IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th February 2021, 09:31 AM   #41
Carrot Flower King
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Dutchman View Post
Check out the link smartcooky provided, and all will be clear
Doh! Should've recognised it...Silly me.
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 09:37 AM   #42
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,449
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If you refuse to stand on the shoulders of giants you get, well, things like this thread.
Just make sure to wipe your feet first. No giant wants dirty shoulders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 09:51 AM   #43
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,557
Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King View Post
Doh! Should've recognised it...Silly me.
I don't think you were silly at all. I had the same problem. I was about to launch into a serious critique before I realized that smartcooky hadn't actually dug up the text in question. The way his post is written, I definitely got the impression he had dug up that text, rather than generated a spoof.

Ironically, the OP's actual premise, as he's given it here, is a lot more coherent than smartcooky's spoof. Its main problems are that (a) it relies on well-known and fairly banal philosophical observations, and (b) it tries to extend or build on those observations with vagueries and undefined terms.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 11:56 AM   #44
Carrot Flower King
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't think you were silly at all. I had the same problem. I was about to launch into a serious critique before I realized that smartcooky hadn't actually dug up the text in question. The way his post is written, I definitely got the impression he had dug up that text, rather than generated a spoof.

Ironically, the OP's actual premise, as he's given it here, is a lot more coherent than smartcooky's spoof. Its main problems are that (a) it relies on well-known and fairly banal philosophical observations, and (b) it tries to extend or build on those observations with vagueries and undefined terms.
Thank you, that's very kind.

On another forum I did have a sideline of doing my own prog rock style lyrics in response to a couple of posters who were inclined to word salady scientism.

The OP struck me as student stonerisms, which are never anywhere near as profound as a heap of Mary Jane tells you they are.
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 08:39 PM   #45
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Perhaps I am just imagining them. Perhaps I am just imagining me.
Perhaps you indeed are unreal. But you can never deny the existence of your experiences. If you cut your finger your pain would be absolutely real. You can doubt weather your finger is real, you can't doubt your pain no matter how hard you try. Which I think is quite obvious.

Last edited by Rystiya; 15th February 2021 at 09:00 PM. Reason: mistakes
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 08:51 PM   #46
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
What you are describing does not sound new. It sounds just like so-called “solipsism” and suggestions about a “brain in a vat”. And those are discussions we have had here many times before, across thousands of posts. Those previous threads also quickly included Descartes so-called “cogito”, which simply stated amounts to “I think therefore I am” … and a number of us quickly pointed out what is clearly wrong with that.

But that aside; if you think that it might be plausibly true that our perceived reality does not exist at all, such that all that actually exists, according to you (and according to various philosophers, apparently), is just a so-called consciousness composed of disembodied thoughts, then you have to do several things to back up that sort of suggestion, eg -

1 you have to show evidence that observed reality has no existence

2 you have to show how any conscious thoughts can exist without a functioning brain.

Re. 2 above – the point is that, as soon as you accept that a physical brain must exist in order for any such thoughts or consciousness to be apparent, then your argument is immediately lost. Because you then have not just the consciousness/thoughts/experiences, but also a physically existing object as an "external" reality (ie the brain), a realty which also needs the support system of a physical body with a sensory system etc.

Also – afaik, all properly published genuine research in psychology and neuroscience journals, shows that when the brain is truly dead, then all signs of any consciousness/thoughts/experiences cease. All research evidence shows that what we call consciousness/thoughts/etc are simply an effect or product of what our brains do (and animal brains do the same ... with the same view of reality as us ... they sense & describe & react to all the same things).

In various experiments it's been shown that our thoughts/consciousness/etc. can be dramatically altered by the application of electrical charges/signals, and by chemical drugs etc., so that what the subject/patient claims to think and experience is radically changed ... and in fact to some extent the experiences can actually be controlled, even to the level of deliberately producing certain specific experiences/thoughts … ie the experienced event did not really happen, but the patient thinks it did/does happen, because of the application of specific electrical signals or drugs or oxygen deprivation etc.

That should be more than enough to end all arguments about claims of a single consciousness like a so called “brain in a vat” (where did any such “vat” come from??), but even beyond all of that, as I argued here before with one poster who shall be “nameless” (who I have not seen here for a while now, but many will recall David's posts); if all that exists is a consciousness/thoughts in one disembodied brainless “mind”, then how is that “mind” posting things here on the internet? … who does that mind think it's talking too? … why is that mind claiming on one hand that nohting except itself exists, whilst on the other hand it itself is apparently arguing with itself to say that what it is claiming is wrong! ... it's constantly arguing with itself and disputing everything it says from second to second!

I didn't try to prove the world is unreal, nor did I try to prove my thoughts are real. Your lengthy reply says mind might depend on body, but I don't care about that at all because I believe neither mind nor body is absolutely real. What I believe is that experiences are the only thing that is absolutely real.

I don't think this will lead to any problem. Perhaps all my experiences are just a 4D movie which I have no control of. Talking to you is just part of that movie. Perhaps you're a dreaming dark god, and this universe is just your dream.

