8
   

morality, drugs, existence

 
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 02:15 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Those HUGE reasons could very well be HUGE ILLUSIONS...

yes. i accept the possibility. haha so what.
Quote:
Descartes would be an obvious start, but in a more modern style you could do worse than read or hear what John Searle has to say about consciousness.

just watched john searle talk at this link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_searle_our_shared_condition_consciousness.html

he has a decent understanding of the phenomenon of consciousness, but assumes its reality openly and thinks he is defending this position well. he says that 'consciousness is subjective, but we can make objective claims about it. therefore, we can be objective about consciousness'.

but he has already conceded it is a subjective phenomenon. to accept subjectivity as reality is not logical, the word reality generally implies objectivity. being objective ABOUT subjectivity does not create primary objectivity.

if subjectivity is the only primary reality, then solipsism is the best way to go? your own conscious mind is the only existence, that is pure subjectivity.

he makes the basic assertion that 'consciousness is definitely real', and anyone who thinks it is an illusion is deluded. but his only argument for this case is the subjective experience of consciousness, and defining it as absolutely real.

when he claims that a conscious choice to raise an arm is explained biologically by neurons firing from the brain to the arm muscles, he fails to explain why or how the neurons fire. the conscious thought magically made them, but how? could he control the conscious thought arising? whatever he does consciously comes from memorized actions, the neurobiological pathways have fired before in the past and are able to do so again through muscle memory. the correlation of this observable biological phenomenon to conscious thought is always an assumption.

with regard to descartes, his theories about the duality of body and mind are very outdated and all current science and even everything john searle was saying implies a DEFINITE connection between body and mind, between biology and consciousness.

this is from wiki on descartes:
Quote:
Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been unreliable. So Descartes determines that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing. Thinking is what he does, and his power must come from his essence. Descartes defines "thought" (cogitatio) as "what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it". Thinking is thus every activity of a person of which the person is immediately conscious.[33]

this is obviously reducing all of reality to 'thought' alone. it is solipsism at best. all activity of which a person is immediately conscious is thought. and therefore, all that activity is definitely real and exists? certainly not.

if you are going to question existence, then QUESTION IT. don't sit and say 'oh no i can't question it because i exist'. that is an assumption. question even the impulse in you which says you definitely exist. not question mentally by making up verbal questions. just actually consider the possibility, that it is just 'nothingness' which is aware of everything. that nothingness is capable of appearing as something (human consciousness), and believing itself to be the something, as opposed to nothingness. if this is true, then the somethingness must be temporary. and human consciousness is certainly temporary. so that supports the idea that it may be nothingness actually. the only proof against 'nothingness' is 'somethingness'. but both nothingness and somethingness appear to us as 'deep sleep' and 'consciousness'.

if we take the subjective 'reality' of 'consciousness' as truth, then the subjective 'reality' of 'deep sleep' must also be true, because they are both one continuous alternating process. but there is no subjective reality to deep sleep , there is absolutely no experience in it, it IS the absolute nothingness which everybody thinks is paradoxical and impossible.

you can argue that subjective experience of deep sleep is not needed and doesn't matter, because upon waking, and with memory, we can deduce that we were certainly existent but asleep. but that is an assumption. the subjective consciousness never knows the 'experience' of deep sleep as a real experience, it can only conceptualise a lack of experience.

therefore, to take waking consciousness as ultimate reality is very naive.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 07:24 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Hey, CM.

hello sir

Quote:
First of all...if you actually deal with I write rather than your...unusual...renderings of what is written...

sorry sir. promise i will actually deal with what you write rather than my unusual renderings of what is written.

Quote:
...you would realize that I have taken exception to very little of what you GUESS about REALITY.

sorry sir, i promise to realize that from now on.

Quote:
Your guesses about REALITY are essentially as good as anyone else's guesses...and you certainly are free to make your guesses.

sorry sir, i will reevaluate all my guesses.

Quote:
You have a tendency to go too far...to present your guesses as REVELATION...and to demean anyone who takes issue with your revelation. But that happens with some people...and most of us here in A2K are willing to sidestep it...unless the individual becomes as belligerent has you have become.

sorry sir. i will stop going too far, i will stop presenting my guesses as revelation. i am sorry to demean anyone who takes issue. thank you so much for sidestepping it. i am so sorry for being belligerent.

