Nothing exist until after we perceive it
- Thread starter Antonio Alejandro
- Start date
It’s not so much that it is inconsistent, but “matter” is completely unnecessary to the scheme as the primal casual agent – it’s unparsimonious.
Ergo it is illogical to assert that “matter” is necessary as the primal casual agent, and an illogical assertion is a logical inconsistency.
Put another way, the “matter” is as relevant to explaining the universe as “aether” is relevant to explaining the Theory of Relativity.
Sure, how else do you judge? The question really is, have you come up with the best equation, or is there another simplified version of the equation that better fits with the observations?
Well, assume that it doesn’t.
Who or what is having this conversation then? Who or what is receiving the information? Just TLOP?
Doesn’t that leave us in the same situation?
So if mind doesn’t exist, then what is having this experience? TLOP? All you seem to be doing is transferring the problem elsewhere.
I would classify all incoming information as INPUTS (Perception), all outgoing information as OUTPUTS (Expression (Speech, action)), and all internal manipulation of information as PROCESSING (Cognition).
Cognition relies on Memory. Memory is an internal source of inputs (i.e. not requiring the senses), but then again, for all you know all inputs originate internally. Put another way Cognition is dependent on Memory and memory is defined as the perception of internally contained information. Memory is a subclass of Inputs.
Keep in mind Upchurch, that I do not believe in the supernatural, so for me there is not much difference between what you call “the physical world” and what you call “the spiritual world”.
I am not saying that they are tamper proof, all I am claiming is that perception is your only source of Inputs (information), and Cognition is your only method for Processing that information and determining if it is consistent with your previous information (ideas, notions, and beliefs). If the incoming information has been tampered with, then either there is a mechanism for you to perceive this, or you cannot, and if you cannot perceive the tampering or detect it in any way, then from your POV its exactly the same as if the information is not being tampered with.
If you honestly believe that your mind (which you have directly experienced) is less real than the “matter” (which you have not directly experienced) then how is that anything different than claiming that Solipsism is true?
If the “matter” is more real than You are then isn’t that the same as saying your post is more real than the mind that wrote it?
Antonio Alejandro
Student
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2003
- Messages
- 40
The how and the why - CFLarsen
CFLarsen
You are using reason to determine the course of event, yet you have not demontrated how this reasoning is non-conceptual (i.e. absolute and impersonal). Yet it is exceedingly simple to show how it is conceptual and personal.
You are also holding on to the idea that the brick disappears when undefined. If I state that the unperceived brick disappears as it is flying thru the air or when it is hitting her, I will also be stating that the unperceived brick can also have existence.
In the unperceived "event" there is no time, there is no space, there is no mass or motion. All of these things are known by measurements, they are not intrinsic. The meaning of undefined is not the same as existence.
CFLarsen
You are using reason to determine the course of event, yet you have not demontrated how this reasoning is non-conceptual (i.e. absolute and impersonal). Yet it is exceedingly simple to show how it is conceptual and personal.
You are also holding on to the idea that the brick disappears when undefined. If I state that the unperceived brick disappears as it is flying thru the air or when it is hitting her, I will also be stating that the unperceived brick can also have existence.
In the unperceived "event" there is no time, there is no space, there is no mass or motion. All of these things are known by measurements, they are not intrinsic. The meaning of undefined is not the same as existence.
Antonio Alejandro
Student
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2003
- Messages
- 40
Lord elmworth
you are essencially saying that there are concepts before there is anyone to think about them. Do you believe that existence is not a concept?
you are essencially saying that there are concepts before there is anyone to think about them. Do you believe that existence is not a concept?
Fine then, you're dense.Franko said:
Matter does not spring forth from mental processes, that would be a violation of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, as well as completely absurd at its very root.
You're definition of free will is incorrect. Free will is the ability to choose at one's own accord.
You're concept of free-will is ill-concieved, you described it as "rides around in our bodies" suggesting "free-will" exists concretely. That is incorrect, free will is an abstract concept to describe the ability to choose at ones own discretion.
Arguement from ignorance.
