Nothing exist until after we perceive it

[Lord Emsworth]

Am I correct in assuming that to perceive something I need my senses?

If that is the case, how do my senses pop into existence, since "nothing exist until after we perceive it"?

 

[Franko]

L.E.:

Am I correct in assuming that to perceive something I need my senses?

To perceive means to receive information. The perception of the mechanism for receiving that information is referred to as the senses.

If that is the case, how do my senses pop into existence, since "nothing exist until after we perceive it"?

Your mind is the only thing that exists. Your mind consist of three parts – Input (Perception), Output (Expression), and Processing (Thought or Cognition).

 

[Upchurch]

To perceive means to receive information. The perception of the mechanism for receiving that information is referred to as the senses.

Didn't really answer his questions about where those senses or information came from, did ya?

Your mind is the only thing that exists. Your mind consist of three parts – Input (Perception), Output (Expression), and Processing (Thought or Cognition).

But if the mind is the only thing that exists, where does the input come from?

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Didn't really answer his questions about where those senses or information came from, did ya?

What information are you referring to?

Franko said:
Your mind is the only thing that exists. Your mind consist of three parts – Input (Perception), Output (Expression), and Processing (Thought or Cognition).

Upchurch replied:
But if the mind is the only thing that exists, where does the input come from?

Well there are two choices; you can take your pick:

1) The Inputs are simply the result of Processing and Output (i.e. there are no external inputs to the Mind).

… or …

2) The Inputs are produced by other Minds (i.e. the source of external inputs are other Minds/Souls/Gravitons).

 

[Upchurch]

Well there are two choices; you can take your pick:

this is assuming that we accept your premise that "mind is the only thing that exists", which I don't. There would actually be a third option.

1) The Inputs are simply the result of Processing and Output (i.e. there are no external inputs to the Mind).

… or …

2) The Inputs are produced by other Minds (i.e. the source of external inputs are other Minds/Souls/Gravitons).

... or ...

3) The Inputs are a combination of those produced by the mind's output and the output of other minds.

The first option is merely solipsism, self-deception, and a dead end. The second option and third options open the question of how information is passed from on mind to the other and why imagined reality is not more flexible to the whims of the minds.

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
3) The Inputs are a combination of those produced by the mind's output and the output of other minds.

I would consider this option the same as #2 (a variation of #2).

The first option is merely solipsism …

I agree.

self-deception, and a dead end.

Perhaps a “dead end”, but I don’t see how you can conclusively claim it is self deception without conclusive proof it is self deception, or put another way, to claim that a belief (unconfirmed information) is a fact (confirmed information) is the essence of “self deception”.

The second option and third options open the question of how information is passed from one mind to the other and why imagined reality is not more flexible to the whims of the minds.

I would say that reality is flexible to the whims of the mind, especially to the whims of the Mind of TLOP. Of course if #1 is true then the Thought/Cognition is the Mind (Source) of TLOP.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Okay, here's another expiriment:

We take Justine Timberlake and cut him into small pieces.

Then we put him in a blender for about 15 minutes.


Now, this expiriment doesn't really prove anything, but it would be a lot of fun, don't you think?

That would be fun.

Another experiment:

We take all of Franko's posts, divide them into individual sentences, write each sentence on a separate sheet of paper, put the pieces of paper in a hat, and draw them out to create new Franko posts.

Hypothesis: There would be no substantial difference in cohesion between Franko's "real" posts and our random Franko posts.

(I might actually try this one day when I'm really bored.)

 

[jan]

It is a well-known fact only a few weird materialists and a-theists doubt any longer that only those things exist that are perceived.

Unfortunately, there remain a few problems. Do perceptions exist? To exist, they must be perceived. I used to think things are perceived, not perceptions, but anyway: let us call a perception of a perception a perception of second degree. Obviously, a perception of second degree must be perceived to exist. I would call a perception of a perception of second degree a perception of third degree. And so on.

Another question is: who is perceiving all those perceptions? And who is perceiving the guy that is perceiving the one that perceives the perceptions? And so on.

Hm, I wonder whether there may be some things that are not perceived.

 

[Antonio Alejandro]

Marqi de carabas

You are correct, my statement is not absolute, nor did i claim as such.
As soon as think of something, it immediately becomes personal. As soon as I utter something it is an opinion.

 

[Franko]

M.D.C.:
We take all of Franko's posts, divide them into individual sentences, write each sentence on a separate sheet of paper, put the pieces of paper in a hat, and draw them out to create new Franko posts.