Also notice that I'm not trying to end up with some sort of absolutely truth. My main points include: 1) Your experiences are vital and great. They are objective facts while mind and body are just subjective opinions, rather than the opposite. 2): Facts don't matter (because you don't know), your attitude to your experiences does.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 08:59 PM   #47
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Because those people already thought of those things, and ignoring what they wrote means every adolescent who really like thinks about the universe, man, like totally, starts out from scratch covering the same things all over. Philosophy is no different from other subjects in that you get further by not ignoring everything that others have done before. If you refuse to stand on the shoulders of giants you get, well, things like this thread.
I think taking experiences as the only thing that is absolutely real is already a rarely used starting point, and I have lots of intresting findings after that (say, transcendence awareness and its impacts). Can't believe that so many people are accusing me of ignoring the works of previous people before realizing that. They thought I'm discussing the relationship between mind and body as if I don't know others have discuessed that before, which is irritating.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 09:02 PM   #48
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,617
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Also notice that I'm not trying to end up with some sort of absolutely truth. My main points include: 1) Your experiences are vital and great. They are objective facts while mind and body are just subjective opinions, rather than the opposite. 2): Facts don't matter (because you don't know), your attitude to your experiences does.

When you experience thirst, what do you do? And why?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 09:19 PM   #49
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,576
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Because those people already thought of those things, and ignoring what they wrote means every adolescent who really like thinks about the universe, man, like totally, starts out from scratch covering the same things all over. Philosophy is no different from other subjects in that you get further by not ignoring everything that others have done before. If you refuse to stand on the shoulders of giants you get, well, things like this thread.
I agree. I don't think it has been posted, but the blog article referenced in the original post is here.

This seems to rehash many old ideas about philosophy. Things we have already gone though in excruciating detail before. It is difficult to tell if there is anything new because it drifts around old ideas that have already been addressed and there are no references. Not a single citation. That makes it rather difficult to understand how these ideas, which have been addressed in the past, and being built upon or expanded or rejected.

That also makes it difficult to address problems within the paper because we don't have a starting point for discussion. Everything would have to be addressed back from the very start. That would mean essentially going through a whole undergraduate program of study in philosophy to even begin
addressing the problems.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 09:24 PM   #50
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
When you experience thirst, what do you do? And why?
What's the point of your question? I want to drink some water when I feel thrist, and that doesn't imply I know the universe is real, whether it is material or spiritual, etc (notice I'm not trying to say I know the universe to be unreal).

My point is, the existence of water is just one assumtion I make based on my experiences, hence my experiences are objective facts, while water is subjective opinion. Many people tend to see experiences as subjective and water as objective, which I believe is a poison of materialism which confuse and weakens people.

Last edited by Rystiya; 15th February 2021 at 09:32 PM.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 09:29 PM   #51
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post

This seems to rehash many old ideas about philosophy. Things we have already gone though in excruciating detail before. It is difficult to tell if there is anything new because it drifts around old ideas that have already been addressed and there are no references. Not a single citation. That makes it rather difficult to understand how these ideas, which have been addressed in the past, and being built upon or expanded or rejected.

That also makes it difficult to address problems within the paper because we don't have a starting point for discussion. Everything would have to be addressed back from the very start. That would mean essentially going through a whole undergraduate program of study in philosophy to even begin
addressing the problems.
Not sure who are you refering to. What I'm trying to do is give up the stupid attempt to find out absolute truths, admit that experiences is the only thing that is absolutely real, then justify/derive Nietzschean values based on that. My conclusion is that we need to fix our relationship with three of our critical, subconscious, powerful, mental reactions to the transcendence of our lives: transcendence awareness, the will to power, and the force of life. If you think many people have done the same job better, tell me their names and I'll be glad to know.

Last edited by Rystiya; 15th February 2021 at 09:35 PM. Reason: mistakes
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 10:13 PM   #52
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 29,602
I hope nobody is Leibnizing down on the job. I Schopenhauer have thought harder about this.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 01:40 AM   #53
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
I didn't try to prove the world is unreal, nor did I try to prove my thoughts are real. Your lengthy reply says mind might depend on body, but I don't care about that at all because I believe neither mind nor body is absolutely real. What I believe is that experiences are the only thing that is absolutely real.

I don't think this will lead to any problem. Perhaps all my experiences are just a 4D movie which I have no control of. Talking to you is just part of that movie. Perhaps you're a dreaming dark god, and this universe is just your dream.

Also notice that I'm not trying to end up with some sort of absolutely truth. My main points include: 1) Your experiences are vital and great. They are objective facts while mind and body are just subjective opinions, rather than the opposite. 2): Facts don't matter (because you don't know), your attitude to your experiences does.

Well first of all you/anyone cannot literally "prove" anything, anyway. So you need to stop talking about "proof".

And secondly one of the things I pointed out was that if you make claims such as "I believe neither mind nor body is absolutely real", then you have to produce evidence to back that up ....

... where is your evidence to show mind and body are not real?

Also I asked you where the so-called "experiences" come from if they do not come from a real physical brain working in conjunction with a real physical body? ...

... what is producing these so-called "experiences"?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 03:45 AM   #54
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well first of all you/anyone cannot literally "prove" anything, anyway. So you need to stop talking about "proof".

And secondly one of the things I pointed out was that if you make claims such as "I believe neither mind nor body is absolutely real", then you have to produce evidence to back that up ....

... where is your evidence to show mind and body are not real?

Also I asked you where the so-called "experiences" come from if they do not come from a real physical brain working in conjunction with a real physical body? ...

... what is producing these so-called "experiences"?
'ABSOLUTY real' means 100% certainly real. In order to explain why mind and body are not absolutely real, I don't need evidences, I only need to explain that you cannot be 100% sure. My full article explained why.

Experiences, however, are exceptions. I don't need to explain to you that they are real, because they are just out there. You are experiencing them at the current moment and there is no way you can deny their existence. In fact, experiences are absolutely real and there are absolutely no way you can prove their existence, and that's one of the most funny feature of experiences which makes them special.

