|
 Ravus
Not an EggshellWalker
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
|
 Logical Empiricism 
#4043113 - 04/11/05 09:37 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
More and more in the realm of thought, people seem to create strong love and attachment to beliefs that have no evidence. Rarely do I see any Buddhas nowadays, following the logical train of thought without his ego and finding the inner source of all his pain; nowadays people seem to just want anything to distract them from their egos. I've noticed there are quite a few popular ones:
1. God exists.
Yet there is no evidence for God. Where is God? He is not in the sky, nor in the stars. He appears to have no role, and there is no evidence for him, so what is the point of this belief other than simply stroking the ego?
2. Everything is one.
The evidence I've gathered since birth seems to point to the contrary. My arm is not the same as that cup. I have conscious control over my body, and outside of it I only perceive objects. They are not part of my perceptual body or my consciousness, so the belief that everything is one seems to be lacking in evidence.
3. Love is *insert poetic sounding but useless phrase here*.
Love may be strong neurological reactions for individuals, but it is only your ego, part of your vast chemical reaction system in your mind that helps humans and perhaps other animals reproduce. I've seen no evidence that love makes up matter, that love is the true state of the mind, etc. This seems to be purely wishful thinking.
4. There is life after death.
This is also wishful thinking, with no evidence whatsoever. I've been to nonexistence before I was born, and to my knowledge that's just a black void. Physically, evidence points out that once your brain dies, your consciousness dies. There is no life after death.
There are many more of course, but those are some of the most-stated I hear in real life and on the Shroomery. I know nothing besides perceptual evidence, but unlike others, I don't make up arbitrary beliefs to put my ego's worries to rest. Why do people need these unproven, basically useless beliefs?
It seems to be a case of just raising morale and cognitive dissonance. Life, death, time and suffering are all out of our control, and basically irreversible, so what does the man cornered on the edge of a cliff do when tigers surround him? In this case, most people jump into a void without evidence, and hope against hope that they don't hit the ground when the gravity of the situation fully kicks in.
If a philosopher wanted to end with a mindset resembling that of our current reality in any way, he should assemble his rare and precious truths that he himself knows and build up from there. How can you take Yeshua's, or Buddha's, or Plotinus' words as truths when you gaze at the house they have built? Nobody knows the stability of the foundation and the strength of the woodwork these houses were built upon besides the people themselves, and they are long gone. Direct knowledge is the key to escaping all this senseless bullshit.
--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.
|
eMotionALLmotion
DivineeMotive....
Registered: 02/28/05
Posts: 759
Loc: The Symphony of Lights......
|
 Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
#4043174 - 04/11/05 09:56 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
1) You can't see air either, but it exists - in (y)our reality....
.
2) Everything is made out of the same "stuff" on this planet.... (energy, and slowed down energy)
.
3) You can't see emotions, so like you say for GOD, how can you ration that it exists or not...? (hint - you can feel them)
.
4) So, no spirit....? HHhhmmmm.... Another thing you can't see....  (hint - you can feel that too)
--------------------
Uni-VersALL  MasterPeace
eMotive  Divinity NowThere Infinity eMelody
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
 Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
#4043197 - 04/11/05 10:00 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I'm a big believer in direct experience. But I doubt my direct experience has much to do with ultimate knowledge of any truth. No point in believing in self knowledge either. Being finite, how can anything of infinite nature be known?
Most people IMO just cannot handle the fact that everything is a crap shoot. They just have to "know" something or they're afraid life will be just one big salvia trip. Which it is IMO. I do it too. It seems part of the human experience as much as we like to think we are above that because we have some very complex theories about life.
I know nothing! I tell you! Nothing. 
--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.
" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.
With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Ravus
Not an EggshellWalker
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
|
|
1) There is evidence of air, and scientific proof of it. You can see how air affects you and things around it. The same cannot be said of God.
If there was any proof of God, that belief would be much stronger, but as there is none, it seems to simply be arbitrary wishful thinking.
2) Even if everything was made out of the same material, which you seem to presume by saying matter is slowed down energy, how does that prove unity? It's the sameness of materials yes, but if I see two houses across the street from each other both made out of bricks, I don't say they're unified into one house because they're made out of the same "stuff," I say they are two distinct houses made from the same brick material.
3) Emotions, like air, have evidence. Using knowledge and technology, we can see which areas of the brain are activated when certain emotions are felt, corresponding our brains to our emotions, like the hardware of a computer to the software. I can't "see" the software in a computer, but I can see the hardware, and using the proper technology and possessing the right knowledge, use evidence to see how the hardware becomes the software.
Yet love is simply the software of our brains, and there is no evidence it exists in anything external. Indeed, it seems preposterous that would be the case, because inanimate objects like chairs do not possess brains or neurons, and scientifically could not feel love.
4) You can feel a spirit eh? How do you know it's any different from your own mind?
Hint: You don't. There is no evidence for a spirit, and seeing all the other things our mind creates (IE: our entire reality), it seems a bit odd to think that your mind could not create the spirit also.
We must rely on the evidence we have to do anything. Of course we don't know much, but if I wasn't sure whether or not aliens were burrowed inside the moon, I wouldn't go around spouting that they must be and asking people to disprove me. If you go simply by saying that you can't see one thing that is proven by technology and science, like air, and you can't see another that you just made up, like God, they must be one and alike, when they are completely different in that one can be proven while one has no more justification for believing than saying that aliens created and control the universe in a scientific labratory by placing a superdense particle in a vacuum.
It almost does feel like life is just one confusing salvia trip, where we barely remember the moment that went before and what life was like only a few minutes ago. We constantly shift to new ways of thinking, and barely realize that we've changed.
--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.
|
eMotionALLmotion
DivineeMotive....
Registered: 02/28/05
Posts: 759
Loc: The Symphony of Lights......
|
 Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
#4043356 - 04/11/05 10:38 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If there was any proof of God, that belief would be much stronger, but as there is none, it seems to simply be arbitrary wishful thinking.
.
