Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #988351 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #988744 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #988830 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: GazzBut]
    #989095 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: GazzBut]
    #989191 -

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 10:17 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #989241 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #989475 -

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 12:09 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #989954 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #989956 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #989962 -

JINX!! 123456789ten STOP!!


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #991856 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Phred]
    #991934 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #992078 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Nomad]
    #1005949 -

Nomad, one word for you?

Planck.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Xibalba]
    #1006150 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: ]
    #1008798 -

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 Top
Re: Fuck Yourself [Re: Sclorch]
    #1009837 -

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 Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* objective reality does not exist
( 1 2 all )		 monoamine 6,585 34 11/01/02 08:55 AM
by Newbie2000
* it seems therefore, that God does not exist. whiterastahippie 1,889 12 11/11/11 02:01 AM
by thefloodbehind
* Subjective v. Objective Reality
( 1 2 all )		 Joshua 4,432 24 01/31/03 07:31 PM
by Joshua
* The Internet Dosn't Exist *DELETED* Demon 2,237 19 02/10/03 05:06 PM
by RebelSteve33
* Objective reality challange gribochek 1,925 8 01/31/02 09:20 PM
by Swank
* The existance of Satan and Hell (a debate) Spiffy 1,989 10 05/04/03 11:39 PM
by Deiymiyan
* IFOs (Identified Flying Objects) Anonymous 1,485 15 01/18/02 07:49 PM
by gribochek
* Death & Time don't exist. Where God comes from...
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Shroomalicious 9,670 69 12/18/02 06:30 PM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
6,237 topic views. 2 members, 495 guests and 28 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.