And I call the supposed entity which generates and experience experiences 'life', it might be the same thing as mind and body, and it might be something else, such as spirit, God, whatever. I made it quite clear in my full article.

Last edited by Rystiya; 16th February 2021 at 03:50 AM. Reason: mistakes
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 07:04 AM   #55
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
'ABSOLUTY real' means 100% certainly real. In order to explain why mind and body are not absolutely real, I don't need evidences, I only need to explain that you cannot be 100% sure. My full article explained why.

Experiences, however, are exceptions. I don't need to explain to you that they are real, because they are just out there. You are experiencing them at the current moment and there is no way you can deny their existence. In fact, experiences are absolutely real and there are absolutely no way you can prove their existence, and that's one of the most funny feature of experiences which makes them special.

And I call the supposed entity which generates and experience experiences 'life', it might be the same thing as mind and body, and it might be something else, such as spirit, God, whatever. I made it quite clear in my full article.

As far as we can tell from all of modern science, it's not possible in a universe like ours to produce absolute "certainty", i.e. a literal 100% proof" of anything. That's why in science we only go as far as describing the best understood things as a "Theory" (and not a "proven certainty"). So it's completely redundant for you to say "I only need to explain that you cannot be 100% sure" ... because unless you can provide an absolute literal "proof" of things/anything, then you cannot accurately claim that the thing is known as a matter of "certainty".

If you claim that something called "experiences" are "certainly" "real", then you will need to show an actual proof of that too ...

... where is your 100% certain "Proof" that your claimed experiences are themselves what you call "real"? ...

... and while you are at it - what do you mean by "real"?


It may seem to you that what you call "experiences" must certainly exist. And no doubt it seemed that way also to Descartes in the 17th century. But actually you are just assuming that to be a fact ... and on that same basis we can just as easily assume that what we seem to detect as a world of physical reality all around us, is also indeed real.

Why do you think (for example) that planet Earth may not be “real”, or that humans may not be real/exist? What is your basis for doubting any of that? What evidence do you have to show that our planet does not exist?

If you say that the planet “might” not exist, then you need to show evidence of why it might not actually exist … do you have any evidence to show how people and planets and stars and computers and phones and cats & dogs etc. may not exist?

I'd agree that something at least seems to exist, but if you think that our “experience” of (say) a building or person may be just an illusion, then what is it an illusion of? What is actually there if the building is not really there? If you say that all that is there is something you keep calling an “experience”, then maybe the sensation of “experience” is itself also an illusion, so that something is behind that “experience” … something else is what actually exists and not that thing called the “experience” … but that sounds like an infinite regress of endless evidence-free claims doesn't it! … each time you get down to saying that only “X” exists, we can just as easily say that perhaps X is also an illusion and that some other precursor X1 existed instead …

But where is your evidence for any of this? You say you do not need evidence to claim that an “experience” must actually exist? But you are making a positive claim there, and you need evidence to show that any such claim is true … where is the evidence to show that what we experience may be only an illusion? …

… where is your evidence that “experience” is somehow an exception that needs no evidence or explanation? How did any such thing as an “experience” ever happen? What caused or produced the “experience”?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 07:53 AM   #56
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,617
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
What's the point of your question? I want to drink some water when I feel thrist, and that doesn't imply I know the universe is real, whether it is material or spiritual, etc (notice I'm not trying to say I know the universe to be unreal).

My point is, the existence of water is just one assumtion I make based on my experiences, hence my experiences are objective facts, while water is subjective opinion. Many people tend to see experiences as subjective and water as objective, which I believe is a poison of materialism which confuse and weakens people.

Here's the point:

You experience thirst. That's an experience.

You experience drinking water. That's an experience.

You also experience a pattern in the occurrence of the two previous experiences. That pattern includes: the thirst experience occurs if you don't have the drinking water experience for a period of time; the thirst experience once begun continues until you have the drinking water experience; and the thirst experience ceases following the drinking water experience. The reliable occurrence of that pattern is also an experience over the long term.

That pattern, therefore, is just as fundamental (or as you put it, transcendent) as the individual experiences that contribute to it. You don't go through life in a sequence of disconnected experiences: "Now I'm thirsty. Now my arm is tired. Now I'm tasting salt. Now I see a tree." You experience patterns, connections, causes and effects.

Who cares whether water really exists as a material substance? That's one explanation for why water occurs in our experiences in the patterns that it does, and it's a very convenient one, but maybe instead water fits into those patterns in those ways because it's a fixed idea in the mind of God, or a subroutine in the world-simulation, or a concept your own inaccessible subconscious thought processes insist upon as they generate your dream of a life. As long as the transcendent (we experience them) patterns themselves apply, how we model their underlying cause doesn't affect what we experience. If you experience total immersion in water without an air supply for eight minutes or so, you'll experience drowning and death. Whether it's the lack of an actual material substance needed by your actual material body, or thoughts in the mind of God, or routines in the simulator, or phantoms in your own mind that are ultimately responsible for the pattern of experiences that drowns you, you'll still drown.

It's easy enough to reject materialism in favor of one of those three alternatives or any of countless others. It's much harder to replace materialism with some alternative that makes the slightest difference in how things turn out as we negotiate the world.

