Question for Lifegazer

[lifegazer]

I challenge any person in this forum to destroy my philosophy, using reason.
It cannot be done. The only way to attack my philosophy is to attack the credibility of lifegazer the man. Hence the methodology of Geoffrey et al: defamation and the force of foul language.

Only God exists. I can prove this and I can also show why this conclusion cannot be destroyed, using reason. If you don't want to listen, then that's your problem.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

 

[lifegazer]

... defamation and foulness, is all you have Geoffrey.
You've lost.

 

[Upchurch]

lifegazer, I seem to have missed where you addressed the issue of whether or not you are awake, so pardon me for asking again.

Are you awake?

 

[uruk]

I challenge any person in this forum to destroy my philosophy, using reason.

It has been done many times in the past. It has been done with both reason and proof. just look at any of you threads each time you have abandon them because you could not argue your point any further.
Your just too stubborn or willfully ignorant to realize it.

Only God exists. I can prove this and I can also show why this conclusion cannot be destroyed, using reason.

You've never even tried to provide proof of anything you have ever stated. We can only wait with anticipation to hear the proof you continualy refusse to provide.

True, I know very little (not "nothing"). But it's not important.
I proclaim to have a full and complete philosophy of my own which is not dependent upon reference to past masters of philosophy.

So I stand corrected. you have provided proof of something; your willfull ignorance.

 

[RandFan]

That's a funny sort of dualism.

You are right. It's my attempt to reconcile HPC and skepticism of the metaphyscial.

But hey, I'm not trying to declare a revolution. Give me that will ya?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You are right. It's my attempt to reconcile HPC and skepticism of the metaphyscial.

Have you considered Bertrand Russells neutral monism?

He was in the same boat as you - a skeptical atheist who was once a materialist but eventually had to accept that the mind-body problem was an inescapable problem for materialism.

When you say "skeptical of the metaphysical" you really mean "skeptical of the paranormal", yes?

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/neutralmonism.html

But hey, I'm not trying to declare a revolution. Give me that will ya?

Yes, I will give you that.

 

[RandFan]

The last few words of this paragraph are important. In terms of a scientific paradigm, it is not possible to surpass the current paradigm. Since I last spoke to you about this subject I have read Thomas Kuhns classic "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", which makes many obscure things clearer. Science is not always the cumulative process many scientists like to think it is, and scientists are often not as objective as they like to think they are. Sometimes there is a "revolution" when an entire field is shifted onto new foundations, and often this is resisted for a long period beforehand. However, and critically, you can only shift a field onto new foundations if there is a new paradigm waiting to take the place of the old one, and since there is no useful replacement scientific paradigm for understanding the mind, there can be no "scientific revolution" of the sort that nappy boy thinks he is starting. In terms of philosophy, there is no need for a "revolution" because idealism is as old as the hills.

I just ordered the book from Amazon.com. Thank you.

 

[RandFan]

Have you considered Bertrand Russels neutral monism?

He was in the same boat as you - a skeptical atheist who was once a materialist but eventually had to accept that the mind-body problem was an inescapable problem for materialism.

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/neutralmonism.html

I'm a bit familiar with Russel but I did not know this. The only other Author that I knew who shared this conundrum was John Horgan "End of Science" and "The Undiscovered Mind".

Thank you for the link. I really apreciate it. Now if I could get a new CPU for my mind and be able to comprehend at a greater level. Ignorance is bliss, unfortunately I know what I don't know and am likely not to understand and it pisses me off. I'm trying though.

 

[Beleth]

I challenge any person in this forum to destroy my philosophy, using reason.
It cannot be done.

Analysis of previous threads regarding your philosophy shows that this is an untrue statment.

The only way to attack my philosophy is to attack the credibility of lifegazer the man.

Again, analysis of previous threads regarding your philosophy shows that this is an untrue statment.

Hence the methodology of Geoffrey et al: defamation and the force of foul language.

As I assume that I am part of that "et al", I want to clarify my use of foul language (namely, the word "dogcrap") as not only applying to your personal philosophy but also to the philosophies of many others who have come before us with The Ultimate Philosophical Answer To Everything. As to defamation, I have never defamed you. The only insults I have ever lobbed in your direction have been as a direct result of you lobbing them at me first.

Only God exists. I can prove this and I can also show why this conclusion cannot be destroyed, using reason. If you don't want to listen, then that's your problem.

It's not us that's not listening, lifegazer.

Your notion of God as the one thing which exists, and yet requires worship, is logically inconsistent. There are other holes in your simplistic philosophy that are just as needy of being patched. Yet you keep ignoring them. That is why your philosophy keeps getting destroyed, using reason.

