Existence of Everything.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...there is nothing wrong with what you have been saying so far regarding existence...the tautology "whatever is the case IS" is perfectly sound. Rather it seams to me Fresco confuses conceptual relativism with Ontological status...

Fil & Frank,

Nothing is permanent.

Therefore reality is not permanent.

Therefore it never remains long enough to affix the... 'is'... to it.

Therefore the tautology, 'reality is what it is' ....is empty of meaning due to the impermanence of reality.

Trying to affix the 'is' to reality, is like trying to write your name with paint on the surface of a fast flowing river.

Precisely.
.

. . . How can I determine with any degree of certainty that (what I call) my mind (me) is not the ONLY thing that exists…and that everything this mind is sensing is merely an illusion created by and for it?

How can I determine with any degree of certainty that (what I call) my mind (me) is not the ONLY thing that exists…and that everything this mind is sensing is merely an illusion created by and for it?

. . . Nothing is permanent. . .

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . How can I determine with any degree of certainty that (what I call) my mind (me) is not the ONLY thing that exists…and that everything this mind is sensing is merely an illusion created by and for it?

Any degree of certainty?
'Splain that.

fresco wrote:

Quote:

How can I determine with any degree of certainty that (what I call) my mind (me) is not the ONLY thing that exists…and that everything this mind is sensing is merely an illusion created by and for it?

You just flunked Philosophy 101 again Frank !

I do not think so.

Quote:

1. Who are you talking to and why?

To the people to whom I addressed my remarks...or to the illusion of the people to whom I addressed my remarks.

Quote:

2. Where did the words come from ?

That question makes no sense in that form. Wanna try again?

Quote:

3. Where did your concept of "illusion" come from if not with respect to a concept of "reality" in which your "me" normally operates?

Wherever it came from...it caused you to form questions...so...

Why not try answering my question?

Quote:

But please add the perversity of solipsism to that "pit of unknowing" you wallow in. Just think..a fictitious audience requires no further turgid messages !

I hope you are better at actually answering the question...and that you do...than you are at dodging the question.

igm wrote:

. . . Nothing is permanent. . .

And you are qualified to make this assertion because . . . ?

igm wrote:
. . . Nothing is permanent. . .

And you are qualified to make this assertion because . . . ?

Quote:

igm wrote:
. . . Nothing is permanent. . .

to which you replied

Quote:

And you are qualified to make this assertion because . . . ?

answer: Because neither you nor anybody else can name a "permanent entity" other than by postulation of a hypothetical deity. Notably, Newton tried and failed.

It seems Frank operates on a fictitious self and audience. Quite a good trick of mental masterbation!

What else is there to do in "the pit of unknowing" ?

Even in the "pit of unknowing," he's pretty persistent on "knowing" many things.

To Fresco, igm…or any of the others who seem to KNOW what appropriately can and cannot be considered as a possibility…

…answer me this:

How can I determine with any degree of certainty that (what I call) my mind (me) is not the ONLY thing that exists…and that everything this mind is sensing is merely an illusion created by and for it?

How?

How do I do it?

And if you cannot come up with something concrete…you do realize that the possibility that that IS THE REALITY…is one of the things I must consider…and should not discount arbitrarily because of any guess I might want to make?

. . . neither you nor anybody else can name a "permanent entity" other than by postulation of a hypothetical deity. Notably, Newton tried and failed.