GOD is as big, little, weak, or strong as you decide to put faith in GOD.... Have you done a survey to see how strongly other people believe in GOD, or are you just speaking for yourself....?
.
.
How do you proove any of the "scientifically prooven" stuff to someone that is senseless(blind, deaf, tasteless, smellless, etc. - or emotionless)....? How do you proove what you think is real (like colors or taste) to someone that does not have those senses....? Same goes with GOD, or divine intuition....
.
I believe because I chose to, it is always a choice in what I or you believe in.... And it doesn't matter what science, nor what anyone else says, it is what I have faith in, and choose to believe....
--------------------
Uni-VersALL MasterPeace
eMotive Divinity NowThere Infinity eMelody
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
Have you done a survey to see how strongly other people believe in GOD, or are you just speaking for yourself....?
The "survey" is in how people live their lives. And believers do not act (in general) in accordance with what they claim to believe.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
 the_phoenix
Stranger
Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
|
1.
At the root of all religions is this concept of non-local and timeless infinite that the logical and linear mind has trouble imagining. I don't believe in God as an individual being, but I do believe in this universal essence that is the creating force behind everything. You can believe in this force?I acknowledge it as the Ineffable?or you cannot. But if not, then how did everything begin?
The thing about boundaries is that if they do exist then there must be something beyond them. In my mind, any rational and logical argument for materialism will inevitably lead to the Ineffable. If you believe in the big bang, then what came before the big bang? If you believe in a finite beginning, then what came before that beginning? By asserting that there is a beginning, you simultaneously assert the existence of the Ineffable, because before the beginning there was nothing.
What is the nothing that, logically, must precede something, that must precede our reality's creation? Nothing is non-local, timeless, and infinite. Read that last line whichever way you want.
This force must exist, which means that our physical reality isn't primary or all there is. But because we exist in a physical context, we cannot perceive the Ineffable that is itself the most general and all-encompassing context. What does this say about us as human beings? We possess a physical body, but our minds are metaphysical and non-local. We have brains, but we also have consciousness, and the two are quite different.
In the same way that nothing must precede something, and not the other way around, consciousness precedes physical existence. The more subtle element is always the creator of the less subtle element and always has the power of influence over it. Indeed, we control our bodies. Notice that this ?we? doesn?t refer to our physical selves. We are consciousness that has created for itself physical vehicles to explore this physical realm.
I shouldn?t say we control our bodies, so much as we influence them. Control is too constricted, whereas subtle influence allows things to happen more naturally and spontaneously. In fact, trying to control things was humanity?s first mistake. To control things it?s necessary to physically adjust and maintain them, bringing the controller into the physical realm. Through attempting to control our fellow humans and our planet Earth, we?ve moved away from subtlety. Because when we try to control things we detach ourselves from the Ineffable, we end up having less control than we started with.
True ?control? is achieved by letting go, accepting, and going with the flow of our consciousness. We must have faith that forces beyond the physical do exist and will take over once we relinquish our control. Our consciousness?not threatening external forces?is then free to express itself through manifestation in the physical, like when an artist let?s their creative juices flow. We should allow our consciousness to flow through our bodies unimpeded.
If we don?t have faith in these higher forces then when we relinquish control there?s nothing there to take over. By faith I mean trust, I mean that we have to trust our spirit, accept it, and allow it to flow through us. There?s nothing blind about faith if one truly and logically considers the nature of reality, for if logic is allowed to fully play out, it inevitably leads to the Ineffable. Consider the very farthest limits of your thoughts, and then consider what lies beyond them.
2.
"My arm is not the same as that cup."
I can lose a leg and still live. I can lose my hair, my nose, an arm, an eye, and still live. But if I lose the air, the water, the plants and the animals, then I die. In a way, these things are more a part of me, more essential to every second of my existence, than is my so-called body.
When I examine who I am, I can't find any one thing that defines me. I'm the sum of my parts, countless elements all coming together and working in unison to form a very complex organism. Nature, too, is the sum of countless parts, having developed over billions of years into a highly complex organism. And simultaneously, both She and I, both Gaea and human beings are presently awakening, becoming conscious of their places in the greater whole.
Entropy is the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe or any open system to move from a state of order into a state of maximum disorder. Yet strangely, Gaea?s atmosphere maintains a consistent composition. Highly reactive gases like oxygen steadily hold a 21% stake, along with nitrogen at 78%. Temperature, ocean salinity, and a host of other factors essential for life remain constantly balanced. Gaea is an organism that is conscious and intelligent, maintaining balance in an ever-changing ecosystem, continuously resisting the natural progression towards entropy.
Homeostasis of this kind requires only minimal consciousness. Humanity is the product of the basic evolutionary pattern in biological organisms?cephalisation, the progression towards increased consciousness. Gaea is growing a cerebral cortex in which we are the neurons, creating neural networks with our information and communication technologies. If something happens half way around the world, we can be instantly aware of it and we can record, study, and learn from it. We are the means by which Gaea strives towards self-realization.
Ask any traditional shamanistic culture today, of which there are still many, and they?ll tell you without hesitation of their first-hand dealings with the ancestor spirits. The etheogenic (or psychedelic) experience allows for direct communication with Gaea?s consciousness. All religions share the same divinity, not a universal god but a planetary consciousness that?s trying to communicate with us. Christianity, along with most other religions, originally encouraged the consumption of ?divine sacraments? for self discovery, and the self that?s to be discovered is Gaea.
But Western civilization frowns upon such actions and strictly regulates the growth of our consciousness with shameful anti-drug laws. As a people we?ve become fragmented and Gaea pays the price of our ignorance. In 1992, ~1700 of the world?s top scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued a warning to humanity: ?We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.?
(3&4 are also true)
Edited by the_phoenix (04/11/05 11:05 PM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: the_phoenix]
#4043494 - 04/11/05 11:14 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I can lose a leg and still live.
Great, What is the relevance? Is this indicative of some great truth?
I can lose my hair, my nose, an arm, an eye, and still live. But if I lose the air, the water, the plants and the animals, then I die. In a way, these things are more a part of me, more essential to every second of my existence, than is my so-called body.