How you choose to explain your experiences (materialistically or otherwise) won't alter the transcendent patterns those experiences occur in. If you go without water you'll experience illness from dehydration. If you immerse yourself in water you'll experience drowning. Whether or not you think the water is actually materially real, you think it isn't, you don't know, or you don't care, won't change that.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 08:02 AM   #57
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,617
The article referred to in the OP, which was not accessible at the time the thread started, now appears to be available at https://1257162360.medium.com/recomm...l-6e5157e6ae1c
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 08:20 AM   #58
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
As far as we can tell from all of modern science, it's not possible in a universe like ours to produce absolute "certainty", i.e. a literal 100% proof" of anything. That's why in science we only go as far as describing the best understood things as a "Theory" (and not a "proven certainty"). So it's completely redundant for you to say "I only need to explain that you cannot be 100% sure" ... because unless you can provide an absolute literal "proof" of things/anything, then you cannot accurately claim that the thing is known as a matter of "certainty".

If you claim that something called "experiences" are "certainly" "real", then you will need to show an actual proof of that too ...

... where is your 100% certain "Proof" that your claimed experiences are themselves what you call "real"? ...

... and while you are at it - what do you mean by "real"?


It may seem to you that what you call "experiences" must certainly exist. And no doubt it seemed that way also to Descartes in the 17th century. But actually you are just assuming that to be a fact ... and on that same basis we can just as easily assume that what we seem to detect as a world of physical reality all around us, is also indeed real.

Why do you think (for example) that planet Earth may not be “real”, or that humans may not be real/exist? What is your basis for doubting any of that? What evidence do you have to show that our planet does not exist?

If you say that the planet “might” not exist, then you need to show evidence of why it might not actually exist … do you have any evidence to show how people and planets and stars and computers and phones and cats & dogs etc. may not exist?

I'd agree that something at least seems to exist, but if you think that our “experience” of (say) a building or person may be just an illusion, then what is it an illusion of? What is actually there if the building is not really there? If you say that all that is there is something you keep calling an “experience”, then maybe the sensation of “experience” is itself also an illusion, so that something is behind that “experience” … something else is what actually exists and not that thing called the “experience” … but that sounds like an infinite regress of endless evidence-free claims doesn't it! … each time you get down to saying that only “X” exists, we can just as easily say that perhaps X is also an illusion and that some other precursor X1 existed instead …

But where is your evidence for any of this? You say you do not need evidence to claim that an “experience” must actually exist? But you are making a positive claim there, and you need evidence to show that any such claim is true … where is the evidence to show that what we experience may be only an illusion? …

… where is your evidence that “experience” is somehow an exception that needs no evidence or explanation? How did any such thing as an “experience” ever happen? What caused or produced the “experience”?
You and I cannot possibly know 'hat caused or produced the “experience”?', ' How did any such thing as an “experience” ever happen?', etc, and I'm not interested in these questions.

I have already told you, you are unable to doubt the existence of your experiences, at least not your concurrent experiences, since they are just present at this moment.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 08:37 AM   #59
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Here's the point:

You experience thirst. That's an experience.

You experience drinking water. That's an experience.

You also experience a pattern in the occurrence of the two previous experiences. That pattern includes: the thirst experience occurs if you don't have the drinking water experience for a period of time; the thirst experience once begun continues until you have the drinking water experience; and the thirst experience ceases following the drinking water experience. The reliable occurrence of that pattern is also an experience over the long term.

That pattern, therefore, is just as fundamental (or as you put it, transcendent) as the individual experiences that contribute to it. You don't go through life in a sequence of disconnected experiences: "Now I'm thirsty. Now my arm is tired. Now I'm tasting salt. Now I see a tree." You experience patterns, connections, causes and effects.

Who cares whether water really exists as a material substance? That's one explanation for why water occurs in our experiences in the patterns that it does, and it's a very convenient one, but maybe instead water fits into those patterns in those ways because it's a fixed idea in the mind of God, or a subroutine in the world-simulation, or a concept your own inaccessible subconscious thought processes insist upon as they generate your dream of a life. As long as the transcendent (we experience them) patterns themselves apply, how we model their underlying cause doesn't affect what we experience. If you experience total immersion in water without an air supply for eight minutes or so, you'll experience drowning and death. Whether it's the lack of an actual material substance needed by your actual material body, or thoughts in the mind of God, or routines in the simulator, or phantoms in your own mind that are ultimately responsible for the pattern of experiences that drowns you, you'll still drown.

It's easy enough to reject materialism in favor of one of those three alternatives or any of countless others. It's much harder to replace materialism with some alternative that makes the slightest difference in how things turn out as we negotiate the world.

How you choose to explain your experiences (materialistically or otherwise) won't alter the transcendent patterns those experiences occur in. If you go without water you'll experience illness from dehydration. If you immerse yourself in water you'll experience drowning. Whether or not you think the water is actually materially real, you think it isn't, you don't know, or you don't care, won't change that.
What you have explained is that I don't have full control over the contents/patterns of my experiences, which is obviously correct (I'll be God if I do).

However, we don't need to have full control over the contents/patterns of experiences in order to be transcendent. One of the reasons why experiences are transcendent is that they contains colorful feelings, such as contentment, joy, pain, sadness, etc. For example, when you see sunrise, you experiences warmth, joy, delight, etc, none of which exist in the (supposed) physical world. Hence your experiences are great, so does the supposed entity which generates and experience them (which I call 'your life').

Also, I'm not a fan of materialism. Yes, I do believe science (patterns found by others), but since we don't even know what is 'material' (except it is some sort of stuff which fills everywhere), it isn't very meaningful to say 'we live in a material universe'. Also, it is true that the contents of our experiences seem to be determined by external features (we feel pain when we cut our fingers). However, that does not imply that physical matter can somehow generate experiences and lives, which does not seem quite physical. As far as I know, physical matter can only interact with other physical matter.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 08:46 AM   #60
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,557
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
'ABSOLUTY real' means 100% certainly real. In order to explain why mind and body are not absolutely real, I don't need evidences, I only need to explain that you cannot be 100% sure. My full article explained why.

