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

@realist phil,

Quote:

The above paragraph implies that "a wash of particles" exists without "us." Do you agree with Gregg?

Such forever going unchallenged by rival theories or models that might contend that any "indivisible particles" are an illusion as well because they're actually vibrating strands of energy, nodes in a universal field, a slice of a continuous worldline, blah, blah, blah?

Are there good reasons for respecting the claims of mereological nihilism, ontological reductionism, etc., that indivisible or fundmental entities would be the truly "real" items? Is the discovery (or a perpetual, unrevisable confirmation) of truly partless entities or "partless stuff" anymore possible in the micro-direction than the macro-direction?

Quotation Interlude, Paul Churchland: Consider the possibility that for any level of order discovered in the universe, there always exists a deeper taxonomy of kinds and a deeper level of order in terms of which the lawful order can be explained. It is, as far as I can see, a wholly empirical question whether or not the universe is like this, like an "explanatory onion" with an infinite number of explanatory skins. If it is like this, then there are no basic or ultimate laws to which all investigations must inevitably lead. --from A Neurocomputational Perspective

It might be contended that micro-entities (regardless of whether they could be endlessly decomposed or not) preceded the complexities of the macroscopic world in the earlier history of the universe, and this privileged temporal status somehow makes them "less of an illusion or story". But then "block-time guy" or "an alternative mathematical structure dude" waddles in to rail against cognitive or memory distinctions like "past, present, and future" also being organizational features of the brain-independent world....

Brian Greene: In day to day life, physicists view time in the same way that everyone else does. And that makes it all the more surprising when we examine how time appears in our current theoretical frameworks, because nowhere in our theories do we see the intuitive notion of time that we all embrace. Nowhere, for example, can we find the theoretical underpinnings for our sense that time flows from one second to the next. Instead, our theories seem to indicate that time doesn't flow --rather, past, present, and future are all there, always, forever frozen in place. --from A Conversation With Brian Greene

So do I agree with Gregg? Perhaps I'm at least neutral on matters beyond my ken to verify.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

Quote:

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.

Despite many philosphers pedalling this clap trap, none of them are prepared to back it up with action. Once again...try and walk through someone.

I understand the intellectuality of 'self' being an illusion, but that 'illusion' is only part of the whole (not being the whole of 'self'), and as long as philosphers continue to ignore the whole, they will be studying a cog in a watch, and thinking they see the world.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

You can but you won't notice it ;-)

0 Replies

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

The child is able to uncover it's eyes though.

In teory, but in practice, its too scared to do so.

What im trying to get at is that not everything has a reason of being.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

It is true that you cannot walk through someone, and I think I know 'what you're getting at' by saying that. However, I'll have you consider this. Would 'walking' be possible without thought? Would the 'feeling' of bumping into another human being be possible without thought? Didn't you(thinking) come before all this started?(Including you typing on that keyboard).

'Self' is an illusion because it is constantly 'happening', incessantly. One cannot escape constant conceptualization, therefore you are no 'thing'(nothing) you are the experience of your authentic existence(thinking). Once you come to the realization that all you're doing now is thinking, all you've ever done or will do is think, worlds will open up to you. Think of this, can you even recall a time when you weren't thinking?(Interesting how you have to 'think' to even recall, isn't it?)

1 Reply

One more thing. When one 'speaks' it is only to the illusionary 'self' that was 'created' the first time it 'ran into' another Be-ing and was purpetuated through and through with each and every other 'meeting'. It is for this reason that when one 'speaks' it is only by conceptual contrast between the one speaking(existing, thinking) to the 'possiblilty' that it doesn't exist. This is also why we know everything by contrasts. In other words, any experience you have of your existence is illusionary and is purely a Gift. It's just a shame that most have taken the Gift(conceptual contrasts) in a direction of what ought to be or what ought not to be, instead of seeing it for what it actually is. So long as you continue to have expectations for other people in a direction of what they 'ought to be doing' or what they 'ought not to be doing' you have condemned your 'self' to the same treatment. Bottom line, everyone's 'messed up' because everyone's 'messed up'. It is an illusionary painful enigma, and all you can do is take your 'selfs' hat out of the ring.

0 Replies

@G H,

Do you agree with this: "objects" have no existence independent of the objectifier.

2 Replies

@realist phil,

It depends on what you take for objectifier...I rather "Functifier"...

...That is, whatever variable interacts with it, and not necessarilly a subject...the object is its circunstancial purpose, or role...

0 Replies

@manored,

Well I can't say that everything, or anything, has a reason for being. Everything that is being, does however, produce an effect.
What we don't know, is the effect, reason for being?

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

Well I can't say that everything, or anything, has a reason for being. Everything that is being, does however, produce an effect.
What we don't know, is the effect, reason for being?

A contradiction in terms...although I felt like you meant a final reason...and such reason of being can only be found in itself´s own existence...
...a REASON that it is the very THING it explains !
..it may well be that "things" are not the result of something else...
...instead they are the something else "speaking" somewhere, at some point...
...this "point" in Space/Time, which is everyone of us as singular, in many singulars it is not the "Thing", although it "speaks" the thing !...
The "Thing", it is not many, but ONE with many voices !

