Home | Community | Message Board

HighDesertSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Fuck Yourself
    #977646 - 10/20/02 07:59 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Here's an thought-line that I was playing with a while back.
*invokes temporary belief system*

1. Solipsism:
If the only consciousness in this place is me (or you... whatever), then can I change things by will alone? Not just the "work hard- you'll change things" mantra. I'm talking about the Matrix "change things"... you know- flying around, walking through walls & on water, dodging bullets... that kind of stuff.

If I can't do this stuff... it doesn't necessarily disprove solipsism, BUT it does mean that there is a system of "internal laws" that I cannot escape. If that is the case, then how did these laws "get there"?

2. Fractal Reality (determinism, collective consciousness, we are all god, etc.):
If I'm a branch of god... then I'm a branch of the will that governs this universe (or IS this universe or.... whatever). That being said, my mental fractal is only a partial view of the Great Fractal that is "God". Assuming I can shape my mental fractal (compatibilist's "free will") to match that of the Great Fractal... can I CHANGE the universe at my will? Or will I be forced to adopt the will of the Great Fractal?


Note: Sclorch does not necessarily think any of the above is true... it's just a thought experiment.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Edited by Sclorch (10/20/02 11:21 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledee_N_ae
\/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å†
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 2,473
Loc: The Shadow of Neptune
Re: Will and change... [Re: Sclorch]
    #977683 - 10/20/02 08:16 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Obey the Great Fractal...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #978192 - 10/20/02 11:21 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

I just want more views & replies.... sorry if the title misled you.

*click click*


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLittleBen
Feed Me A StrayCat

Registered: 08/31/02
Posts: 202
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #978244 - 10/20/02 11:44 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Solipsism? in your dreams. But i mean it, in your dreams, the main principal is that you are the only consiousness, in your dreams you can do what you want with no limitations but your own. So when consious and in the world with many other lifeforms, you must all obey the same laws.


--------------------
Gaia, as you awaken, I heal myself. As I awaken, you are healed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinejayson
earthling
Male
Registered: 08/07/02
Posts: 52
Loc: Vic Australia
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: LittleBen]
    #978319 - 10/21/02 12:18 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

In a dream, only when you realise that you are dreaming, can you break the rules. Perhaps life is similar


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedrenaline
shroomitist

Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 81
Loc: A Moon of Jupiter
Last seen: 17 years, 1 month
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: jayson]
    #978336 - 10/21/02 12:26 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

see the related post titled 'lucid dreaming' in this forum


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: jayson]
    #978361 - 10/21/02 12:34 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Interesting thought. Isn't that what Tibetan Buddhism is all about?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #978725 - 10/21/02 04:50 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

If that is the case, then how did these laws "get there"?

Hey, we covered that already, no? There can never be an explanation for how things "got there", regardless if you subscribe to solipsism or realism or whatever. If you had an explanation for how things "got there", that explanation would itself have "got there", which means that the explanation would have to be it's own explanation, and, therefore, complete bullshit.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblewhiterasta
Day careobserver
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #979320 - 10/21/02 09:49 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

I like the fractal analogy and have used it myself to describe the fractal holographic nature of creation.You posit us as a part of the "greater fractal" but fractal images are all identical except in scale so perhaps the solopsism you refer would occur on a scale comensurate with our relative scale compared to the "great fractal" and We actually do control a small portion of reality in a 'Matrix" type way.I refer to the way obsevation of minute events can alter the outcome.Perhaps this is our "domain of control" and as we gain more insight and a larger perspective of the fractal universe our abilities to affect the material plane will possibly grow beyond affecting the outcome of particle experiments.Perhaps all one needs to do is "ask' for your desire from a greater fractal node that has  control over the condition you wish to affect .I believe the underlying fractal skeleton of creation to be the abode all knowlege(knowlege exists as a independent force separate of humanities interpretation (The tulku Tarthang) )This is from whence ALL real particles are actualized from and where the order of the universe arises.I call it GOD but many lables would fit.All I know for sure is this intelligence is interested and involved in the mechanics of it's creation  :cool:WR


--------------------
To old for this place


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: whiterasta]
    #979385 - 10/21/02 10:37 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Thanks for your comments (though I'd like more).

I believe the underlying fractal skeleton of creation to be the abode all knowlege(knowlege exists as a independent force separate of humanities interpretation)

Sounds like Plato (the original).

Perhaps all one needs to do is "ask' for your desire from a greater fractal node that has control over the condition you wish to affect.

'Ask'? What does this mean?
Do you mean prayer?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblewhiterasta
Day careobserver
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #979401 - 10/21/02 10:54 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

You can call it what ever your comfortable with it is just a communication between nodes in the fractal we as humans share a fractal position in perspective and dimension so our interaction "appears to be linked" by a shared perspective.Should one be able to shift perspective higher or lower within the fractal communication with other nodes of intelligence should become possible.If one were able to encompass the entire fractal reality(or any peice since as a fractal all portions are the same)one would then commune with the implicit order of creation (God if you'll allow the generalization :wink: )I would like to go  further with this later Sclorch,I think we MAy have some common ground for an interesting disscusssion.BTW have you read any of the Tulku Tarthang's work? he disscusses implicit order and the dimension of information,A very good if dry read of about 1200 pages but incredible insight into just what we are discussing .....More later Mon  :wink:WR


--------------------
To old for this place


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,006
Loc: 9th Dimension
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #981467 - 10/22/02 01:08 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

:ooo:

Instant manifestation of thought is a way of life in higher densities of spiritual incarnation. The ability to effect your environment and manifest your reality according to your thoughts comes with the territory. This ability comes with the realization of connection with All That Is (God, whatever) and awareness of all things and yourself as a divine sovereign creature of creation.