Quote:
When that happens...someone almost always steps up to play with the belligerent. In this instance...there have been several having fun with you. I have been among them.

sorry sir. i thank you for stepping up, you are truly great.

Quote:
Actually, my position on the true nature of the REALITY of existence is identical with yours.

sir i am honoured to be mentioned in the same sentence as the great frank apisa.

Quote:
I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and according to what you say every once in a while...neither do you.

sir, i trust anything you say, your words are gospel.

Quote:
The major difference between us is that you have made guesses about it...and despite your protestations to the contrary...you have wedded yourself to those guesses and now consider them almost incontestable.

sir, you are so correct. i made all these guesses. and i protested contrarily. i wedded myself to those guesses. omg i need a divorce. thank you so much. i see that all my guesses are contestable now!! thanks again.

Quote:
I prefer to make my main theme be an acknowledgement of the fact that I do not know what the REALITY is...other than whatever it IS...it IS.

sir, thank you for this great understanding of REALITY. 'what is is' really captures the entirety of existence so beautifully and perfectly, nothing more can be said. it is the words of god certainly.

Quote:
You'll carry on trying to make your guesses seem "a step beyond" for a while.

sir, i am so sorry you feel this way. i thought i was going to stop making guesses, but i guess you know better. you know that i am stupid enough to keep guessing. wow you are amazing.

Quote:
I'll be here for you.

cannot thank you enough sir. please let me know if you accept payment as a spiritual master.


My guess is that when you grow up...if you grow up...you will see how silly your nonsense was when you were still a child.

In the meantime, I notice you are making progress. You are not making nearly as many absolute statements as you did earlier.

Good. You will find that you not have to come back to clean that stuff up the way you have been doing throughout.

I am enjoying you teach Olivier about the REALITY. At some point you will learn to stop with "I do not know."
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 07:35 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
My guess is that when you grow up...if you grow up...you will see how silly your nonsense was when you were still a child.

great guess sir, i await the day that with your grace i may grow up and see my childish nonsense properly, as you do oh great one.

Quote:
In the meantime, I notice you are making progress. You are not making nearly as many absolute statements as you did earlier.

words cannot express my gratitude toward such a compliment from you oh great one.

Quote:
Good. You will find that you not have to come back to clean that stuff up the way you have been doing throughout.

sir, i cannot understand your english here, but i am certain that is my own idiocy and not any english mistake on your part. i will meditate on this part until i understand it.

Quote:
I am enjoying you teach Olivier about the REALITY. At some point you will learn to stop with "I do not know."

i am glad to give you enjoyment. i promise i will always stop with 'i do not know' from now on, thanks for that superb idea.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 07:48 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
My guess is that when you grow up...if you grow up...you will see how silly your nonsense was when you were still a child.

great guess sir, i await the day that with your grace i may grow up and see my childish nonsense properly, as you do oh great one.

Quote:
In the meantime, I notice you are making progress. You are not making nearly as many absolute statements as you did earlier.

words cannot express my gratitude toward such a compliment from you oh great one.

Quote:
Good. You will find that you not have to come back to clean that stuff up the way you have been doing throughout.

sir, i cannot understand your english here, but i am certain that is my own idiocy and not any english mistake on your part. i will meditate on this part until i understand it.

Quote:
I am enjoying you teach Olivier about the REALITY. At some point you will learn to stop with "I do not know."

i am glad to give you enjoyment. i promise i will always stop with 'i do not know' from now on, thanks for that superb idea.


I made a mistake when I wrote: "You will find that you not have to come back to clean that stuff up the way you have been doing throughout."

What I actually meant to write was: "You will find that you will not have to come back to clean that stuff up the way you have been doing throughout."

Thank you for calling that mistake to my attention, CM.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 07:50 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
My guess is that when you grow up...if you grow up...you will see how silly your nonsense was when you were still a child.

great guess sir, i await the day that with your grace i may grow up and see my childish nonsense properly, as you do oh great one.

Quote:
In the meantime, I notice you are making progress. You are not making nearly as many absolute statements as you did earlier.

words cannot express my gratitude toward such a compliment from you oh great one.

