Light things.

[RandFan]

... and bozos, like yourself. LOL

Jedi would often end his statements with "LOL". Your behvior is the same as most ot the others who believed that their ideas had merit but were unable to support them.

But gazer,

I don't think you read your own link as it pertains to Occom's Razor.

From Gazer's Linkhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

We have two models.

Gazer Philosophy and Realism. Both are identical except you add variables and contructs (see above). You assume that in addition to all of the physical laws there is also "God's mind" which embodies processes that are not understood.

Thanks to Occam's Razor we shave off the unecassary parts of your model.

RandFan

 

[lifegazer]

You assume that in addition to all of the physical laws there is also "God's mind" which embodies processes that are not understood.

Actually, there is just God. My philosophy reduces the complex universe to nought but a thought within God's Mind. Like I said, my philosophy reduces existence down to one absolute entity and you cannot simplify things any more than this. Fact.

 

[Mercutio]

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?

Oh, I have no desire for 'gazer to flip his assumptions. I would be ecstatic if he simply recognised that they are, in fact, assumptions. That has happened on this forum, more than once.

but...

Originally posted by LifegazerThe 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.

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

...as you see, 'gazer does not see that his assertions are assumptions. He sees them as facts. That he does so only weakens his position, although I doubt he sees it that way.

I find it amazing that he can see the entire universe as an illusion of the mind, and yet cannot conceive that this "mind" thing which none has ever been able to see, let alone measure, might be an illusion. Very closed-minded.

 

[RandFan]

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.

I googled "lifegazer and "primal-cause" and found that someone named lifegazer has been arguing primal cause since as long ago as Sept 92 in the Philosophy Forums and ephilosopher.

From ephilosopher.

I hope you do, really - because it seems so obviously simple to me that I cannot fathom why humanity as a whole has failed to see it. God has been staring us in the face.

Gazer,

Let's formaly frame your argument. It would be unfair for me to actually do it but let me help. I will give a propostion and premises and you change them as needed ok? I just want to get you thinking logically. I'm taking this from your epholosophy post

Proposition: God exists.

• Every relative thing comes from something.
• We can point to a time when all (relative) things began.
• The source of all things had no beginning.
• The source of all things had to have will power.

 

[lifegazer]

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.

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

...as you see, 'gazer does not see that his assertions are assumptions. He sees them as facts. That he does so only weakens his position, although I doubt he sees it that way.

"We do not experience anything until we have the sensation of that thing.". Why is this an assumption??
"We have sensory-experiences and we discern of "things" within those sensations.". Why is this an assumption??

 

[RandFan]

Actually, there is just God. My philosophy reduces the complex universe to nought but a thought within God's Mind. Like I said, my philosophy reduces existence down to one absolute entity and you cannot simplify things any more than this. Fact.

Sorry gazer,

That is just a game and it won't work. You have by your own admission accepted that our virtual world works the way science predicts. In other words we can explain all existence based on our understanding of the physical world and you agree to that fact.

You then add to that God. Now you might not intend to do that but it is an inescapable fact. We can start from god and then add all of the known physical properties of physics but we can then shave god off.

God is not necessary to explain our existence. Your theory violates Occam's Razor. THAT is a fact!

 

[lifegazer]

I googled "lifegazer and "primal-cause" and found that someone named lifegazer has been arguing primal cause since as long ago as Sept 92 in the Philosophy Forums and ephilosopher.

92 or 02?
I've been doing this forum stuff for less than three years.

 

[RandFan]

92 or 02?
I've been doing this forum stuff for less than three years.

'02

Sorry.

 

[lifegazer]

That is just a game and it won't work.

Want a bet?

You have by your own admission accepted that our virtual world works the way science predicts.

Whoa camel. I've said that there is order apparent within existence. I've said that science is the attempt to unveil this order. But science hasn't achieved its aims. And it cannot, for if there is a primal-cause of "things", then it cannot be one of those things, by default. Hence, only a philosopher can unveil the truth of such a cause.