Experiences, however, are exceptions. I don't need to explain to you that they are real, because they are just out there. You are experiencing them at the current moment and there is no way you can deny their existence. In fact, experiences are absolutely real and there are absolutely no way you can prove their existence, and that's one of the most funny feature of experiences which makes them special.
As a Cartesian, I reject this set of premises. If the experiences are real, it follows that the thing that experiences them is also real. The mind, at least must be as real as the experiences it is experiencing.

I experience real experiences, therefore I am real.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 09:25 AM   #61
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
You and I cannot possibly know 'hat caused or produced the “experience”?', ' How did any such thing as an “experience” ever happen?', etc, and I'm not interested in these questions.

I have already told you, you are unable to doubt the existence of your experiences, at least not your concurrent experiences, since they are just present at this moment.

Well you have been asked several times now, and clearly you have zero evidence for any of your claims.

What is your evidence for doubting that any perceived object exists (a plane, a phone, a dog ...)?

If you claim that "experiences" exist as a matter of "certainty", then you must have a formal real proof of that (not just some hand waving assumption or some mere word argument) ... so where is your actual proof for the existence of what you call "experiences"?

What is the cause of any such experiences? Do they simply exist with no cause and nobody existing to provide any such cause? …

… how does any “experience” occur without any brain & sensory system?

… why are you refusing to accept the answers from science and instead trying to create un-evidenced unexplained answers from so-called “philosophy”? What's the point or use of that?

Last edited by IanS; 16th February 2021 at 10:46 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 11:03 AM   #62
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
You and I cannot possibly know "what caused or produced the “experience”?', ' How did any such thing as an “experience” ever happen?', etc, and I'm not interested in these questions.

I have already told you, you are unable to doubt the existence of your experiences, at least not your concurrent experiences, since they are just present at this moment.

On the contrary, we can know, and already do, have a very good idea of what causes the "experiences", i.e. consciousness and thoughts etc. Afaik, that's been explained & published in some considerable detail by current research in fields such as psychology, neuroscience and medicine ... the answer is that it is the structure that we call a "brain" that produces the sensation of consciousness and thoughts ... and it does that via a sensory system that provides vision, hearing, smell and touch etc.

So whilst science does not know for sure, i.e. as a matter of absolute certainty, exactly how everything happens, afaik those areas of science have a pretty good description of how and why we experience what we call "conscious awareness" with thoughts etc.

So you are quite wrong to say we "cannot possibly know explain how those "experiences" are produced".
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 12:11 PM   #63
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 21,541
Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King View Post
What the buggery bollocks does that word salad mean? I recognise all of the words and even know what most of them usually mean (I never have a clue what anyone means by spiritual), but put together like that barely gets as far as gibberish.

If that's the standard of "argument" being advanced, all I can say is: must try harder...This reads like stuff Jon Anderson and Steve Howe rejected for Tales From Topographic Oceans as being nonsensical.
On a sailing ship to nowhere, leaving any place,
If the summer change to winter, yours is no disgrace

Makes perfect sense!
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 12:20 PM   #64
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 21,541
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
What you have explained is that I don't have full control over the contents/patterns of my experiences, which is obviously correct (I'll be God if I do).

However, we don't need to have full control over the contents/patterns of experiences in order to be transcendent. One of the reasons why experiences are transcendent is that they contains colorful feelings, such as contentment, joy, pain, sadness, etc. For example, when you see sunrise, you experiences warmth, joy, delight, etc, none of which exist in the (supposed) physical world. Hence your experiences are great, so does the supposed entity which generates and experience them (which I call 'your life').

Also, I'm not a fan of materialism. Yes, I do believe science (patterns found by others), but since we don't even know what is 'material' (except it is some sort of stuff which fills everywhere), it isn't very meaningful to say 'we live in a material universe'. Also, it is true that the contents of our experiences seem to be determined by external features (we feel pain when we cut our fingers). However, that does not imply that physical matter can somehow generate experiences and lives, which does not seem quite physical. As far as I know, physical matter can only interact with other physical matter.
Having read the article, the emphasis appears to to be on 'trancendental' experience. It likely does exist but I am not sure you really understand it yourself.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 12:58 PM   #65
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,154
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
On a sailing ship to nowhere, leaving any place,
If the summer change to winter, yours is no disgrace

Makes perfect sense!
I always thought Jon Anderson used his voice solely as a musical instrument. The words were chosen to make the required sounds, not to mean something.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 01:04 PM   #66
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 21,541
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I always thought Jon Anderson used his voice solely as a musical instrument. The words were chosen to make the required sounds, not to mean something.
I always experienced synesthesia listening to Close to the Edge. I could kinda taste it -like clear water - and see the musical notes in colour. Transcendental experience? No, I knew it was just a pleasant effect.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 01:31 PM   #67
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
What you have explained is that I don't have full control over the contents/patterns of my experiences, which is obviously correct (I'll be God if I do).

However, we don't need to have full control over the contents/patterns of experiences in order to be transcendent. One of the reasons why experiences are transcendent is that they contains colorful feelings, such as contentment, joy, pain, sadness, etc. For example, when you see sunrise, you experiences warmth, joy, delight, etc, none of which exist in the (supposed) physical world. Hence your experiences are great, so does the supposed entity which generates and experience them (which I call 'your life').