Ignorant arguement (that's one I made up), you cannot assert that a belief is wrong simply because it appears pessimistic.
Style note: You're use of brackets is a bit confusing.
You touched a bit on Problems Of Philosophy 101: We cannot leap out of our 1rst person frame of reference (which is my favorite frame of reference, by the way) to observe reality. However, our brain and senses work symbiotically, they've evolved to become "better", it is reasonable to assume your perception of reality is an accurate one (assuming you are physically and mentally healthy). It is reasonable to assume the plants I see on my desk are actually there.
Upon reading that, I feel a slight tingling inside my brain... sounds like crackling or popping...
The Laws Physics do not exist objectively, they describe things which exist objectively (including matter, interactions between matter, and physical phenomena such as gravity). That's why its called "the study of interactions between matter and physical phenomena".
I think you were just looking for a reason to use the word "masturbation"...
And no, it is not a silly idea that matter exists without perception of it.
And no, (if I understand what you are saying correctly) it is not a question of semantics.
You're concept of Physics is incorrect, physics is a science, it does not control or drive our bodies, it describes how and why they work.
Style note: Your superflourous use of brackets is confusing.
Your reasoning is flawed, the universe does not transmit information to the mind. Humans interpret stimuli (usually in forms of light, sound, touch, smell, and taste) from the evironment around us, the stimuli are not fed into humans.
Re: The how and the why - CFLarsen
You mean, Bill throws the brick, kills himself, and may Shirley gets hit by a brick, maybe not hit at all, maybe hit by something else, since it is undefined? Bill throws a brick, and Shirley gets hit by a gold bar?
Antonio Alejandro said:
You mean, Bill throws the brick, kills himself, and may Shirley gets hit by a brick, maybe not hit at all, maybe hit by something else, since it is undefined? Bill throws a brick, and Shirley gets hit by a gold bar?
Mind: The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination; The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.Franko said:
If that is the definition you are using, then yes, you can and do experience consciousness (or mind).
Mind originates from the brain, the brain is made of matter. Yes, its reasonable to say you can directly observe matter.
Sure, but I still dont see how this is in any way related to Upchurch's above comment.
(By the way UpChurch, "I am conscious/I have a mind" is not a statement of faith, I wouldnt be able to think it without being conscious.)
Consciousness originates from the brain which is made of matter, you're analogy is flawed.
Your defintion of "parsimonious" is incorrect, that makes your assumption of matter being an illusion completely unfounded.
I wouldnt see how "mind" is an illusion.
I dont know what you mean by information, unless you are using it as a transposition of "stimuli". In that case, assuming external stimuli is an illusion would be absurd.
Franko said:
I'm going to explain something to you as I already have: To explain something in terms of God is to explain exactly NOTHING (Source: Plato). To explain something in terms of Solipsism is to explain exactly NOTHING (Source: Yahweh).
Solipsism is defined as "a Philosophical theory which states that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified". This makes Solipsism a form a skepticism. But as I said before, it explains exactly nothing, therefore Solipsism is an irrational form of skepticism. Your assertion that matter is only an illusion is completly unfounded and in fact, irrational. Solipsism is the square peg trying to fit through the round whole.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
But "mind" is unnecessary as well. Wouldn't it be even more simple, more parsimonious if there were nothing at all, not even mind? You've not justified why matter is discardable but the mind is not.Franko said:
In other words, it's a dead end?
If there is no mind then I cannot tell you (1) because I don't exist to tell you and (2) there is no you to tell. All this would be merely an illusion. For who or what's benefit would beyond knowing.
Isn't this precisely what you do with your solipsism and "figment of your imagination" arguments? When you ask me to prove that I'm not the only mind in the universe, I ask you prove that the mind (mine or anyone elses) exists at all.
I merely taking your reasoning to it's conclusion where I am skeptical of not only the reality represented by my senses but of the reality represented by my internal senses as well. Why reject one, but not the other?
Incoming from and outgoing to where? The physical world? How do you know that exists? When you express, speak or act, where are you doing all this? If "you" are processing information, where are you doing that and how do you know for sure?