If you would take these comments as constructive and not destructive, your philosophy would naturally become stronger and more reasonable. But your philosophy doesn't bend in the face of the winds of logic; it breaks.

 

[RandFan]

When you say "skeptical of the metaphysical" you really mean "skeptical of the paranormal", yes?

I appologize for breaking up the post. My brain isn't working yet. I haven't had my coffee.

For sometime I have viewed both with skepticism but I will admit that my skepticism of the paranormal is greater but I'm not sure of the significance of that.

 

[RandFan]

I challenge any person in this forum to destroy my philosophy, using reason.

Been there, done that.

It cannot be done.

And birds can't fly.

The only way to attack my philosophy is to attack the credibility of lifegazer the man.

It has been shown that you like science behave as if there is an "out there". You condemn science for this but justify your own action. This speaks for itself.

Only God exists. I can prove this and I can also show why this conclusion cannot be destroyed, using reason. If you don't want to listen, then that's your problem.

If you can prove it then what are you waiting for? Prove it. So far you have done little but offer conjecture and speculation that is easily refuted.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm a bit familiar with Russel but I did not know this. The only other Author that I knew who shared this conundrum was John Horgan "End of Science" and "The Undiscovered Mind".

Horgans books is a personal account of a person whose worldview was in transit from one place to another place, and I had a lot of sympathy for him when I read it. But Horgan sounded like a desperate man. It is an interesting book, but I would not recomend it widely.

Thank you for the link. I really apreciate it. Now if I could get a new CPU for my mind and be able to comprehend at a greater level. Ignorance is bliss, unfortunately I know what I don't know and am likely not to understand and it pisses me off. I'm trying though.

Ignorance is indeed bliss. Philosophy is sado-masochism. How many happy philosophers have their been?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I appologize for breaking up the post. My brain isn't working yet. I haven't had my coffee.

For sometime I have viewed both with skepticism but I will admit that my skepticism of the paranormal is greater but I'm not sure of the significance of that.

You cannot say you are a dualist (or a materialist) and also say that you are "skeptical of the metaphysical". To be "skeptical of the metaphysical" you have to take the position of Richard Rorty, who was one of the fathers of post-modernism. Rorty denies there is any such thing as truth and truly dismisses all metaphysics, but at a price. The price is that he refuses to acknowledge that the word "objective" means anything at all (he replaces it with "inter-subjective consensus"). He also refuses to use the term "relativism". Rorty is utterly despised within academic philosophy, having been accused of "blowing up philosophy". When I mentioned him at my interview for a place at University to study philosophy, my two interviewers both had a sharp intake of breath and a double-take at me. "Rorty" is a dirty word. Rorty is an anti-foundationalist and an anti-representationalist. That means he does not accept that any form of words can truly represent reality, and that he does not accept that knowledge can have any single foundation. This contrasts with both lifegazers baby-idealism and the JREF-norm of materialism - both of these systems are foundationalist, not that you would be able to build anything on lifegazers foundation. To be truly "anti-metaphysical" you must be anti-foundationalist. The opposite of anti-foundationalist is coherentist - which means that you build up your understanding of the world from multiple sources and validate it by making sure the whole thing is coherent.

 

[lifegazer]

Rorty denies there is any such thing as truth

There are no truths except the statement that there are no truths? What a crock.

 

[Beleth]

Have you considered Bertrand Russells neutral monism?

He was in the same boat as you - a skeptical atheist who was once a materialist but eventually had to accept that the mind-body problem was an inescapable problem for materialism.

Hmm, that sounds like the boat I'm in too. Or close to it, anyway; I'm more of a "laissez-faire Deist" than a skeptical atheist.

The only exposure to Russell I've ever had was "Why I Am Not A Christian", and that was well on 20 years ago. I'll have to check him out in more depth.

 

[Upchurch]

So.....

Is lifegazer awake?

 

[Beleth]

So.....

Is lifegazer awake?

If we are all merely experiences of the Mind, that it is not possible that any of us are "awake" in the way lifegazer means it. Including lifegazer himself.

 

[Upchurch]

If we are all merely experiences of the Mind, that it is not possible that any of us are "awake" in the way lifegazer means it. Including lifegazer himself.

Which means, of course, that there is no way to tell the difference between reality and a perfect illusion of reality.

 

[Beleth]

Which means, of course, that there is no way to tell the difference between reality and a perfect illusion of reality.

No way for us to tell the difference, no. But in the Mind's reality - the ultimate reality - there's a difference.

Something in the other thread clicked for me. As I said over there, I don't think it is in my power to "believe" his philosophy, because it deals with a level of reality that I cannot by definition experience. But I think I can do more than just naysay it now.