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 17th February 2021, 05:11 AM   #81
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.
Your concurrent experiences are not memory, which is quite obvious. If experiences are memories, then what have you memorized when an event passed? You have memorized some memory? That don't seem to make sense.

I'm not interested in solipsism. The fact that 'experiences are the greatest level of reality' is just one of the evidences I have used to suggest that experiences are transcendent, an evidence which I almost taken for granted at the very begining.

As experiences are transcendent, the lives which generate and experience them must also be transcendent. That's my real starting point. For here, I try to build a new value which might end post-modern. I'm irritated by those who make criticism before they know what I'm talking about. If many people have done something like this before, please tell me their names and I'll be glad.

Last edited by Rystiya; 17th February 2021 at 05:32 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 17th February 2021, 05:21 AM   #82
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 29,601
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.
Some philosophers have argued that you may be putting Descartes before Deshorse there:

Quote:
In Descartes, The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams provides a history and full evaluation of this issue. The first to raise the "I" problem was Pierre Gassendi. He "points out that recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. Were we to move from the observation that there is thinking occurring to the attribution of this thinking to a particular agent, we would simply assume what we set out to prove, namely, that there exists a particular person endowed with the capacity for thought." In other words, "the only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present."[43]

The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks" wherein the "it" could be an impersonal subject as in the sentence "It is raining."[4]
__________________
"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 17th February 2021, 05:27 AM   #83
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
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.

Re.Re.1: Why do I need to prove science is wrong? You assume I'm trying to challenge science. That shows you have no idea on what I'm talking about. You claim that particle exists no matter we experienced them or not. That's a conclusion you can reasonably make based on experiences. I don't think conclusions like this are more real or more fondamental than those experiences which they orginated from, nor do I think such conclusions invalidate the idea that such conclusions are based on patterns of experiences (what you see, listen, feel, etc).

Re.Re.2: I'm talking about far future.

Re.Re.3: Science is all about concluding patterns of experiences. You can reasonably assume that such patterns reflects and result from objective facts (you can reasonably assume that you observed gravity because there is indeed some sort of gravity), but you can't be 100% sure. It's also wise to assume that you cannot figure out what is the essence of experiences by just concluding its patterns.

Re.Re.4: Science knows how particles behave. Scientists discovered the mass, lifespan of different particles, how they form bigger structure together, how do these particles affect other particles by forces, etc. However, that does not imply that science explains what particles are. Scientists don't know the particles' essense, how did they come into exist, why are they dominated by laws of physics, are they illusions created by dark-god/alien-super-computers, etc.

Last edited by Rystiya; 17th February 2021 at 05:52 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 17th February 2021, 05:46 AM   #84
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,579
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.
How do you know that? By your experience?

Don't wake the the Red King.

Quote:
He’s dreaming now,” said Tweedledee: “and what do you think he’s dreaming about?”
Alice said “Nobody can guess that.”
“Why, about you!” Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly. “And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you’d be?”
“Where I am now, of course,” said Alice.
“Not you!” Tweedledee retorted contemptuously. “You’d be nowhere. Why, you’re only a sort of thing in his dream!”
“If that there King was to wake,” added Tweedledum, “you’d go out— bang!—just like a candle!”
Caroll, Lewis: Through the Looking-Glass And What Alice Found There
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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, 05:56 AM   #85
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
How do you know that? By your experience?

Don't wake the the Red King.



Caroll, Lewis: Through the Looking-Glass And What Alice Found There
The idea that I need evidence to show that 'experiences are real' is laughable. Assume I have a piece of evidence which shows that experiences indeed exist. But without experiences, how can you see/hear/smell that piece of evidence? How can I let you know about that evidence if you cannot experience it? You are so cute.

There can be no evidence (for anything) without experiences, because without experiences nothing can be shown/experienced. You have to accept the existence of experiences, even though there is no evidences.

Last edited by Rystiya; 17th February 2021 at 07:04 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 17th February 2021, 06:02 AM   #86
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
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.

Just out of interest, and without reading any part of the other 4 itemised points that you produced -

1 - you cannot simply claim that "experiences are absolutely real", unless you have an actual proof for that. If you cannot show a genuine rigorous proof (ie not a mere assumption or belief or some hand-waving explanation about the use of words), then the best you can accurately and honestly say is that what you call "experiences" (by which I think you mean consciousness and thoughts) appear to actually exist ... they merely seem as if the do exist ...

... but that's exactly what you have been rejecting when you express doubts about the existence of what we call "external reality", eg the existence of a dog, plane, laptop computer, brick wall ... those also seem real you by virtue of exactly the same thing that you are calling "experiences" - if you claim the "experiences" are real on the mere basis that it seems that way to you, then you also have to conclude that the experienced objects such as the dog and wall are similarly just as real (because you are in both cases merely claiming that something which seems real to you, without any proof, must be real).

... but more than that - what is this thing that you are calling an "experience"? ... actually it is itself that same imagery/perception of the dog or the wall, that IS the experience! If you take away the wall or the dog, then there will be nothing left of the experience, will there? Lets put that a different way -

- suppose we have someone who has lived in a Brazilian rainforest (or wherever) with no contact ever of the outside world and no idea what a mobile phone is. They have never heard of any such such thing. They have never seen anything like that at all. OK, now ask them about all their "experiences", and see if their mental "experiences" include a mobile phone ... they will not ... whatever they describe as their mental "experiences", they will only ever include things they have actually seen or heard about or otherwise come into actual or potential contact with ...

... the point is that such a person (and that would really be any of us) is only able to "experience" things that they have already encountered as apparently existing (ie as an external "reality") ... in that example the remote jungle dweller does not "experience" any imagination/thoughts/experience of a mobile phone, because in the reality that they have around them, there has never been any mobile phone … but as soon as they are shown a mobile phone, that immediately manifests as a thought-experience in their mind (because their sensory system detects everything about it!), so now suddenly the phone has the same status of “reality” as everything else around them in their “experiences” … the phone was already “real” before the jungle person ever knew it, ie it was already “real” at least as far as the experience of everyone else in the world, but for the jungle person it is only when they are shown that phone for the first time, that it suddenly manifests as a reality in their experience. That's easy to explain if the phone is literally real … but it seems to me not easy to explain if the phone is in fact always unreal.
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 17th February 2021, 06:37 AM   #87
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Just out of interest, and without reading any part of the other 4 itemised points that you produced -

1 - you cannot simply claim that "experiences are absolutely real", unless you have an actual proof for that. If you cannot show a genuine rigorous proof (ie not a mere assumption or belief or some hand-waving explanation about the use of words), then the best you can accurately and honestly say is that what you call "experiences" (by which I think you mean consciousness and thoughts) appear to actually exist ... they merely seem as if the do exist ...