Or, for all you know, all the inputs originate externally. How do you know? How can you differentiate? If you're looking for logical consistancy, wouldn't you expect that, if you were generating it all yourself, you would make it logically consistant? If all inputs were external, wouldn't you expect that you could be made to believe that the inputs are logically consistant?
How do you know anything is true at all?
There might be others who consider what you consider to be "The Mind" to be supernatural. How do you refute them and assert that "The Mind" isn't supernatural? You've still not distinguished the differentiator between why you trust your "internal" senses but not your "external" senses.
Then you don't know whether your incoming information has been tampered with or not? Or even if your "thoughts" aren't just fabricated inputs? Then why do you claim the "mind" is real? Blind faith in your belief system?
I'm not saying anything about matter being more or less real than Mind. I'm saying that if you reject the reality of your perception of one, how can you not reject the reality of your perception of the other? Why be critical of one perception but accept the other with no evidence whatsoever? That is the double standard.
Your definition of unparsimonious is incorrect.Franko said:
Furthermore, mind is unnecessary to exist for reality or the universe to exist.
Without matter, there would be no mind. Your ergo is self-contradictory.
Aether is completely unnecessary to describe GR, however matter and energy is completely necessary to explain the universe.
You might as well have said something along the lines of:
Respiration is about as relevant to describe breathing as the color red is relevant to describe mathematics.
Do you understand what a false analogy is?
GR and SR are pretty good at describing interactions between matter in terms of space time, at the quantum level, and also at the cosmic level. Newtonian Physics are good at describing macrophysical interactions between objects.
I can play along but I dont accept Nihilism as any means of reasoning.
Your defintion that Physics is sentient is entirely and absolutely incorrect.
Consciousness is not necessary for anything in the universe to exist. Furthermore, the same physics would apply to the matter--wait, I'm supposed to be imagining matter doesnt exist... in that case, the illusion of physics would still make the illusion of matter behave in the same way (illusionarily speaking).
Humans are not just a big chain of chemical reactions, otherwise there would be no consciousness and I would be completely unaware that I am typing this. I am aware that I am typing it.
*drools*
I dont know what that means.
Although those definitions are rather vague and ambigious, they are acceptable for the time being.
Memory is stored in coded RNA sequences in the part of the brain where memory is stored (I forgot the scientific term for it, I'll remember it later...), the sequences are reliant on a combination neural processing (cognition) and perception. You're hierarchy description of memory was incorrect.
"Inputs origination internally", well, perception is processed inside the brain, but conscious perception of the external world is reliant on external stimuli.
Supernatural is defined as "Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces; occuring outside description of scientific explanation". There is a huge difference between the natural world and the spiritual world, your comment is self-defeating.
I'll describe something to you:
I wear glasses, I have terrible eyesight. In my left eye, I'm pushing about 70. In the right eye, It's about 80. Nothing is in focus beyond the distance of my hand, I wouldnt be able to read my computer monitor without my glasses. Do the glasses tamper my with perception, or is everything really blurry in objective reality?
The answer: The glasses correct my vision, nothing is blurry in objective reality.
Irrelevant conclusion.
False analogy.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
A saying comes to mind when ever I read a Franko Post.
"If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, then baffle them with Bullsh!t"
Like I said, he's fighting with no ammunition, so he has to make
everything up as he goes along. Not once has he ever backed anything up he said with evidence or proof or directly answered any questions posed to him. He invents rebutals by pourposly missinterpreting twisting questions posed to him and evasion.
He just argues for the sake of argument.
"If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, then baffle them with Bullsh!t"
Like I said, he's fighting with no ammunition, so he has to make
everything up as he goes along. Not once has he ever backed anything up he said with evidence or proof or directly answered any questions posed to him. He invents rebutals by pourposly missinterpreting twisting questions posed to him and evasion.
He just argues for the sake of argument.
Ok, so far we've got two different things happening here. First of all, we have the screwed up argument of
Atoms obey TLOP
You are made of Atoms
Therefore you Obey TLOP
Which can easily be shown to be a fallacy (for uninitiated, this is a fallacy of composition) by simply changing it around to:
Atoms are invisible
You are made of atoms
Therefore you are invisible.