In other words we can explain all existence based on our understanding of the physical world and you agree to that fact.

You must be joking.
Why don't you provide this full explanation for existence?

You then add to that God.

I add nothing to that. "That" doesn't even exist.

God is not necessary to explain our existence.

Utter tripe. I hereby demand an explanation for all existence or a retraction of this statement. And an apology.

Your theory violates Occam's Razor. THAT is a fact!

Only God exists. Just one entity. Existence cannot be reduced or simplified any more than this.
I'm bored of this Occam lark now so let's forget about it.

 

[uruk]

Actually, there is just God. My philosophy reduces the complex universe to nought but a thought within God's Mind. Like I said, my philosophy reduces existence down to one absolute entity and you cannot simplify things any more than this. Fact.

No It doesn't. It just adds more unanswerable questions to the ones we already have now.

 

[Atlas]

God is not necessary to explain our existence.

Utter tripe. I hereby demand an explanation for all existence or a retraction of this statement.

I found this cute Ontological refutation deep on this page.

Necessary Nonexistence

It can be argued that nonexistence is greater and more perfect than existence. The elements of existence are asymmetric and interact because of their imperfections. If they were perfect they would be static. Nonexistence is boundless, timeless, omnipresent, simple, etc. Existence is defined by its limitations. Furthermore, for any number of things that exists, one can imagine twice as many that do not exist, or the set of all sets of them, etc.

Another rationale is attributed to Melbourne philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911-1994), one component of his proof of the nonexistence of God:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

(Reference: Gasking's Proof', Analysis Vol 60, No 4 (2000), pp. 368-70.)

Gasking was apparently thinking the "world" or "universe" is the same as "everything." The proof is strengthened if "everything" is substituted.

[edit]
It's a marvellous tribute to the ability of the human mind to push logic. Lifegazer, you should attempt a simple elegant proof of your own.
[/edit]

 

[Mercutio]

"We do not experience anything until we have the sensation of that thing.". Why is this an assumption??

The assumption is in your use of "experience", which you tend to equate with existence. The sentence, alone, as you have it written here and not in the context of your philosophy, is not problematic; it can be thought of as a simple definition. But that is not how you use it; your use of this sentence is tantamount to saying "things do not exist apart from being sensed." (please correct me if I am wrong in this interpretation of your words--do you believe that the external world exists apart from your sensing it? Or did I interpret you correctly?)

"We have sensory-experiences and we discern of "things" within those sensations.". Why is this an assumption??

How about "through" those sensations? The assumption "within" implies that the things themselves are irrelevant. This is wholly an assumption on your part. Would you accept the same sentence with "through" instead of "within"? If it is merely semantics, you should have no problem with it. Again, do you believe that the external world exists apart from your sensing it?

In addition, "we have sensory-experiences" is an ambiguous phrase. Do you mean to imply that we have processes by which we get information about an external world? This is a perfectly good interpretation of your phrase. Or, perhaps, might you mean that "we have" some form of mental entity called a "sensory-experience", wholly independently of any outside world? This is another interpretation of the exact same phrase.

.....

I just noticed, you like to use the term "fact" a lot. Try substituting "assertion" sometimes; I think you will find it fits better.

 

[RandFan]

I add nothing to that. "That" doesn't even exist.

The order does. And we can explain the order (to a degree) without god.

You simply insert god to explain everything which explains nothing. How does God's brain work? What are the processes that creates our perception? All mysterious, inexplicable and unnecessary.

Utter tripe. I hereby demand an explanation for all existence or a retraction of this statement. And an apology.

I'll tell you what. Let's compare explanations.

Gazer's Explanation: God did it.

The Explanation of Science:

Imagine the Universe!

NOVA - Runaway Universe

PBS - Timeline of the Universe

Hands-on Universe

NASA - Big Bang

All About the Solar System

Only God exists. Just one entity. Existence cannot be reduced or simplified any more than this.

