Vitalism vs. mechanism

@spendius,

You are plain wrong !
And from someone like you I would personally expect much more...get your "facts" straight before shooting your own foot my dear Spendius !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...or are you implying that the light fragmentation seen in the rain is not happening anywhere ?

No, the light fragmentation happens in the drops of moisture in the air. But there are drops all over the place, not just in the tiny strip you see as a rainbow. The different colors you percieve are nowhere but in your perception. It is the perceptive relationship that makes the phenomenon.
Similarly, the "I" doesn't happen in you, nor does it happen in whatever you percieve. It is a perceptive relationship, and even though we have a sense of self most of the time, that doesn't change the fact that there is no fixed and defined "I". What constitutes "I" is situational and to a certain degree, subject to individual will.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Actually, Spendi got it right that time...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

No Cyr your utterly wrong I am afraid... or maybe you think that cameras can imagine rainbows also...what really happens is that from certain angles you are incapable of seeing the spectrum which does n´t mean that someone else from another standing point won´t be able to see it, just as a well positioned camera will also see it...there are multiple rainbows in an ensemble from which you can only see the one/s which are rightly positioned in relation to you...there´s nothing there related to perception which is n´t in everything else concerning the behaviour of light and how we capture it with our sight...the fact that you insist on the matter only makes it worse...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

there are multiple rainbows in an ensemble from which you can only see
the one

And there are multiple "I's" in an ensemble from which you can only see the one...
Why don't you start thinking this over instead of just insisting that I am wrong. That's not very good rhetorics...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Similarly, the "I" doesn't happen in you, nor does it happen in whatever you percieve. It is a perceptive relationship, and even though we have a sense of self most of the time, that doesn't change the fact that there is no fixed and defined "I". What constitutes "I" is situational and to a certain degree, subject to individual will.

...wrong again...
"I" constitutes a tendency in behaviour, a pattern relation on how you react to to external stimuli from which you are partially aware...and although there can actually be several pattern "I´s" by which you condition your responses none of them is illusionary in the sense that they do happen and reveal your set behaviour, although of course, your idea on what this patternicitty actually addresses may be profoundly mistaken...namely the idea that the "I" controls your own will and judgement when the fact is exactly the opposite, that is, the "I" emerges from this very same patternicitty which conditions your ability to respond in a necessary way given the implicit factors and variables pertaining to the overall "equation mass" which relates you with the world...

...at this light, "I" is that part of my pattern behaviour response which I consciously recognize as my own or pertaining to my "modus operandi" profile...

0 Replies

@binnyboy,

binnyboy wrote:

I like the idea of mechanism more.
But

I have an issue in the following, which I have thought of often:

This is making a ridiculous assumption, but please, bear with it, as I think the means of performing the following action are irrelevant. What are important are the implications.
Let us assume, for the moment, that my brother has 'the force' from star wars or has some other miraculous power. Let us assume that he has the power to take every molecule of my body and control it with the force, and he decides to explode my body, keeping careful track of each particle. To the ends of the galaxy go my component pieces, all in different directions. There they wait for ten or twelve days. As this is sufficient time to make the reality of what is happening sink in, my brother then draws back all of my component parts and reforms a person with all parts in their proper place, a few feet away from where I was standing before. Does the bag of cells created live? I think so. But do 'I' remain? what will this experience be like for me? Will it be a death? What if he made me half out of new particles and he discarded the replaced half? Does the fraction matter? If he used ALL NEW particles, then what?

This question really gets under my skin, and the answer is key to your question, I think.

assuming you can survive space its self

you will only survive as a whole if you are ALL there as a whole

you can't expect to be missing ANY part of you and come back whole , the same self

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
there are multiple rainbows in an ensemble from which you can only see
the one

And there are multiple "I's" in an ensemble from which you can only see the one...
Why don't you start thinking this over instead of just insisting that I am wrong. That's not very good rhetorics...

You see...all that talk won´t change the fact that those who are actually informed on the issue immediately will recognize that I am right.
It is a very straight forward simple matter...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Those who are informed on the issue are clearly not you, because I didn't cook this up by myself...
I guess you are a naive realist after all...

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Please honestly address the issue if you will !
Are you asserting that photographic cameras interpret the image of a rainbow which they actually can photograph ?
That is the issue...
as for the "I" you haven´t said anything at all for a reply so unless you are not interested in advancing anything I will keep waiting for your thoughts on that regard...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Dude... A photographic camera is an imitation of our senses, an extension.
You seem to miss the point. The rainbow is an experience that is a result of a relationship. It is not in the sky. It is in the angles between the sun, the water in the air and whatever measuring equipment you have.

Similarly the "I" is a matter of relationship. It is not static and never changing. If you think it is, then try to define it.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I am certain that you will not get it but there :
(This one goes straight to you in one side and to kenneth and the like on the other end...)

What I see, as I am seeing it, its true although to what it corresponds I don´t know...
...nevertheless I am certain it corresponds to the possible and to something exactly for how it relates to it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

You very clearly implied that observing a rainbow was different from observing anything else which it is n´t...interpretation on what it means has nothing to do with the matter at hand...please have the decency of admitting so....

As for the "I" I have posted several considerations upon it to which you said nothing in so far...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Try to think of the seer, the seing and the seen as internal aspects of a relationship. It is impossible to separate "you" from "not you", which indicates that the two are not separate anywhere but in our naive realistic notions of everyday life.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

It is not in the sky.

The phenomena which you observe as rainbow it is in the sky ! What it is beyond our observing capability I don´t know and such is valid to anything else...more the rainbow does n´t move at all...you happen to come to see different layers of an actual happening phenomena in there and that´s all !

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Try to think of the seer, the seing and the seen as internal aspects of a relationship. It is impossible to separate "you" from "not you", which indicates that the two are not separate anywhere but in our naive realistic notions of everyday life.

What you can´t seam to understand is that such is right from one perspective and wrong in another...that is, that what you perceive in the relation as separate, has is own right to "live" sort of speak ! That perception is a happening phenomena !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

The moisture is where it is. But you fail to see this point again and again: The rainbow is not the moisture any more than sunlight is the sun. It is a spectacle of lights that you can percieve because you are standing in a specific place.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

no no no...is not just the moisture or the rain...refraction of light is there and happening on the spot, or should I say spots, that seams to be the reason of your confusion ! Anyone at your side can see it to...and the ones you actually can´t see are there also, as someone else might testify later !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

..............
I give up. You are determined to not understand.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I well know what you are speaking of...interpretation...but that was n´t our primary concern in here , rainbows are not a special case !

1 Reply

Vitalism vs. mechanism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know