We are all a small part of the fractal, yet within each of us is a whole other fractal as great as the original. Like an acorn in an oak tree, part of the tree yet potential for another forest of trees.

The "internal laws" that bind us to physical reality is not any law at all. It is only perception and belief. These things exist for a reason, but they are meant to be overcome, transcended. Once an opening of perception occurs, and the belief system is allowed to become flexible, reality changes, and we can attune to the more subtle spiritual energies that coexist with us in the physical. Once we are aware of these energies, and how they interact with the material plane, we can further understand the "big picture". Big picture being the nature of ourselves and the universe... a.k.a... as above, so below. This perception gives us a greater insight into the workings of reality, and how we effect it.

With comprehension and understanding of spiritual energies, comes the ability to begin using them to affect the physical reality as well as spiritual. 


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledee_N_ae
\/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å†
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 2,473
Loc: The Shadow of Neptune
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Shroomism]
    #982198 - 10/22/02 09:33 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

"The "internal laws" that bind us to physical reality is not any law at all. It is only perception and belief. These things exist for a reason, but they are meant to be overcome, transcended. Once an opening of perception occurs, and the belief system is allowed to become flexible, reality changes, and we can attune to the more subtle spiritual energies that coexist with us in the physical. Once we are aware of these energies, and how they interact with the material plane, we can further understand the "big picture"."

Man, I didn't think the ideas ^^^^ could ever be so concisely expressed.
Shroomism!! 

Do you believe it's possible for one to reach this level of understanding (or belief  :wink:) without ever taking a psychedelic like mushrooms or LSD?

Are these concepts something that can be taught to young children?   


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Shroomism]
    #982401 - 10/22/02 11:28 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Sclorch: So, uh, you're telling me I can stop bulle... er TRAINS?!
Shroomorpheus: I'm saying that when you're ready... you won't have to.
Sclorch: Okay, you go first *ties Shroomism down to railroad tracks*
*HOOOOOONK HOOOOOOONK chugga chugga chugga chugga HOOOOOONK*
Shroomorpheus: Sclorch! Seriously,,, dude! I wasn't serious... oh shit oh shit oh shit.... HURRY UNTIE ME!!!
Shroomorpheus: ...ohshitohshitohshitohshit...*pant pant pant*....ohshitohshitohshit...none of this is real... none of this is real.... none of this is real...
Sclorch: Dude... just stop it. *long draw on a fat blunt* 10...9...8..
Shroomorpheus: QUIT FUCKING AROUND SCLORCH!! UNTIE ME, MAN! I'M GONNA DIIIIIIE!! UNTIE MEEEeeeeee..... ourfatherwhoartinheaven...
*HOOOOOOOONK HOOOOOONK....*
Sclorch: 3....2....ONE!!!
Shroomorpheus: AAAUUUUUUUGHHGHHGLKSD...*sploprsheplsh*...
Sclorch: Awww... FUCK!
*Swami picks up rock and throws it at the back of what was Shroomorpheus' head*
Swami: AHA!!

{Note: The above was a dramatization. It never happened, and it does not explain Shroomism's conspicuous absence of late (or Swami's).}


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Edited by Sclorch (10/22/02 11:31 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #982465 - 10/22/02 12:00 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Nice illustration Sclorch.

Reality is it what exists despite denials, despite blindness to it. Reality is what remains when the hallucinations stop, it imposes itself upon you even when you can't perceive it. We should not confuse an incomplete or faulty grasp of reality with the absence of it.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Edited by Evolving (10/22/02 12:01 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 19 days
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Evolving]
    #983158 - 10/22/02 03:58 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Reality is what remains when the hallucinations stop

Does reality continue after I die? Why must my reality be your reality?

Reality is it what exists despite denials, despite blindness to it.

Reality is a product of dualism... a product of paradox...


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,006
Loc: 9th Dimension
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #983589 - 10/22/02 05:37 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Morphing dreams into reality...


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #984052 - 10/22/02 07:34 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

"Do you believe it's possible for one to reach this level of understanding (or belief ) without ever taking a psychedelic like mushrooms or LSD?"

well its hard to say about breaking the initial barrier, but once its been done it seems like later generations would be able to "catch on" to whatever we're talking about ;-) and not require psychedelics.... mckenna was once talking about how he and other people who've done DMT have had the real DMT experience in their sleep... not dreaming it, but like actually having the real thing happen.. so its possible for somethign like that to happen, however, so far somebody would have already have to have done it - imagine teaching our children to do this at an early age (trigger this experience without using any drugs ever), and there goes "the drug problem"

sorry... got a bit off-course.... but here i go i'll post it anyway >click<


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleIn(di)go
People of the sun.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/00
Posts: 8,157
Loc: Cologne, Germany
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Strumpling]
    #984072 - 10/22/02 07:39 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

its possible to achieve that state of mind without drugs... i quit all drugs about 1 year ago, and i am still learning, experiencing and evolving spritually...
and i think it is even possible to achieve it without ever have taken drugs... my mom is an example for it... there is many, many more for sure...