This is wrong. Stating that you have reduced all of the facts that we know about the world into god does not take away all of that information.

I'm about to prove you wrong. You have three choices, sit down and pay attention, put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly or pretend that you don't understand and state that I am wrong.

You have made a strategical error. You have admitted that if you are locked in a room you will suffer just as if the real world did actually exist. This could only be if the known laws of physics behave in the virtual world the same as they would in the real world.

Therefore the model of realism is identical to Gazer Philosophy with one exception. Your model has god and inexplicable and undefined processes.

QED

I'm bored of this Occam lark now so let's forget about it.

If that is the best way for you to avoid the truth. By all means.

 

[Kopji]

A book I can recommend on some of these topics, is Mortimer Adler's 'Ten Philosophical Mistakes'. Try pages 27-28

When ideas are treated as the only things with which we have direct acquaintance by our immediate awareness of them as things apprehended, we are compelled to live in two worlds without any bridge between them.
One is the world of physical reality, in which our own bodies occupy space, move about, and interact with other bodies. Our belief in the existence of this world is a blind and irrational faith.
The other is the completely private world in which each of us is enclosed - the world in which our only experience is the experience constituted by the consciousness of our own ideas. The assumption that individuals other than ourselves also and similarly live in the private worlds of their own conscious experience is as blind a faith as the belief that we all live together in the one world of physical reality.
When we correct the initial error that generates all these results, we find ourselves living together in the world of physical reality, a world with which we have direct acquaintance in our perceptual experiences...
We also live in a world in which we live together... the public world
There is still a third world... the world of our completely private, subjective experience...

It would, perhaps, be more accurate and more consonant with common sense to speak of these three realms of experience as three dimensions of one and the same world, not as three separate worlds.

The three dimensions consist of (1) perceptual objects that are really existing things or events (2) all other objects that may or may not exist, may have existed in the past but no longer exist, and objects that do not exist in the present but may exist in the future, and (3) the subjective experiences that exist only for the individual mind that has them.

 

[c4ts]

I'm not sick of Occam. Lightgazer's theory postulates plurality on every concievable level. The man must be turning in his grave.

 

[RussDill]

The universe we participate in is internal to our awareness. Exactly like a dream. Our physical laws relate to the order within our awareness.
Relativity and base quantum-indeterminism are to be expected in my philosophy, as discussed quite recently in another thread. Indeed, I even remember saying that Quantum-indeterminism of fundamental energy/matter could have been predicted thousands of years ago, as long as one assumed the existence of a primal-cause (God).

Based on your complete misunderstanding of QM and realitivity, so no, your predictions would have been utterly useless and meaningless.

I gave you proof earlier. Any entity which experiences abstract existence is the primal-cause of that existence. I.e., that entity chose to create sensations, thoughts & feelings, for itself and by itself.

And I've shown time and time again exactly how your proof is not a proof, and is woefully incomplete. However, you choose to ignore it, since after all, you know you are right, and I am wrong.

Even science recognises the workings of the subconscious.

Ok...so? The subconscious (non-conscious) part of the mind is rather unintersting. But I suppose here you mean "collective unconscious", which science does not recognize.

There can be nothing external to an intangible realm of existence. By default.

I already pointed out how a realm of existence represents intangible constructs, but you ignored that too.

 

[RussDill]

Have you watched the news recently? Have you read your history books?

Yes, it is truly exciting how far we have come. However, from your implied meaning, I would gather that you watch the news, but do not read your history books.

We've screwed each other - man against man, nation against nation, church against church. All divided. Result: inequality, war, terror, poverty, injustice, greed, indifference.
Where are our values? With money and comfort for the self and our immediate family first and foremost. We perpetuate the inequality and division passed onto us by previous generations. But guess what, it's not obligatory that this generation should make the same mistake as all previous generations.