... but that's exactly what you have been rejecting when you express doubts about the existence of what we call "external reality", eg the existence of a dog, plane, laptop computer, brick wall ... those also seem real you by virtue of exactly the same thing that you are calling "experiences" - if you claim the "experiences" are real on the mere basis that it seems that way to you, then you also have to conclude that the experienced objects such as the dog and wall are similarly just as real (because you are in both cases merely claiming that something which seems real to you, without any proof, must be real).

... but more than that - what is this thing that you are calling an "experience"? ... actually it is itself that same imagery/perception of the dog or the wall, that IS the experience! If you take away the wall or the dog, then there will be nothing left of the experience, will there? Lets put that a different way -

- suppose we have someone who has lived in a Brazilian rainforest (or wherever) with no contact ever of the outside world and no idea what a mobile phone is. They have never heard of any such such thing. They have never seen anything like that at all. OK, now ask them about all their "experiences", and see if their mental "experiences" include a mobile phone ... they will not ... whatever they describe as their mental "experiences", they will only ever include things they have actually seen or heard about or otherwise come into actual or potential contact with ...

... the point is that such a person (and that would really be any of us) is only able to "experience" things that they have already encountered as apparently existing (ie as an external "reality") ... in that example the remote jungle dweller does not "experience" any imagination/thoughts/experience of a mobile phone, because in the reality that they have around them, there has never been any mobile phone … but as soon as they are shown a mobile phone, that immediately manifests as a thought-experience in their mind (because their sensory system detects everything about it!), so now suddenly the phone has the same status of “reality” as everything else around them in their “experiences” … the phone was already “real” before the jungle person ever knew it, ie it was already “real” at least as far as the experience of everyone else in the world, but for the jungle person it is only when they are shown that phone for the first time, that it suddenly manifests as a reality in their experience. That's easy to explain if the phone is literally real … but it seems to me not easy to explain if the phone is in fact always unreal.
1): The idea that I need evidence to show that 'experiences are real' is laughable. Assume I have a piece of evidence which shows that experiences indeed exist. But without experiences, how can you see/hear/smell that piece of evidence? How can I let you know about that evidence if you cannot experience it? You are so cute. There can be no evidence (for anything) without experiences, because without experiences nothing (not even your own existence) can be shown/observed/experienced. You have to accept the existence of experiences, even though there is no evidences.

2): In the second half of your post, all you have said is 'there are facts not shown in experiences'. I can't be 100% sure about that, because perhaps the entire universe is not real, in which case there is no fact besides experiences themselves. That idea does not imply that experiences aren't our only source of information (notice, your point is made based on your own experiences), either. Your experiences only contain a limited amount of information (although that's still a lot of it), but that's all you have. You can reasonably assume that there are facts not shown in your experiences, but your ability to make such assumption comes from your previous experiences.

Last edited by Rystiya; 17th February 2021 at 07:04 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 17th February 2021, 07:14 AM   #88
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
The idea that I need evidence to show that 'experiences are real' is laughable. Assume I have a piece of evidence which shows that experiences indeed exist. But without experiences, how can you see/hear/smell that piece of evidence? How can I let you know about that evidence if you cannot experience it? You are so cute.

There can be no evidence (for anything) without experiences, because without experiences nothing can be shown/experienced. You have to accept the existence of experiences, no matter you like it or not.

No, it's not "laughable". It is in fact exactly what you are doing to dismiss external reality as no more than an illusion.

When you describe thoughts as "experiences", what are those "experiences" actually depicting to you in your mind? They are always of the objects, events and things that the rest of us regard as external reality (a dog, a plane, a TV set ...), or else they are thoughts created about such things, i.e. imaginary ideas that are still based upon things you have experienced as what the rest of us say is external reality..

What you are doing is to cast doubt on the existence of that external reality, and saying that we need prove that it actually exists. OK, well on exactly that same basis, we want you to prove that you do have what you call those "experiences".

Lets put it like this to you - you want to claim that the cat, plane, computer that we seem to "experience" may be just an illusion of something else ... well, the same applies to your claim about "experience", i.e. consciousness; perhaps that is also an illusion of something else ... in fact, I'd go as far as to say it's very likely indeed that what we call "consciousness" or "experiences" in the mind, are almost certainly an illusion in the sense that they are sensations that are being created by quite different underlying chemical/physical processes in the brain ...

... if you think back in time to much earlier less highly evolved life on Earth, say the first land animals (e.g. maybe 700 million years ago ... pre any dinosaurs), they had a brain and a sensory system, but it was not then sufficiently evolved to provide a clear awareness of the reality of the world around them... i.e. sight, smell, hearing etc. would have all been far more restricted and the small size of the brain would not have allowed the animal to "experience" a very detailed or accurate picture of it's surroundings ...

... but now, a billion years later (or however long you want to take) some animals, e.g. the great apes inc. ourselves, have evolved so much further that we do now have a brain and a sensory system that allows us to perceive a very highly detailed and accurate awareness of our surroundings.

That's still our mind/brain producing a re-creation of what our sensory system is detecting, but it's now a much more accurate and detailed awareness than the earliest land animals had. However, that mental picture is still a re-creation of the external world, in that sense it's a created “illusion” of the real external reality, but as far as every test now shows (i.e. all of scientific study) the re-created illusion is now a pretty accurate one.
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 17th February 2021, 07:41 AM   #89
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
No, it's not "laughable". It is in fact exactly what you are doing to dismiss external reality as no more than an illusion.

When you describe thoughts as "experiences", what are those "experiences" actually depicting to you in your mind? They are always of the objects, events and things that the rest of us regard as external reality (a dog, a plane, a TV set ...), or else they are thoughts created about such things, i.e. imaginary ideas that are still based upon things you have experienced as what the rest of us say is external reality..

What you are doing is to cast doubt on the existence of that external reality, and saying that we need prove that it actually exists. OK, well on exactly that same basis, we want you to prove that you do have what you call those "experiences".

Lets put it like this to you - you want to claim that the cat, plane, computer that we seem to "experience" may be just an illusion of something else ... well, the same applies to your claim about "experience", i.e. consciousness; perhaps that is also an illusion of something else ... in fact, I'd go as far as to say it's very likely indeed that what we call "consciousness" or "experiences" in the mind, are almost certainly an illusion in the sense that they are sensations that are being created by quite different underlying chemical/physical processes in the brain ...