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Strumpling]
    #984075 - 10/22/02 07:41 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Strumpling.... you're taking this thread on a tangent that is already currently being addressed (and has been addressed over and over and over...) in another thread.

Please stick to the topic... namely, the original post.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: In(di)go]
    #984076 - 10/22/02 07:42 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

And now Lozt Soul is promoting the digression....


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleIn(di)go
People of the sun.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/00
Posts: 8,157
Loc: Cologne, Germany
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #984118 - 10/22/02 07:58 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

i escuse myself for "ruining your thread"


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #984227 - 10/22/02 08:36 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

yay sclorch is on my ass again!!

sorry to throw your life off balance like that man.... please.. don't hit me.

edit #1 (addition): and hey why didn't you jump all over dee_N_ae for asking the question I was attempting to answer? see now if you answer my questions you are further contributing to the "end of days" for this thread so you're gunna ignore me right? good idea... oh and great thread-name by the way.


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Edited by Strumpling (10/22/02 08:40 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledee_N_ae
\/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å†
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 2,473
Loc: The Shadow of Neptune
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Strumpling]
    #984345 - 10/22/02 09:08 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

My question was actually directed at Shroomism since it was his post I was replying to.
After considering the nature of this forurm I now realise I should have PM'd him the question so as not to upset those who stricly adhere to the forum rules.
Sorry for causing any trouble!  :grin:   


Edited by dee_N_ae (10/22/02 09:08 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Evolving]
    #984357 - 10/22/02 09:10 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Reality is it what exists despite denials, despite blindness to it.

The only defense of realism (as opposed to solipsism) is an appeal to pragmatism and social consensus, far from a logical proof. Yet if you are not a realist, you are blind or are in denial. How are you so sure?

Someone could use an appeal to pragmatism and social consensus to also support the existence of God. In the past, It could have been used to support now-known-to-be obsolete medical and other scientific theories, yet I?m sure in these cases you would not consider this argument so compelling.

Reality is what remains when the hallucinations stop, it imposes itself upon you even when you can't perceive it.

What if everyone was tripping and we all saw ?reality? in more or less the same way. Would what we all agreed on as reality then be reality? If not, why not? How do you know that our non-tripping perception is any closer to reality than tripping perception? An appeal to evolutionary theory?

We should not confuse an incomplete or faulty grasp of reality with the absence of it.

Against what standard do you compare someone?s perception of reality so as to know that it is more or less in line with real ?reality??


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: buttonion]
    #984622 - 10/22/02 10:10 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

buttonion writes:

The only defense of realism (as opposed to solipsism) is an appeal to pragmatism and social consensus, far from a logical proof.

Pragmatism is a null concept if solipsism is an accurate description of the way things are. If you are all that exists, if reality is nothing more than a waking dream that your own consciousness is creating, then no course of action is more "pragmatic" than any other.

Social consensus is not required to verify that existence exists. It can only be verified ostensively, and ostensive verification does not require multiple individuals.

In the past, It (pragmatism and social consensus) could have been used to support now-known-to-be obsolete medical and other scientific theories, yet I?m sure in these cases you would not consider this argument so compelling.

Neither method is infallible. See Evolving's original answer: We should not confuse an incomplete or faulty grasp of reality with the absence of it.

What if everyone was tripping and we all saw ?reality? in more or less the same way.

The very fact that we aren't always "tripping" shows the efficiency of evolution. If one cannot rely on the validity of one's sensory input, one cannot make the necessary decisions necessary to survive; faulty data leads to incorrect decisions. All other factors being equal, the more accurate one's perception of reality is, the higher the chances of survival.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMurex
Reality Hacker

Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 14 years, 17 days
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: buttonion]
    #984661 - 10/22/02 10:20 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

In psycological tests, people have been studied with distorted perceptions for weeks and months- ex: Wearing glasses that turned everything upside-down. When they took off the glasses at the end of the test, they couldn't function normally for a while and stumbled around. Their new sight became normal after a while and they were able to function proplerly. I think one's reality can be seen in any way, the longer one sees their reality in one way, it becomes the norm.

Halluzonigenz make you see reality in other ways. It gives you another view, maybe something you never realized before because of your default view of reality.

Think about some iscects (like a fly) and how they view their reality from their bilogical eyes. Some animals can filter light differently too. Does that mean that we don't see all of what's to see?



--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #984773 - 10/22/02 10:48 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Thanks Pinky, you addressed that before I saw it.

Buttonion, you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. Basically it is this: reality exists independent of our senses and our interpretation of our sensory information or how our sensory information may integrate with our cognitive models of the universe. What is, has nothing to do with the mental state of the perceiver or perceivers (whether or not they are tripping), it has nothing to do with consensus or beliefs. How one is best able to identify reality does relate to these things and can be debated, however our life experiences and tools such as logic and science appear to be the best resources available. People can perform all sorts of mental masturbation to try and deny any kind of objective reality, but when the sniper's bullet hits your melon and the hydrostatic pressure causes it to explode (or you can take the example Sclorch was using)... that's reality. Those organisms that are best able to recognize it and adapt their behaviour to it are more likely to survive and flourish.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #984826 - 10/22/02 11:04 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Social consensus is not required to verify that existence exists. It can only be verified ostensively, and ostensive verification does not require multiple individuals.