Quote:
Good. You will find that you not have to come back to clean that stuff up the way you have been doing throughout.

sir, i cannot understand your english here, but i am certain that is my own idiocy and not any english mistake on your part. i will meditate on this part until i understand it.

Quote:
I am enjoying you teach Olivier about the REALITY. At some point you will learn to stop with "I do not know."

i am glad to give you enjoyment. i promise i will always stop with 'i do not know' from now on, thanks for that superb idea.


Ahhh...I am delighted you have made that commitment, CM. Hope you carry through with it.

By the way, I also made another typo mistake earlier...leaving off and "ing".
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 08:03 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Ahhh...I am delighted you have made that commitment, CM. Hope you carry through with it.

great. delighted to make you delighted. i will certainly dedicate my life to stopping at 'i do not know'. if i witness a murder and the judge asks me what i saw, 'i do not know.' if somebody is poisoned and i have the antidote, 'i do not know' what to do with it. if an old man has gone too far in his attempt to prove somebody wrong, 'i do not know' how to make him realise it.

Quote:
By the way, I also made another typo mistake earlier...leaving off and "ing".

thank you so much for letting me know. again, it seems i have no idea what you are talking about, but i will add it to my meditations list.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 08:35 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Ahhh...I am delighted you have made that commitment, CM. Hope you carry through with it.

great. delighted to make you delighted. i will certainly dedicate my life to stopping at 'i do not know'. if i witness a murder and the judge asks me what i saw, 'i do not know.' if somebody is poisoned and i have the antidote, 'i do not know' what to do with it. if an old man has gone too far in his attempt to prove somebody wrong, 'i do not know' how to make him realise it.

Oh...you want to misinterpret what I was saying. I was speaking about your attempts to 'splain REALITY to people. That is where you should stop at "I do not know." If you truly know something (I am not accusing you of that)...be sure to explain what you truly know. But stop with the pretenses of knowing what the REALITY is.

You will be the better for it.

Quote:
Quote:
By the way, I also made another typo mistake earlier...leaving off and "ing".

thank you so much for letting me know. again, it seems i have no idea what you are talking about, but i will add it to my meditations list.



You should be able to figure out the other mistake...but whether you do or you don't...I thought "meditation" the way you use it means freeing your mind of all thoughts. How can you add something to the list?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 11:00 am
@carnaticmystery,
Quote:
you can define cheating as ethically wrong, and so can i.

It's not about definitions. Ethics are not based on arbitrary definitions. Ethics are a part of philosophy that derives moral principles from a diagnostic or vision of human condition, what constitutes good and evil, etc. If your philosophy requires that everything is equal and undifferentiated and we're all in the same mental space, and life and death is the same, it follows to you can kill or steal from other people without any real harm being done. ONLY if you consider human beings as separate individuals can you build up an ethical system where these individuals need to respect one another, respect their personal properties and lives.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 11:39 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
ONLY if you consider human beings as separate individuals can you build up an ethical system where these individuals need to respect one another, respect their personal properties and lives.


Oh yeah!!
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 01:22 pm
@carnaticmystery,
So what? You can't exclude that you delude yourself about any of this. You may be wrong about the whole "mind infinity thing" or "illusion business". To think that mind and body and all are illusions, that could well be the biggest illusion of all. You admitted that in your mind illusion=reality and that this category has therefore no meaning for you. Let's carry that a step further: if illusion=reality, what appears to exist, this very appearance, is the sum total of what exists. That appearance thus becomes the whole universe of what exists. Aka what people call reality.

Appearance=existence, in your system. In other words, the very question "does reality exist?" has no meaning whatsoever. Frank would say: whatever exists exists. Reality is whatever is the case, etc.

In Descartes, solipsism is only one stage in a progressive reconstruction of the world. He goes through God in his demonstration (mind comes from a creator, which can't be that nasty as to cheat mind into a world of appearances, ergo world exists, if memory serves), and that's the problem for us modern men. Likewise, the only problem in his dualism is that it's God-based, not materially-based. That's where Searle and I and most other neo-dualists disagrees with Descartes, all the while defending the reality and agency of mental facts.

But there are other arguments going from solipsism, as a minimum of what exists, to the full universe being real. Mine is simply that I am not smart enough to invent all this, thus this world of appearances exists independently from me.