... if you think back in time to much earlier less highly evolved life on Earth, say the first land animals (e.g. maybe 700 million years ago ... pre any dinosaurs), they had a brain and a sensory system, but it was not then sufficiently evolved to provide a clear awareness of the reality of the world around them... i.e. sight, smell, hearing etc. would have all been far more restricted and the small size of the brain would not have allowed the animal to "experience" a very detailed or accurate picture of it's surroundings ...

... but now, a billion years later (or however long you want to take) some animals, e.g. the great apes inc. ourselves, have evolved so much further that we do now have a brain and a sensory system that allows us to perceive a very highly detailed and accurate awareness of our surroundings.

That's still our mind/brain producing a re-creation of what our sensory system is detecting, but it's now a much more accurate and detailed awareness than the earliest land animals had. However, that mental picture is still a re-creation of the external world, in that sense it's a created “illusion” of the real external reality, but as far as every test now shows (i.e. all of scientific study) the re-created illusion is now a pretty accurate one.
No, For countless times I have told you that I'm not trying to 'dismiss external reality as no more than an illusion'. My point is, 'external reality' is a sensible conclusion you constructed based on your experiences, which might be either right or wrong. Only experiences are absolutely real.

You ask 'what are those "experiences" actually depicting to you in your mind? '? Experiences are all your feelings conbined, which seem to exhibit a universe, your mind and your body. Just think about nothing and disbelieve everything. Then what you have is what I call 'experiences'. You can't touch, smell or see your experiences, nor can you record them with machines. They are just present.

As I have said, it's laughable to ask proof to prove the existence of experiences, because you cannot prove anything without first accept your experiences as real. For example, if I assume my experiences of watching a cat is not real, then no one can prove the existance of cats to me.

Again, 'mental picture is still a re-creation of the external world' is a conclusion you made based on your experiences, a sensible conclusion might either be right or wrong. I have explained this to you for ten thousand times. It looks like I need to explain this to you ten million times more.

Last edited by Rystiya; 17th February 2021 at 07:52 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 17th February 2021, 09:13 AM   #90
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Re.Re.1: Why do I need to prove science is wrong? You assume I'm trying to challenge science. That shows you have no idea on what I'm talking about. You claim that particle exists no matter we experienced them or not. That's a conclusion you can reasonably make based on experiences. I don't think conclusions like this are more real or more fondamental than those experiences which they orginated from, nor do I think such conclusions invalidate the idea that such conclusions are based on patterns of experiences (what you see, listen, feel, etc).

Re.Re.2: I'm talking about far future.

Re.Re.3: Science is all about concluding patterns of experiences. You can reasonably assume that such patterns reflects and result from objective facts (you can reasonably assume that you observed gravity because there is indeed some sort of gravity), but you can't be 100% sure. It's also wise to assume that you cannot figure out what is the essence of experiences by just concluding its patterns.

Re.Re.4: Science knows how particles behave. Scientists discovered the mass, lifespan of different particles, how they form bigger structure together, how do these particles affect other particles by forces, etc. However, that does not imply that science explains what particles are. Scientists don't know the particles' essense, how did they come into exist, why are they dominated by laws of physics, are they illusions created by dark-god/alien-super-computers, etc.

I'm not going to say much about the above, because we are going over the same things constantly, time after time. The problem is that like a huge number of people, you really do not have a good understanding of science. I'll just take your last paragraph on that issue -

- No! ... No, science does not "know" how particles behave. No theoretical physicists would claim to actually "know" how the "particles" (i.e. field disturbances) behave, at least not if they are sober and being serious. However, what they can say is that we think we have a very good idea of calculating how the fields (particles) probably behave in any specific situation. It's a matter of "probability", rather than something we can, or should, claim to "know" as if it is a certain 100% proven fact.

As far explaining what the "particles" are - as far as current science can tell, they are actually particular patterns of wave-like disturbances that occur in various energy fields that compose all of what we experience as "Space" (i.e. "space-time) ... and that's really what we mean by a universe (ie all of "reality"). We are taking about such things as the electromagnetic field, a gravity field, and the Higgs field.

So current quantum theory (that's quantum field theory, QFT) does give a very accurate and, as far as we can tell, almost certainly correct description of what we used to call “particles”, including the way all of that emerges from a process that we now recognise as the “Big Bang” (with a period of initial “Inflation”, as described by Alan Guth). We do have extremely good models of that, which have so far turned out to give results that have been experientially verified to as close as one part in 10 to the power 10 … which is the limit of what we can experimentally detect under even the most stringent conditions. IOW – that has passed every known test (billions of times) as being fantastically accurate as an understanding of what the “particles” are.

In contrast to that, what you seem to be doing is what all creationist religious fanatics do. And that is to treat the fact that when science says that we can never be 100% literally certain of any such explanations, no matter how well tested and how accurate the results are, the creationist then tries to claim that means that the answers from science are therefore no better than answers from religion, because neither side is claiming complete proofs of certainty … so they want to say that means it's all 50-50, i.e. equally likely … the scientific explanations are claimed to be no more likely that the religious or philosophical ones … so for example, evolution is thereby waved away as no more likely than miraculous Godly creation. That's what you seem to be doing constantly throughout this thread …

… on the one hand you already have a very, VERY well researched, precise, and highly tested, and extremely successful set of literally millions of such explanations from science … but because they cannot be 100% proven facts, you are trying claim that some hand-waving philosophy about “non-reality” is just as likely.

Well, as I said several posts back – if you think the observed reality does not, or may not, exist, then why don't you test that by throwing yourself off a tower block? Why do you live every moment of your life as if you are really very sure indeed that the science is of course right (you rely on it every second of your every 24-hour day) and the observed reality is indeed completely real.
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 17th February 2021, 12:16 PM   #91
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,534
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Your concurrent experiences are not memory, which is quite obvious. If experiences are memories, then what have you memorized when an event passed? You have memorized some memory? That don't seem to make sense.

I'm not interested in solipsism. The fact that 'experiences are the greatest level of reality' is just one of the evidences I have used to suggest that experiences are transcendent, an evidence which I almost taken for granted at the very begining.

As experiences are transcendent, the lives which generate and experience them must also be transcendent. That's my real starting point. For here, I try to build a new value which might end post-modern. I'm irritated by those who make criticism before they know what I'm talking about. If many people have done something like this before, please tell me their names and I'll be glad.
Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for the correction.
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 17th February 2021, 12:20 PM   #92
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,579
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
The idea that I need evidence to show that 'experiences are real' is laughable. Assume I have a piece of evidence which shows that experiences indeed exist. But without experiences, how can you see/hear/smell that piece of evidence? How can I let you know about that evidence if you cannot experience it? You are so cute.