Also, I'm not a fan of materialism. Yes, I do believe science (patterns found by others), but since we don't even know what is 'material' (except it is some sort of stuff which fills everywhere), it isn't very meaningful to say 'we live in a material universe'. Also, it is true that the contents of our experiences seem to be determined by external features (we feel pain when we cut our fingers). However, that does not imply that physical matter can somehow generate experiences and lives, which does not seem quite physical. As far as I know, physical matter can only interact with other physical matter.

Science is not just "patterns found by others". Why are you trying to belittle science when it has been by far the most accurate and informative way mankind has ever found to explain and understand everything in the world around us?

And again contrary to what you just said – we most certainly do know what is meant by the word “material”. If you look in any dictionary you can find numerous different perfectly clear meanings. But if you are talking about the stuff which everything in our universe is made of, then again we understand perfectly well what we mean by molecules, atoms and subatomic particles … what subatomic particles really appear to be are various types of wave-like disturbances in a set of energy fields that compose all of space and time ("space-time"). Those are difficult concepts of course, because you are concerned there with the maths of quantum field theory … but we understand well enough what such fields are, and what the various different wave-like disturbances are.

And of course on our hugely greater macroscopic scale, we understand how those tiny field disturbances combine togther as atoms and molecules and appear to us like solid macroscopic objects that we all call “material”. And all we mean by that is that we are distinguishing that material type of object from things like personal thoughts & ideas which do not appear to be “material” in the same sense as a rock, plane, pig, or shoebox is “material”. E.g., the number 3 is not material either in that sense … instead it's just a concept that we use to explain things. Speech and words are similarly not material … they are again ideas that we use to communicate with each other.

If you don't think material things actually exist then why do you not stand in front of a moving train or throw yourself off a tower block, and see if you are “materially” damaged … though I'd strongly advise you not to do that. But when you say you are "not a fan of materialism", I bet you do not live your life like that do you, i.e. trying to chop your own head off or standing in the middle of traffic filled main road? We are all living in a time of great threat from Coronavirus ... what do you think is being done to save us all from dying from that disease? ... the most obvious thing is the rapid revelopment of several very promising vaccines ... that's a material discovery and development entirely from science ... none of that has come from philosopy or religion ... are you yourself going to refuse the vaccine on tha basis that you are "not a fan of materialism" ... are you now going around preaching to people as a philosophical anti-vaxer?

I think you are probably a philosophy fan (and possibly a God believer?), who is trying to reject and minimise the astonishing success achieved by science over the last 100 to 200+ years … with discoveries and explanations far, FAR beyond the wildest dreams of anyone living a century or two ago. And where in contrast, philosophy on it's own, like religion, has really discovered and properly explained not one single thing! So far the score is science several trillion vs philosophy/religion zero!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 05:26 PM   #68
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Well, in order to prove the idea that experiences are transcend, I made a few points:

1): They and only they are absolutely real. The entire universe might be unreal. However, I cannot doubt the existence of my experiences because I can’t imagine them to be unreal, simply because there are some of them out there at the current moment (for me, that’s the experiences of typing, breathing, etc). Even I assume the universe I know is not real, my experiences are still nevertheless real. Experiences are the highest level of reality.

2): Despite being absolutely real, the true nature of my experiences seems unique and incomprehensible (I consider them to be spiritual, although I don’t know what does ‘spiritual’ mean). They are probably not made of any atoms or particles; they are formless, they can never be measured/captured/recorded by machines, and no science or philosophy can explain what they are and how are they generated.

3): Experiences are just out there. They and only they can be felt directly, everything else are just my mind’s understanding of experiences. For example, I suppose and believe that I live in a material universe because sensory experiences seem to reflect ‘objects’ made of ‘materials’. I suppose and believe that I have a mind because experiences such as joy and sadness seem to reflect mental activities like ‘emotions’, ‘thoughts’, etc. If I accept the idea that my experiences are just illusions which do not reflect anything, I cannot accept anything to be real. Without experiences, I won’t even know what is ‘action’, ‘consequence’, ‘murder’, ‘human’, ‘I’, not to say ‘I shall not murder a human’.

I will be glad if you can supplement this.
We live in a culture where the dominant philosophy is that the physical is real, and the transcendental (non physical) is unreal. You are proposing we flip that because everything we experience lies within experience, lies within consciousness; and the physical is unreal. We can soften that and suggest that the physical is a belief, a speculation; and it is experience we can only know for certainty to be real.
I would tend to agree with you that the physical is a belief, a speculation; IOW, the physical is the WOO, the physical is the transcendental.
Myriad is taking a different approach (I hope I get this right), he/she is not necessarily defining physical/matter as other than expereince or outside consciousness, he is defining physical/matter as a function or that which explains/produces experience. Experience consists of boundaries, segments, colors, shapes and etc. - and these boundaries need to be explained and that explanation is physical.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 05:29 PM   #69
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,962
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Experiences, however, are exceptions. I don't need to explain to you that they are real, because they are just out there.
Out where?
__________________
Semantic ambiguity is how vampires get you.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 06:24 PM   #70
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Science is not just "patterns found by others". Why are you trying to belittle science when it has been by far the most accurate and informative way mankind has ever found to explain and understand everything in the world around us?

And again contrary to what you just said – we most certainly do know what is meant by the word “material”. If you look in any dictionary you can find numerous different perfectly clear meanings. But if you are talking about the stuff which everything in our universe is made of, then again we understand perfectly well what we mean by molecules, atoms and subatomic particles … what subatomic particles really appear to be are various types of wave-like disturbances in a set of energy fields that compose all of space and time ("space-time"). Those are difficult concepts of course, because you are concerned there with the maths of quantum field theory … but we understand well enough what such fields are, and what the various different wave-like disturbances are.