(Could I go Himalayas Monk or what ? Wink

)

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...We all speak the TRUTH !
...We all ARE the Truth !
...The Truth has MANY Voices...
...PERSPECTIVES as voices upon the Thing...
...all different from any others, speaking FUNCTIONS in the same Object !
...all the voices bound the SAME Truth !
...as they speak the same BEING !

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

Quote:

It is true that you cannot walk through someone, and I think I know 'what you're getting at' by saying that. However, I'll have you consider this....

Quote:

... Would 'walking' be possible without thought?

Quote:

...Would the 'feeling' of bumping into another human being be possible without thought?

Quote:

...Didn't you(thinking) come before all this started?(Including you typing on that keyboard).

You note that not one of those things you asked me to consider removes another person from existing?

The other person may exist in our mind purely as a concept, which is true. - but you appear to be taking that to mean 'our mind creates existance' rather than 'our mind interprets existance', or 'our mind creates interpretations of existance'.

A thing existing in our mind does not remove the possibility of existing without our mind. Of course the thing that 'exists' in our mind is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the 'same' thing that exists without our mind.

It may be that because you understand that our mind interprets everything we sense, and from their our mind also has the ability to 'create' beyond what is sensed, that everything our mind views is created by us, which is incorrect . At the very base level others exist...which is why we can't walk through them. From that existance, our basic mind senses them. Beyond that, we create our interpretation of them in our mind.

The illusionary nature of self and the universe is only half of the story. The other half is existance of things. So no matter how you try to justify that line of thought to yourself (that people exist only in your mind), your mind knows that it's clap trap, which is why...no matter how hard you wish to argue for it - you will not try to walk through some musclebound, roid munching meathead (though of course if you do, a little voice in the back of your head will go 'I told you so')

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

That damned infinity thing, especially the infinite history of infinity.
Let's meet up in timbuktu on our way to shangri la Smile

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Please don't mistake what YOUR interpreting out of my post for what I actually said. 'You', Be-ing comes before anything or anyone. Also, there are no 'things', only events. What you need to realise is that 'You' are the event.

2 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

Quote:

'You' are the event.

That's all you hadda say man Smile

0 Replies

@realist phil,

Quote:

Do you agree with this: "objects" have no existence independent of the objectifier.

That can be rejected since the use of "object" isn't perpetually restricted to either narrow context (only a "thing-for-me" versus only a "thing-in-itself"). Different invented systems or sub-systems may each set their own ontological standards:

Where object in a strict sense is used to refer to independent being, in a general sense it is any entity subjective or objective. Thus objects are things as diverse as the pyramids, Alpha Centauri, the number seven, a disbelief in predestination, and the fear of dogs. The pragmatist Charles S. Peirce defines the broad notion of an object as anything that we can think or talk about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(philosophy)

object: 7. Philosophy, a thing that is or can be thought of. unabridged dictionary

Etymology of "object": Medieval Latin, objectum, thing presented to the mind or thought.

Even in Berkeley's immaterialism the phenomenal objects (ideas) are either presented to the mind (independent of it) or arise from influences affecting the mind that are independent of that particular mind:

PHILONOUS: Look you, Hylas, when I speak of objects as existing
in the mind, or imprinted on the senses, I would not be
understood in the gross literal sense; as when bodies are said to
exist in a place, or a seal to make an impression upon wax. My
meaning is only that the mind comprehends or perceives them; and
that it is affected from without, or by some being distinct from
itself. This is my explication of your difficulty; and how it can
serve to make your tenet of an unperceiving material <substratum>
intelligible, I would fain know. --from The Three Dialogues

1 Reply

@G H,

Quote:

Where object in a strict sense is used to refer to independent being, in a general sense it is any entity subjective or objective. Thus objects are things as diverse as the pyramids, Alpha Centauri, the number seven, a disbelief in predestination, and the fear of dogs. The pragmatist Charles S. Peirce defines the broad notion of an object as anything that we can think or talk about.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(philosophy)

Independent in what sense ?
Even if an object is just the product of my imagination, it still is an object somewhere, is n´t it ? be it my mind, neurons or whatever...it is there !
Now if you mean independent as without cause, that can be applied to both "internal" or "external" objects...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...In conclusion, the argument against independent objects is not more true, be it, in or out of the mind, given either, objects are not caused, or if they are, be it the argument for mind or the World, the outcome necessarilly results pretty much the same, since none is independent from its source...I don't see the importance of determining the location for the sake of objectivity being stablished...that something must refer as one speaks or thinks or observes, again be it in or out, that in turn seams quite obvious to me...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...its almost nonsensical and childish to make such annoying observations, since the mind is a world in itself, and the World the mentor of its creations...

One would wonder, what is, that much different there afterall? Poor illusion...both, are nothing but systems of information, each an entity in its own...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...all in all, centurys of pretension, and linearity that is...
...I can't but wonder, how can anyone stand with a serious face while getting the argument for distinguishing "serious" from "non serious" philosphers as I have heard it around the place, coming out from very "serious" characters ? Its funny do...

...bottom line, important is to make the journey towards a ever better understanding of the concepts we use to define the world we all Are!

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know