There can be no evidence (for anything) without experiences, because without experiences nothing can be shown/experienced. You have to accept the existence of experiences, even though there is no evidences.
First you have to demonstrate that your "experiences" are not just delusions.

Good luck.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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, 01:34 PM   #93
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Your concurrent experiences are not memory, which is quite obvious. If experiences are memories, then what have you memorized when an event passed? You have memorized some memory? That don't seem to make sense.

I'm not sure even that above claim is true. When you experience something that has been detected by your sensory system, there must surely be a delay between what what first impacts upon the sensory cells, and what is then passed to the brain, and then subsequently processed by the brain ... so that by the time you are aware of the "experience", the event has already happened some fractional moments before ...

... so in that sense the "experience" may indeed be something like a memory.

You'd also have to be sure what "memory" actually is.

Also, when we dream, afaik that does also seem to be a mixture of all sorts of things that have already happened and which we've been aware of in earlier waking times. So I suppose that dreams are also using what we call "memory".
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 17th February 2021, 01:52 PM   #94
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,936
Rystiya, when is "now"?
__________________
Semantic ambiguity is how vampires get you.
arthwollipot 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 17th February 2021, 05:37 PM   #95
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,615
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
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.

You propose: physical matter can only interact with other physical matter.

You've previously described transcendent experiences involving the rising sun.

If the sun is physical matter, then it's contributing to said transcendent experiences. Further, by your own argument, being partly responsible for a transcendent experience must make the sun transcendent as well.

If the sun is not physical matter, then it's either something else that interacts in accordance with consistent predictable patterns (simulator, mind of god, etc.), or it is not. If it is, then a similar result occurs: the cause(s) of those consistent patterns contribute to transcendent experiences and must therefore themselves be transcendent.

If physical matter can only interact with other physical matter, and exists, and interacts with our experiences as we experience it doing, then our experiences must also be physical matter. (And if thoughts in the mind of God can only interact with other titmoG, then our experiences must also be titmoG. And so forth, through all the panoply of philosophical monisms.)

If the sun is neither physical matter nor some other cause creating what we experience as a consistent behavior pattern—which is the only case in which we can call it "not real" in any meaningful way—then we're left with either solipsism, shared-dream telepathy, or an ineffable mystery why so many people in a given place experience sunrise around the same time.
__________________
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 17th February 2021, 10:11 PM   #96
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
I'm not going to say much about the above, because we are going over the same things constantly, time after time. The problem is that like a huge number of people, you really do not have a good understanding of science. I'll just take your last paragraph on that issue -

- No! ... No, science does not "know" how particles behave. No theoretical physicists would claim to actually "know" how the "particles" (i.e. field disturbances) behave, at least not if they are sober and being serious. However, what they can say is that we think we have a very good idea of calculating how the fields (particles) probably behave in any specific situation. It's a matter of "probability", rather than something we can, or should, claim to "know" as if it is a certain 100% proven fact.

As far explaining what the "particles" are - as far as current science can tell, they are actually particular patterns of wave-like disturbances that occur in various energy fields that compose all of what we experience as "Space" (i.e. "space-time) ... and that's really what we mean by a universe (ie all of "reality"). We are taking about such things as the electromagnetic field, a gravity field, and the Higgs field.

So current quantum theory (that's quantum field theory, QFT) does give a very accurate and, as far as we can tell, almost certainly correct description of what we used to call “particles”, including the way all of that emerges from a process that we now recognise as the “Big Bang” (with a period of initial “Inflation”, as described by Alan Guth). We do have extremely good models of that, which have so far turned out to give results that have been experientially verified to as close as one part in 10 to the power 10 … which is the limit of what we can experimentally detect under even the most stringent conditions. IOW – that has passed every known test (billions of times) as being fantastically accurate as an understanding of what the “particles” are.

In contrast to that, what you seem to be doing is what all creationist religious fanatics do. And that is to treat the fact that when science says that we can never be 100% literally certain of any such explanations, no matter how well tested and how accurate the results are, the creationist then tries to claim that means that the answers from science are therefore no better than answers from religion, because neither side is claiming complete proofs of certainty … so they want to say that means it's all 50-50, i.e. equally likely … the scientific explanations are claimed to be no more likely that the religious or philosophical ones … so for example, evolution is thereby waved away as no more likely than miraculous Godly creation. That's what you seem to be doing constantly throughout this thread …

… on the one hand you already have a very, VERY well researched, precise, and highly tested, and extremely successful set of literally millions of such explanations from science … but because they cannot be 100% proven facts, you are trying claim that some hand-waving philosophy about “non-reality” is just as likely.

Well, as I said several posts back – if you think the observed reality does not, or may not, exist, then why don't you test that by throwing yourself off a tower block? Why do you live every moment of your life as if you are really very sure indeed that the science is of course right (you rely on it every second of your every 24-hour day) and the observed reality is indeed completely real.
1): In the first half of your post you argue that I have some inacurate understanding of quantum physicals. I don't even need to argue on that, because your point cannot cripple the conclusion I made above.

2): How many times have I told you that I'm not challenging science. Science can never answer some of the most basic question (Maybe material is made of particles, but what are the essence of smallest particles? Why particles follow physical laws? Why there is space and time? Is the universe real? etc etc etc). I told you that there is limitation to science, but you don't listen. My post above have already answered your question, and I have run out of patience.

3): Again, I'm not trying to suggest that I'm sure that 'the universe is unreal'. Instead, I'm trying to suggest that experiences are absolutly real while the universe isn't, the universe might be real, unreal, or something whose essence we donnot expect or cannot possibly understand.
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 17th February 2021, 10:13 PM   #97
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
First you have to demonstrate that your "experiences" are not just delusions.

Good luck.
As I have said above multiple times, nothing can be demonstrated without experiences, because 'demonstrate something' is equivalent to 'let you experience something'. Looks like you have no idea on how heavily you rely on your experiences. If you really want demonstration of experiences, then I can tell you your entire life is a demonstration of your experiences.

Last edited by Rystiya; 17th February 2021 at 10:45 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 17th February 2021, 10:22 PM   #98
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
You propose: physical matter can only interact with other physical matter.

You've previously described transcendent experiences involving the rising sun.

If the sun is physical matter, then it's contributing to said transcendent experiences. Further, by your own argument, being partly responsible for a transcendent experience must make the sun transcendent as well.