I?m reading ?ostensively? or ostensibly as ?apparently? here. Is this what you mean? So, because existence apparently exists than it does exist? A reflection of myself in the mirror is apparently me too.


Neither method is infallible. See Evolving's original answer: We should not confuse an incomplete or faulty grasp of reality with the absence of it.

OK, I get the point- just because we don?t have all of the pieces to the puzzle, we should not assume that there is no puzzle. But, of course, it is assumed in this statement that there is a reality to grasp (a puzzle), the very idea I am questioning. Just to clarify, I?m not attempting to prove idealism here- I actually don?t think proving either is possible (maybe with further research in consciousness). I am just wondering how one can have such a firm belief in realism when there is no way to be certain. It just seems that a lot of people who appear to base what few beliefs they are certain about in logical certainty do not realize that this belief cannot be.

All other factors being equal, the more accurate one's perception of reality is, the higher the chances of survival.


I don?t think that necessarily follows. I don't doubt that we are better able to survive while not tripping. But here's what I think: scientists would agree that our survival value is enhanced by being attuned to certain aspects of the environment- certain perceptual data (human faces, sexual areas, soothing sounds). But, does being attuned to these survival enhancing characteristics of the environment necessarily mean that we have a more accurate apprehension of reality? Not neccesarily- it could just as easily be that we have a less accurate perception.

Edit: Just to elaborate on that last point, it could be that we are too narrowly focused while not tripping, by and large attuned to survival cues at the expense of whatever else.


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Edited by buttonion (10/22/02 11:09 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Evolving]
    #984863 - 10/22/02 11:12 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Those organisms that are best able to recognize it and adapt their behaviour to it are more likely to survive and flourish.

Check out the end of my response to Pinky


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: buttonion]
    #985060 - 10/23/02 12:12 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

In reply to:

But, does being attuned to these survival enhancing characteristics of the environment necessarily mean that we have a more accurate apprehension of reality? Not neccesarily- it could just as easily be that we have a less accurate perception.



I agree, I can 'see' how organisms such as bacteria have a much narrower range of perception than humans and use a less complex model of their environment ('model' might be too fancy a term). Perhaps I should re-word my statement that you quoted. Those organisms that are best able to adapt their behaviour to reality are more likely to survive and flourish.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Edited by Evolving (10/23/02 12:13 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: buttonion]
    #985199 - 10/23/02 01:04 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

buttonion writes:

I?m reading ?ostensively? or ostensibly as ?apparently? here.

No, I spelled it correctly. From the Oxford Dictionary of Current English: ostensive -- directly showing.

Fire can be SHOWN to be hot ostensively -- hold a match under your hand. Water can SHOWN to be wet ostensively -- walk in the rain. Etc.

No logical argument is required to demonstrate the existence of an entity ostensively. It can be directly experienced.

But, of course, it is assumed in this statement that there is a reality to grasp (a puzzle), the very idea I am questioning.

and

I am just wondering how one can have such a firm belief in realism when there is no way to be certain.

Of course there is no way to be CERTAIN. You cannot say with absolute 100% certainty that I, pinksharkmark, exist. You CAN say with 100% certainty that you, buttonion, exist.The probability that you are all that exists is almost infinitely tiny, but it is not IMPOSSIBLE that you are all that exists. The point is, if you ACT that way, you will soon die. Solipsism as a philosophy is fatal to the solipsist.

It just seems that a lot of people who appear to base what few beliefs they are certain about in logical certainty do not realize that this belief cannot be.

No philosophy is worth a pinch of coon shit if it cannot be validated against reality. The problem with solipsism is that there is no reality with which to validate. This is why I say that to a solipsist, such concepts as life, death, morality, pragmatism, etc. are null. It cannot be otherwise.

It just seems that a lot of people who appear to base what few beliefs they are certain about in logical certainty do not realize that this belief cannot be.

Logic is a process. It needs facts on which to operate; facts provided by your senses. Your senses demonstrate ostensively to you that entities exist which ARE NOT YOU. If you choose to regard your sensory data as invalid, what data WILL you accept as valid? How do you ACQUIRE this non-sensory data?

But here's what I think: scientists would agree that our survival value is enhanced by being attuned to certain aspects of the environment- certain perceptual data (human faces, sexual areas, soothing sounds).

None of those "aspects of the environment" are required for survival. What is much more critical is the ability to recognize water and food, for example, and to recognize hazards such as fire and predators.

But, does being attuned to these survival enhancing characteristics of the environment necessarily mean that we have a more accurate apprehension of reality?

Of course it does. If it didn't, the human race would have been extinct a long time ago. Note that as our senses are enhanced technologically (microscopes, telescopes, etc.) our apprehension of reality becomes increasingly accurate, and the number of individuals in the species increases. Note also how individuals lacking one or more of the senses are less likely to survive (absent the aid of other individuals with the full array of senses).

Just to elaborate on that last point, it could be that we are too narrowly focused while not tripping, by and large attuned to survival cues at the expense of whatever else.

