Viability of foreverness

Thanks for the response, Fresco. I'll get back to you on this after golf. I see several questionable aspects of what you wrote here, but I want to think it out a bit. I hope it doesn't hurt my putting as much as yesterday's distractions did.

...it is my belief a pristine reality does not require any sort of witnessing, any sort of first observer or anything else for that matter as such would equally consist of a relational process, thus requiring motion, time and space to operate...rather an a priori REALITY, the unmoved mover, it is the condition of observers and observation, of time and space and motion itself...("it" per se does not observe think or conceive anything...)

...naturally I don't see in your mental logical process from where it follows step by step this conclusion of yours that a "God observer" a "Mind" in the humanized sense must exist for any reality to be in place...

As the average star is a red dwarf, the size of the average star is much smaller than our sun.

Or to put it another way, our sun is an outlier -- abnormally large compared to the size of the average star.





Only one of them did.

A second had incorrect information, but also linked to a page on the same site with correct information.





If you want to find what an average star is, you need to look and see what makes for an average star.





There is no trick. The average star is a red dwarf -- much smaller than our sun.

If I remember correctly the average anything is calculated by the number or population...why is this an issue ? And why are you replying ???
Obviously if the average star in terms of population is a red dwarf the average size of stars at large must be smaller then the size our Sun...

Because I disagreed with the post I guess.

And I like this thread. It's been a long time since I've bothered to think about this subject, and it's a subject I enjoy.

I'm a little weary of the threads where the Republicans and Democrats are carving chunks out of each other. And the lowbrow name-calling with the anti-Semites is far from fulfilling.

I can always go for a gun rights thread, but all-in-all, this thread has been an enjoyable diversion from the usual drudgery.

I understand your point that "stuff" seems to be essential but I would dispute the use of the word "concrete". I do not agree that "stuff" requires extension within "space time" (Arguments about "singularities" might be cited here). On the other hand the division of that stuff into observer and observed or actor and acted upon, can be seen as an anthropocentric cognitive convenience. What is wrong with arguing instead that all such dichotomies are ontologically artificial, albeit epistemologically useful, and that utility is the human arbiter of "truth" and "reality"? Then do we not have a basis for "making sense"?

Hi Fresco ! Its great that we are finally engaging in a more civil less heated cordial manner, that is certainly far more productive to achieve any meaningful honest progress...back to track, my usage of the term "concrete" in here intends to read as "substantial" and not as "material"...it may seam subtle but I do such differentiation...physical or material intended as solid is a function of interacting mathematical systems in my own personal "languaging" and thus the need to separate the concepts..."substantial" on the other hand regards a finite, discrete, measurable, contained and tangible form of categorizing whatever interacts as justification for the phenomenal, that which appears, emerging in the functioning from the so said "stuff" you mention, which per se is transcendental to perception...for all that I care it may even be numbers or something of the sort...so while what is abstract may be said to be substantial, that is, "qualyfiable" and quantifiable, it needs not to be categorized as material..



...that is why I rather talk on interaction a far less narrow wording and keep away from terms like "observation"...observation for me as I see it is just a complex pattern of interaction going on from which awareness or witnessing, emerges in agreement but without true free will, a miss perception resulting from such agreement, from where the willing agency is understandably mistakenly deducted, as the control we assume or presuppose in our actions, which is just compliance with necessity or that which makes what we truly are...
It follows I see agency as a non free act, or as necessary or unavoidable, a complying process and not as a process of discretionary choice, and such that equally the qualification of cause and effect can be seen as the result of our perceptive apparatus regarding the process of these interactions being distributed through space time, when space and time are ultimately meaningless regarding the true condition of whatever is the case to be true...Consciousness as a form of communication I tend to see it as something that evolved out of something far more simpler, the basic level of interaction we can see in patterns in nature all around us like a flock of birds, or even in non animate objects as they group and organise through the laws of Physics.

I should perhaps have also cited the " the river" as an analogy for the nature of "stuff". The "sense" of a river requires the unity of water+ banks to define it. Neither one determines the course of the river in its own right and indeed there may be other systems impinging like the rotation of the earth, and other cosmic factors which we functionally dismiss. Thus the deconstruction of the river (stuff) into a dichotomy of "water" and "banks" is a cognitive selection made for anthropocentric functional purposes. And I would argue that existence per se is like the river we can never transcend, for there is no vantage point high enough to view its course.