WTF is a "so-called" body?
OK, straight answer here: I can either stick you in the arm with a knife or cut a leaf from my coleus (which is somehow MORE a part of you?!). Which do you choose and why?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
the_phoenix
Stranger
Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Swami]
#4043532 - 04/11/05 11:23 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Do you really not understand what I'm saying? Or are you just kidding with me? Try reading what I write as a whole, instead of each line individually.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Swami]
#4043536 - 04/11/05 11:24 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
1. Yes, god indeed does exist, at least in terms of a concept. However the actual existance, we won't know till we die supposedly.
2. I prefer everything is 2... as in the extremes e.g. dualistic. Then their's the shades of grey in between so...
3. Love is a great ideal  but it isn't solving most of our great dilemmas such as where to get more oil, and how to fix social security, or even how to fix a car for that matter... next time someone tells you that love is everything, ask them how love will find us more oil, and how love will fix SS.
4. At least in terms of organisms gaining life from helping to redistribute your matter. As far as a person's life after death... we'll I'd like to know but the only way I can think of to genuinly prove it to myself is by killing myself. Perhaps I will if the mystery ever needs to be solved 
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: the_phoenix]
#4043550 - 04/11/05 11:26 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Do you really not understand what I'm saying?
Perhaps if you answered my query...
Or are you just kidding with me?
Me doing the kidding? I am not the one denying my body and who would rather have a leaf for a hand.
Try reading what I write as a whole, instead of each line individually.
If the individual parts are not cohesive, I fail to see how the BIG picture can be.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
the_phoenix
Stranger
Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Swami]
#4043582 - 04/11/05 11:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
In-and-of themselves the parts are not cohesive. As a whole they are cohesive.
I don't deny my body, it's my anchor in the Now. It's my temple. 
|
the_phoenix
Stranger
Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: the_phoenix]
#4043591 - 04/11/05 11:40 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
To answer your query, what is under the label of "my body"? One whole, but also many smaller constituents. Body parts, organs, cells, atoms. But we define me as a being. We also define an ant as a whole being even though it isn't conscious of its own existence. Now, are we all not like the cells of our planet? Can we not regard Earth as a whole being? We are it's constituents, though we aren't all conscious of the whole. And likewise the planets are like the cells of the universe. Or like the atoms of the universe, however you want to put it. See my point? We're all part of a whole, that's repeated at every level of existence...
|
eMotionALLmotion
DivineeMotive....
Registered: 02/28/05
Posts: 759
Loc: The Symphony of Lights......
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Swami]
#4043930 - 04/12/05 01:57 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Swami said:
Have you done a survey to see how strongly other people believe in GOD, or are you just speaking for yourself....?
.
The "survey" is in how people live their lives. And believers do not act (in general) in accordance with what they claim to believe.
.
Yes sir.... I think I have said this before, but I will say it again.... Well, this is more for church, but you can apply it to how you live your life as well....
"Going to church and calling yourself a Christian(insert religion any here) is no different than sleeping in your garage and calling yourself a car...."
.
It is very much how you live life, NOW....
--------------------
Uni-VersALL MasterPeace
eMotive Divinity NowThere Infinity eMelody
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
If we cannot go by someone's claims about their faith, then what else is IS there? Many atheists act morally and compassionately, so mere acts alone cannot be evidence for God.
Bottom line: something all-powerful and all-encompassing would not be all-elusive unless it was all-imagination...
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
eMotionALLmotion
DivineeMotive....
Registered: 02/28/05
Posts: 759
Loc: The Symphony of Lights......
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Swami]
#4044074 - 04/12/05 02:39 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Swami said:
If we cannot go by someone's claims about their faith, then what else is IS there? Many atheists act morally and compassionately, so mere acts alone cannot be evidence for God.
.
Bottom line: something all-powerful and all-encompassing would not be all-elusive unless it was all-imagination...
.
.
That is what I used to think.... I was usually "morally" right in the way I lived before I believed in GOD.... Honesty is/was always something was important to me.... In all aspects.... All the time leading up to a few months ago, I never really discussed with others(avoided) that I didn't believe in GOD to "be normal".... GOD was "all-elusive" till I got bored with my life, and ask for help to find.... Honestly, I never expected anything, but I kept my eyes open.... I seemed to have gotten the FUCKIN bonus plan....! Now my imagination is of no limits, now I SEE, and I dunno~ how else to put it to words.... You can't find GOD unless you look.... Plain out.... Funny how simple it really was.... I can't proove it to you, just as you couldn't proove it to me.... You have to proove it to yourself....! 
.
I can say, "I wish everyone felt like this", but I guess that would be selfish of me to wish that on people having thier own beliefs....(?)
.
I am leaving on a journey soon, but I would be GLAD to talk to you about any of this when I am back....
I have mentioned in past threads, all ya~ gotta~ do is ask GOD to help you proove it for yourself....
All I can say is, HANG ON FOR A POSSIBLE WILD RIDE....!   YEEEEEEHAAAAWWWWW...!
.
.
But as I lived before, it is not necessary to believe in anything to be a good person.... I just found that being a "good person" was just not good enough to me anymore, I felt that there was always something missing.... I found out.... I was missing GOD....
.
.
To be continued...............
--------------------
Uni-VersALL MasterPeace
eMotive Divinity NowThere Infinity eMelody
|
alsey
meet me in thedreamtimewater...
Registered: 02/17/05
Posts: 1,203
Last seen: 14 years, 2 days
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
#4044455 - 04/12/05 05:29 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ravus said:
1. God exists.
Yet there is no evidence for God. Where is God? He is not in the sky, nor in the stars. He appears to have no role, and there is no evidence for him, so what is the point of this belief other than simply stroking the ego?
damn straight.
