Can I end post-modern era?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by LarryS

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.

I can’t be aware without thinking. Even thinking about being aware requires the thinking bit!

It’s like claiming being able to “see” something when you have your eyes closed (beyond the dark blobbyness of light seeping through skin and blood vessels in the eyelids).

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Rystiya

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 tha't 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.

Re that highlight - you cannot have read what I just wrote to you in that last post above . Because there I just told you the very precise opposite of what you have just written above - what I said to you was; if you look at my posts in that other current thread (I'm not going to write it all out again here), I explain there in some considerable detail exactly how and why our universe is forced to come into existence (ie with no other option) from what is essentially truly "Nothing" ... and that is an explanation which is not only widely published in the highest levels of genuine Mathematical-physics research literature/journals, but it's also an explanation which seems to be the direction that most papers are now taking in theoretical cosmological research (and science (nor anything else) does not get much more rigorous & serious than that).

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Rystiya

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.

OK, well if that is your entire point, then you are only repeating what people immediately understood as a consequence of discovering quantum theory in the 1920's (that's 100 years ago now) ...

... what we learned from even the earliest steps in quantum theory, is that we appear to live in a universe where at the most basic fundamental level of what we call "subatomic particles" (i.e. really subatomic "force fields"), all the interactions and all the properties of every interaction (inc. the products of those interactions, including what we call more condensed "matter" such as atoms and molecules, and hence everything in the entire universe), all exist upon & act by, laws of probability, and not ever by any laws of determinism in the sense of ever being a matter of complete "certainty" (and that rules out the idea of any actual facts or proofs etc.).

From all that you have written in this thread, it seems like you are completely unaware of that quantum explanation of our universe? But it is actually by far the most accurately tested, checked, and repeatedly confirmed theory in all of science. Of course, since everything is (on that QM basis) a matter of probability rather than certainty, there is a possibility that the QM explanation is actually wrong ... but so far it's predictions have been verified to as close as 1 part in 10 to the power 10 (and that is far beyond the accuracy of anything else known in science, let alone anything known from other non-scientific approaches where the accuracy is typically almost zero!).

You can look at that result another way (it's a result that's been tested literally billions of times by the way, and by every possible different method ever convinced by mankind), namely – the chances of that QM (actually now QFT i.e. "quantum field theory") description being significantly wrong, appear to be one chance in 10 to the power 10. Are those odds not good enough for you? And instead you want to take some sort of odds from an alternative idea in philosophy where the odds are as far as anyone can honestly tell, virtually literally zero!?? … i.e. no credible probability at all for any alternative explanation other than that which we have derived from QFT … again to put that another way – if you think our understanding from QFT is wrong, then why have neither you, nor any philosophers, nor anyone else ever been able to publish a single scientific paper with any kind of evidence or explanation to show anything incorrect or wrong with the theory/picture we get from QM/QFT? … if you don't accept the conclusion from QFT then you have no case at all unless and until you can publish a genuine research paper in the real science journals showing how QM/QFT is seriously wrong.

That's probably why most of us here are going with the highest levels of science on subjects like this, and not with what are in fact merely hand-waving word-argumnets from what is now a long out-dated obselete branch of philosophy.

That doesn't mean we all think the current science is certain to be absolutely correct. In fact most scientifically educated people on forums probably think that the explantions from current cutting-edge science like this, are just probably the closest we have yet come to a completely correct answer ... perhaps the closet we are ever likley to come to a complete agreed answer. But for most of us that that is waaaaay more convincing that merely trying to find the answers by some sort of un-scientific philosophical ideas dreamed up straight off the top of some non-scientists/philosophers head.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Rystiya

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.

We know what you're talking about. We knew what you were talking about 400 years ago.

Originally Posted by Rystiya

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.

Cogito, ergo sum. Descartes knew what you were talking about in 1637.

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by Darat

I can’t be aware without thinking. Even thinking about being aware requires the thinking bit!

It’s like claiming being able to “see” something when you have your eyes closed (beyond the dark blobbyness of light seeping through skin and blood vessels in the eyelids).

Yes you can

[Darat]

Originally Posted by LarryS

Yes you can

How?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Rystiya

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.

Nope that's a delusion of yours.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Rystiya

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.