At the expense of WHAT? Please explain what is more important than survival? If you are dead, no further actions are possible. In order to trip, one must first be alive.

pinky



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: buttonion]
    #985221 - 10/23/02 01:12 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Good replies buttonion, pinky, and evolving.
This is pretty much where I wanted this thread to go.

butt- the puzzle analogy... that's pretty much the way I see it.
------------------------------
Another thing I've thought about is how our limited perception almost forces us to take a pragmatic stance on many issues. We make "educated" guesses and the like in unfamiliar territory. Whatever works best (or is perceived to work best) is what is used in the future in similar situations. It's not perfect. But that's all we've got. Anything else is just assertion (unless it works consistently, in which case it is at least applied pragmatically).


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #985236 - 10/23/02 01:17 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

kinda goin off on a tangent here aren't ya?


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineehud
Rocket Scientist
Registered: 10/23/01
Posts: 217
Loc: Middle America
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
move mountains [Re: Sclorch]
    #985249 - 10/23/02 01:21 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

when I was younger, in sunday school the teacher said that with faith you can move mountains. I think she was serious.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Strumpling]
    #985259 - 10/23/02 01:23 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

kinda goin off on a tangent here aren't ya?

Nope.
Laws of the universe, internal laws, etc... they all fit within the topic.

DMT, mushrooms, drugs in general, mystic experiences, and enlightenment have little to do with the topic.

I hope I didn't offend you (you DID read the disclaimer, right?).


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: ehud]
    #985330 - 10/23/02 01:42 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

when I was younger, in sunday school the teacher said that with faith you can move mountains.

Yeah, it's a perverted version of "what was probably originally written in the bible" and what is written in the Gospel of Thomas:

48 Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in a single house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move from here!' and it will move."

106 Jesus said, "When you make the two into one, you will become children of Adam, and when you say, 'Mountain, move from here!' it will move.


An entirely different message... substitute "faith" for "the way" and you get zen.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #985519 - 10/23/02 03:17 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

in fact, the only way we can change things is by will....

That table will NOT move unless I will it to happen; as SOON as i'm willing it to happen, the action starts taking place: my body will get up, make its way to the table, and move the table. by "will alone" is an abstract idea - unless you're talking about Bill on his own, it just doesn't happen....

Even if there was some other force that could be taken advantage of, we'd still be using THAT externally from our sheer "will" to make it happen. Since we can't move things by will alone already, we won't be able to - there will have to be some other device in between the will and the action that makes the action happen - a force of some type will have to move that table - even if I were "telekenetic" there would be some kind of force i was putting on the table to get it to move, and that force would be a RESULT of my will, just as me standing up and moving it is. So far, various machines and life-forms still need to interact with objects to get them to move - that comes naturally with living objectively (its like somebody'd said - hell.. in your dreams you can make anything happen, but its still not just "by will" - you will it to happen, and your brain starts the processes that will make it happen). I don't know how else to explain what i'm trying to say.

-=- Matt/Strumpling -=-
i just deleted a half-page of stuff - you should be really glad too (but probably disappointed that i still posted this much, eh?)
edit #1 (addition): i guess what i mean by all this is that since will iteslf isn't an force.. it can't move things - it simply gets us to do whatever it is we need to do to get the action its willing... to happen.


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Edited by Strumpling (10/23/02 03:33 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #986058 - 10/23/02 10:41 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

If I can't do this stuff... it doesn't necessarily disprove solipsism, BUT it does mean that there is a system of "internal laws" that I cannot escape. If that is the case, then how did these laws "get there"?

If you cant do it, it means you cat do it! I cant fly a plane but thats not due to any factors other than my lack of experience. I cannot prove it for sure but i tend to believe 90% that there are many individuals throughout history and currently who have matrix like powers. This agrees with Shroomisms statement that these "laws" are there to be overcome. Laws are just human models laid on top of the bigger picture.

2. Fractal Reality (determinism, collective consciousness, we are all god, etc.):If I'm a branch of god... then I'm a branch of the will that governs this universe (or IS this universe or.... whatever). That being said, my mental fractal is only a partial view of the Great Fractal that is "God". Assuming I can shape my mental fractal (compatibilist's "free will") to match that of the Great Fractal... can I CHANGE the universe at my will? Or will I be forced to adopt the will of the Great Fractal?

This is what we were chatting about on the "Thoughts on how to achieve the perfect world" thread. True will is the will of the great fractal and i think we will only be able to cause effect that is in line with the will of the great fractal. Its like a built in fail safe, i think. But this is the paradox of free will. Following our ego's whims looking for happiness is, to me, free will in action. Unfortunately, it is like chasing shadows. When we submit to true will, the great fractal or barry the sprout who is the god of all, we will find ourself at peace. Anything we need will manifest itself for us. Through me but not by "my" will. Never truly by "my" will. Taking credit is the old style ego's method. We need a new improved ego V1.2 that allows energy to pass thru us without feeling the need to claim it as its own.

PEACE


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: GazzBut]
    #986402 - 10/23/02 01:29 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

*rejects temporary belief system*

So... "true will" is puppet thinking?  Fuck that.  Free will is the only kind of will I'll EVER accept.  My free will has been working out just fine for me.  Hell, ever since I gave up praying and dependency on "greater forces", my life has been pretty damn stress-free.  There's enough authority figures in the world already... I don't need another "invisible" one (keeping it anthropomorphic for fun :wink:). 


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #988351 - 10/24/02 01:56 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Well it seems the two of you are understanding each other's arguments even without my help. Good.