Quote:
2. Everything is one.
The evidence I've gathered since birth seems to point to the contrary. My arm is not the same as that cup. I have conscious control over my body, and outside of it I only perceive objects. They are not part of my perceptual body or my consciousness, so the belief that everything is one seems to be lacking in evidence.
i think you've missed the point here. you, your arm, the cup, me, everything else are all made up of the same stuff. you just happen to be a certain specific arrangement of that stuff that has achieved concious thought due to that particular arrangement. we can differentiate between cups and arms, but they are still made of the same thing.
you can look on the universe and everything in it as one thing, constantly changing. you are just part of that one thing, but your conciousness has created an ego which makes you think that you are something else; something special. when you die, the arrangement of stuff in your body will change, your ego will dissapear and you will no longer think you are something different. this can also be achieved with psychedelic drugs. once the drug cancels out the effect of your ego, you no longer think you are something different. your ego and emotions interfere with your logical reasoning, remove it, and the fact that you are no more special than anything else becomes clear.
you could also look at this from a scientific perspective. at the forefront of modern theoretical physics is the search to find a 'theory of everything'; a single mathematical model that will explain everything in the universe. physicits accept that there is only one force in the universe, but we see it acting in different ways so we invent separate forces to describe those different ways. in reality, there is only one. we just havn't aquired the knowledge to describe it yet.
Quote:
3. Love is *insert poetic sounding but useless phrase here*.
Love may be strong neurological reactions for individuals, but it is only your ego, part of your vast chemical reaction system in your mind that helps humans and perhaps other animals reproduce. I've seen no evidence that love makes up matter, that love is the true state of the mind, etc. This seems to be purely wishful thinking.
indeed. romantic love is an emotion that serves a survival purpose. i don't believe in such a thing as 'true love'. there is just love in varying degrees.
Quote:
4. There is life after death.
This is also wishful thinking, with no evidence whatsoever. I've been to nonexistence before I was born, and to my knowledge that's just a black void. Physically, evidence points out that once your brain dies, your consciousness dies. There is no life after death.
yes, that's the logical conclusion. however, we can't actually observe what death is like, so we make that conclusion based on limited evidence. human conciousness is far from fully understood. personally, i believe that conciousness will remain, albeit in an altered state, for some time after the body clinically dies. this would explain near-death experiences and the like. but yes, once the brain is sufficiently damaged through decomposition or whatever, conciousness will cease.
also, since you did not have a brain when you were conceived, it would be impossible to remember what it was like before. likewise, once your brain is gone when you die, you will be incapable of percieving anything.
--------------------
"Gently return to the simple physical sensation of the breath. Then do it again, and again, and again. Somewhere in this process, you will come face-to-face with the sudden and shocking realization that you are completely crazy. Your mind is a shrieking, gibbering madhouse on wheels." - ven. henepola gunaratana
Edited by alsey (04/12/05 05:35 AM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
3. Love is a great ideal but it isn't solving most of our great dilemmas such as where to get more oil, and how to fix social security, or even how to fix a car for that matter... next time someone tells you that love is everything, ask them how love will find us more oil, and how love will fix SS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with the above only in the sense that Love is not being tried on these problems. Most of these problems are the result of a lack of love IMO. Hoarding oil, fighting over territory, Our social security was in tact until a war and hateful politicians stole it. Then a fearful populace refused to act against this robbery because their fear was motivating them, not love. You might even get your car fixed up better by a loving mechanic as compared to one who just wants to make a fast buck off you. No Love hasn't been tried yet and so cannot be judged yet.
--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.
" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.
With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
JacquesCousteau
Being.
Registered: 06/10/03
Posts: 7,825
Loc: Everywhere, Everytime.
Last seen: 10 months, 17 days
|
|
Quote:
Psychoactive1984 said:
2. I prefer everything is 2... as in the extremes e.g. dualistic. Then their's the shades of grey in between so...
First you say everything is 2, then you point out that there's this "third" variable known as "the shades of grey in between"... only this third variable is actually many variables (hence the "s" at the end of "shades")
As you work from one end of the "model" (ex: white) to the other (ex: black) you encounter EVERY shade of grey that exists in between.
Now that's obviously a LOT more than 2... but if you look at how, in the bigger picture, the two extremes fade together courtesy of these many variables of grey, you might start to see how these all work together to create one larger transitioning whole.
We could go the other way with this, too... we could break it up into smaller and smaller segments infinitely... but the important thing to note is that ANYTHING we consider 'one' can have the same done to it.
On one hand, we consider each of ourselves as human beings "One"... but we are made up of a collection of smaller parts, which are in turn made up of smaller parts, which are made up of still smaller parts.
The concept of all things being one is a concept of perspective and state of mind.
For me, it is true... I'd even call it a given.
This doesn't mean things aren't made out of infinitely smaller building blocks... it just means that I've chosen to acknowledge this infinite system of "zoom" in reality and use it to my advantage to see things from a higher vantage point.
So if one chooses to break things down infinitely, that is their agenda and they have the right to live life that way... but if they start to feel isolated and lonely as a result of developing ideas of reality based on systems of segregation and seperation, I hope they might be capable of also "zooming out" and appreciating the interrelation and connections between all things that create the notion of "all things being one."
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
|
That was my point. You can view everything as singular in terms of it all being one part of a spectrum (color wise).
You can view it as dualistic (black and white).
Or you can view it as distinguished by the subtle differences (shades of grey).
I prefer to play around with the dualistic good vs. evil notion as it's funny how often people take the position that it's either or, without respect to the neither nor in between.
For instance, most would qualify a person as either good, or evil by way of their actions, oft times not making a stance of neutrality inclusive as a possibility.
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 28 days, 6 hours
|
|
single duality.. :P
--------------------
--------------------
Disclaimer!?
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Icelander]
#4046649 - 04/12/05 03:33 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
3. Love is a great ideal but it isn't solving most of our great dilemmas such as where to get more oil, and how to fix social security, or even how to fix a car for that matter... next time someone tells you that love is everything, ask them how love will find us more oil, and how love will fix SS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with the above only in the sense that Love is not being tried on these problems. Most of these problems are the result of a lack of love IMO. Hoarding oil, fighting over territory, Our social security was in tact until a war and hateful politicians stole it. Then a fearful populace refused to act against this robbery because their fear was motivating them, not love. You might even get your car fixed up better by a loving mechanic as compared to one who just wants to make a fast buck off you. No Love hasn't been tried yet and so cannot be judged yet.