Edited by Agatha:

Edited to remove personalisation

I warned you this wasn't the place to pursue your quest. What you're experiencing now is commonly known as regret. But is your regret real?

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by Darat

How?

Why do you think awareness requires an object, as in aware of x?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by LarryS

Why do you think awareness requires an object, as in aware of x?

I didn’t say that?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by LarryS

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.

I don't see how that makes sense. What you really mean by the more grandiose and mysterious sounding word "awareness", are just your thoughts ... but it's surely not possible to be thinking of something (ie to be aware of something) that you cannot think about ...

... suppose I tell you that I am thinking of something that I can see right now within the area around me; I am not going to tell you what that is, and your job is to think of that same thing ... what is it? ... what am I sensing around me?

You will not know that will you?

Why don't you know it? The answer is (as far as science is concerned, afaik) that your brain has no sensory input from that thing ... you are not seeing it, hearing it, feeling it, smelling it, or hearing or otherwise learning from me telling you what it is ... so how will your "consciousness" still be "aware" of it? ...

... I don't think you will be "aware" of it, or have any mental/mindful "experience" of it ... but if you disagree with that, then by all means go ahead and tell us what that thing is?

Point is – you only become “aware” of anything, or in Rystiya's preferred wording you only “experience” it, when it's detected by your sensory system and communicated to your brain.

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by IanS

I don't see how that makes sense. What you really mean by the more grandiose and mysterious sounding word "awareness", are just your thoughts ... but it's surely not possible to be thinking of something (ie to be aware of something) that you cannot think about ...

... suppose I tell you that I am thinking of something that I can see right now within the area around me; I am not going to tell you what that is, and your job is to think of that same thing ... what is it? ... what am I sensing around me?

You will not know that will you?

Why don't you know it? The answer is (as far as science is concerned, afaik) that your brain has no sensory input from that thing ... you are not seeing it, hearing it, feeling it, smelling it, or hearing or otherwise learning from me telling you what it is ... so how will your "consciousness" still be "aware" of it? ...

... I don't think you will be "aware" of it, or have any mental/mindful "experience" of it ... but if you disagree with that, then by all means go ahead and tell us what that thing is?

Point is – you only become “aware” of anything, or in Rystiya's preferred wording you only “experience” it, when it's detected by your sensory system and communicated to your brain.

We use the expression 'aware of x' because the content of awareness changes. I can not tell you what is the content of your awareness . . . that is a seperate issue from what we are discussing above.
The question is: Does awareness require an object? Does 'being aware' require a thought, image, memory and etc? It's like asking: Does a light source require an object (to shine upon) to be a light source?

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by Darat

I didn’t say that?

above you wrote this "I can’t be aware without thinking. Even thinking about being aware requires the thinking bit!"

I am suggesting that being aware includes thinking (thoughts, memories, images, etc.) but does not require it (an object).

[Darat]

Originally Posted by LarryS

We use the expression 'aware of x' because the content of awareness changes. I can not tell you what is the content of your awareness . . . that is a seperate issue from what we are discussing above.
The question is: Does awareness require an object? Does 'being aware' require a thought, image, memory and etc? It's like asking: Does a light source require an object (to shine upon) to be a light source?

It’s your term so one would have thought you’d be able to answer those questions.

My question is still how can I be aware of being aware without thinking about being aware?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by LarryS

above you wrote this "I can’t be aware without thinking. Even thinking about being aware requires the thinking bit!"

I am suggesting that being aware includes thinking (thoughts, memories, images, etc.) but does not require it (an object).

But how would you know you are/were aware?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by LarryS

We use the expression 'aware of x' because the content of awareness changes. I can not tell you what is the content of your awareness . . . that is a seperate issue from what we are discussing above.
The question is: Does awareness require an object? Does 'being aware' require a thought, image, memory and etc? It's like asking: Does a light source require an object (to shine upon) to be a light source?

I think it is "what we were discussing above"- the point is that you will not find examples of anything in your "awareness" other than all the things that you have already encountered through your sensory system ...

... can you give any examples of things that you are aware of, i.e. have thoughts and ideas about, that have never been things already detected by your sensory system (and that obviously includes things that you have been told by anyone or seen written by anyone etc.) ... any examples of that?