If the sun is not physical matter, then it's either something else that interacts in accordance with consistent predictable patterns (simulator, mind of god, etc.), or it is not. If it is, then a similar result occurs: the cause(s) of those consistent patterns contribute to transcendent experiences and must therefore themselves be transcendent.

If physical matter can only interact with other physical matter, and exists, and interacts with our experiences as we experience it doing, then our experiences must also be physical matter. (And if thoughts in the mind of God can only interact with other titmoG, then our experiences must also be titmoG. And so forth, through all the panoply of philosophical monisms.)

If the sun is neither physical matter nor some other cause creating what we experience as a consistent behavior pattern—which is the only case in which we can call it "not real" in any meaningful way—then we're left with either solipsism, shared-dream telepathy, or an ineffable mystery why so many people in a given place experience sunrise around the same time.

If you understand my previous post, you should be able to realize that 'If the sun is physical matter, then it's contributing to said transcendent experiences.' is an conclusion you made based on experiences, which might be right or wrong.

To take the idea that 'experiences are the product of physical material' (an idea which I call 'materialism') as granted is also totally ridiculous. That's exactly what I have been fighting against.

And yes, it's reasonable to assume that you can't see sunrise without an external entity which seem to be sun, assuming that the universe is not an illusion or dream. However, the physical sun iteself, if exist, probably cannot generate experiences by itself.

Where exactly do experiences come from? Perhaps experiences of sunrise are generated by your physical body watching the sunrise (that brings the question that how can physical matter possibly generate none-physical experiences, perhaps matter is both physical and spiritual?), perhaps experiences are generated by your spirit which interacts with your physical body and the rest of universe (that brings the question about what is spirit, what is its relationship between mind/body, and how can we know it's real), perhaps experiences are generated by other mechenisms we cannot possibly discover, imagin and/or understand.

I admit that transcendent expriences are of unknown origin, and I call the supposed entity which generates and experience experiences 'life'. Since experiences are transcendent, life must also be transcendent ('transcendent' mean far more superior, valuable and vital than others). And that's the starting point of my philosophy. From there I will gradually make sense of Nietzschean values with reasoning and self-discovery.

Last edited by Rystiya; 17th February 2021 at 10:55 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 18th February 2021, 03:02 AM   #99
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
No, For countless times I have told you that I'm not trying to 'dismiss external reality as no more than an illusion'. My point is, 'external reality' is a sensible conclusion you constructed based on your experiences, which might be either right or wrong. Only experiences are absolutely real.

Earlier in the thread I think you DID say that you do not believe that things you "experience" in you mind, actually exist externally as "absolutely real" ... and I just quote your words there because you particularly wanted to say that the reality which you doubt has to be what you called "absolute". But the world outside of your mere thoughts (which compose your "experience"), ie the entire universe with all that it contains, has to be either real in the sense of actually existing or else not at all real ... it cannot slightly exist (it cannot be slightly real) ... it may indeed be the case that our human senses cannot detect all aspects of real objects, and it may also be true that we sense things in an incomplete way, but we all know that, science knows that (and has long ago explained it for everyone), but that's not what we are arguing about here - we are not arguing about whether our sensory perception and brain function provide us with a 100% perfect representation of exactly how everything is composed in the universe around us ...

... we are arguing about whether it exists at all, or not ... I think that earlier you were saying that you doubted that "absolute" existence.

If you decide that you should doubt the existence of a universe external to mere thoughts in some sort of mind, then that's a decision for you, but in that case you do need to show evidence of why that external reality does not actually exist.


Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
You ask 'what are those "experiences" actually depicting to you in your mind? '? Experiences are all your feelings conbined, which seem to exhibit a universe, your mind and your body. Just think about nothing and disbelieve everything. Then what you have is what I call 'experiences'. You can't touch, smell or see your experiences, nor can you record them with machines. They are just present.

I am not sure what you think the above description adds to the discussion. But the "thoughts' that you are calling "experiences", can afaik be detected and described by various experiments in research areas such as psychology, neuroscience and medicine. We can afaik, certainly detect brain activity, and afaik we can associate certain types of activity with certain thoughts. Although even if that cannot be accurately done now, I see no reason based on current advances why it would not be possible in the quite near future.


Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
As I have said, it's laughable to ask proof to prove the existence of experiences, because you cannot prove anything without first accept your experiences as real. For example, if I assume my experiences of watching a cat is not real, then no one can prove the existance of cats to me.

Well you are using the word proof again. I did not ask you for a proof. On the contrary I specifically said that we cannot actually give proofs (ie absolute certainty) for any real event in this universe. I was asking you for proof evidence to show that what you call "experinces" actually exist in the way that you are claiming for them - ie you are claiming that the experiences thoughts are absolutely real, and I was saying to you that while we all except that something does exist which we call our thoughts, what we experience as those thoughts may not be a very accurate representation of what is actually occuring in our mind/brain ... what's occuring in the brain is, apparently, just a sequence of various chemical and physcial processes which create the "illusion" of what we regard as "thinking" along with visual mental imagery etc.


Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Again, 'mental picture is still a re-creation of the external world' is a conclusion you made based on your experiences, a sensible conclusion might either be right or wrong. I have explained this to you for ten thousand times. It looks like I need to explain this to you ten million times more.

Of course it might be wrong. Anything at all might be right or wrong. But if you claim that it might be wrong, then what evidence to you produce to show how it can be wrong.

If you are seriously proposing that it is reasonable to believe that external reality does not exist, then you need to show good evidence to support that belief/claim.

What do you have as evidence to show that we should doubt that the external world exists?
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 18th February 2021, 03:25 AM   #100
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
1): In the first half of your post you argue that I have some inacurate understanding of quantum physicals. I don't even need to argue on that, because your point cannot cripple the conclusion I made above.

2): How many times have I told you that I'm not challenging science. Science can never answer some of the most basic question (Maybe material is made of particles, but what are the essence of smallest particles? Why particles follow physical laws? Why there is space and time? Is the universe real? etc etc etc). I told you that there is limitation to science, but you don't listen. My post above have already answered your question, and I have run out of patience.

3): Again, I'm not trying to suggest that I'm sure that 'the universe is unreal'. Instead, I'm trying to suggest that experiences are absolutly real while the universe isn't, the universe might be real, unreal, or something whose essence we donnot expect or cannot possibly understand.