I see what your getting at, I'm talking in terms of the emotion itself though. Rationality, and experience will handle it, whether done in a haphazard way, or through the hands of a compassionate auto mechanic.
How many loving grease monkeys do you know? (not saying their aren't but...)
Edit: typo, changed "man" to many.
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
Edited by Psychoactive1984 (04/12/05 09:37 PM)
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Gomp]
#4046654 - 04/12/05 03:35 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Jumbo shrimp, Honest politicians, rich beggars, and....
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 28 days, 6 hours
|
|
one pig another pig (duality)
pig (single) :P ha ha
pigs (single duality) :P hahah
--------------------
--------------------
Disclaimer!?
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 28 days, 6 hours
|
 Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Gomp]
#4046756 - 04/12/05 03:59 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
fuck that! :P he he yin yang! :P
--------------------
--------------------
Disclaimer!?
Edited by Gomp (04/12/05 03:59 PM)
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 28 days, 6 hours
|
|
Quote:
Psychoactive1984 said:
Jumbo shrimp, Honest politicians, rich beggars, and....
blond brunettes.. 
(did i just hear someone say hair color? )
--------------------
--------------------
Disclaimer!?
|
Ravus
Not an EggshellWalker
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
#4047879 - 04/12/05 09:20 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
After reading a lot on these subjects, I see people trying to defend their beliefs more and more subjectively. For God, in the end people often seem to back up their unjustified belief by saying, "Well, I can't show you the proof, but I discovered God and now I am much better than before," when really all improvements made can be attributed to the vast power of the subconscious. The subconscious regulates your body, it filters out your perception, it provides you with all information and memories stored in your brain. Truely, the subconscious has done much more for our reality than what has been attributed to God, so why also cannot we see God inside our very brains? We don't need a God separate from our minds, when our minds contain a power nearly incomprehensible to our egos. The way this text is automatically registered, perceived, thought of and responded to by the human mind alone seems more powerful than the euphoria and strength "God" has given people.
As if the subconscious could contain all our archetypes, our memory, regulate our body, yet couldn't give us a bit of strength to suffer a torture we couldn't escape anyway? Jesus discovered the true power of his subconscious, the knowledge that he had helped open the eyes of others and that he was now being sacrificed for it. This wasn't understood in that time, and isn't really understood now by most people experiencing the strength of the human mind, but for the beauty the human mind contains, God isn't even needed.
Quote:
i think you've missed the point here. you, your arm, the cup, me, everything else are all made up of the same stuff. you just happen to be a certain specific arrangement of that stuff that has achieved concious thought due to that particular arrangement. we can differentiate between cups and arms, but they are still made of the same thing.
you can look on the universe and everything in it as one thing, constantly changing. you are just part of that one thing, but your conciousness has created an ego which makes you think that you are something else; something special. when you die, the arrangement of stuff in your body will change, your ego will dissapear and you will no longer think you are something different. this can also be achieved with psychedelic drugs. once the drug cancels out the effect of your ego, you no longer think you are something different. your ego and emotions interfere with your logical reasoning, remove it, and the fact that you are no more special than anything else becomes clear.
you could also look at this from a scientific perspective. at the forefront of modern theoretical physics is the search to find a 'theory of everything'; a single mathematical model that will explain everything in the universe. physicits accept that there is only one force in the universe, but we see it acting in different ways so we invent separate forces to describe those different ways. in reality, there is only one. we just havn't aquired the knowledge to describe it yet.
People argue that everything is one by using science, like saying that string theory, which unifies all the four forces of the universe, proves we are all one. How, I ask? String theory (by this I actually mean M-theory) has 11-dimensional vibrating strings that create everything in the universe, but the vibrations of the strings are different which create the differences of particles. How is this saying that everything is one? I agree that everything is made up of similar constituents, but that is a far cry from a unity of everything in existence. Go far enough down, and that smooth, unified marble breaks down into individual molecules, and then atoms, connected, but separate.
If the ego is part of everything, and everything is one, but the ego is just part of this "everything is one" assembled in a different way, wouldn't that alone disprove the everything is one theory? How can you assemble unity?
But even if that was ignored, if the ego is part of a unified everything, and the ego regards itself as separate, it seems logically impossible a part of everything could separate itself and follow illusions eh? If the ego believes itself separate from everything else, the whole argument almost seems to break down into logical fallacies. The ego cannot both be unified everything, and also be an illusion of constituents that have deluded themselves into separateness. If a brick fell out of the wall of a house, we would not say it is a part of that house still.
The most the everything is one argument gets to is the logical conclusion that everything is connected, which it is, either connected by being made up of the same subatomic particles, connected by residing in the same spacetime continuum, or connected simply because you could follow the separate but connected particles of one object to another. This is a far, far cry from everything is one though, and in fact, the opposite has been observed. We go down further and further into the building blocks of the cosmos, and constantly find particles making up everything, connected and interacting, but ultimately separate particles made up of more separate particles.
If you took this vision another way, you may even end up with a completely opposite conclusion, that everything is separate. The more we discover of the building blocks, the more we find separate particles, until finally many people would finish exploring this possibly infinite vision, throw up their arms and say that the separation of the constituents of the universe seems to never end.
--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
#4047922 - 04/12/05 09:35 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
in respone to your assertions about life after death, i don't think it's wishfull in all cases. i used to think like you, that when the brain dies that's it. but if you consider the implications of this it's actually quite comforting. it translates into complete nihilism. it means all your suffering, all your problems, everything will end as soon as you die and instantly be consumed by the nothing. even your current existance would be erased because someone who doesn't exist cannot have a past. there's absolutely nothing to fear because nothing matters anyway. its bliss. in many ways its a much more comforting thought than the possibility of an afterlife in which conditions are even worse than they are now.
now my own thinking and experiences have lead me to consider the possibility of an afterlife. if you assume there's no afterlife it means you popped out of a void of non existance. if this happened once, who is to say it won't happen again? who is to say it won't happen a billion times? since the times in between existances are not perceivable and would be swallowed by the void, from your point of you, you would always exist. secondly who are you right now? shouldn't you find this out before you theorize about what happens after death?