And, no it's not like a light source not needing any other light to shine upon it. It's more like like a mirror or other reflective object needing an extrenal light source before it can act to do anything with the light.

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by IanS

I think it is "what we were discussing above"- the point is that you will not find examples of anything in your "awareness" other than all the things that you have already encountered through your sensory system ...

... can you give any examples of things that you are aware of, i.e. have thoughts and ideas about, that have never been things already detected by your sensory system (and that obviously includes things that you have been told by anyone or seen written by anyone etc.) ... any examples of that?

And, no it's not like a light source not needing any other light to shine upon it. It's more like like a mirror or other reflective object needing an extrenal light source before it can act to do anything with the light.

Re your top two paragraphs I’ve never made any claims at all like you’re discussing, you’ll have to explain how your thoughts connect to my statements.

Re mirror vs light source, a mirror is still a mirror even if there are no objects being reflected. Neither a mirror nor light source vanish when no objects are present. I’ll ask you the same question I asked Darat, how/ why does awareness require an object? Why do you believe that?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by LarryS

Re your top two paragraphs I’ve never made any claims at all like you’re discussing, you’ll have to explain how your thoughts connect to my statements.

Re mirror vs light source, a mirror is still a mirror even if there are no objects being reflected. Neither a mirror nor light source vanish when no objects are present. I’ll ask you the same question I asked Darat, how/ why does awareness require an object? Why do you believe that?

I've just explained that to you in crystal clear terms, Are you not reading things here?

And by the way - as Darat just found; you are not answering the questions that you have been asked (if you tried to answer the questions then you'd see why you are wrong).

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Myriad

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.

This pretty much sums it up.

Whatever name you want to give to the underlying patterns in your experiences, those patterns are the same, and they are real. They have a mathematical structure that's very well expressed in the laws of physics, for instance.

[Myriad]

Plato's Allegory of the Cave demonstrates the futility of empirical observation as a way to understand the world, because empiricism makes the faulty assumption that the things and patterns observed are real, when they're only (metaphorically) shadows on the cave wall. He urged the contemplation of ideal forms as the valid alternative.

I'm waiting for the next issue of The Journal of the Results of the Contemplation of Ideal Forms to find out what amazing new discoveries have been made.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Plato's Allegory of the Cave demonstrates the futility of empirical observation as a way to understand the world, because empiricism makes the faulty assumption that the things and patterns observed are real, when they're only (metaphorically) shadows on the cave wall. He urged the contemplation of ideal forms as the valid alternative.

I'm waiting for the next issue of The Journal of the Results of the Contemplation of Ideal Forms to find out what amazing new discoveries have been made.

But as you pointed out the shadows are real of themselves. They may just not be what we think they are.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Plato's Allegory of the Cave demonstrates the futility of empirical observation as a way to understand the world, because empiricism makes the faulty assumption that the things and patterns observed are real, when they're only (metaphorically) shadows on the cave wall. He urged the contemplation of ideal forms as the valid alternative.

I'm waiting for the next issue of The Journal of the Results of the Contemplation of Ideal Forms to find out what amazing new discoveries have been made.

Well Plato was living a long time ago, when clearly the world was not yet really there ... it only became "really there" when early scientist-philosophers like Galileo started to look at it ... staring at it brings it into existence, obviously

[Darat]

Originally Posted by IanS

Well Plato was living a long time ago, when clearly the world was not yet really there ... it only became "really there" when early scientist-philosophers like Galileo started to look at it ... staring at it brings it into existence, obviously

Also (as Myriad implied) Plato’s allegory was meant to illustrate his non-empirical conclusions should be treated as the ultimate truth.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Darat

Also (as Myriad implied) Plato’s allegory was meant to illustrate his non-empirical conclusions should be treated as the ultimate truth.

Yes. When the lesson it should have illustrated is "go after those jokers in front of the fires who are casting the shadows, and force them to tell you what's really going on."

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Plato's Allegory of the Cave demonstrates the futility of empirical observation as a way to understand the world, because empiricism makes the faulty assumption that the things and patterns observed are real, when they're only (metaphorically) shadows on the cave wall. He urged the contemplation of ideal forms as the valid alternative.