And of course on our hugely greater macroscopic scale, we understand how those tiny field disturbances combine togther as atoms and molecules and appear to us like solid macroscopic objects that we all call “material”. And all we mean by that is that we are distinguishing that material type of object from things like personal thoughts & ideas which do not appear to be “material” in the same sense as a rock, plane, pig, or shoebox is “material”. E.g., the number 3 is not material either in that sense … instead it's just a concept that we use to explain things. Speech and words are similarly not material … they are again ideas that we use to communicate with each other.

If you don't think material things actually exist then why do you not stand in front of a moving train or throw yourself off a tower block, and see if you are “materially” damaged … though I'd strongly advise you not to do that. But when you say you are "not a fan of materialism", I bet you do not live your life like that do you, i.e. trying to chop your own head off or standing in the middle of traffic filled main road? We are all living in a time of great threat from Coronavirus ... what do you think is being done to save us all from dying from that disease? ... the most obvious thing is the rapid revelopment of several very promising vaccines ... that's a material discovery and development entirely from science ... none of that has come from philosopy or religion ... are you yourself going to refuse the vaccine on tha basis that you are "not a fan of materialism" ... are you now going around preaching to people as a philosophical anti-vaxer?

I think you are probably a philosophy fan (and possibly a God believer?), who is trying to reject and minimise the astonishing success achieved by science over the last 100 to 200+ years … with discoveries and explanations far, FAR beyond the wildest dreams of anyone living a century or two ago. And where in contrast, philosophy on it's own, like religion, has really discovered and properly explained not one single thing! So far the score is science several trillion vs philosophy/religion zero!
What are you talking about? Yes there are particles and they interact with each other with forces. However they are nevertheless, patterns of experiences found by others. Do not misunderstand me, this universe our experiences seem to reflect is extremely complexed, and it's incredibably difficult and useful to find these patterns and figure out how to exploit them. But the fact that science is great does not imply that science can explain everything.

For example: 1): You can find more particles in the future, but your experiences themselves, unlike those stuff they reflects, are not made of particles. Science can never explain what experiences are. 2): You can find the smallest particle, but all you know about them is their mass, the force they can generate, etc, which give you no clue on what is their essence or what they actually is. The fact that you realize stuff is made up of particles does not imply that you know what those stuff are. 3): Every human have an intuition that their lives have value and purpose beyond physical materials, and science cannot explain such intuition either.

I'm not 'trying to reject and minimise the astonishing success achieved by science over the last 100 to 200+ years'. Actually I'm quite intrested in astronomy and I'm also a spaceX fan. However that does not prevent me from realizing that science has limitations.

Last edited by Rystiya; 16th February 2021 at 06:29 PM. Reason: mistakes
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 06:33 PM   #71
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Out where?
They are present at the current moment, to accurate.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 06:41 PM   #72
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
We live in a culture where the dominant philosophy is that the physical is real, and the transcendental (non physical) is unreal. You are proposing we flip that because everything we experience lies within experience, lies within consciousness; and the physical is unreal. We can soften that and suggest that the physical is a belief, a speculation; and it is experience we can only know for certainty to be real.
I would tend to agree with you that the physical is a belief, a speculation; IOW, the physical is the WOO, the physical is the transcendental.
Myriad is taking a different approach (I hope I get this right), he/she is not necessarily defining physical/matter as other than expereince or outside consciousness, he is defining physical/matter as a function or that which explains/produces experience. Experience consists of boundaries, segments, colors, shapes and etc. - and these boundaries need to be explained and that explanation is physical.
Well what I mean is that experiences should be considered objective and fundamental, becuase they are just present at current moment. Materials should be considered subjective, because we found them in our experiences and we cannot be 100% sure about their existence. In other words, experiences are the highest level of reality.

I'm not trying to argue that materials are unreal. I'm trying to use the idea that experiences are the highest level of reality, along with other evidenses, to argue that experiences are transcend. If experiences are transcend, then the entities which produce and experience experiences (which I call 'life') are also transcend.

The purposed of all of this is 1): to show that our intuition that our lives have transcendent value and purposes is reasonable, and it have nothing to do with God. 2): to show that Nietzschean values make sense.

Last edited by Rystiya; 16th February 2021 at 06:47 PM. Reason: mistakes
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 06:43 PM   #73
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Reasons why experiences are transcendent:

1): When ontology is considered, experiences and only experiences are absolutely real. The entire universe might be unreal, it would be stupid to try to figure out its essence. However, I cannot doubt the existence of my experiences because I can’t imagine them to be unreal, simply because there are some of them out there (present at the current moment) at each single moment (the experiences of typing, breathing, reading, etc). Even I assume the universe I know is not real, my experiences are still nevertheless real. Hence, experiences are the highest level of reality, only they are objective facts, anything else are just subjective opinions.

2): When essence is considered, despite being absolutely real, the true nature of my experiences is unique and mysterious (We consider experiences to be spiritual, because they don’t feel like any generic materials/objects which surrounds us. However, no one knows what exactly does ‘spiritual’ mean). They are probably not made of any atoms or particles; they are formless, they can never be measured, captured or recorded by machines, and no science or philosophy can explain what they are and how are they generated. We can’t even prove them to be real; they are just out there.