I will be including a few comments on the issue in the Truth? thread as soon as the elections are over. Basically the answer still needs a bit of refining but you did go in the right direction. The answer to buttonion's quandary is that the reductio ad absurdum leads us inevitably to solipsism which is self-negating, period, end of story.

Good Job.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #988744 - 10/24/02 06:05 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Glad to hear things are going good for you. I dont pray to anything and im not dependent on higher forces, i suppose true will could also be looked at as the next stage in the evolution of the mind, where we function primarily out of concern for the collective rather than the personal. cheers for helping me get to grips with this one!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #988830 - 10/24/02 07:08 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

All this talk about solipsism opposed to realism seems like a case of whoose got the better label. But then again i might not understand it correctly. Solipsism - this is the theory that the self is the only thing that exists and can be verified, is that right? and realism, the belief that objects exist separately from being perceived?

If those definitions are what you are talking about, why is it either or?Modifying slightly the given definition of solipsism, I believe We can only know our self, and we can only know the universe through our self. Whatever instruments and tools we use to perceive the universe is just an extension of our self but this doesnt have to mean that we create the universe through an act of perception. The realism side of the argument would still hold true, objects do exist independent of perception, but they will only ever exist for us in terms of human perception.

Ive probabaly not quite understood what you were talking about here...

PEACE


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: GazzBut]
    #989095 - 10/24/02 10:47 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

The realism side of the argument would still hold true, objects do exist independent of perception, but they will only ever exist for us in terms of human perception.

Objects existing independent of perception? What would such an object be like? It would have no colour, as colours are created by the brain, or, if a colour is just a certain wavelength being reflected, there would be an infinity of colours, which makes the term useless again. Likewise, those objects would neither be solid nor insolid, because solidity means just that humans cannot pass through them. These objects would have no size either, because size can only be defined relative to the size of something else.

I could continue, but to cut it down, there would be no "objects" at all, because you can only define things as seperate if you are able to perceive them as separate. Would we as humans not be objects, we would not see objects at all, nor understand the meaning of the concept.

The closest I can get to what such objects would be like is numbers. But there is change, and numbers cannot change into other numbers by themselves. There would have to be something else, something not consisting of numbers, which would have to be able to manipulate those numbers: The state set of the universes' turing machine. That "thing" would be so alien to us that describing it as an "object" hardly makes sense.

I don't say that nothing exists outside of us. But there doesn't exist anything outside of us, either. The TAO falls into the gap between words.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: GazzBut]
    #989191 - 10/24/02 11:55 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Gazzbut writes:

Solipsism - this is the theory that the self is the only thing that exists and can be verified, is that right? and realism, the belief that objects exist separately from being perceived?

Yep.

If those definitions are what you are talking about, why is it either or?

Because in the case of solipsism, it IS a case of either/or. Either you are the only entity that exists or there are entities other than you. Once one accepts that there are multiple entities, philosophy becomes relevant. If you are the only entity, philosophy is a null concept.

Modifying slightly the given definition of solipsism, I believe We can only know our self, and we can only know the universe through our self.

That is not a modified solipsism, though. Solipsism by definition is not amenable to modification. It is literally an either/or stance.

We can only know our self, and we can only know the universe through our self. Whatever instruments and tools we use to perceive the universe is just an extension of our self but this doesnt have to mean that we create the universe through an act of perception. The realism side of the argument would still hold true, objects do exist independent of perception, but they will only ever exist for us in terms of human perception.

I agree with everything you said there, except "we can only know ourself". If you had modified it to read "we can only have complete knowledge of ourself" it would be closer to the truth, except I doubt anyone has complete knowledge of even himself.

It is possible to gain virtually complete knowledge of countless entities. I know everything that is worth knowing about my bicycle, for example. I don't know for sure exactly which factory produced the tires, or whether the grease in the sealed hubs originated in a pool of crude oil in Venezuela or in Kuwait, but I know everything I NEED to know about that bicycle in order to use it as I see fit.

...this doesnt have to mean that we create the universe through an act of perception.

This question is at the core of every philosophical debate, since it addresses the very nature of metaphysics, on which all philosophies rest. It can be termed "the primacy of consciousness" vs "the primacy of existence" debate. An Aristotelian such as myself asserts that the universe (stars, planets, gas clouds, etc.) exists independent of consciousness. In other words, it is and will continue to be regardless of whether there are entities capable of apprehending that fact.

A Mystic will hold that without perceivers, there can be nothing to perceive; that the universe is a construct of either a single consciousness or a group consciousness.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (10/24/02 12:17 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #989241 - 10/24/02 12:16 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Nomad writes:

It would have no colour, as colours are created by the brain, or, if a colour is just a certain wavelength being reflected, there would be an infinity of colours, which makes the term useless again.

Not an infinity. Not every object reflects every wavelength. That is how it is possible for humans to perceive color in the first place.

Likewise, those objects would neither be solid nor insolid, because solidity means just that humans cannot pass through them.

Not so. Rocks are solid, and a rock dislodged from a slope by rain or water will act upon other rocks, not just humans. "Solidity" is not defined as "that which through a human cannot pass".

These objects would have no size either, because size can only be defined relative to the size of something else.

Only if you restrict the definition of "size" to "bigger or smaller than some arbitrary reference object". But that is not how absolute size is defined. It is possible to describe the size of a star by saying it contains 3 x 10 to the 34th hydrogen atoms, for example, making no reference to the size of other stars.