Quote:
if we take the subjective 'reality' of 'consciousness' as truth, then the subjective 'reality' of 'deep sleep' must also be true, because they are both one continuous alternating process. but there is no subjective reality to deep sleep , there is absolutely no experience in it, it IS the absolute nothingness which everybody thinks is paradoxical and impossible.

Simply put, consciousness is a temporary phenomenon. That in itself is one limit to our mind: it needs to rest often. We can' stay conscious all the time.

Quote:
therefore, to take waking consciousness as ultimate reality is very naive.

I agree and consider the "cogito ergo sum" as only one step toward the logical and empirical foundations of reality (as opposed to a religious or creationist foundation of it).
JohnJonesCardiff
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 02:13 pm
@carnaticmystery,
I can't see any way to start a topic in this godforsaken place. Someone please email me at [email protected] to tell me how this bloody stupid incomprehensible posting system works.
spendius
 
  4  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 02:22 pm
@JohnJonesCardiff,
Possibly, John, it was designed as a barrier to keep out people of certain grades of intelligence. If it was, which looks to be the case, it would be bad manners to provide you with the key to the door.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 05:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

You should be able to figure out the other mistake...but whether you do or you don't...I thought "meditation" the way you use it means freeing your mind of all thoughts. How can you add something to the list?

Laughing
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 06:10 pm
@igm,
The whole idea igm is to have no thoughts and to go with the Selfish Gene.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 08:11 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
It's not about definitions. Ethics are not based on arbitrary definitions.

yes, they are.
Quote:
Ethics are a part of philosophy that derives moral principles from a diagnostic or vision of human condition, what constitutes good and evil, etc.

the entire philosophy of moral principles is arbitrarily created by humans as they involuntarily respond to their own feelings. if something makes you feel bad, then that is considered morally wrong. happiness is morally good. the idea that ethics and morals exist is just another word for the feelings of happiness vs sorrow, and the ideas the spring from those emotions.
Quote:
If your philosophy requires that everything is equal and undifferentiated and we're all in the same mental space, and life and death is the same, it follows to you can kill or steal from other people without any real harm being done.

everything is equal, undifferentiated, same mental space, life/death same - ONLY at the ABSOLUTE level. everything about our mental space as we experience it is individual, except the absolute source of it, which can never be reached mentally. so, within the mental space, everything is unequal, life and death are opposites, killing and stealing is ethically bad because it causes negative feelings.
from the absolute standpoint, yes, you can kill or steal without any real harm, because killing/stealing/harming are limited concepts applying only within the mental space. if you take the limited mental space as yourself, then those things will absolutely apply to you. if the limited mental space is all you believe yourself to be, then keep believing, but you will eventually see further.

does this mean that anyone from an absolute standpoint would necessarily kill, steal, or do anything ethically 'wrong'? no, not at all. they may or may not, they would have no reason not to, but also no reason to actively do so. from their point of view nothing is happening. if violence happens, others are interpreting it.

Quote:
ONLY if you consider human beings as separate individuals can you build up an ethical system where these individuals need to respect one another, respect their personal properties and lives.

yes. and ONLY when you see past individuality can you see past ethics, morals and respect. and in doing this, those qualities do not disappear, they lose their stronghold over you. i am still capable of showing a great deal of respect, good morals and ethics, even though i have zero belief in any of those concepts ultimately.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 08:25 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
So what? You can't exclude that you delude yourself about any of this. You may be wrong about the whole "mind infinity thing" or "illusion business". To think that mind and body and all are illusions, that could well be the biggest illusion of all.

all of this nonsense is explained by YOUR very next sentence:
Quote:
You admitted that in your mind illusion=reality and that this category has therefore no meaning for you.

yes. read that sentence again, and then look at how stupid your first paragraph is.
Quote:
Let's carry that a step further: if illusion=reality, what appears to exist, this very appearance, is the sum total of what exists. That appearance thus becomes the whole universe of what exists. Aka what people call reality.

Appearance=existence, in your system. In other words, the very question "does reality exist?" has no meaning whatsoever. Frank would say: whatever exists exists. Reality is whatever is the case, etc.

yes, yes yes to all of it. what is your point? i already told frank a thousand times, 'what is is' is basically a sound statement, except that the word 'is', just like all words such as 'illusion' and 'reality' and 'existence', is simply another word with a conceptual meaning.
therefore, ultimately 'what is is' is meaningless. reality doesn't exist as much as it exists. illusion describes this universe as much as reality. it is your individual clinging to the CONCEPT of REALITY which ultimately divides them in your belief, and you cling to reality as the ultimate.

