Question for Lifegazer

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

For this issue to be vaguely interesting, someone has to propose an experiment that would expose a difference between a monism in which everything is "mind" and one in which everything is "matter." If we can't, then it's just mood-making to decide that one monism is more pleasant than another.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Re: Re: Question for Lifegazer

While we listen to the sounds of silence ...

Yeah. You can almost see the tumbleweed blowing through the thread....

After some consideration, I conclude that both 1) and 2) cannot be true. Idealists can replace 2) with Objective Idealism and leave science in it's current pristine loveliness, with the train wreck between GR & QM as it currently is.

Interesting word "exactly"; something that science agrees it will never furnish in answer to any real question.

Surely it is only the act of observation itself that the materialists have a problem with. What is observed can be understood within the materialists model. I may have misunderstood your objection.

And I'd say buddha suggests a life style to take care of 6, agrees with 5, and ignores 4. (Define god & we can chat. ) [/B]

I agree that the Buddha would have responded to 4,5 and 6 in this way. For the purposes of this thread I would define "God" as a being with its own conciousness, with its own thoughts, with its own emotions, desires and independent existence. I am talking about the God of mainstream theism. For the record, I am not neccesarily arguing that Schopenhauer was completely correct about everything - I am simply making it obvious that lifegazer cannot start from "idealism is true" and make a logical leap to "therefore God exists and if only we knew we are God then all the worlds problems will be solved" because people like Schopenhauer and Liebniz are in the way, and cannot be ignored. Schopenhauer may well be wrong, but you cannot expect people to accept he was wrong by waving your arms and declaring it to be "obvious".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

For this issue to be vaguely interesting, someone has to propose an experiment that would expose a difference between a monism in which everything is "mind" and one in which everything is "matter." If we can't, then it's just mood-making to decide that one monism is more pleasant than another.

~~ Paul

Well this is part of the problem. Lifegazer believes that if only everybody in the world believed that idealism was true, that all of the worlds social, political, economic and environmental problems would magically vanish. The truth is that such things are only ever going to be relevant on a personal, individual level. It does not change science, economics or politics.

It just seems rather pointless to me that lifegazer is allowed to spend his entire time banging on about materialism, but nobody ever seems to challenge him about the next bit of his philosophy - the bit which goes :

Idealism is true, therefore everything is God, and if only we all recognised this there would be paradise on Earth. The truth is that he has been allowed to keep the debate centred on the one small issue he has a vague understanding of, but that the real gaping holes in his philosophy only become exposed if you humour him by accepting the first bit of his argument, and then asking him "well, what next?". At that point it becomes obvious that "his philosophy" is made of paper, and will fall over if you blow on it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Be patient Geoff - I'm in the process of starting a scientific revolution.

I'll respond later probably.

If you are not able to answer the questions, then kindly admit that you cannot answer them, and I will not ask again. But please do not pretend you are going to respond later when you in fact have no intention of doing anything of the sort.

And by the way - your lame humour is not a very good way of distracting people from the fact you can't answer the questions. You aren't starting a revolution. You are making a prize tit out of yourself. I think you are the saddest human being I have ever encountered. Nobody is laughing with you, certainly not me. If they are laughing at all then they are laughing at you, although I suspect most of them are so nauseated by your infantile self-important pseudo-philosophical babbling that they stopped laughing quite some time ago.

You see yourself as some sort of great leader, Lifegazer. The problem is that nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is interested in learning from you or following you. You are a self-proclaimed leader with no following, like some sort of rebel army officer marching round in circles barking orders at his imaginary squadron of revolutionaries, occasionally getting down on his knees and grovelling for support, which still never comes. I pity you.

 

[scribble]

Goddamn, Geoff. Did you quote that entire last post from something I wrote to YOU?

 

[lifegazer]

If you are not able to answer the questions, then kindly admit that you cannot answer them, and I will not ask again. But please do not pretend you are going to respond later when you in fact have no intention of doing anything of the sort.

You'll have to be patient. I'm more concerned with my own thread right now. I did intend to respond today but I went out and made the most of the gorgeous weather.

The problem is that nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is interested in learning from you or following you.

Then why start a thread asking me questions about my philosophy?

I pity you.

Actually, you despise me as is apparent by your tone. So don't tell porkies.
I'll respond in my own time. Now be quiet and wait.

 

[uruk]

but nobody ever seems to challenge him about the next bit of his philosophy - the bit which goes :

I and other people have challanged him on his claim that if everbody bought his philosophy then the world would be a better place spiel. In typical Lifgazer fashion , he ignored all the posts only to regurgitate his mantras.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You'll have to be patient. I'm more concerned with my own thread right now. I did intend to respond today but I went out and made the most of the gorgeous weather.

OK, since you are claiming you are going to answer the question I will keep bumping the thread with a "?" until you either answer me or admit you cannot.

Then why start a thread asking me questions about my philosophy?

You are deaf. I am asking you about idealism in general, not the incoherent bulls**t you expect everybody to swallow and go around calling "my philosophy", but since you don't actually know anything about idealism, apart from the incoherent bulls**t you made up yourself, you cannot answer the questions.

Actually, you despise me as is apparent by your tone. So don't tell porkies.

Oh I really do pity you. That is the truth.

I'll respond in my own time. Now be quiet and wait.

You do not have any right to order me to be quiet, Lifegazer. I will make you look like a f*ckwit in my own time, and on my own terms.

