8
   

morality, drugs, existence

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:27 pm
Occam's razor is very distinct from what Olivier said. From few assumptions to no assumptions whatsoever there is possibly infinity in between.
(As the possibly infinite universe of all assumptions is infinitely larger then the possible infinite Universe of justified assumptions)
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 04:50 pm
@Cyracuz,
"Operating with as few assumptions as possible" is very different from "we want to stay clear of beliefs and assumptions". A business man wants to run his business at the least possible cost, but if he wants to incur no cost at all, he will end up with no business. Likewise, the thinker who would want to get rid of all assumptions will end up with no thought at all. One has to start from somewhere to get somewhere.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 06:24 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Why would you or anyone assume that we should get rid of all assumptions???


I do not. That's Frank's thing.

But I do think we should stay clear of assumptions that are neither needed or warranted.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 08:41 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
But I do think we should stay clear of assumptions that are neither needed or warranted.

I could ask you why, and you'd have to scrutinize your own assumptions.

I could ask you: needed or warranted for what? and you'd have to explore some of your goals.

But I happen to agree. Thus, the issue is whether or not the assumption that there exists an objective (=mind-independent) reality is needed, say, to live a fulfilling life, or just to live.

Well, I think it is. It allows curiosity and alertness, and thus supports survival. One may for instance assume that incoming cars exist whether one sees them or not, so one needs to watch for them cars before crossing the street... QED
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I think I understand why you are having this discussion here, CM. No decent philosophic discussion forum would put up with you for more than a posting or two.

It really is a gas being part of a discussion between you and me...with the interjection of others...

...and listen to you 'splain why nothing exists.

You are one of the most entertaining posters here. Stick around...although I realize there is no "you" and no place for you to "stick around."

What a delight!

as usual nothing of substance with regard to the argument. our argument has now dissolved into you just personally insulting me, so i will take that as a forfeit from you. cheers buddy
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:07 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
The term "Reality" by definition requires independence as it refers to the biggest SET. When someone claims reality might be dependent on perception bottom line what is being said is that reality depends on my reality which again is absurd once there is only one reality.

the term reality requires NOTHING other than what you define it as, without any REAL KNOWLEDGE to verify it as such.
reality being dependent on perception assumes that both reality and perception exist, which is subjective.
'once there is only one reality' is only your assumption, so yes to you anything else would be absurd.
Quote:
If from the proposed we assume that the only reality is the observers reality, since we cannot appeal to a regression once there are no realities of realities, less alone infinite regressions make sense, we MUST therefore conclude that the observer reality if assumed at the foundational level, is a given, an uncaused causer. What this means in turn is that the observer reality could not construct itself once its a given, it was not observed by anyone. The observed the observing and the observer are all together, THE WORLD !
This argument is irrefutable !

you have a very false assumption that everything MUST be created. why? because you believe that things exist, therefore, existence implies creation. you have not at all examined the idea of non-existence because you give your own 'existence' too much presumed reality. of course the observer reality could not 'create' itself, because it DOES NOT EXIST, except as an 'appearance' in 'awareness' which does not exist absolutely in any way. your 'experience' of awareness does not constitute absolute proof of its existence in any absolute reality.

so sorry, but your terrible argument is very refutable.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:12 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
The heart of the confusion is to understand minds as the creators.
Minds deal with the laws of nature by trying to understand them but they don't create those laws by which they themselves operate.

the idea that you have a mind operating is a concept coming from the same mind. the laws of nature that the mind 'deals' with were created and understood by the same mind. the idea that you must understand the mind as the creator is another concept made by the mind. there need not be any creator of nothingness. minds only appear to exist inside nothingness. they themselves fall back into nothingness in deep sleep.

then they wake up again and delude you into believing their experience as absolute reality.