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
#4049000 - 04/13/05 03:17 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"If you took this vision another way, you may even end up with a completely opposite conclusion, that everything is separate. The more we discover of the building blocks, the more we find separate particles, until finally many people would finish exploring this possibly infinite vision, throw up their arms and say that the separation of the constituents of the universe seems to never end."
imo these are two ways of looking at the same thing. if you go in one direction you find infinite seperateness and in the other direction you find infinite oneness.
|
alsey
meet me in thedreamtimewater...
Registered: 02/17/05
Posts: 1,203
Last seen: 14 years, 2 days
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
#4049050 - 04/13/05 03:42 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ravus said:
I agree that everything is made up of similar constituents, but that is a far cry from a unity of everything in existence.
i'm not trying to say that everything is actually physically the same thing. just that people, inanimate objects and everything else are all just different arrangements of particles. i guess i'm talking more about equality than unity. i'm not the same the thing as, say, a book, but since the book is made of the same stuff as me, just in different quantities and a different arrangement, then i am no more special than the book. our ego makes us think that we are in some way special and more important than other things. this might be a subconsious thought most of the time, but its there, and its irrational.
i am just a lump of particles interacting with eachother. so is a book. so is everything else. you could regard the universe as one big lump of particles interacting with eachother. and my body interacts with things outside it. is i type right now, my fingers are interacting electromagnetically with the molecules in the keyboard. i, as a whole, am interacting gravitationally with the earth. when i breath, i am interacting at a chemical level with the atmoshphere. is the air in my lungs part of me, or part of the atmosphere? what about the O2 molecules that diffuse into my blood? are they me, or the atmosphere? if i get cut and bleed, is the blood on the floor me or soemthing else? i am in constant interaction with my environment, and the line where me ends and the environment begins isn't all that distinct when you think about it. where you draw the line is ultimately arbitrary. i am just a particular part of the whole universe, which is a load of particles interacting with eachother.
--------------------
"Gently return to the simple physical sensation of the breath. Then do it again, and again, and again. Somewhere in this process, you will come face-to-face with the sudden and shocking realization that you are completely crazy. Your mind is a shrieking, gibbering madhouse on wheels." - ven. henepola gunaratana
Edited by alsey (04/13/05 03:51 AM)
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
#4049058 - 04/13/05 03:54 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"If the ego is part of everything, and everything is one, but the ego is just part of this "everything is one" assembled in a different way, wouldn't that alone disprove the everything is one theory? How can you assemble unity?
But even if that was ignored, if the ego is part of a unified everything, and the ego regards itself as separate, it seems logically impossible a part of everything could separate itself and follow illusions eh? If the ego believes itself separate from everything else, the whole argument almost seems to break down into logical fallacies. The ego cannot both be unified everything, and also be an illusion of constituents that have deluded themselves into separateness. If a brick fell out of the wall of a house, we would not say it is a part of that house still."
the ego is everything, not a part of everything. when the ego exists everything else is, when there is no ego there is nothing else either.
|
the_phoenix
Stranger
Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
#4049527 - 04/13/05 08:24 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Everything is connected, yes. Yin and Yang, you can't show me just one of them, they come as a pair. What context unites them? Right wing and left wing...wings of what? They're united by the political spectrum itself. We all share the larger context of this world. The Earth is "one", yes? It is a whole, a self-contained ecosystem. Yet within the whole, we as individuals possess individuality. No contradiction here, because it all depends on your perspective. A matter of relativety. The most general and all encompassing perspective, beyond time and space, understands everything to be part of the same thing. This oneness can be understood rationally as well as proven experientially.
The ego is indeed part of the whole but it mistakenly believes it possesses sovereign control. There is much ignorance worldwide about this fact, as people everywhere are controlled by their egos, but their ignorance doesn't make it not so. The ego is never actually in control, nor is it ever completely detatched from the whole. Were it to fall so far down into hell then it would destroy itself and at death reunite with the Ineffable.
Reminds me of a poem I wrote...
Evil Is Not I
Joined by the colour spectrum?black and white,
All of us joined by the human fight.
In evil's shadow I pray for good,
Its direction showing me where I stood.
The shadow is mine for it follows my flight, day and night.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 2 months, 10 days
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
#4053279 - 04/14/05 02:01 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ravus said:
The evidence I've gathered since birth seems to point to the contrary. My arm is not the same as that cup. I have conscious control over my body, and outside of it I only perceive objects. They are not part of my perceptual body or my consciousness, so the belief that everything is one seems to be lacking in evidence.
The amazing thing is that there are aspects of the functioning of your body that you do not have conscious control over. Various aspects that are integral in the operation of your physical body are undected by one's perceptions. You seem to use conscious control as what ultimately makes the distinction between yourself and the external world. However, distinctions made using this are based on faulty grounds, as I just hinted at.
The air that you breathe is just as much a part of your body as any other aspect of your body. The "external" world is just as much a part of yourself as "yourself" is. I'd like you to demonstrate how this is not true. Using conscious control and one's peceptions as a basis for demonstrating this will not work, as there are integral aspects of your body that consciousness cannot exert control over and perceptions do not perceive any evidence of, but yet determining that these aspects are not of your body would be quite uncalled for (think of your liver, your red blood cells, etc. etc. etc.).
Here's the deal. Draw the exact line where the internal world starts and the external world stops. The functioning of your body and your mind themselves will provide evidence that no such line can possibly exist.
 
Peace. 