When you just said "Science can never answer some of the most basic question" , that is a statement from you claiming an absolute certain fact. You are claiming that it is impossible for science to answer certain questions (such as what "particles" are) ... if you make a claim of complete certainty like that, then you DO need to produce an actual proof ... with that claim you need to show a literal proof of why it's it is impossible ever to have a scientific expatiation for those things -

- so, please produce a proof showing that it is 100% impossible for science ever to answer such questions.

As a matter of fact, I told you earlier (at least twice), that we do "know" (as much as "knowing" is ever possible for anything), what these "particles" are ... I already explained the answer to you in some detail - did you not see that explanation??

What you now seem to be doing is trying to engage in a game of so-called "infinite regress", where every time science does answer each question, you then ask what caused that particular answer ... eg science explains that the answer is X, and you then ask where X came from ... and science shows that it came from Y, and then you ask where did Y come from ... as if you think you can win a childish word-game by just constantly asking why, why, why for ever more.

Well actually, science has now proposed a way out of that sort of regress. And that's what has been called a Universe From Nothing ... and I already explained that in another current thread ... that's quite a complicated explanation of course, because we are explaining what happened 13.8 billion years ago to produce the Big Bang from a state of no existing space, no existing time, no existing "matter", and in fact not even any so-called "vacuum state" ... that has been explained in properly published research papers by theoreticians such as Alex Vilenkin since at least the 1980's (and in the other thread I gave links to Vilenkin and Alan Guth talking about that in considerable detail, as well as a link the small very clear book that Vilenkin wrote describing in layman's terms the actual paper that Vilenkin and Guth wrote about that … please go to that other thread and see what I described there about universe formation and the Big Bang).
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 18th February 2021, 05:13 AM   #101
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
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.
Why do the pictures disappear when I close my eye?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 18th February 2021, 05:16 AM   #102
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
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.
How would you know?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 18th February 2021, 05:26 AM   #103
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
When you just said "Science can never answer some of the most basic question" , that is a statement from you claiming an absolute certain fact. You are claiming that it is impossible for science to answer certain questions (such as what "particles" are) ... if you make a claim of complete certainty like that, then you DO need to produce an actual proof ... with that claim you need to show a literal proof of why it's it is impossible ever to have a scientific expatiation for those things -

- so, please produce a proof showing that it is 100% impossible for science ever to answer such questions.

As a matter of fact, I told you earlier (at least twice), that we do "know" (as much as "knowing" is ever possible for anything), what these "particles" are ... I already explained the answer to you in some detail - did you not see that explanation??

What you now seem to be doing is trying to engage in a game of so-called "infinite regress", where every time science does answer each question, you then ask what caused that particular answer ... eg science explains that the answer is X, and you then ask where X came from ... and science shows that it came from Y, and then you ask where did Y come from ... as if you think you can win a childish word-game by just constantly asking why, why, why for ever more.

Well actually, science has now proposed a way out of that sort of regress. And that's what has been called a Universe From Nothing ... and I already explained that in another current thread ... that's quite a complicated explanation of course, because we are explaining what happened 13.8 billion years ago to produce the Big Bang from a state of no existing space, no existing time, no existing "matter", and in fact not even any so-called "vacuum state" ... that has been explained in properly published research papers by theoreticians such as Alex Vilenkin since at least the 1980's (and in the other thread I gave links to Vilenkin and Alan Guth talking about that in considerable detail, as well as a link the small very clear book that Vilenkin wrote describing in layman's terms the actual paper that Vilenkin and Guth wrote about that … please go to that other thread and see what I described there about universe formation and the Big Bang).
1): Although I'm not 100% sure that "Science can never answer some of the most basic question", however considering the fact that science is all about making conclusions on patterns of experiences, I believe it's wise to assume that 'patterns of experiences' simply do not contain the information we need to answer some of the most basic questions, such as whether the universe is real.
2): I have already explained to you that knowing how matter work is not knowing what matter are. Even if you know exactly how the smallest particle work, you still have no idea on what is that particle. You claim modern scientists know what matter are, but what they actually know is how matter work.
3): It is true that if you continue asking why, you will eventually be asking questions which no one can answer. However unlike you, I don't think it is childish to do so. I believe it's a actually good example which shows that our knowledge is not built firmly upon a solid foundation made of absolute certainty.

Last edited by Rystiya; 18th February 2021 at 05:42 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 18th February 2021, 05:27 AM   #104
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why do the pictures disappear when I close my eye?
Already explained in previous posts.
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 18th February 2021, 05:30 AM   #105
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
How would you know?
> Do you believe the world is real? Yes you do, because your experiences (seem to) tell you so.
> Do you believe science is reliable? Yes you do, because your experiences (seem to) tell you so.
> Do you believe you are breathing? Yes you do, because your experiences (seem to) tell you so.
> Do you believe you have experiences? No you don't, because you think there aren't any evidence.

Thank you for making me laugh. I couldn't even imagine there are some people in the world who doubt the existence of their own experiences.

The fact that experiences are absolutely real is best exhibited if you think about nothing and disbelieve everything. At that time you will realize that there is still experiences, the only thing which is present by itself (with or without your beliefs), which cannot be disbelieved (no matter how hard you try).

Last edited by Rystiya; 18th February 2021 at 05:46 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 18th February 2021, 05:46 AM   #106
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
I'm running out of patience because you just keep asking the same questions again and again before even knowing what am I talking about.
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 18th February 2021, 06:00 AM   #107
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Already explained in previous posts.
Look at the post you were responding to, your experience didn’t happen…..
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 18th February 2021, 06:01 AM   #108
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
>
…snip…
I’ve snipped the bits that didn’t answer the question I asked.

Can you answer the question I asked?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 18th February 2021, 06:04 AM   #109
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
It’s impossible and unnecessary to show evidence on their existence, because there is no evidence to show if those experiences which show them are not real at the first place. In other words, experiences themselves are the source of certainty. Hopefully you are smart enough to realize what I mean and give a meaningful refute, not just repeating previous questions like machines.

Last edited by Rystiya; 18th February 2021 at 06:41 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 18th February 2021, 06:04 AM   #110
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I’ve snipped the bits that didn’t answer the question I asked.

Can you answer the question I asked?
I already told you that "The fact that experiences are absolutely real is best exhibited if you think about nothing and disbelieve everything. At that time you will realize that there is still experiences, the only thing which is present by itself (with or without your beliefs), which cannot be disbelieved (no matter how hard you try)." Can't you just read?
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 18th February 2021, 06:07 AM   #111
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
I already told you that "The fact that experiences are absolutely real is best exhibited if you think about nothing and disbelieve everything. At that time you will realize that there is still experiences, the only thing which is present by itself (with or without your beliefs), which cannot be disbelieved (no matter how hard you try)." Can't you just read?
I can read but again your words don’t answer the question I asked you. Please go back to the post I asked you about and answer the question about that particular post.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 18th February 2021, 06:14 AM   #112
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
1): Although I'm not 100% sure that "Science can never answer some of the most basic question", however considering the fact that science is all about making conclusions on patterns of experiences, I believe it's wise to assume that 'patterns of experiences' simply do not contain the information we need to answer some of the most basic questions, such as whether the universe is real.