0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:22 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
wow wow wow...you and Fresco both several times recurred to the expression "social construct". To construct is to build to create. Minds that do not create are just unfolding in a world of properties and systems of properties on which they are just one more. And this is valid even if they are filtering it. They just can't be the final link once they cannot create themselves.

minds create concepts. both the mind and the concepts they create are illusory, and refer to no absolute reality.

what is your preoccupation with minds 'creating themselves'. that is just your way of dealing with 'mind is the only reality'. because it clashes with your idea of 'external reality', you say that if there was only my mind, it would have had to create itself. but the idea of CREATION came from the mind and ideas of external reality only.

if your mind is the only reality, this does not mean reality is absolute. it means the word reality can be separated into various levels:
1.the reality of nothingness/no experience in deep sleep.
2.the reality of dream states during sleep.
3.the reality of waking state consciousness.
4.the reality of the external universe which is proposed by humans in the waking state of consciousness
5.the reality of extra universal concepts such as religion, spirituality, philosophy and the search for absolute truth/reality, also proposed by humans in the waking state.

all the above 5 'realities' are progressively different states of mind, and nothing more. each one adds another layer of illusion. but all can be easily seen as illusory. you think there is some ultimate form of number 5, which is the statement "what is is", or "reality is what it is". actually it is just the most complex form of illusion.

you are simply saying that the entire process above, must be CAUSED by something. but that entire process exists inside a mind only, unless you choose to believe that something exists outside your mind.

you can go in infinitely with more complex concepts, but they will get you nowhere but to infinitely more complex philosophical positions.

to define your own mind as something 'real' and requiring a 'cause' to 'exist', is a SELF-CREATED BELIEF.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:27 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Now, this is for the other bloke around the thread:

is that me?
Quote:
Not seeing is not like seeing black. Imagine a blind eye in the back of your head, does it see blackness ? yep, it doesn't...
Not smelling is not like smelling air because air has little to no smell, if pure. Imagine a disabled nose on your hand, does your hand smells air like smelling around it ? Yep, it doesn't...
It is a fair acknowledgement to state the all world of experience is filtered through mind, as without it nothing could be perceived...existence is thus recognized by minds.

i would agree with everything there EXCEPT the last line, 'existence is thus recognized by minds', i would change it to 'what appears as 'existence' appears to be recognised by what 'appears' as my mind'.
Quote:
At the same time minds did not create the laws by which their own perception operates, they are a given in the continuous of the world at large.
Both minds and experiencing are the world, but minds are not the creators of minds and thus not the creators of the bigger set which is the world of minds and experiences.

all completely false. the idea that minds EXIST and require creation and laws is a false belief by you only. the 'world at large' is a mind-made concept, unverified. the creators and bigger set you refer to are your own illusory belief.
Quote:
Existence cannot be countered by no existence in absolute terms, because no existence refers only of temporary absences of existent things, and not to the absence of things that never were. Things that never were cannot even be referred to not exist, so you could conclude they do not exist.

existence can CERTAINLY be countered by no existence, IN ABSOLUTE TERMS. no existence does not refer to anything temporary, but to eternal nothingness. the absence of things that never were is a meaningless statement, and as you say, they just don't exist. but neither does anything that appears to exist. it is only a false appearance in eternal nothingness, which has zero qualities or characteristics by which to define it. as soon as you define it as awareness, you have given it the quality which it only APPEARS to have, not absolutely.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
We used to think that energy or mass as a total are never lost, but information is also never lost. Temporary absences don't prevent by the sheer mechanic of statistics and probabilities along with huge amounts of time the spontaneous formation of the same systems we saw dispersing through the passage of time and the decay observed with the 2 law of thermodynamics.

energy, mass, information - all limited concepts applying only to your assumed 'reality'. completely irrelevant words with regard to non-existence.
statistics and probabilities only apply within mathematics, which always include the concept of infinity - a concept which is not possible in the assumed 'reality' you believe in.
Quote:
So long mass can come out of energy and energy is never distributed in perfect equilibrium. The funny thing is that the shape of max entropy equals the shape of min entropy.

yeah. the laws by which 'reality' appears to exist are always going to be perfect and amazing, because they are only appearing as we investigate them. as long as we keep questioning this universe, it has to keep giving us answers or else it would not be able to sustain the illusion that it 'exists'. so the deeper we look into particles, only smaller and smaller particles appear. it will go on endlessly, as long as you assume absolute reality behind it all.

the instant you stop assuming absolute reality, you can see the nothingness in all physical matter and all conscious experience.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 03:17 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
I could ask you: needed or warranted for what?


Needed to account for what we are experiencing.
Or warranted, in accord with what we can account for.
Mind-independent reality is neither needed nor warranted.