I could continue, but to cut it down, there would be no "objects" at all, because you can only define things as seperate if you are able to perceive them as separate. Would we as humans not be objects, we would not see objects at all, nor understand the meaning of the concept.

Who is it in this forum who says "you are confusing the map with the territory"? It appears you are confusing a concept with what that concept describes. It is true that concepts are a construct of consciousness, but that doesn't mean that objects and interactions between objects are impossible in the absence of concepts. The rock will continue to dislodge other rocks even if there is no consciousness available to perceive the event and assign the word "rock" to the entities involved in the event. Black holes and supernovae and bacteria all existed before humans were aware they did.

I don't say that nothing exists outside of us. But there doesn't exist anything outside of us, either.

Check your premises. Contradictions can't exist. If you identify one, your premises are faulty. In the case of entities "outside of us", there either are or there aren't. Either you are all that exists (solipsism) or entities exist that are not you. You can't have it both ways.

pinky



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #989475 - 10/24/02 02:03 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Not an infinity. Not every object reflects every wavelength.

But there is an infinity of wavelengths, and thus there is an infinity of colours, even if we assign each object just one colour.

Not so. Rocks are solid, and a rock dislodged from a slope by rain or water will act upon other rocks, not just humans. "Solidity" is not defined as "that which through a human cannot pass".

I take it then that solidity is defined as "that which acts upon another object"? Then everything is solid. Or did you mean "that which acts upon another object that is solid, too?" Then that definition is self-recursive and devoid of meaning. Not to speak of the less - than - objective nature of solidness this definition implies. For solidness to be objective, it would have to be a characteristic of the rock itself and not one of the interaction between the rock and his environment.

But that is not how absolute size is defined. It is possible to describe the size of a star by saying it contains 3 x 10 to the 34th hydrogen atoms, for example, making no reference to the size of other stars.

How is that "absolute size"? That is relative size. You measured the size of a star by the size of an atom. If I ask you about the size of an atom, will you describe it as the 3 x 10 to the 34th part of a star?

It appears you are confusing a concept with what that concept describes. It is true that concepts are a construct of consciousness, but that doesn't mean that objects and interactions between objects are impossible in the absence of concepts. The rock will continue to dislodge other rocks even if there is no consciousness available to perceive the event and assign the word "rock" to the entities involved in the event. Black holes and supernovae and bacteria all existed before humans were aware they did.

Nope. When we are talking about the objective reality, we are per definition talking about a concept. Everything that is not a concept is an experience, and I would bet a large sum of money that you never experienced black holes or supernovaes or bacterias.

Check your premises. Contradictions can't exist. If you identify one, your premises are faulty. In the case of entities "outside of us", there either are or there aren't. Either you are all that exists (solipsism) or entities exist that are not you. You can't have it both ways.

Well, in a way I do think that nothing exists outside of myself, but that nothingness is so full of nothing that it includes the very absence of nothingness itself. For example, suppose there is a glass of water. If you take the glass of water away, there is not nothingness instead, because the place where the glass stood still contains the information that there is no glass of water there. If you, then, would take away the glass of water and then take away the information that there is no glass of water, you would come close to nothingness, and you would get a place where there is neither a glass of water, nor is there no glass of water. If you, further still, take away the information that there is no information that there is no glass of water, then you would get a fairly accurate description of what I consider the universe outside of me. You need not call that solipsism if you don't want to, but I think it's close enough. I prefer the term "philosophical agnosticism".




Edited by Nomad (10/24/02 02:09 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #989954 - 10/24/02 04:49 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

But there is an infinity of wavelengths, and thus there is an infinity of colours, even if we assign each object just one colour.

That's not what you said. You said there was NO color, not that there is an INFINITY of colors.

I take it then that solidity is defined as... blah blah blah"

Again, you said without a human consciousness to perceive a solid object, solid objects can't exist. I say that is incorrect. The Earth's moon is solid. A small meteor (another solid object) cannot pass through it. The Oxford Dictionary of Current English doesn't define "solid" as "the property of an entity which allows it to interact with other entities", it defines "solid" as "of firm and stable shape as opposed to fluid".

There is no point in quibbling over semantics. The fundamental principle under discussion here is whether or not a physical universe exists. Since we are conceptual beings, and communicate through the use of concepts, our discussion naturally consists of an exchange of concepts, regardless of how either of us chooses to interpret them. Our individual descriptions of various entities neither proves nor disproves the existence of such entities. That can be ultimately only be done ostensively.

Well, in a way I do think that nothing exists outside of myself...

Then there's no point in my debating further with you. If I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination, you can continue to play without my active input.

*Click*





--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #989956 - 10/24/02 04:49 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

I always thought solid meant "a mass of matter that has a definite shape which resists change".

How is that "absolute size"? That is relative size. You measured the size of a star by the size of an atom. If I ask you about the size of an atom, will you describe it as the 3 x 10 to the 34th part of a star?

Just because there is no absolute frame of reference doesn't mean there aren't standard ways of measuring things.  A meter was arbitrarily chosen as a unit of length... we work from there. Period.


Damn, Nomad, I would hate living with you.  You argue about shit that doesn't even matter.  If nothing exists outside of you, why do you feel the need to engage in a rigorous argument with it?  You're only wasting YOUR time.  Get on with the dream if that's all it is.  If this were my dream, I'd be upset that I wasted all my time typing on a computer to my imaginary "opponent".

