3
   

You are the only one who is 'alive'.............

 
 
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 08:58 am
Everyone else you see is only a result of 'You' being alive(thinking)..........

Have fun.
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 09:06 am
Old news =)
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 09:12 am
@manored,
Lol yes, but it's fun to 'refresh the memory'.........Very Happy
0 Replies
 
G H
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 11:17 am
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
Everyone else you see is only a result of 'You' being alive(thinking).......... Have fun.


Fun??? Hey, Teela Brown, do us and the gent a favor and spin the internet wheel of fortune for a random association to his claim, but restricted to its type of category....

John Gregg: "...consciousness has a much bigger job than just painting the apple red. It must create reality much more broadly, including the apple itself. Just as there are no red photons, there are no rocks, cars, dogs, or numbers. Nature presents us with a wash of particles, a continuous flux of quantum stuff, and we overlay this flux with stories about cars and rocks.
http://home.comcast.net/~johnrgregg/realism.htm

Well, perhaps, assuming that what the comprehending faculties of Joe Smoal is inferring "stories" upon isn't just another story itself, along with Joe Smoal even being such. Otherwise, this or that might as well be tentatively classified as "actual" instead of "story", according to its effectiveness or usefulness across many contexts and circumstances. Gomer: "Gosh darn, Sergeant Carter, that seems to be the kind of commonsense realism people adhere to, anyway."
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 02:24 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
Everyone else you see is only a result of 'You' being alive(thinking)..........
Seeing 'you' is addressed to Everyone, then the end result of this line of reasoning would be 'everyone thinks they are the only person alive' and two people looking at each other would each think 'he's not really alive, for I'm the only one really alive'.
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2011 10:19 am
@JPLosman0711,
This is great, so all I gotta do to get rid of you is to stop thinking. So if you want to continue existing, you should send me money or else I will stop thinking.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2011 02:54 pm
@Krumple,
Notice how you can't stop thinking.........Wink
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2011 03:01 pm
@vikorr,
'Reason' you say? What is 'reason'? Do we really know what this word means or is it just some kind of 'tool' we use to get along with one another through conceptual agreements..? Hmm.......well let's investigate!!

First off, last time I checked reason, meaning, purpose, logic and all these other koo koo words do not exist in the physical world, and yet we like to think they play a role in our lives. The question now arises, where did these words come from? They must have come from somewhere as they are clearly not in the physical world(maybe there are and I haven't looked hard enough!?!?) Also, If they do not exist in the physical world then someone must have 'created' them and we have to consider what 'motives' he/she might have had with their 'creation'. Manufacturing certainty is the best answer I can come up with here, someone who thought they knew and had plently of 'reasons' to show for it.

The emperor's not wearing any clothes!!! - LOL

It's all you vikorr.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2011 03:53 pm
@JPLosman0711,
JP,
Quote:
'Reason' you say? What is 'reason'? Do we really know what this word means or is it just some kind of 'tool' we use to get along with one another through conceptual agreements..? Hmm.......well let's investigate!!

Shifting the focus to the definition of the word 'reason' is a poor attempt to divert attention from a complete failure in logic on the part of your original post.

As for the language we are writing and communicating in, if you look deeper, all words are 'created' as per your charge. The motive for creating words is to communicate concepts and identify objects - there's no conspiracy about that, but there can be ulterior motives in the way that words are used...just look at your last post.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2011 04:00 pm
@vikorr,
Yes, but this is sort of what I was saying. These words are just symbols I am using in hopes of 'creating' for you a continuos line of thought. 'Reason' is just another concept you are tied to that is holding you back from un-covering who you are.

If it is true then that our 'words' are merely to 'communicate concepts and identify objects' then how can we be sure then we even 'exist' outside of conceptual agreements? If all 'thought' is conceptual, and all speaking is a conveying of 'thought', then what ISN'T conceptual???

Hope this rings a bell.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 07:46 am
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
Notice how you can't stop thinking.........Wink


Sure I can, but I wouldn't want to kill you yet.
0 Replies
 
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 08:18 am
@JPLosman0711,
You live in the 'world' alongside of the others who are here with you. You either remind them of who they are or you provide support for the mechanism that allows them to cover up who they are. You being you allows them to be. Look at the responses to your inquiry and ask your self this, Am I creating an atmosphere that allows them to Be?

Philosophy is not about standing in the front of the room and garnering the attention. Philosophy is about the people in the seats.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 11:09 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Shifting the focus to the definition of the word 'reason' is a poor attempt to divert attention from a complete failure in logic on the part of your original post.
Where did the logic of his original post fail?

Krumple wrote:

Quote:
Notice how you can't stop thinking.........Wink


Sure I can, but I wouldn't want to kill you yet.
No you cant =)
0 Replies
 
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 11:40 am
@Dasein,
What is the 'mechanism' that allows them to cover up....?
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 12:24 am
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
If it is true then that our 'words' are merely to 'communicate concepts and identify objects' then how can we be sure then we even 'exist' outside of conceptual agreements?

I would suggest you try and walk through the next person you see, to determine if they exist or not. But try not to pick a meathead as the non-existant person you try to walk through.
Quote:
If all 'thought' is conceptual, and all speaking is a conveying of 'thought', then what ISN'T conceptual???
Rephrased you appear to be saying ' if the brain can conceptualise then nothing can exist. That may not be the case, as there is not enough information in your line of thought.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 01:19 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

Everyone else you see is only a result of 'You' being alive(thinking)..........

Have fun.


Your senses and your intellect are the means of gathering, processing and organizing information. The organization of that information is unique to you, I have no idea what you really see when you see red.
The information itself is not created by you, only sensed by you. In absence of your sensory capabilities, the information remains.
You would have us believe that your being involuntarily creates it's world from nothing. Why on earth would it need, then ,to create the illusion of senses, why fool itself?
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 12:12 am
@wayne,
If all you've ever had for your whole life are 'sensory capabillities' then how would you ever know that the 'information' would be there without them? Who you are IS no 'thing', the 'world' is a result of you, Be-ing.

BTW - There is only the One that sees and hears. Experience, memory, feeling, emotions, thinking, speaking, and understanding are all un-real.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 08:05 pm
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

Why on earth would it need, then ,to create the illusion of senses, why fool itself?
Because it is its nature, maybe. Dont we oftenly delude ourselves to achieve certain goals? Like a child that covers its eyes in a terror movie, yet continues to watch it.
realist phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 08:41 pm
@G H,
G H wrote:

John Gregg: "...consciousness has a much bigger job than just painting the apple red. It must create reality much more broadly, including the apple itself. Just as there are no red photons, there are no rocks, cars, dogs, or numbers. Nature presents us with a wash of particles, a continuous flux of quantum stuff, and we overlay this flux with stories about cars and rocks.
http://home.comcast.net/~johnrgregg/realism.htm


The above paragraph implies that "a wash of particles" exists without "us." Do you agree with Gregg?
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 10:33 pm
@manored,
The child is able to uncover it's eyes though.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » You are the only one who is 'alive'.............
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 05:06:49