And the fact is that it is not. Modern science and philosophy functions very well without it.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 07:29 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Why would you or anyone assume that we should get rid of all assumptions???


I do not. That's Frank's thing.

But I do think we should stay clear of assumptions that are neither needed or warranted.


Where does that come from???

What have I ever said about getting rid of assumptions.

Where do you come up with this stuff from?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 07:31 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
I think I understand why you are having this discussion here, CM. No decent philosophic discussion forum would put up with you for more than a posting or two.

It really is a gas being part of a discussion between you and me...with the interjection of others...

...and listen to you 'splain why nothing exists.

You are one of the most entertaining posters here. Stick around...although I realize there is no "you" and no place for you to "stick around."

What a delight!

as usual nothing of substance with regard to the argument. our argument has now dissolved into you just personally insulting me, so i will take that as a forfeit from you. cheers buddy


You have insulted me much, much more often than I have you. Low class insults at that...rather than with a bit of humor.

Take it whatever way best gets you past whatever you are dealing with.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 07:35 am
Fil...

...this is a religion CM is building.

He fancies himself a messiah...a Buddha.

It's worth the laugh! Wink
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 07:49 am
@Frank Apisa,
Hahaha..

Ops... Should teach me not to post while so drunk that I can't remember the difference between an assumption and a belief.
My apologies, Frank.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 07:55 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Hahaha..

Ops... Should teach me not to post while so drunk that I can't remember the difference between an assumption and a belief.
My apologies, Frank.


No problem, Cyracuz. Hope you had a good time.

I am supposed to lay off the booze right now because of a couple problems, but Nancy and I went to a winery the other night with another couple...and the wine actually kicked in pretty good. I was happy as a lark.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 10:59 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Needed to account for what we are experiencing.

Define "account for". That's vague. If you mean "explain", your assumption that there is no objective reality fails to explain the origin and purpose of perception, and it fails to describe what is being perceived or why and how what is perceived depends on our mind. It's a very weak assumption.

Quote:
Modern science and philosophy functions very well without it.

Philosophy has no rules nor axioms, but science is predicated on at least 2 assumptions: 1) there is an objective world, and 2) our thoughts can effectively model and predict this objective world. That philosophy of science 101. That's why two disagreeing scientists turn to experiment as a way to solve their dispute. They are asking the objective world to tell them who is wrong.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 07:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Fil...

...this is a religion CM is building.

He fancies himself a messiah...a Buddha.

It's worth the laugh!

lol keep begging others for support in insulting me. the truth is that you are the only person who has called me anything religious. therefore, it is your interpetation of my words that adds religiosity and grandiosity. you respect everything i say more than your very self, because you compare it to your idea of 'god', something which you have admitted you 'can't be sure of'. so your concept of god is greater than that of yourself. and your concept of my words reminds you of this concept of god. thanks buddy, i'm flattered.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 08:02 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Likewise, the thinker who would want to get rid of all assumptions will end up with no thought at all. One has to start from somewhere to get somewhere.

no. no thinker can possibly 'get rid of all assumptions'. all assumptions and thoughts are rendered void and irrelevant by consciousness ITSELF once it stops believing itself. the apparent individual CANNOT control the lack of belief in consciousness, once it happens. because it happens as a RESULT of the inquiry into consciousness.

you are correct that one has to start somewhere to get somewhere. but if there is nowhere to go, then there is no need to start.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 08:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You have insulted me much, much more often than I have you. Low class insults at that...rather than with a bit of humor.

i insult you when you insult me only. this exchange started off with arguing the subject matter. then you started the insults when i wouldn't accept anything you said. that is just childish so i insult you back.

yes my insults are harsher, because they are all about you being old. why do i insult you like that? because you ARE OLDER, and therefore it is actually your responsibility to reconcile this insulting exchange, not mine. if you don't want to, then let it continue. don't blame me for insulting you in retaliation to you challenging me on my own thread.
Quote:
Take it whatever way best gets you past whatever you are dealing with.

i am past dealing with anything, because nothing exists to me. you seem to still believe in existence, what with your sob story about your stroke and ill health and blah blah. so i can offer you good luck while you 'deal' with all your sorrows, but that is only again buying into the illusion of 'reality'.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/29/2024 at 03:40:41