I'm waiting for the next issue of The Journal of the Results of the Contemplation of Ideal Forms to find out what amazing new discoveries have been made.

I find the view that space and possibly time are emergent of some deeper, more fundamental, level of physics that we don't yet fully understand. To some extent that bears some similarity to the actual forms whose shadows fall on the wall that we see. But that doesn't mean that space and time aren't real, in the same way that the shadows on the wall of plato's cave are real, and even carry information about the deeper reality of the world which is projecting those shadows on the wall.

What we think of as space may just be the degree of entanglement between different parts of quantum fields, but that description of space and distance still contains information about the quantum fields, and their entanglement, and there is thus something still real about it.

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by IanS

I've just explained that to you in crystal clear terms, Are you not reading things here?

And by the way - as Darat just found; you are not answering the questions that you have been asked (if you tried to answer the questions then you'd see why you are wrong).

Perhaps the problem is you did not read my #132, when I use expression‘awareness does not require an object’ you are using word ‘object’ as physical objects like trees, chairs and etc. I’m using object as mental objects like thoughts, mental images and etc.
Whether awareness requires mental objects yes or no is a belief. Mental contents, thoughts and etc, come and go— I see no reason t believe that awareness is dependent upon mental content.
For example if I go through this train of thought: “I am aware. How do I know I aware?” There is a split second where there is awareness alone, and with practice that finding of awareness by itself grows in clarity.

[Rystiya]

Originally Posted by Darat

I can’t be aware without thinking. Even thinking about being aware requires the thinking bit!

It’s like claiming being able to “see” something when you have your eyes closed (beyond the dark blobbyness of light seeping through skin and blood vessels in the eyelids).

If your life is a movie, where your thoughts and yourself are just part of its predetermined contents, then there is no 'you' or 'your thoughts' to be speak of.

[Rystiya]

Originally Posted by IanS

Re that highlight - you cannot have read what I just wrote to you in that last post above . Because there I just told you the very precise opposite of what you have just written above - what I said to you was; if you look at my posts in that other current thread (I'm not going to write it all out again here), I explain there in some considerable detail exactly how and why our universe is forced to come into existence (ie with no other option) from what is essentially truly "Nothing" ... and that is an explanation which is not only widely published in the highest levels of genuine Mathematical-physics research literature/journals, but it's also an explanation which seems to be the direction that most papers are now taking in theoretical cosmological research (and science (nor anything else) does not get much more rigorous & serious than that).

Ok, looks like I need to explain my point in a more refined way again, just becuase you failed to get it again.

Remember that science is all but concluding the patterns of experiences, thus it cannot reveal any potential facts which leave no clue on our experiences. It can only reveal patterns/phenomenons in our experiences, and nothing more. If the universe is an illusion, if there is a God who want to hide himself, if there is some particles which have no interaction and relationship with other particles at all (not even things like gravity, common origin, etc), science can never know. That's the reason why if you keep asking questions about the explanations of previous questions, you will end up with questions which have no explanations.

Even if scienctists somehow manage to explain the origin of space, time and matter (which seems highly questionable, because you won't be able to prove or disprove those hypososis around these questions), that still doesn't change anything. What enabled the birth and existence of space and time? Are space and time real? Why physical constant aren't bigger or smaller? ...There are definity many questions science can never explain. Science have limits, the only problem is where are these limits.

[Rystiya]

Originally Posted by IanS

OK, well if that is your entire point, then you are only repeating what people immediately understood as a consequence of discovering quantum theory in the 1920's (that's 100 years ago now) ...

... what we learned from even the earliest steps in quantum theory, is that we appear to live in a universe where at the most basic fundamental level of what we call "subatomic particles" (i.e. really subatomic "force fields"), all the interactions and all the properties of every interaction (inc. the products of those interactions, including what we call more condensed "matter" such as atoms and molecules, and hence everything in the entire universe), all exist upon & act by, laws of probability, and not ever by any laws of determinism in the sense of ever being a matter of complete "certainty" (and that rules out the idea of any actual facts or proofs etc.).