2): I have already explained to you that knowing how matter work is not knowing what matter are. Even if you know exactly how the smallest particle work, you still have no idea on what is that particle. You claim modern scientists know what matter are, but what they actually know is how matter work.
3): It is true that if you continue asking why, you will eventually be asking questions which no one can answer. However unlike you, I don't think it is childish to do so. I believe it's a actually good example which shows that our knowledge is not built firmly upon a solid foundation made of absolute certainty.

Well now you have moved a lot closer to all that I have been saying to you.

If you now think it is merely "unwise" to believe that science could potentially answer everything, then that is an opinion which you might reasonably hold. Though again it depends on what you mean by "answer" ... an "answer" may just consist of any sort of quite rough or approximate explanation ... a mere "answer" would not need to be highly convincing in every aspect to everyone.

But I don't see why in principle it would be impossible for science to produce plausible explanations for anything/everything that we might ever encounter.

As far as whether or not the universe is real - the answer from science is that as far as we can tell it is real, and it's also very similar to the way we perceive it through our sensory system and our brain. And so far (afaik) science has not found any credible reason to doubt that.

The only people who are doubting that reality, appear to be some philosophers (mostly afaik philosophers of a past age). And their reason for saying they doubt that reality, appears to be merely the childishly trivial reason of saying that since science cannot actually claim to prove reality of the universe, they will therefore say it might all be an illusion such that it does not exist at all. But if they say that, then their words are worthless unless and until they can show some good evidential reason for how and why the universe may be an illusion of non-reality.


As far knowing what a "particle" is - quantum physics now regards "particles" not as discrete pieces of some sort of matter, but as patterns of wave-like disturbance in various energy fields. But now you are likely to get into what I just warned of as a game of claiming "infinite regress, or why, why, why ... indefinitely", because you are going to ask me where the fields came from, right? ...

... well the answer is that these particular fields which compose all of the space-time that comprises our universe, came from the Big Bang. So now you are going to ask me where did the Big Bang come from and how did it happen etc. ... but as I just explained to you, in fact there is a way out of that regress, and it is in fact explained in various highly credible published papers in theoretical physics research since the 1980's ... and you can find that explanation from me, in some detail, in that other thread, where I also give links to Alex Vilenkin, and Alan Guth describing precisely how that works.
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 18th February 2021, 06:23 AM   #113
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I can read but again your words don’t answer the question I asked you. Please go back to the post I asked you about and answer the question about that particular post.
You asked why experiences are absolutely real and I answered. What else do you want?

Last edited by Rystiya; 18th February 2021 at 06:32 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 18th February 2021, 06:29 AM   #114
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well now you have moved a lot closer to all that I have been saying to you.

If you now think it is merely "unwise" to believe that science could potentially answer everything, then that is an opinion which you might reasonably hold. Though again it depends on what you mean by "answer" ... an "answer" may just consist of any sort of quite rough or approximate explanation ... a mere "answer" would not need to be highly convincing in every aspect to everyone.

But I don't see why in principle it would be impossible for science to produce plausible explanations for anything/everything that we might ever encounter.

As far as whether or not the universe is real - the answer from science is that as far as we can tell it is real, and it's also very similar to the way we perceive it through our sensory system and our brain. And so far (afaik) science has not found any credible reason to doubt that.

The only people who are doubting that reality, appear to be some philosophers (mostly afaik philosophers of a past age). And their reason for saying they doubt that reality, appears to be merely the childishly trivial reason of saying that since science cannot actually claim to prove reality of the universe, they will therefore say it might all be an illusion such that it does not exist at all. But if they say that, then their words are worthless unless and until they can show some good evidential reason for how and why the universe may be an illusion of non-reality.


As far knowing what a "particle" is - quantum physics now regards "particles" not as discrete pieces of some sort of matter, but as patterns of wave-like disturbance in various energy fields. But now you are likely to get into what I just warned of as a game of claiming "infinite regress, or why, why, why ... indefinitely", because you are going to ask me where the fields came from, right? ...

... well the answer is that these particular fields which compose all of the space-time that comprises our universe, came from the Big Bang. So now you are going to ask me where did the Big Bang come from and how did it happen etc. ... but as I just explained to you, in fact there is a way out of that regress, and it is in fact explained in various highly credible published papers in theoretical physics research since the 1980's ... and you can find that explanation from me, in some detail, in that other thread, where I also give links to Alex Vilenkin, and Alan Guth describing precisely how that works.

Thanks, thanks a lot. You said 'as far as we can tell it is real', and I don't need more than that. My point is only experiences are absolutely real, while the world might either be real or unreal. I agree that it's a good idea to suggest it's real, although we can't be 100% sure. That's what I have proposed at the begining.

'you are going to ask me where the fields came from, right?' Yes, indeed, I'm going to ask you where do they come from (perhaps before the first big bang at the begining of time/space), why they follow some sort of laws of physics and how can you be sure that they are real. Because your inability to answer these questions shows that science have limits. It is built on experiences rather than absolute facts, and it cannot answer those questions which we cannot figure out from our experiences.

Last edited by Rystiya; 18th February 2021 at 06:44 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 18th February 2021, 06:41 AM   #115
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,615
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
If you understand my previous post, you should be able to realize that 'If the sun is physical matter, then it's contributing to said transcendent experiences.' is an conclusion you made based on experiences, which might be right or wrong.

To take the idea that 'experiences are the product of physical material' (an idea which I call 'materialism') as granted is also totally ridiculous. That's exactly what I have been fighting against.

And yes, it's reasonable to assume that you can't see sunrise without an external entity which seem to be sun, assuming that the universe is not an illusion or dream. However, the physical sun iteself, if exist, probably cannot generate experiences by itself.

Where exactly do experiences come from? Perhaps experiences of sunrise are generated by your physical body watching the sunrise (that brings the question that how can physical matter possibly generate none-physical experiences, perhaps matter is both physical and spiritual?), perhaps experiences are generated by your spirit which interacts with your physical body and the rest of universe (that brings the question about what is spirit, what is its relationship between mind/body, and how can we know it's real), perhaps experiences are generated by other mechenisms we cannot possibly discover, imagin and/or understand.