You ask what difference it would make to know yourself as God... to know yourself in all people... to know all people in yourself. Those that know embrace humanity as their family... seek unity for mankind. One nation, no borders, an end to war and inequality. No more poverty.
One God, one people, all working for each other. Not through cohersion, but through realisation and desire.

OK, so right now, we are all seperate individuals with our own identity, wants, desires, flaws, emotions, etc, etc. If we all realized that the "primal source" was god, then we would all be our own seperate individuals with our own identity, wants, desires, flaws, emotions, etc, etc. I fail to see the point.

You should care because your egotistical/selfish purposes are at odds with the truth of your identity and with unity for mankind.
Only unity will save mankind from self-oblivion. Division means death.

All signs point to diversity being the path to success. I happen to enjoy being different, thank you very much. And you don't have to have this whole unity crap anyway, if everyone realizes that we are all brothers, all human beings, then you get the same result. (unless you can explain why the result would be different)

 

[RussDill]

Let me spell it out for you. We can confirm existence solely through a reasoning/emotional awareness of intangible things which have their existence amongst the internal abstract sensations of our mind.

I see you were unable to come up with any answers to any of the questions I have put forth regarding the above and below. You have not even modified your argument to strengthen it. Again, your ego takes over and tells you that you are right, and I am wrong. I imagine you getting ready to craft your response now, insult me, tell me that I, and my arguments are worthless, so much easier than actually meeting someone head-on.

[You are assuming that our awareness of things refers soley to something within our mind, and does not represent anything outside our awareness, which, even in your philosophy it does. Also, since you are getting desperate, I see you are throwing in more unqualified adjetives than usual, ie, "internal abstract sensations"]

Our existence is completely internal to the self/awareness/mind. Emphasis full-stop.
We neither know of nor can reason for (true!!) the existence of a realm external to "perception world". No soul has ever glimpsed a thing beyond his own awareness or self!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Emphasis justified.
[/B]

All you are saying here is that we cannot prove that our senses are telling us about a material world. OK, but that is not what you need to do. You need to prove that our senses are not telling us about a material world. I feel silly even assuming that you might understand the difference.

Furthermore, we can know that our Mind is the creator of the [abstract/intangible/subjective] sensations, thoughts & feelings, which constitute the experience of "me" (or whomever).

Simple enough, but you need to define "creator". Because it is not clear if you are including cause or not. Just because you create something does not mean that you designed it. Once you define creator specifically, it becomes clear that the above statement no longer holds water.

I explained why already - the external universe (if it did exist) neither knows of nor cares for nor possesses the power to impose such experiences upon an entity which has them.

Shall I sing a song about false dichotomy, make a rhyme, what? I've already laid out in great detail why the above is a false dichotomy, and even given specific examples of other choices.

It is bleedin obvious that any entity which has such experiences is the primal-cause of those things.

"bleedin odvious", wow, I'm sure that if anyone said something was "bleedin odvious", you'd believe them rigtht away.

Nothing truly exists external to an intangible entity, by default. To ponder the existence of a reality outside of non-spatial reality is absurd.

Again, another false dichotomy.

 

[RussDill]

Lucky you. Young, American? No bleedin wonder. See if you say the same thing in 50 years, if you're still around.

Actually, I know quite a few people who are much older than 50 who are still happy, optomistic, easy going, etc. I'm sorry if you think you have such a crap life lifegazer, but your philosophy will not save you, an idea of unity will not save you, only perspective, understanding, optimizism, motivation, and some love.

 

[RussDill]

LOLOLOLOLOL.
Show me one jot of proof that you have a physical body and I will show my butt on the nearest highstreet.

Thats great lifegazer, but that isn't what he said, and it doesn't have anything to do with what you have tasked yourself with doing. There is no need to prove you wrong (although it is easy to do). We mearly need to show that your proof that we do not have a physical body is incomplete. Do you think that showing that you cannot prove you have a physical body is equivelent to proving that you do not?

So as you say, Show me one jot of proof that you do not have a physical body and I will show my butt on the nearest highstreet.