From all that you have written in this thread, it seems like you are completely unaware of that quantum explanation of our universe? But it is actually by far the most accurately tested, checked, and repeatedly confirmed theory in all of science. Of course, since everything is (on that QM basis) a matter of probability rather than certainty, there is a possibility that the QM explanation is actually wrong ... but so far it's predictions have been verified to as close as 1 part in 10 to the power 10 (and that is far beyond the accuracy of anything else known in science, let alone anything known from other non-scientific approaches where the accuracy is typically almost zero!).

You can look at that result another way (it's a result that's been tested literally billions of times by the way, and by every possible different method ever convinced by mankind), namely – the chances of that QM (actually now QFT i.e. "quantum field theory") description being significantly wrong, appear to be one chance in 10 to the power 10. Are those odds not good enough for you? And instead you want to take some sort of odds from an alternative idea in philosophy where the odds are as far as anyone can honestly tell, virtually literally zero!?? … i.e. no credible probability at all for any alternative explanation other than that which we have derived from QFT … again to put that another way – if you think our understanding from QFT is wrong, then why have neither you, nor any philosophers, nor anyone else ever been able to publish a single scientific paper with any kind of evidence or explanation to show anything incorrect or wrong with the theory/picture we get from QM/QFT? … if you don't accept the conclusion from QFT then you have no case at all unless and until you can publish a genuine research paper in the real science journals showing how QM/QFT is seriously wrong.

That's probably why most of us here are going with the highest levels of science on subjects like this, and not with what are in fact merely hand-waving word-argumnets from what is now a long out-dated obselete branch of philosophy.

That doesn't mean we all think the current science is certain to be absolutely correct. In fact most scientifically educated people on forums probably think that the explantions from current cutting-edge science like this, are just probably the closest we have yet come to a completely correct answer ... perhaps the closet we are ever likley to come to a complete agreed answer. But for most of us that that is waaaaay more convincing that merely trying to find the answers by some sort of un-scientific philosophical ideas dreamed up straight off the top of some non-scientists/philosophers head.

I'm talking about life, science and the entire universe in general (like phylosophy do), rather than the existence or movement of individual particles (like quantum theory does). What you are talking about have nothing to do with my point.

[Rystiya]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

We know what you're talking about. We knew what you were talking about 400 years ago.

Cogito, ergo sum. Descartes knew what you were talking about in 1637.

"I think, therefore I am", I don't think that's true. Perhaps I’m a dark god dreaming of the life of a human-being, and everything and everyone I know are just my (the dark god's) imagination. Perhaps I’m just an unknown entity watching a movie, while the universe and myself are just part of the movie’s predetermined contents. In both of these cases, the 'myself' I'm familiar with simply does not exist. Again, you failed to get the point.

[Rystiya]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Nope that's a delusion of yours.

> 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 think they are delusions.

[Rystiya]

Originally Posted by IanS

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?

'Think about nothing' means 'not try to create new ideas'. 'Disbelieve everything' means 'not to hold ideas'.

This is simple experiment you can do in order to experience your experiences. Not sure what problem did you encounter. Do you mean you somehow cannot accept the idea that 'your mind is not absolutely real'?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Rystiya

Ok, looks like I need to explain my point in a more refined way again, just becuase you failed to get it again.

Remember that science is all but concluding the patterns of experiences, thus it cannot reveal any potential facts which leave no clue on our experiences. It can only reveal patterns/phenomenons in our experiences, and nothing more. If the universe is an illusion, if there is a God who want to hide himself, if there is some particles which have no interaction and relationship with other particles at all (not even things like gravity, common origin, etc), science can never know. That's the reason why if you keep asking questions about the explanations of previous questions, you will end up with questions which have no explanations.

Even if scienctists somehow manage to explain the origin of space, time and matter (which seems highly questionable, because you won't be able to prove or disprove those hypososis around these questions), that still doesn't change anything. What enabled the birth and existence of space and time? Are space and time real? Why physical constant aren't bigger or smaller? ...There are definity many questions science can never explain. Science have limits, the only problem is where are these limits.

Third time - I already answered those questions (and pointed you to another current thread where it's all answered in detail).

You need to understand the answers (which so far you clearly don't).

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Rystiya

I'm talking about life, science and the entire universe in general (like phylosophy do), rather than the existence or movement of individual particles (like quantum theory does). What you are talking about have nothing to do with my point.