Solipsism sucks... but that's only because all that exists is YOU. :smirk: 


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #989962 - 10/24/02 04:51 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

JINX!! 123456789ten STOP!!


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #991856 - 10/25/02 04:00 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

I always thought solid meant "a mass of matter that has a definite shape which resists change".

Nothing has a definite shape. Even glass is liquid, and so, of course, are rocks. You are stuck in a particular time, which means that things appear to have a definit shape. But when dealing with objectivity, you have to step out of your frame of time, and then nothing has a definite shape, and nothing resists change. To measure the resistance of change, you would have to measure the size of the impact of change, but since size does not exist in objective reality... well, you get it.

Just because there is no absolute frame of reference doesn't mean there aren't standard ways of measuring things. A meter was arbitrarily chosen as a unit of length... we work from there. Period.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that size is in some way objective. See, I doubled the size of every object in the universe overnight, and you didn't even notice!

Damn, Nomad, I would hate living with you. You argue about shit that doesn't even matter. If nothing exists outside of you, why do you feel the need to engage in a rigorous argument with it?

Because I think it's fun. I hope that pinkysharkmark enjoys it too, otherwise that would be sad.

Get on with the dream if that's all it is.

I do, man, I do. It's just that when my dream doesn't require that much attention (period), I'm enjoying the meaninglessness of everything. If I get back to full-time dreaming, I won't argue anymore.

Solipsism sucks... but that's only because all that exists is YOU.

LOL!  :laugh: 


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #991934 - 10/25/02 06:10 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

That's not what you said. You said there was NO color, not that there is an INFINITY of colors.

Did I? Can't remember. Anyway, if there is an infinity of colours, there is for every colour another colour which is arbitrarily close. Which means that, in the same way 0,999999... is equal to 1,00000..., there would be just one colour after all. Since you can only define a colour in relationship to a different colour, I conclude that there is no colour at all.

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English doesn't define "solid" as "the property of an entity whichallows it to interact with other entities", it defines "solid" as "of firm and stable shape as opposed to fluid".

Covered that in my reply to Sclorch.

Then there's no point in my debating further with you. If I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination, you can continue to play without my active input.

What, am I holding a gun to your head, forcing you to reply?

Um... sorry, yeah, I do. The gun is pointed at your ego. You better watch out it doesn't get killed in here.

*Click*. Damn, empty barrel.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #992078 - 10/25/02 10:18 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

I'm going to make you the same offer I did to Sclorch. At sometime in the future it would be nice to have a book discussion over in the Literary forum. I hope you will join us for a delightful repast of discussion there. If you can think of a book you would like to lead a discussion on submit it to me via a pm and perhaps others will be interested enough to participate.

Cheers,


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXibalba
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/00
Posts: 2,114
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #1005949 - 10/30/02 12:56 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Nomad, one word for you?

Planck.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Xibalba]
    #1006150 - 10/30/02 01:39 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

In reply to number 2, it is impossible to shape your "mental fractal" into the same "shape" as the One, because it is already in the shape of the One AND your human mental fractal. It's kind of like taking a piece out of a puzzle, without that piece (your human fractal) the puzzle is not the complete puzzle, and not the original puzzle at all (to be exact). That puzzle piece is just as important as the whole thing. You can't become something you already are, what I think you were getting at is just becoming the One. And you already have control of the universe, along with every other mental fractal, because we are all one. Our thoughts are what create our universe, look around you what do you see? A computer, desk, a floor, a roof, and maybe some speakers. What was the original origin of these things and everything else around you? The thought.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: ]
    #1008798 - 10/31/02 03:15 AM (18 years, 10 months ago)

So... the mental fractal cannot be changed then?
Hmm...

So what you're telling me is that the only reason I can't stop bullets (or can I?) is because my brain is synced up with "the One" and therefore is governed by the same internal laws which state that bullets cannot be stopped (without kevlar or whatever).... right?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #1009837 - 10/31/02 12:26 PM (18 years, 10 months ago)

Your human self, or mental fractal, is synced up with the one but not governed by the same laws. Our reality has its own set of laws as shrooms can prove (because they can change reality). If you could remember well enough of your '"one" side' or 'higher self' most likely you could stop those bullets if you wanted to, but I can't say for sure on that because I myself don't know that side well enough to know what things in our communal human reality I would be able to change.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* objective reality does not exist
( 1 2 all )
monoamine 6,024 34 11/01/02 10:55 AM
by Newbie2000
* it seems therefore, that God does not exist. whiterastahippie 1,714 12 11/11/11 04:01 AM
by thefloodbehind
* Subjective v. Objective Reality
( 1 2 all )
Joshua 3,972 24 01/31/03 09:31 PM
by Joshua
* The Internet Dosn't Exist
( 1 2 all )
Demon 1,963 21 02/11/03 02:20 AM
by Demon
* Objective reality challange gribochek 1,799 8 01/31/02 11:20 PM
by Swank
* The existance of Satan and Hell (a debate) Spiffy 1,808 10 05/05/03 01:39 AM
by Deiymiyan
* IFOs (Identified Flying Objects) Anonymous 1,399 15 01/18/02 09:49 PM
by gribochek
* Death & Time don't exist. Where God comes from...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Shroomalicious 8,490 69 12/18/02 08:30 PM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
5,567 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.