--------------------
 
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
 
 
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
#4053349 - 04/14/05 02:27 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Deviate said:
in respone to your assertions about life after death, i don't think it's wishfull in all cases. i used to think like you, that when the brain dies that's it. but if you consider the implications of this it's actually quite comforting. it translates into complete nihilism. it means all your suffering, all your problems, everything will end as soon as you die and instantly be consumed by the nothing. even your current existance would be erased because someone who doesn't exist cannot have a past. there's absolutely nothing to fear because nothing matters anyway. its bliss. in many ways its a much more comforting thought than the possibility of an afterlife in which conditions are even worse than they are now.
now my own thinking and experiences have lead me to consider the possibility of an afterlife.
1) if you assume there's no afterlife it means you popped out of a void of non existance.
2) if this happened once, who is to say it won't happen again? who is to say it won't happen a billion times?
since the times in between existances are not perceivable and would be swallowed by the void, from your point of you, you would always exist.
3) secondly who are you right now?
4) shouldn't you find this out before you theorize about what happens after death?
1) How is that, and what does that mean? Personalities are created, not imbued. Existance is created, and altered on the basis of one's perceptions of an environment.
2) What's to happen again now?
3) Who is anyone? They are themselves, I don't see the any reason to dwelve too deep into our categorization of a person, especially in terms of an afterlife. What of those born with no mind or are vegetibles, and lack consciousness (brain dead), are they not afforded this afterlife? What logic brings you to the conclusion that their is indeed an afterlife.
4)  Are you asking or suggesting? If you can fix something that requires fixing (belief, machine, et etal) why does one need to get introspective as a requisite before they theorize a solution?
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
Psychoactive1984 said:
Quote:
Deviate said:
in respone to your assertions about life after death, i don't think it's wishfull in all cases. i used to think like you, that when the brain dies that's it. but if you consider the implications of this it's actually quite comforting. it translates into complete nihilism. it means all your suffering, all your problems, everything will end as soon as you die and instantly be consumed by the nothing. even your current existance would be erased because someone who doesn't exist cannot have a past. there's absolutely nothing to fear because nothing matters anyway. its bliss. in many ways its a much more comforting thought than the possibility of an afterlife in which conditions are even worse than they are now.
now my own thinking and experiences have lead me to consider the possibility of an afterlife.
1) if you assume there's no afterlife it means you popped out of a void of non existance.
2) if this happened once, who is to say it won't happen again? who is to say it won't happen a billion times?
since the times in between existances are not perceivable and would be swallowed by the void, from your point of you, you would always exist.
3) secondly who are you right now?
4) shouldn't you find this out before you theorize about what happens after death?
1) How is that, and what does that mean? Personalities are created, not imbued. Existance is created, and altered on the basis of one's perceptions of an environment.
2) What's to happen again now?
3) Who is anyone? They are themselves, I don't see the any reason to dwelve too deep into our categorization of a person, especially in terms of an afterlife. What of those born with no mind or are vegetibles, and lack consciousness (brain dead), are they not afforded this afterlife? What logic brings you to the conclusion that their is indeed an afterlife.
4) Are you asking or suggesting? If you can fix something that requires fixing (belief, machine, et etal) why does one need to get introspective as a requisite before they theorize a solution?
1) well you say "existance is created". if it can be created once then why not again? i'm not saying the personality will be enduring, just existance itself.
2) existance is to be created and altered on the basis of one's perceptions of an environment.
3) what is the self? i ask this because i think consciousness isn't the same as the personality. as for vegetables, if they are not conciouss then who is being deprived of an afterlife? non existance isn't percievable.
4) if we don't have a complete understanding of life how can we understand death?
Edited by Deviate (04/14/05 03:48 AM)
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
#4055120 - 04/14/05 02:15 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Deviate said:
Quote:
Psychoactive1984 said:
Quote:
Deviate said:
in respone to your assertions about life after death, i don't think it's wishfull in all cases. i used to think like you, that when the brain dies that's it. but if you consider the implications of this it's actually quite comforting. it translates into complete nihilism. it means all your suffering, all your problems, everything will end as soon as you die and instantly be consumed by the nothing. even your current existance would be erased because someone who doesn't exist cannot have a past. there's absolutely nothing to fear because nothing matters anyway. its bliss. in many ways its a much more comforting thought than the possibility of an afterlife in which conditions are even worse than they are now.
now my own thinking and experiences have lead me to consider the possibility of an afterlife.
1) if you assume there's no afterlife it means you popped out of a void of non existance.
2) if this happened once, who is to say it won't happen again? who is to say it won't happen a billion times?
since the times in between existances are not perceivable and would be swallowed by the void, from your point of you, you would always exist.
3) secondly who are you right now?
4) shouldn't you find this out before you theorize about what happens after death?
1) How is that, and what does that mean? Personalities are created, not imbued. Existance is created, and altered on the basis of one's perceptions of an environment.
2) What's to happen again now?
3) Who is anyone? They are themselves, I don't see the any reason to dwelve too deep into our categorization of a person, especially in terms of an afterlife. What of those born with no mind or are vegetibles, and lack consciousness (brain dead), are they not afforded this afterlife? What logic brings you to the conclusion that their is indeed an afterlife.
4) Are you asking or suggesting? If you can fix something that requires fixing (belief, machine, et etal) why does one need to get introspective as a requisite before they theorize a solution?
1) well you say "existance is created". if it can be created once then why not again? i'm not saying the personality will be enduring, just existance itself.
2) existance is to be created and altered on the basis of one's perceptions of an environment.
3) what is the self? i ask this because i think consciousness isn't the same as the personality. as for vegetables, if they are not conciouss then who is being deprived of an afterlife? non existance isn't percievable.
4) if we don't have a complete understanding of life how can we understand death?
1) I wasn't suggesting it couldn't, but we won't know till our time is over, and we forget our former existances (so goes the supposition). I'm talking in concrete terms, it's known that personalities can be adapted, created, controlled, and manipulated, it happens all the time. I'm just thinking in more concrete terms.