You still have no idea what you are talking about, even after your mistakes have been explained to you ten times ... There are no "particles",

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Rystiya

'Think about nothing' means 'not try to create new ideas'. 'Disbelieve everything' means 'not to hold ideas'.

This is simple experiment you can do in order to experience your experiences. Not sure what problem did you encounter. Do you mean you somehow cannot accept the idea that 'your mind is not absolutely real'?

If anyones sensory system is working (and their brain is working), then how can they "stop themselves creating new ideas thoughts"? ...
take for example a recently born child (say a week or month or a year old), how does it stop thoughts ever occuring in what we call it's "mind" (ie in the brain)?

And while you are answering those questions - please explain what "Nothing" actually is ... what is it? ... what could it ever possible be? (how??).

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Rystiya

If your life is a movie, where your thoughts and yourself are just part of its predetermined contents, then there is no 'you' or 'your thoughts' to be speak of.

Doesn’t answer what I asked you.

[Sideroxylon]

Can you stop these films that jump around the timeline with no obvious purpose?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Rystiya

> 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 think they are delusions.

No! ... you are fond of telling people that they are too dumb to understand your brilliant analysis/beliefs/whatever, but afaik nobody here is seriously doubting that we all have thoughts and ideas etc. which you call "experiences" (and which others call "conscious awareness" etc.). We all agree that we do of course have such effects constantly being produced in our mind/brain ... but the majority of people here (and probably everywhere else too) similarly believe that what we envision as events and objects etc. in an external world outside of our mind, are similarly almost certainly real ...

... your opponents here are not claiming real doubt about any of it. The difference is that you are following various philosophers of the past who are claiming there is plausible doubt about whether that external reality exists.

If you make any such suggestion, even to suggest that it might not exist, then there is an obligation on you to show how and why that is all likely ...

... can you show genuine objective evidence of how and why a world outside of a human mind, might not exist?

... is it just because science (nor anything else) can give a 100% absolute proof that the world exists? Because if that's your reason, then you are just engaging in a philosophical (i.e. argumentative) version of the religious God-of-the Gaps game.

Still, this is supposed to be philosophy right? So perhaps by now we should all expect such discussions to be an infantile egotistical waste of everyone's time!

[IanS]

I need to edit that above post (!) ... it should have said the following -

Originally Posted by IanS

No! ... you may be fond of telling people that they are too dumb to understand your brilliant analysis/beliefs/whatever, but afaik nobody here is seriously doubting that we do all have thoughts and ideas etc. which you call "experiences" (and which others often call "conscious awareness" etc.). We all agree that we do of course have such effects constantly being produced in our mind/brain ... but the majority of people here (and probably the majority everywhere else too) similarly believe that what we envision as events and objects etc. in an external world outside of our mind, are almost certainly real ...

... and we believe that because all of known science points to that, and so far science has proved itself vastly more reliable than any philosophy. In fact as I said before - so far the score is science a billion or more explanations given in the most fantastic detail with tests and confirmations millions of times over, versus philosophy precisely Zero for any genuine discoveries or detailed explanations of anything! (barely any better than religion, in fact) ... so that's why most educated people, who understand & appreciate science to any reasonable extent, go with the science rather than with what are actually just more-&-more un-evidenced claims and beliefs from philosophy.

... your opponents here are not claiming real doubt about any of that. The difference is that you are apparently following various philosophers of the past who have claimed plausible doubt about whether any external reality actually exists.

If you make any such suggestion, even to suggest that it (reality) might not exist, then there is an obligation upon you to show how and why that is at all likely ...

... can you show genuine objective evidence of how and why a world outside of a human mind, might not exist?

... is it just because neither science (nor anything else) can give a 100% absolute proof that the world exists? Because if that's your reason, then you are just engaging in a philosophical (i.e. argumentative) version of the religious God-of-the Gaps game.

Still, this is supposed to be philosophy right? So perhaps by now we should all expect such discussions to be just a rather infantile egotistical waste of everyone's time!

[Rystiya]

Originally Posted by IanS

Third time - I already answered those questions (and pointed you to another current thread where it's all answered in detail).

You need to understand the answers (which so far you clearly don't).

I already answered those questions (and repeated them for many times).

You need to understand the answers (which so far you clearly don't).