Your status at this site is as the guy at the bottom of the pile that everybody else hates. Been like that for your whole d*mned life, hasn't it, Lifegazer? They hated you at school, and you never figured out why. Now you are here, deluding yourself that what you have to say is important, when the truth is that everyone thinks you are an arrogant moron, blinded by his own cancerous ego whilst lecturing others on what it means to be God.

 

[lifegazer]

Stop boring me. Stop pretending that you know me. Wash your foul mouth out. Shut up until I respond to your trivial questions.

 

[RandFan]

Now you are here, deluding yourself that what you have to say is important, when the truth is that everyone thinks you are an arrogant moron, blinded by his own cancerous ego whilst lecturing others on what it means to be God.

Sounds accurate.

 

[RandFan]

Shut up until I respond to your trivial questions.

Is Geoff gone yet?

 

[lifegazer]

Some things Schopenhauer accepts are true :

1) Everything is mental (idealism is true).
2) The ultimate cause of everything is "will".
3) All minds are united.

Some other things Schopenhauer accepts are true :

4) There is no "God".
5) Human nature is to be selfish and "sinful".
6) Life is full of suffering, and there is no hope of changing this.

You keep telling me 1,2 and 3, but you keep rejecting 4,5 and 6.

4 & 6 contradict 1, 2 & 3, since 1, 2 & 3, basically state that there is one Mind (1 & 3) and everything which is perceived within it is created by the will of that Mind.
A Mind whose will is responsible for everything in creation, who is omnipotent and omnipresent, fulfils the criteria of a 'God'.
5 is not true either, because if it was the world would be over-run with evil and destruction. There would be no selfless acts or compassionate acts or loving acts. Yet there are.

This thread is built on the premises that even though idealism is true (1,2 and 3), the world remains the same and behaves as if materialism is true i.e. there is no "God" and human nature is driven by material-derived instincts.

The world appears to be external to us. But appearances are deceiving.
Every "thing" we are aware of emanates directly from the sensations. Since the sensations are most definitely not external to us, then neither are the "things" we see in them.
The world we perceive/sense is not external to us even if it appears to be so.

It is clear that the observed world really does behave as if materialism is true. Do you accept this?

It's clear that the things we sense appear to be external to us (we are duped). But it's also clear that this cannot be true: "things" are perceived directly from the senses and the senses are not external to us... therefore, neither are the "things" we sense.

If you do accept it, please explain why you believe 4,5 and 6 are wrong?

4, 5 & 6 are wrong for two reasons:-
(1) They contradict 1, 2 & 3, as explained.
(2) The world we sense is not really external to us, regardless of appearances (illusions).

 

[Wudang]

lifegazer in another thread said "science is corrupt because it assumes an out there". As we all have noted, lg assumes an "out there" so his philosophy is "corrrupt" by his own logic.

 

[lifegazer]

lifegazer in another thread said "science is corrupt because it assumes an out there". As we all have noted, lg assumes an "out there" so his philosophy is "corrrupt" by his own logic.

I do not assume an "out there" at all, except by illusory appearance.
The sensations are real. They really are giving the appearance of an "out there". But it's all an illusion, as explained in my previous post.
There is only an "in there" in regards the human experience, since our awareness embraces all sensed things.
There exists the appearance of an external universe within my awareness. Therefore, I embrace the universe I perceive.

 

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Does science assume the existence of an "out there"?
Of course it does.
There's nothing else worth discussing. The exhibited assumption is a proof that science is philosophically corrupt... and is therefore in need of a neutralising reform.


There is nothing else worth discussing. Do you assume the existence of an "out there"?
Of course you do.
There's nothing else worth discussing. The exhibited assumption is a proof that your philosophy is philosophically corrupt... and is therefore in need of a neutralising reform.

 

[lifegazer]

Now you're being dumb. I just told you that I do not assume the existence of a real "out there", as does science.

 

[RandFan]

Now you're being dumb. I just told you that I do not assume the existence of a real "out there", as does science.

Hmmm..... but you behave as if there is a real out there. You eat, find shelter, defecate, urinate, and do all of the other mundane "out there" things that prove you assume to some small degree that there is an out there.

I'm not sure science assumes an "out there" any more than you do. Scientists get sick, feel pain, discomfort, etc. They assume that these things are "out there" and they seek "out there" answers to these things for the same reason you move your bowels.

If they assumed that all of our feelings, impulses, pains, pleasures were only inner feelings then they could concentrate on altering our perceptions by concentrating on our mind. Actually some have tried but it has mostly led to failure. In the end we still have to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom and put band aids on our cuts.

You keep hypocritically accusing science of one thing while you do the very same thing. That will win you tons of credibility here.

 

[lifegazer]

Everything happens "in here". Everything. It's not real, but the experience is. Just like a dream, in this sense.

 

[RandFan]

Everything happens "in here". Everything. It's not real, but the experience is. Just like a dream, in this sense.

Just like a dream but not really a dream?

If virtual food (can I call it virtual food?) is for the facilitation of energy what is defecating for?

 

[uruk]

There exists the appearance of an external universe within my awareness. Therefore, I embrace the universe I perceive.

There ya go lifgazer. was that so hard to say? Say it again. "There exists the appearance of an external universe"
Wether that external universe actually exists or not is not important because we have no choice but to experiance and live our life as thus. We cannot deal with it otherwise. It is a nice subject to debate about, but it is ultimately academic.