Yes, but according to Materialism/Atheism isn’t that exactly what you believe is happening anyway?

Atoms (“Matter”) randomly bumping around eventually randomly creates a human being who randomly develops language and randomly has a random number of ancestors who eventually make completely random internet posts???

Hypothesis: There would be no substantial difference in cohesion between Franko's "real" posts and our random Franko posts.

Sure. It would be a great way to test the reliability of the Theory of Atheism/Materialism.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

As soon as I utter something it is an opinion.

So, it must be your opinion that anything you utter is an opinion, which makes you therefore incapable of uttering a truth or a falsehood? Thus, your position seems to boil down to "Perhaps I cannot be proven right, but, then, no-one can prove me wrong."

 

[jan]

Yes, but according to Materialism/Atheism isn’t that exactly what you believe is happening anyway?

Atoms (“Matter”) randomly bumping around eventually randomly creates a human being who randomly develops language and randomly has a random number of ancestors who eventually make completely random internet posts???

I fail to see how anybody ever claimed that.

 

[Franko]

Jan:
I fail to see how anybody ever claimed that.

Are you claiming that the universe was designed?

I thought Atheism/Materialism was based on the notion that the origin and functioning of the universe was a purely random/stochastic event?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

a·the·ism

noun

unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities
from http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=atheism

ma·te·ri·al·ism
noun

1. philosophy theory of the physical: the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions
from http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=materialism

Franko, please note the distinct lack of the word 'random' in those definitions. If you prefer to use definitions of materialism and atheism that are necessarily entirely random, please provide such definitions. Just don't be surprised when no-one else respect them.

edited for grammar: I was lookful for errors, and I found one.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Franko is a troll extraordinaire. He hates atheists and skeptics to the point where I think he would peform violence upon them. There really is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with him, as he will assign you arguements (build strawmen) and then attack the strawman. He has no idea what reality is and prefers his own version. In essence, he is insane but thinks everyone else is.

 

[jan]

Are you claiming that the universe was designed?

I thought Atheism/Materialism was based on the notion that the origin and functioning of the universe was a purely random/stochastic event?

I even don't know what "purely random/stochastic event" should mean. Heard of laws of physics? Adaptive selection? Human intentions?

 

[c4ts]

You dont know much about Physics, do you? (I'd love to read a Physics term paper authored by you, I havent had a good laugh in a while.)

Yet another poster discover's Franko's mysterious lack of actual writing for someone so... uh... knowledgeable concerning his subject.

 

[Franko]

MCD:
please note the distinct lack of the word 'random' in those definitions.

So you are claiming that the origin of the laws of physics and the universe itself was NOT a random event? Does that mean you believe the universe was designed?

If you prefer to use definitions of materialism and atheism that are necessarily entirely random, please provide such definitions.

I am merely stating my interpretation/understanding of the theory of Atheism/Materialism, i.e. that the universe and the laws of physics were entirely random – the opposite of designed.

 

[Ossai]

From a now defunct thread in which you didn't answer.

Franko
Awaiting answers for the following.

If I can make a decision, freewill, then I am not controlled by TLOP.
If I am controlled by TLOP, then I cannot make a decision because TLOP is controlling me.

Example: It’s my fate to run a particular red light with my remote controlled car and run down a girl scout, killing her instantly. Since it’s my fate, how can I stop from running the red light?

From you earlier posts, fate/god – TLOP, controls everything. Again the remote controlled car is impounded while I walk away free and clear.

How can I behave more responsibly, if I’m being controlled by TLOP and the great TLOP conscious doesn’t want me to behave more responsibly? How can I go against the will of god? If I can, then by your definition, I’m supernatural, which would negate TLOP.

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP.

Essentially states that all existence is physical. So without some sort of meta-physical existence, death is the end.

TLOP controls Atoms, and Atoms (“Matter”) are everything according to You – aren’t they?

I never proposed anything, I’m asking for clarification. Are you proposing some sort of non-physical existence that isn’t controlled by TLOP?

Ossai

 

[Franko]

Jan:
I even don't know what "purely random/stochastic event" should mean.

Well from the way I’ve heard Atheists talk random (unplanned) is the opposite of designed (planned).

Heard of laws of physics? Adaptive selection? Human intentions?

Yes I have, but we are discussing whether those “objects/entities/properties” were randomly formed or designed.

Do you have an opinion on the subject?