I admit that transcendent expriences are of unknown origin, and I call the supposed entity which generates and experience experiences 'life'. Since experiences are transcendent, life must also be transcendent ('transcendent' mean far more superior, valuable and vital than others). And that's the starting point of my philosophy. From there I will gradually make sense of Nietzschean values with reasoning and self-discovery.

If you attend to the pattern of yourself and other people nearby all experiencing the sun (or its absence) at the same time, there are only a few explanations for that pattern:

1. The other people are illusions or constructs of your own mind. That's solipsism, which you've disavowed.

2. The pattern itself is a false perception. Even though other people exist, it's somehow not valid to conclude, based on your experiences, that other people see the sun when you do. I'm not sure what the correct name for that position is; I think it's some kind of nihilism, or a disguised form of solipsism. But call it what you will, it forestalls any possibility of rational discourse with others.

3. Something exists, whether or not it's made of physical matter, that you and others experience as the sun (so we might as well call it that).

Do you have an alternative to choice 3?
__________________
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 18th February 2021, 06:46 AM   #116
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
If you attend to the pattern of yourself and other people nearby all experiencing the sun (or its absence) at the same time, there are only a few explanations for that pattern:

1. The other people are illusions or constructs of your own mind. That's solipsism, which you've disavowed.

2. The pattern itself is a false perception. Even though other people exist, it's somehow not valid to conclude, based on your experiences, that other people see the sun when you do. I'm not sure what the correct name for that position is; I think it's some kind of nihilism, or a disguised form of solipsism. But call it what you will, it forestalls any possibility of rational discourse with others.

3. Something exists, whether or not it's made of physical matter, that you and others experience as the sun (so we might as well call it that).

Do you have an alternative to choice 3?
All sorts of crazy hypososis is possible, as long as they can explain my experiences. Perhaps the universe is made of spirit which we conceive as matter, perhaps I'm a dark god and the universe is my dream, perhaps all my experiences are some sort of movie while the universe and even myself are just part of that movie. It might be a good choice to assume the universe and other people are real, I can't be 100% sure. My point is 'not 100% sure', and I don't want anything more than that.

Last edited by Rystiya; 18th February 2021 at 06:51 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 18th February 2021, 06:56 AM   #117
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
You asked why experiences are absolutely real and I answered. What else do you want?
I asked you how you would know if you had experiences if you “let all your thoughts go away”?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 18th February 2021, 07:16 AM   #118
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,615
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
All sorts of crazy hypososis is possible, as long as they can explain my experiences. Perhaps the universe is made of spirit which we conceive as matter, perhaps I'm a dark god and the universe is my dream, perhaps all my experiences are some sort of movie while the universe and even myself are just part of that movie. It might be a good choice to assume the universe and other people are real, I can't be 100% sure. My point is 'not 100% sure', and I don't want anything more than that.

Those are not alternatives to choice 3, they're instances of it.

If the sun is part of some movie or some dream or some simulation, but you (and everyone else) still experience it rising and setting every day, it's still just as real.
__________________
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 18th February 2021, 09:41 AM   #119
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
I already told you that "The fact that experiences are absolutely real is best exhibited if you think about nothing and disbelieve everything. At that time you will realize that there is still experiences, the only thing which is present by itself (with or without your beliefs), which cannot be disbelieved (no matter how hard you try)." Can't you just read?

How can you think about "nothing"? What would be in your mind if there was no thought at all. You can think about the concept of nothing, or the idea of “nothing", but then what you have in your thought is a concept and ideas etc.

How could you "disbelieve everything"? None of us know what "everything" is that exists in this universe ... how could we disbelieve the billions of things that we as individuals have no knowledge of?

That seems to me like an entirely incoherent pair of suggestions from you.

You seem to be suggesting that a brain which is alive and functioning properly without injury etc., if it could be completely cleared of all memory and completely isolated from any sensory input, would still have what you call experiences? Is that what you are claiming?

The nearest situation I can immediately think of which might be something like that, is the brain of a child shortly before birth ... the unborn child has a perfectly formed correctly functioning brain, but it has no direct sensory input from the external world, and it presumably also has no memories at that stage ... do you think it still has thoughts and mental images and consciousness beyond whatever sensory input or stimulation it might get whilst still inside the womb? ...

... what sort of "experiences" do you think the unborn child has at that time?

... do you think it has any "experiences" (ie thoughts) of the outside world?

... what happens after the child is born? Afaik the instant the child is born it starts to receive constant sensory information of all sorts, and that information is presumably passed back and forth to & from the brain in the same way that occurs when the child is some months or some years old (for example) ... what sort of "experiences" does it have then? ... it seems quite obvious that from the moment of birth the child rapidly starts building up a whole mass of "experiences", thoughts and memories about it's surroundings ... but those are all experiences of what the childs sensory system is detecting as a real world around it ...

... that seems to happen with all new born children, doesn't it? I.e. they all rapidly start to acquire a whole mass of "experiences" of exactly the same type about an exactly identical type of external reality of a world around them ... that seems to be a very clear indication that the world around all of us is the same ... but you seem to have been suggesting that maybe that surrounding world is not real and does not exist, in which case why do new born children all describe exactly the same vast set of highly detailed "experiences" of that surrounding world?

Maybe you want to join Solipsists in saying that the babies do not exist, and that all that really exists are some thoughts in a single disembodied mind? But we went over that before, and you seemed to stop short of that … you appear to be agreeing that the external world does almost certainly exist. In which case (to repeat the above) – what sort of "experiences" of that world (or any other world) do you think are floating around in the babies head before it's actually born?
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 18th February 2021, 10:47 AM   #120
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
How can you think about "nothing"? What would be in your mind if there was no thought at all. You can think about the concept of nothing, or the idea of “nothing", but then what you have in your thought is a concept and ideas etc.

How could you "disbelieve everything"? None of us know what "everything" is that exists in this universe ... how could we disbelieve the billions of things that we as individuals have no knowledge of?

That seems to me like an entirely incoherent pair of suggestions from you.
I can't say for certain what Rystiya is refering to - but if we experimented: "I am aware, how do I know I'm aware?" I might answer: I know I'm aware because I'm aware of something else, like a clock on wall, a tree, a pain, etc. But it is possible to 'capture' the 'being aware', or to use a phrase I'd rather not use, 'aware of being aware' In this case there is no object of awareness, no beliefs, just awareness. Awareness does not require an object or any beliefs.
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
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 09:38 PM.
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.