3): When epistemology is considered, only experiences are not the result of my interpretation. Everything else (including everything else called ‘truth’ or ‘self-knowledge') result from my mind’s interpretation of experiences. For example, I suppose and believe that I live in a material universe because sensory experiences seem to reflect ‘objects’ made of ‘material’. I suppose and believe that I have a mind because experiences such as joy and sadness seem to reflect mental activities like ‘emotions’, ‘thoughts’, etc. Without experiences, I won’t even know what is ‘action’, ‘consequence’, ‘murder’, ‘human’, ‘I’, not to say ‘I shall not murder a human’.

4): When qualities are considered, experiences and only experiences are alive. ‘Alive’ means composed of all sorts of colorful feelings, such as contentment, joy, pain, sadness, etc. For example, sunrise as a physical phenomenon is merely the rotation of the earth plus lots of photos traveling at light speed (hence ‘dead’), yet sunrise as experiences is full of delight, beauty, warmth and comfort (hence ‘alive’), I can make a music out of it if I’m more talented.

5): When morality is considered, all virtues rely on sensitivity to experiences. That’s because since only experiences reveals the states of my mind, only with sensitivity to experiences can my mind possibly know, master and improve itself, and thus free itself from instincts. For example, if I spend hours arguing either the imperium of man or the galactic empire is more powerful on the internet, I will feel sick, empty and depressed. If and only if I’m sensitive to such feeling can I realize that such behavior is not the best for me and willingly not to do that again.

Last edited by Rystiya; 16th February 2021 at 06:44 PM.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 06:46 PM   #74
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,962
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
They are present at the current moment, to accurate.
The "current moment"? When's that?
__________________
Semantic ambiguity is how vampires get you.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 06:55 PM   #75
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The "current moment"? When's that?
If you stop thinking, disbelieve everything and let all your thoughts go away, your experiences are still there. By that time you should be able to realize that the existence of your experiences need no evidense.

Last edited by Rystiya; 16th February 2021 at 06:57 PM. Reason: mistakes
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 07:03 PM   #76
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,557
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
If you stop thinking, disbelieve everything and let all your thoughts go away, your experiences are still there. By that time you should be able to realize that the existence of your experiences need no evidense.
Experiences, after they happen, are memories. Memories are thoughts. You let your thoughts go away, your experiences go with them.

Anyway your entry level solipsism is entirely post modern. You can't end the postmodern age by being squarely postmodern. You can only perpetuate it.

Pay attention to what you are being told: Your idea is not as interesting, nor as novel, as you think it is.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 07:13 PM   #77
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,962
"Entry level solipsism". That's a good way of putting it. Throw in a little Zen Buddhism and we're almost up to the latest philosophy of the 16th Century.
__________________
Semantic ambiguity is how vampires get you.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 07:32 PM   #78
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,557
Seriously I've played video games with a more coherent view grasp of perception and reality than the OP.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 08:12 PM   #79
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 14,021
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
What is real, my child? What is real?
Called it!
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 03:43 AM   #80
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
What are you talking about? Yes there are particles and they interact with each other with forces. (1) However they are nevertheless, patterns of experiences found by others. Do not misunderstand me, this universe our experiences seem to reflect is extremely complexed, and it's incredibably difficult and useful to find these patterns and figure out how to exploit them. But the fact that science is great does not imply that science can explain everything.

For example: 1): (2) You can find more particles in the future, but your experiences themselves, unlike those stuff they reflects, are not made of particles. (3) Science can never explain what experiences are. 2): You can find the smallest particle, but all you know about them is their mass, the force they can generate, etc, (4) which give you no clue on what is their essence or what they actually is. The fact that you realize stuff is made up of particles does not imply that you know what those stuff are. 3): Every human have an intuition that their lives have value and purpose beyond physical materials, and science cannot explain such intuition either.

I'm not 'trying to reject and minimise the astonishing success achieved by science over the last 100 to 200+ years'. Actually I'm quite intrested in astronomy and I'm also a spaceX fan. However that does not prevent me from realizing that science has limitations.

Re, "1" (my numbering, for clarity) - the so-called "particles" (really various disturbance patterns in different energy fields) are not as you just said "patterns of experiences found by others" … the subatomic "particles" exist, whether any of us know about them or not … it does not need any “experience found by others anyone” … all the same particles/fields existed in Newton's time even though nobody had yet discovered or explained any of them … they existed in the galaxies, planets and stars etc. before our Planet even formed … there is no science that claims subatomic particles do not exist until a human person claims to “experience” them …

… if you are claiming differently to that, then can you produce a research paper that you have published where you show that all of modern science is wrong?

Re.2 – as far as I recall, science thinks that there are no more more particles to discover. The last required piece of that jigsaw was the confirmation of the Higgs field.

Re.3 – how did you prove that “Science can never explain what experiences are”?? … you need to show a proof here for that … please show a proof of why it would be impossible to explain what you think of as “experiences”?

Re.4 – No! LoL. You are simply quite wrong here, and what you have written shows that you are unaware of what science has discovered about the nature of what you are calling atomic & subatomic “particles” … science does now “know” (as much as we can ever claim to completely “know” anything) what those “particles” are. All that you are now doing by saying that science does not know that, and cannot explain it (it's been explained in vast detail for over 50 years in all of the research literature), is just showing that you are completely unaware of current science and it's discoveries & explanations that have been open universally accepted knowledge for over 50 years now.

You need to have a better understanding of science.

If you really want to understand more about the world around us, then instead of trying to think up some mere trivial philosophical ideas about the universe off the top of your head, get into serious science.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.