Say we create, and concieve a computer that has artifical intelligence on par with the human mind (it's irrelevant whether it is achievable, say it does for example purposes). The computer crashes, and all that was stored on the system concerning it's nature, is lost... do we suppose that the created persona that we've allowed the computer to achieve is going elsewhere? It's stored on the computer, and leaves with the computer when it no longer functions, I doubt it goes off and reincarnates it's memory into an IPOD.... I can know that for sure, now, apply the same to a human being, and why somehow a consciousness created outside our power isn't subject to the same standards of the afterlife and cosmic consciousness.
2) That was my question.
3) Ah, I love the subjective indications. Plants react to different forms of music in terms of their growth, which partially shows a liking to certain assemblies of notes, seems conscious enough to me, and applicable... Unless we want to define conscious phenomena solely as our own, and unique to humans, and humans alone. What is self? It has so many variations, we might as well ask what shade of grey that grey shirt over their is.... it doesn't matter, it's representative of something, and overall it's grey, I don't see the need to further define and to qualify a person to that extent.
4) We don't have a complete understanding of many things, the universe for example... yet we can still understand how it functions to a degree... How is it that you see anything progressing in terms of understanding anything without logical induction in way of known evidence? Or do you suggest that we have faith in something not proven to exist, has a wide range of implications, and is based on something that can't be proven...?
I can scramble eggs, without knowing the precise chemical names, and proteins that congeil as a result of the albumen being cooked.... You don't need to know everything about something, to see it in action.
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
1) "apply the same to a human being, and why somehow a consciousness created outside our power isn't subject to the same standards of the afterlife and cosmic consciousness."
i'm not sure what you mean by that. it would be subject to the same standards.
3) you are the one who said vegetables "lack consciousness".
4) i'm not suggesting we have faith in something, just that there are different theories we can explain the same phenomena. what can be proven to exist other than the self?
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
#4055325 - 04/14/05 03:28 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
1) your point of quoting me? It was to point out that it isn't, nor shall it occur in something of our own creation unless it is transmuted/transformed after the end result through our manipulation. e.g. we could recover the harddrive (meh) and translate the entity to another form... why can't god do that? we can't prove god exists, we can prove that we exist though.
3) Human vegetables, in terms of how we typically define consciousness. Not vegetables, those without any form of thought, completely brain dead... that which doesn't have a function beyond autonomous functions of the brain used to sustain life. Please don't take it of context.
http://www.reason.com/links/links032205.shtml (good current example in line with what I'm talking about, however I'm talking completely brain dead)
They wouldn't be afforded an afterlife, especially those born into such a situation (it has happened, although infrequently)... how could something without conscious experience such after one's life? How is it applied, through what machinations does this mysticism apply in way of your interpretation of its function?
4) .... I'm not even going to answer that. Get a grounded sense of reality and come on back when your ready to discuss.
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
Edited by Psychoactive1984 (04/14/05 03:36 PM)
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
1) yes i'm aware of that, i'm not saying the individual self will survive death. just existance itself.
3) first you say plants are conciouss and then you say human vegetables are not conciouss in terms of how we typically define consciousness. i'm asking what the difference is between a brain dead human and an actual plant. neither one has a functioning brain.
4) what is a grounded sense of reality? how can you prove something exists besides yourself?
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
#4055475 - 04/14/05 03:56 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
1) Through what process? It's one thing to suggest something, it's another to put it in terms of an actuality... what evidence do you have to support your notion other then your belief? Is it our existance with with all our current knowledge, are we transformed, do we get a new memory yet intrinsicly remember our past existances knowledge in terms of lessons learned? Please explain yourself. e.g. I think the moon is made of cheese, I say this because I've been told as I was a child it was, although I've no proof to assert the reality of the situation.
3) One can and does react to certain stimuli, the other is incapable of, and that's why we support it through technology and feeding tubes, at times respirators, iv drips, etc... A plant can sustain itself, and react to stimuli, has a preference to certain stimuli (not necessarily in terms of preferences of function e.g. chemical interactions).... A fully brain dead human is incapable of doing such.
4) You're in front of a computer, it exists, your typing on it and communicating sometimes rationally, sometimes senselessly... unless you don't believe that it exists... in which case I'll see you in the Matrix after I have a smoke.
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
1) through the fact that we are existance right now. i'm not sure on all the details. if you need a more complete theory you can respond to buddhist explanations which seem to make some sense to me. i'm open to the ideas of the various theories of afterlife based on the fact that i exist right now and because non existance isn't perceiveable so i have no reason to worry about it.
3) if an insect bites a person in vegetative state would the wound not heal? isn't that reacting to stimuli?
4) how is that proof of existance? do the objects in my dreams exist as well?
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
#4055694 - 04/14/05 04:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
1) as long as it suits you... Although I suggest you contrive your own theory, rather then relying on others.
3) Cut off their arm as well... will they not bleed? It's a part of the function of a human body... it's not the same for plants, nature doesn't make compositions similar to Mozart/Bethovan.
4) Does the universe as a universal medium of gorwth acting as a substrate, extending it's growth through rampant mycelial growth.... and catalyziation of nutrients and transmutation of forms not exits? All depends on what credence you choose to give it. Concepts exist, that much is clear, to what reality you choose to give them is up to you, not for me to tell you.
I'm sorry, but how daft do we need to be... if you're looking for proof of existance, I hope the best... but some things are clear and evident. Does you computer not exist in front of you? Answer that please...
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
1) i do contrive my own theories but they don't explain all the details yet.
2) i'm assuming its been shown that brain dead people don't respond to mozart.
3) that's sort of what i mean, we decide in what way things are real. some people don't consider their dreams real at all, others consider them as real as their waking life.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
#4055945 - 04/14/05 06:09 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
1) enlighten me, I love to hear new theories.
2) Not in any clinical test I'm aware of, but if they don't respond to voices or stimuli, and their brain is experienceing very little electrical activity, it's safe to assume that they don't.
3) Agreed. Subjective experience is a wonderful thing!
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Bulk Substrate 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Anonymous
monoamine
buttonion
yewhew
Mixomatosis
Asante
chodamunky