Myths in the Making

[Mercutio]

If our ability to prove anything rests with the immaterial (consciousness), what does that tell us about the nature of proof? ... That it's all in our minds.

If our ability to prove anything does not, then what? You have been unable to even *define* consciousness or mind, let alone demonstrate their existence. Your statement is utterly vacuous.

Oh, and "proof" is the wrong standard, as has been discussed in other threads. We look for evidence, not for proof.

I am really sorry that you have retreated to your old habits. There was a glimmer of hope there for a moment.

 

[Iacchus]

If our ability to prove anything does not, then what? You have been unable to even *define* consciousness or mind, let alone demonstrate their existence. Your statement is utterly vacuous.

Hey, I always question myself, and rarely am I demanding of anyone else. However, certain things like "the sky is blue" and "a brick wall is dense," are a given.

By the way, consciousness or "mind," through its "experiential" nature, is that which defines and/or puts labels on things.

 

[Mercutio]

Hey, I always question myself, and rarely am I demanding of anyone else. However, certain things like "the sky is blue" and "a brick wall is dense," are a given.

It does not count as "questioning yourself" when you only count on yourself for the answers. Have you ever actually, for example, looked at the literature on dreams? You base so much of your ideology on your dreams--how do you know you can trust that? Did you question yourself, and then answer yourself?

Certain things, like "the world is flat", are a given. Self-evident.

By the way, consciousness or "mind," through its "experiential" nature, is that which defines and/or puts labels on things.

We define things. We label things. Why do you say that it is only a part of us--an unobservable part, at that--which accomplishes these things? Is this something you asked of yourself? Was it as obvious as a flat earth?

 

[Correa Neto]

If our ability to prove anything rests with the immaterial (consciousness), what does that tell us about the nature of proof? ... That it's all in our minds.

It just tells us that your "proof" is created by a material entity. It tells you, if you preffer, that the "immaterial" is created by the material.

Note that one can use your reasoning as an evidence that our mind is created by material entities. And that´s as far as you will be able to go comparing the Easter Bunny with real creatures.

 

[Iacchus]

It does not count as "questioning yourself" when you only count on yourself for the answers. Have you ever actually, for example, looked at the literature on dreams? You base so much of your ideology on your dreams--how do you know you can trust that? Did you question yourself, and then answer yourself?

As much as I don't read books, although my posting and reading habits on the Internet more than makes up for it, and neither am I prone to reading fiction, I have a small bookshelf at home with approximately 100 books, and just about every one of those is some sort of reference book. And yes, at least one or two of them have been particularly helpful in my understanding the nature of dreams.

Also, the dream realm is none other than the mythic realm, and any book concerning mythology (of which I have 20-30), helps aid in our understanding of dreams as well ... Since quite often we'll meet the same types of "characters" in our dreams.

Certain things, like "the world is flat", are a given. Self-evident.
We define things. We label things. Why do you say that it is only a part of us--an unobservable part, at that--which accomplishes these things? Is this something you asked of yourself? Was it as obvious as a flat earth?

And if we weren't sentient, what would we know? It's as easy as that I'm afraid.

 

[Iacchus]

It just tells us that your "proof" is created by a material entity. It tells you, if you preffer, that the "immaterial" is created by the material.

Note that one can use your reasoning as an evidence that our mind is created by material entities. And that´s as far as you will be able to go comparing the Easter Bunny with real creatures.

The Easter Bunny is no less real than the imaginary person that exists between your ears. They both come from the same place, the mythic dimension we call "the mind."

 

[Mercutio]

As much as I don't read books, although my posting and reading habits on the Internet more than makes up for it, and neither am I prone to reading fiction, I have a small bookshelf at home with approximately 100 books, and just about every one of those is some sort of reference book. And yes, at least one or two of them have been particularly helpful in my understanding the nature of dreams.

Would you care to share what those books are? I am very interested in seeing what you would consider to be a reference book for dreams. I could recommend a few for you.

Oh, and it is crucial to remember that the internet is not peer-reviewed. Any nut can put up a website. It is quite naive to suggest that internet reading can make up for a thorough examination of the literature on any topic. If you are serious about learning, there is no shortcut.

Also, the dream realm is none other than the mythic realm, and any book concerning mythology (of which I have 20-30), helps aid in our understanding of dreams as well ... Since quite often we'll meet the same types of "characters" in our dreams.

Ah...I begin to see what sort of books you consider references. And I begin to see what you consider "questioning yourself". You are asking questions and seeking answers which confirm your beliefs. That is not the path to learning.

And if we weren't sentient, what would we know? It's as easy as that I'm afraid.

It's as circular as that, I'm afraid.

 

[Correa Neto]

The Easter Bunny is no less real than the imaginary person that exists between your ears. They both come from the same place, the mythic dimension we call "the mind."

Note that the Easter Bunny is not able to peform any action or leave any traces. It is a concept. One person, however, can use this concept to create some effect in the world. Here´s the difference between the unreal Easter Bunny and the real person. The later can interact with the world.

The "person that exists between my ears" is my mind, self, whatever term you want. My mind can create imaginary entities, but it and these immaginary entities are not the same thing, they do not come from a "mythic dimension" or archetypical realm.

One has to be a material creature to be able to have a self and create imaginary creatures. It is most likely that the Easter Bunny and the self are products of the brain.

 

[Iacchus]

Would you care to share what those books are? I am very interested in seeing what you would consider to be a reference book for dreams. I could recommend a few for you.

And while I'm sure you're not going to agree with this, this one is online ... Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell.

Oh, and it is crucial to remember that the internet is not peer-reviewed. Any nut can put up a website. It is quite naive to suggest that internet reading can make up for a thorough examination of the literature on any topic. If you are serious about learning, there is no shortcut.

It had taken me a good 20-30 years to come to what I know. There were no shortcuts.

Ah...I begin to see what sort of books you consider references. And I begin to see what you consider "questioning yourself". You are asking questions and seeking answers which confirm your beliefs. That is not the path to learning.

Looking for things which coincide with my experience? Is that such a God-awful crime?

It's as circular as that, I'm afraid.

Not to a dualist. It's just a beginning.

 

[Mercutio]

And while I'm sure you're not going to agree with this, this one is online ... Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell.

Could you explain why you think this is a legitimate reference for the study of dreams? And please feel free to list other books by title and author. Unlike you, I have no fear of libraries.

It had taken me a good 20-30 years to come to what I know. There were no shortcuts.

One can spin wheels for a good long time without getting anywhere. 20-30 years is a measure of time, not progress.

Looking for things which coincide with my experience? Is that such a God-awful crime?

See, now, this does suggest you were taking shortcuts. Yes, it is a terrible thing to do if you are concerned with finding the truth. It is easy to demonstrate; I have classroom demonstrations for this. Remember, Iacchus--a flaw in your theory that you have failed to uncover is still a flaw. It is best to find the problems, not ignore them.

Not to a dualist. It's just a beginning.

"Making up the answers" is not the same thing as "finding out the answers".