Basically what applies to a singular object does not necessarily apply to a whole made of those objects.
Second thing is that if we don't perceive it, it does not exist or something. The author of this revolutionary concept can't seem to explain it very well himself/herself (claiming it's all to do with mysticism and we should just look it up ourselves). As others have pointed out, that's just a load of steaming hors****t. The quickest proof is event that have occurred previous to the existence of anyone capable of perceiving them - or events that have occurred outside of perception.. Take a look at the stars, the event to produce the light has occurred in the past. By the author's logic, the event can not exist because nobody was there to perceive it. However, the event clearly exists. What does this mean? Two things. One, the originator of the idea is a moron. Two, events exist and occurr whether you're aware of them or not.
Atoms obey TLOP
You are made of Atoms
Therefore you Obey TLOP
Which can easily be shown to be a fallacy (for uninitiated, this is a fallacy of composition) by simply changing it around to:
Atoms are invisible
You are made of atoms
Therefore you are invisible.
Basically what applies to a singular object does not necessarily apply to a whole made of those objects.
Second thing is that if we don't perceive it, it does not exist or something. The author of this revolutionary concept can't seem to explain it very well himself/herself (claiming it's all to do with mysticism and we should just look it up ourselves). As others have pointed out, that's just a load of steaming hors****t. The quickest proof is event that have occurred previous to the existence of anyone capable of perceiving them - or events that have occurred outside of perception.. Take a look at the stars, the event to produce the light has occurred in the past. By the author's logic, the event can not exist because nobody was there to perceive it. However, the event clearly exists. What does this mean? Two things. One, the originator of the idea is a moron. Two, events exist and occurr whether you're aware of them or not.
Well in that case, I think I'll argue just to embarass him. Eventually, he'll give up. It's really hard to defeat science with philosophy, it get's especially harder when your philosophy is illogic.uruk said:
My favorite philosophy: Leave Philosophy out of science.
This is the same reasoning used by creationists when they refused to believe epidemics were not devinely inspired.ImpyTimpy said:
Try to imagine someone saying this:
"I dont believe in germs. You say they are all over the place, they cover everysquare millimeter of my skin, but I cant even see them?! So you believe these tiny little animals called "germs" are all over the place but we cant even see them, yet they are making me sick..."
I usually like to respond with "Yeah, we've left the 19th century behind... oh, I hate to burst your bubble, but maggots dont spontaneously generate from meat either... hope I havent spoiled your day".
Well said.
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Provided Bill is a good shot, the brick will hit Shirley.
The brick doesn't exist until she perceives it. She perceives it when it hits her, and then it exists. It disturbs the air around her head, etc.
To make it simpler, throw a brick straight up, with earplugs in, then as soon as you have thrown it, pull a blindfold over your eyes. You no longer perceive it.
Let us know if it hits you.
The brick doesn't exist until she perceives it. She perceives it when it hits her, and then it exists. It disturbs the air around her head, etc.
To make it simpler, throw a brick straight up, with earplugs in, then as soon as you have thrown it, pull a blindfold over your eyes. You no longer perceive it.
Let us know if it hits you.
Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
I refuse to pander to your false dichotomies, my wonderfully humourous friend. I believe the origin of the universe was undesigned and unplanned. That does not negate the possibility of order (undesigned order)...well, it doesn't negate it for anyone but you.
I have not applied the word random to the formation of the universe. I do consider our posts (or mine, at least) more designed than the formation of the universe, because my posts are the products of a consciousness. There is no sound reason to believe the universe was.
In a word, planning.
My opinion, which has been stated before, is that you are presenting a false dichotomy. I shall not explain it here again, nor in the future. Look up what I said.
I already did.
Upchurch said:
I like this concept. For the sake of argument, I hereby accept the possibility that I am not concious and assert that I am some kind of simulation or figment of someone else's imagination that is complex enough to respond as if it is concious.
Really, how could I tell the difference?