Yes, concepts do require conceivers…just as a creation requires a creator. But what does that have to do with things?

I can agree with “concepts require conceivers” without in any way negating my contention that I do not know the true nature of REALITY.



I don’t ever remember saying that…but I certainly am not in any way whatsoever suggesting that it is impossible for a GOD to exist..and I also am not in any way suggesting that I cannot be that GOD. I have absolutely no way of knowing if I am or not. I may be all that exists...and everything else may be an illusion that I have created in a way that I will not know that I have created it...for lonely me to play in.

Do you if there is not a GOD? Do you know that you are not that GOD?



I don’t mean to be any more schmarmy than necessary, Fresco, but I also have golf clubs. I didn’t use them very effectively this morning…but I have them. I do not know for a fact that they are not real...but just concepts, so concepts MAY NOT BE all we ever have.

You may be of the opinion that “concepts are all we ever have”…but unless you can establish that as a fact, I suggest that you, rather than naïve realists, are missing essential pieces of logic.



If Kant were here to discuss that with me, I might spend some time on it. He is not. I am discussing it with you…and I am not interested in what reduces to a seemingly sophisticated, but blatant, appeal to authority.

My position is this: I do not know the true nature of REALITY…and I am willing to guess that none of the people participating in this discussion do either. The suggested REALITY (and the road to it) that you espouse MAY BE the correct guess on the issue. But there are other guesses that have as much chance of being correct as yours.

With all the respect in the world, Fresco, you are unnecessarily and unrealistically dismissive of everything except your take on this issue.

What actually IS…may be so very much different from anything ANY human has ever conceived of…that supposing we are well on the way to understanding “what IS’ is, in my opinion, naiveté on a cosmic scale.

I’m interested in how others feel about this…and although I have been strongly at odds with Fils, I appreciate the comments he is making.

I also appreciate the comments Dale is contributing.

wat seem convenient is to use truth to claim existing whatever one wants

anyone know that truth in concept include its conscious and free wills, but how objective and subjective are divided clearly say it all being for truth abuse

since when reality is what u see and not what u realize
as since when what u r is what u want and not what constance u lean on
observer and observed is ur will, in no terms it exist

it is amazing that edge of dishonesty in such insolent ways by endless preachs about knowing everything

all is based on moves uses as else abuse through any objective knowledge

and the edge of absurdity is what everyone at the end seem to agree upon that way, **** u and ur life and onessness and ur hhhoommessnessshres big deal

i hope that the hope of all collapse is real, hoping hope is nothing so lets see

but meanwhile hate seem the exclusive family of hope, like if hope was a lonely right that only by provin all wrong to kill all that lonely right will get smthg
as if right is about getting smthg from killing everything or afterwards

as if right exist bc all is wrong and when all is killed then existence would b

wat observer and observed?? how come it is always the observed that claim smthg when the observed is the thing, how come we never hear a thing from the observed

the real question is exclusively one, how truth is supporting lies??? it is impossible that such inferiority in logics and perspective can say any, i mean ur god he is clearly inferior stupid, then all gods too are supported to lie by truth, how is that possible, it sound absurd but it is much more sense then what u claim

it could b the truth of **** stating how it is **** by supporting shits waiting for no **** to finish it for things truth where **** truth would b kicked out of it

i keep speculating for right existence which is **** move, which prove that allways are ****

it is actually one existence from its buttom point to its absolute free truth

one is **** existence always

it is not about ego morons, it is about the truth, the true truth being the only truth, so whenever there is one bc else is seen less so any absolute steady ground, it is **** existence

while u run to worship any power possessions over else, **** u again and always till ur last or my last breath

I am not sure I understand this. I know what you mean if the underlying assumption is that concepts require conceivers. But what if concepts result in conceivers?
I am exploring the assumption that 'reality is a phenomenon of consciousness' as a starting point. From that perspective, there are no conceivers, knowers, creators, doers, thingers etc.. All these are expressions of awareness, made from awareness. I realize that it is speculating. My point is only that I don't know if I agree with rule 1.

