My argument against materialism

Punshhhh...

Argument By Prestigious Jargon:

using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert.
Click to expand...

Stop with the semantics; if you want to understand why you're wrong stop talking and listen because up till now it's just been sophistry on your part. It's bad enough I have to sift through annnoid's drivel to read the nuggets of interest here...
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
He actually means verse 17.

It's still mystical twaddle, but at least the words match.
Click to expand...


Okay, whatever. I've been attempting to understand his POV, but now it's becoming quite clear that it's worse than mere misunderstanding on his part.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
I'm refering to the meaning behind the words, one side describes the appearance of things the other the inherent nature.
Click to expand...

No. One side describes stuff that can actually be known and verified, and the other side composes vapid nonsense about the way they wish things were.

If your argument had any merit, you could show me your working.
 
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

Dao De Zhing
Gia Fu Feng
 
Dancing David said:
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

Dao De Zhing
Gia Fu Feng
Click to expand...

I'll have number 9 with prawn crackers.
 
punshhh said:
This is my replacement quotation;

Bhagavad Gita chapter13 verse11.

avibhaktam...without division; tat...that Ultimate Truth;sthitam...appears;vibhaktam iva...to be divided; bhutesu...among all the various living entities; ca...and; jneyam...is to be known; bhuta-bhartr...as the preserver of all living entities; grasisnu ca...and the destroyer; prabha-visnu ca...as well as the creator.

Translation

Without division that Ultimate Truth appears to be divided among all the various living entities and is to be known as the preserver of all living entities and the destroyer as well as the creator.

If one considers;
"without division" as formless
"appears to be divided" as with form
"living entities" as physical things
"preserver of all living entities" as formless substrate of infinite potentiality
"destroyer as well as the creator" as "big crunch" or black hole and singularity in the big bang respectively.

All that I am offering for debate in this thread is covered.

The question "is there something beyond the universe" was only a hook to encourage debate on these points.

My various references to infinity are for the purpose of addressing a definition or description of the "formless"
Click to expand...

Yeah...

There is one simple explanation for your "Universe": the Dunning-Kruger effectWP.
 
Dancing David said:
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

Dao De Zhing
Gia Fu Feng
Click to expand...

As a boy in my quest for meaning I would sometimes spend a day ferreting around the book shops in Oxford.
One day on thinking where to go next, I thought it seems as though oxford isn't round as most towns, I am always in one half of a circle? So I walked along a street where I expected to find the other half of the city to be if it where round. It wasn't a very exciting part of town, anyway it was getting late, I came across a little old scruffy book shop. I thought this looks exciting and went in, the guy said sorry where closing, I said its ok I know what book I want its on that shelf over there, just to get a couple of minuites in the shop. He was watching me so self consciously I grabbed a book off the shelf and said here it is and bought it for 20p.

On being hurried out of the shop I happened to glance at the tittle of the book, I read;

"The Way" by Lao tzu.

I read it over and over until his words were coming out of my ears! it was the first book which really taught me to think outside the box.

It still is one of my favourite books.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
You're writing in English. We understand that just fine.

You're writing drivel in English.

That's your problem, not ours.

The God of the Gaps is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Perhaps you would like to rephrase that.

Or... Perhaps not.

No. All you are doing is making an excuse for your complete failure to produce an argument.

We have sense - that's us - and nonsense - that's you and annnoid. You cannot translate nonsense into sense; you can only abandon it.

Team Termite.
Click to expand...

Chew on these words in English;

"The solution to the hard problem in consciousness is to be found in the "now"."

You computationalists will be required to step out of the box of time and space before your to make any progress on this front.
 
dafydd said:
I'll have number 9 with prawn crackers.
Click to expand...
:D:D

punshhh said:
Chew on these words in English;

"The solution to the hard problem in consciousness is to be found in the "now"."
Click to expand...
Throughout my life, I've read all sorts of stuff like this and the others you have been quoting - enjoyed the sound of the words, the thoughts and 'what-ifs' they provoke, but always after a while the question, 'But is this TRUE?' would arise in mind, and I'd be off again on more questioning. The older I got - and, I humbly (well, not so humbly actually!) became, the more sure I became that, in the end, they were, as PixyMisa says, twaddle! Okay, poetic twaddle, but...
You computationalists will be required to step out of the box of time and space before your to make any progress on this front.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely of course, but it has been interesting following this thread though.
 
Last edited:
SusanB-M1 said:
:D:D


Throughout my life, I've read all sorts of stuff like this and the others you have been quoting - enjoyed the sound of the words, the thoughts and 'what-ifs' they provoke, but always after a while the question, 'But is this TRUE?' would arise in mind, and I'd be off again on more questioning. The older I got - and, I humbly (well, not so humbly actually!) became, the more sure I became that, in the end, they were, as PixyMisa says, twaddle! Okay, poetic twaddle, but...

I disagree completely of course, but it has been interesting following this thread though.
Click to expand...

I see your point, its not just my twaddle thats twaddle, everything is twaddle.

The Hindus have a word for it "chitta", ie, chitta chatta.

Its all a human mind can achieve through thought alone.
 
punshhh said:
Chew on these words in English;

"The solution to the hard problem in consciousness is to be found in the "now"."
Click to expand...
There is no "hard problem" in consciousness.

You computationalists will be required to step out of the box of time and space before your to make any progress on this front.
Click to expand...
Is that supposed to mean something?
 
Lowpro said:
Punshhhh...



Stop with the semantics; if you want to understand why you're wrong stop talking and listen because up till now it's just been sophistry on your part. It's bad enough I have to sift through annnoid's drivel to read the nuggets of interest here...
Click to expand...

I'm quite happy to discuss something with you on the bottom line of things in plain simple language if you want to give it ago?
 
PixyMisa said:
There is no "hard problem" in consciousness.
Click to expand...

I picked up this phrase here somewhere, is there a problem or is that one of the falacious arguments.

Is that supposed to mean something?
Click to expand...

I refer you to "now" again, is this "the present"?

Consider your own explanation of "now" and then consider the same "now", if there were no time, or space.

Is it "still there", has it got incredibly small? or has it vanished?
 
laca said:
Interesting.



I'm not. I just linked to somebody else's work. Are you really that dense?
Click to expand...

It was a joke, I am also a cartoonist in my spare time. Though I really don't think we should go down that line right now.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom