

In addition, this assumption of an actual external world has allowed us, as other posters in this thread have pointed out to you, to make predictions about our universe which have subsequently been shown true. What predictions does your world-view make?

Hold on a minute - science is the study of perceived order. I.e., science is a study of the order apparent amongst the things within our mind. Hence science is in the business of predicting inner order, not outer order.

I am still waiting to see your explanation of how, if you manage to convince the world that you are right, this would lead to peace & harmony. Thus far, belief in a god has not seemed to lead in this direction.

The world will desire unity once it accepts the philosophy as true. What will stop it from happening?

 

[Wudang]

'gazer, you can laugh all you want to. Doesn't bother me a bit, except that I realize I have to explain it all again in simpler terms. Why would anyone deny sensing, thinking, feeling? I am simply pointing out that they are not necessarily the starting point that you claim they are. You claim that experience gives rise to the appearance of an external world. I simply point out that this external world (including your body, since it is external to your concept of mind) easily explains the appearance of a sensing, thinking, feeling mind. Thus, which is caused and which is causal is a matter of assumption. Your bedrock is not bedrock, it is assumption.

...snip...

I am still waiting to see your explanation of how, if you manage to convince the world that you are right, this would lead to peace & harmony. Thus far, belief in a god has not seemed to lead in this direction.

well there was a thread devoted to the first issue "Upchurch's Question" that lifegazer has avoided. He keeps starting new threads so can pull out the same "are you trying to deny that we feel" and "external universe cannot force people to experience red" stuff.

For the latter point, we have so far one case of a believer in lifegazers philosophy, i.e. lifegazer himself. Who calls people liars, plonkers, and pr*cks. So far 100% failure. His excuse is that he gets frustrated. Or he blames his hamster.

 

[uruk]

What external world?

External world = source of stimuli which gives rise to sensations.
Cause and effect. that "we" are the source if the stimuli violates cause and effect. chicken and egg sort of thing.

 

[lifegazer]

External world = source of stimuli which gives rise to sensations.
Cause and effect. that "we" are the source if the stimuli violates cause and effect. chicken and egg sort of thing.

Interestingly, the creation of sensory awareness, thoughts & feelings, is direct evidence for the existence of an actual primal-cause within existence.
A primal-cause is a very very special entity. It exhibits will and supreme intelligence/knowhow in the creation of the human subjective experience. In fact, if you are interested, I might do a post which shows why a primal-cause must be 'God'.

Those of you who acknowledge that an entity has to be the primal-cause of its own sensations et al, are looking God right in the eye.

 

[lifegazer]

Who calls people liars, plonkers, and pr*cks.

... and bozos, like yourself. LOL

 

[uruk]

Firstly, you just blatantly assume the existence of a reality beyond your awareness. Secondly, you tell a complete pork-pie - there is no proper scientific explanation for the experience of intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings, from material processes. There is just another assumption that this is indeed the case.

Actually it is less of an assumption then your philosophy. our senses tell us there is an external realm every experiment we perform confirms that an external real exists. it may be an illusion, but we have no way of confirming that. The illusion behaves as if it is real. It is perfectly consistant.

Science refers to the workings of the illusion (external world). science will only explain experiance and intangible sensation with relation to the illusion. Because you deny the illusion, you will never accept any explinations derived from the illusion. So it is pointless to show you any scientific research or explinations. You will just deny them because you deny the existance of the external world. I can show you PETscans of brain activity when a person is thinking of something , or accessing memory, or seeing colors. But will just say that those thing exists internaly to us and thus are not real and thus not accept the explination. So then, where does that leave us? The external world (the illusion) behaves consistanly within itself. there is explination if you accept the illusion. If you don't then that leaves you nowhere.

Your philosophy is asking us to deny everything we experiance and accept the existance of a realm that we can neither sense or experiance; based solely on the concept that our experiance and thoughts are internal.
You assume this existance is not real simply because we experiance it internaly. One does not follow the other. you have to show why this is so.

 

[Wudang]

... and bozos, like yourself. LOL

Exactly my point. Your philosophy has not promoted harmony and goodwill in you so how can it in others? Lifegazers paradise, where we all go around calling each other liars and bozos. Doesn't seem like much of a paradise to me.