Quote:
In Descartes, solipsism is only one stage in a progressive reconstruction of the world. He goes through God in his demonstration (mind comes from a creator, which can't be that nasty as to cheat mind into a world of appearances, ergo world exists, if memory serves),

mind comes from a creator - man-made, disgustingly irrational assumption based on the idiocy that mind 'is' definitely something, and all things that 'exist' are 'created'. terrible, terrible assumption.
then, to add to this already bad assumption, you add more necessary conditions for the assumption. the creator 'can't be nasty and cheat mind into a world of appearances, so world exists if memory serves'.
your entire philosophy is based on weak assumptions. and you call me weak minded hahaha.

Quote:
and that's the problem for us modern men. Likewise, the only problem in his dualism is that it's God-based, not materially-based. That's where Searle and I and most other neo-dualists disagrees with Descartes, all the while defending the reality and agency of mental facts.

i have already written a long post detailing the flaw in searle's understanding, if you couldn't understand it then oh well, keep deriving your understanding from him.

Quote:
But there are other arguments going from solipsism, as a minimum of what exists, to the full universe being real. Mine is simply that I am not smart enough to invent all this, thus this world of appearances exists independently from me.

again. assuming a conscious creator similar to your own 'individual consciousness' who somehow actually created this entire universe, but is separate from it; that entire idea is not based on logic or reason. why should you be smart enough to invent all of this? why couldn't it have spontaneously appeared, like the big bang and all science suggests?
Quote:
Simply put, consciousness is a temporary phenomenon. That in itself is one limit to our mind: it needs to rest often. We can' stay conscious all the time.

exactly. we know consciousness is limited to regular unconsciousness. and yet, we derive all sense of self and meaning in life from waking consciousness. but what is nothingness/deep sleep/unconsciousness, in which we spend about one third of our entire life? when waking consciousness is enough to keep your mind's attention and belief as absolute reality, then you will keep living happily believing that is absolute reality. when you want to know more, you will know more.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 08:27 pm
@JohnJonesCardiff,
Quote:
I can't see any way to start a topic in this godforsaken place. Someone please email me at [email protected] to tell me how this bloody stupid incomprehensible posting system works.

tell god to stop forsaking it then. tell god to email you, and ask him why everything is bloody stupid and incomprehensible.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 08:31 pm
@igm,
Quote:
You should be able to figure out the other mistake...

don't care enough to even look back
Quote:
but whether you do or you don't...

i won't
Quote:
I thought "meditation" the way you use it means freeing your mind of all thoughts. How can you add something to the list?

i don't 'use' meditation. meditation can mean freeing mind of all thoughts for many people. in my case, i used it to sarcastically imply a focused concentration on your grammatically wrong phrases so that i could understand their intended meaning. certainly there are buddhist meditations which are about focus and concentration. so no, you did not prove me wrong about meditation.
i can add anything to my list of meditation topics, and it does not at all defeat the point of meditation.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 08:46 pm
@carnaticmystery,
Even if you personally still have ethics, I see it as a problem from a humanist perspective that your philosophy undermines all ethics and morality.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 08:56 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Even if you personally still have ethics, I see it as a problem from a humanist perspective that your philosophy undermines all ethics and morality.

you are not looking at life beyond your own ethics and morality, that is why you believe this way. once you actually see that they are a limitation on you, not some great perk of the special individual consciousness you have, you won't cling to them.

firstly, a humanist perspective is entrenched in dualistic thinking. secondly, what you consider a humanist perspective is EXACTLY what comes from nondualism. you don't identify as a single human, but as entire HUMANITY. that is the best humanist perspective possible, imho.
 

Related Topics

Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
umm, why are my testicles moving? - Question by soccopuppet
Is this because of boredom or drugs? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
The idiotic 'war on drugs' - Discussion by gungasnake
Can any illegal drug be good for someone? - Discussion by secondchance
Take a Little Trip - Discussion by cjhsa
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 03:03:21