Okay. I've fulfilled your request. It is only to be expected that you would try to wriggle out of your statement that "you can conceive of a world without conceivers" which specifically prompted my reply to it. Attempts at cheap shots about "appeals to authority" as a cover for your own lack of reading are of course unworthy of any reply. So I declare the snit unsuspended and leave you with one thing I definitely know .Whatever you think you are doing here, I guarantee it is not "philosophy". However since you revel in what you don't know "what you are doing here" is likely to fall into that category for you.

as if god in any conception of it, ever being mentionned as an observer, how a creator might observe ******* liar

it is the way of liars to kill and walk as a friend at the funeral, all that in every second of their lives

the idea of concepts without conceivers is the opposite to god, n never opposite to truth, since what sees is the same of being but the fact that it is more free so actually more real alone is the compensation of being less existence value which is freedom objective reality values

in all logics, concepts are objective existence abstractions, what exist conceive itself present facts for its free wills or constant needs much mor then it might conceive else present facts
then, when objective existence is obvious, concepts are more to its own conceptions then to what miserable humans heads conceive about it

You really should do something about that short fuse of yours, Fresco. It does nothing to further your image as an intellectual.

In response to your comment:




I wrote:



I stand by that.

That paragraph of yours is so complicated it is barely comprehensible. BUT IF YOU ARE SAYING that there cannot be a REALITY independent of observers and a REALITY not available to our access…you need to explain yourself a lot more.

Obviously you have a notion of REALITY which you are going to stick with no matter what. You share that with the theists who insist this supposed reality of ours is the result of manufacture by a GOD.

I do not know what the REALITY is; and I do not know how it came about; I do not know if exists only because we can observe it; I do not know what would happen to the supposed reality if every living thing in this quarter of our galaxy were to be killed off in some unimaginably powerful catastrophic event.

I suspect there was a REALITY before there were any living things anywhere in our galaxy. I suspect there was a REALITY before there were any living things anywhere in what we refer to as THIS UNIVERSE OF OURS.

I see REALITY as completely independent of observation. (Excluding that god thing, of course.)

Why you have so much difficulty with that…so much animosity toward me for suggesting that is my position. Whatever the case, I suspect it has a LOT less to do with me than with you and your ego.

Talk to me…don’t talk to me as you see fit. I will still treat you with respect and attempt to understand the message you are trying to deliver…which at times, seems to me to be much like the message Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to deliver to my door. I have trouble with their messages also…which probably tells me a bit about why I have trouble appreciating yours.

Yup, this is philosophy whether you can see it as such or not.

As I see it, the problem with holistic consciousness is that strives to transcend "causality" which implies both segmentation and temporality. So when you say "concepts result in conceivers" I think you are suggesting a variety of "top down" mechanism not far from "creationism".

In general terms, the recent trend in philosophy is to reject the need for " a given" or "substrate" from which to proceed. Both "physical reality" and "language" have been rejected as substrates (Rorty) and "consciousness" has itself been the subject of deflationary argument from Maturana and Derrida.

Having said that, I have sympathy for the concept of higher consciousness as an experiential state (as you know), but to me such experience underscores the "self evident" aspects of non-dualism, rather than giving insight into the reasons our "normal mode" entails dualities. Consider Rule 1 to be a pointer to the demise of duality rather than a statement about "conception" as a substrate.

I am not sure I like the term 'higher consciousness'. It implies our kind of consciousness on a higher level.
As I see it, our sense of being conscious and being something is the 'higher consciousness'. It is consciousness of consciousness.

In all honesty, I have more questions than answers regarding this. I would not call it creationism though. "Concepts resulting in conceivers" is taking it too far. I thought of that as a contrast to your statement. Any of them alone sounds so much more linear than the two together. The idea I have about concepts and conceivers is more of a chicken or egg relationship.

Yes ..chicken and egg or co-evolution is understandable.

I feel much the same way about it, almost too vague a concept to include in a positive statement about The Universe

I don’t either Frank but I suspect it always was, thereby avoiding all the contradiction and paradox arising from the notion of creation

Why Frank again thank you, an encouraging note in this otherwise dispiriting cognitive persiflage of insensate conflation