Why Physicalism is Wrong

[Belinda]

DontAskMe, I see. You explain idealism well, although I expect you'd quarrel with calling your theory idealism.

Don't you see that what you call nondualism and also dualism can both be true ontologies within a higher order ontological truth that can encapsulate both nondualism and dualism?

[bahman]

Objects are turned into light waves, light waves hit the eye, the eye turns the light waves into neural energy and the brain turns the neural energy into images. The mind has images. The images can be confirmed by touch, feel, taste, smell and measurements. The mind is here and now. The objects are there. Memories are then. If the objects are illusions, then you are an illusion or I am an illusion.

But I can certainly say that I am not an illusion and you are not an illusion and you cannot prove otherwise.

Someone can say that everything I wrote is an illusion, but there is no evidence that it is. Everything I wrote is circumstantial evidence. The illusionist has an invention without circumstantial evidence. This a supposition but a nonworking supposition.

We could be fooled by Descarte's Demon. How could you refute that?

[Belinda]

Rational people don't want to refute Descartes's demon. Descartes's demon is a personification of scepticism

[jayjacobus]

Objects are turned into light waves, light waves hit the eye, the eye turns the light waves into neural energy and the brain turns the neural energy into images. The mind has images. The images can be confirmed by touch, feel, taste, smell and measurements. The mind is here and now. The objects are there. Memories are then. If the objects are illusions, then you are an illusion or I am an illusion.

But I can certainly say that I am not an illusion and you are not an illusion and you cannot prove otherwise.

Someone can say that everything I wrote is an illusion, but there is no evidence that it is. Everything I wrote is circumstantial evidence. The illusionist has an invention without circumstantial evidence. This a supposition but a nonworking supposition.

We could be fooled by Descarte's Demon. How could you refute that?

Or you could be fooled by Descartes. But that's not sane.

[bahman]

Objects are turned into light waves, light waves hit the eye, the eye turns the light waves into neural energy and the brain turns the neural energy into images. The mind has images. The images can be confirmed by touch, feel, taste, smell and measurements. The mind is here and now. The objects are there. Memories are then. If the objects are illusions, then you are an illusion or I am an illusion.

But I can certainly say that I am not an illusion and you are not an illusion and you cannot prove otherwise.

Someone can say that everything I wrote is an illusion, but there is no evidence that it is. Everything I wrote is circumstantial evidence. The illusionist has an invention without circumstantial evidence. This a supposition but a nonworking supposition.

We could be fooled by Descarte's Demon. How could you refute that?

Or you could be fooled by Descartes. But that's not sane.

How could you refute that he was incorrect?

[jayjacobus]

We could be fooled by Descarte's Demon. How could you refute that?

Or you could be fooled by Descartes. But that's not sane.

How could you refute that he was incorrect?

You can dance to the music or you can dance to the imaginary music but if you dance to the imaginary music you are a clown.

[bahman]

Or you could be fooled by Descartes. But that's not sane.

How could you refute that he was incorrect?

You can dance to the music or you can dance to the imaginary music but if you dance to the imaginary music you are a clown.

That is not really an argument.

[Dontaskme]

DontAskMe, I see. You explain idealism well, although I expect you'd quarrel with calling your theory idealism.

Don't you see that what you call nondualism and also dualism can both be true ontologies within a higher order ontological truth that can encapsulate both nondualism and dualism?

Yes of course I see that. I've never denied that.

But don't you see that your calling an explanation of that which cannot be explained ''idealism'' is just getting caught up in the conceptual net of conceptual knowledge....it's the net of i ..that does not exist.

Who knows anything? ...''I'' do comes the voice every time.

I know.

I is a concept .. it's a CON


No one knows anything, knowledge informs the illusory nature of existence ..while there appears to be concepts known, no known concept has ever been seen...HAS EVER BEEN EXPERIENCED....therefore the concept that some thing is physcial is a lie, no thing is physical...it might look like it is, but it's just an illusory image of the imageless knower, it's a mirage.

Do you not see that?

.

I can continue to explain this to you over and over again if you want me to...just ask a question to yourself, if you are not seeing what is being said here.

.

.

[jayjacobus]

How could you refute that he was incorrect?

You can dance to the music or you can dance to the imaginary music but if you dance to the imaginary music you are a clown.

That is not really an argument.

Some people, when they they were children, had an imaginary friend. Now they are all grown up and have an imaginary demon. Isn't that right?

[bahman]

You can dance to the music or you can dance to the imaginary music but if you dance to the imaginary music you are a clown.

That is not really an argument.

Some people, when they they were children, had an imaginary friend. Now they are all grown up and have an imaginary demon. Isn't that right?

It could be like that. Do you have an argument against the Demon?

[jayjacobus]

That is not really an argument.

Some people, when they they were children, had an imaginary friend. Now they are all grown up and have an imaginary demon. Isn't that right?

It could be like that. Do you have an argument against the Demon?

Like Neptune, the tooth fairy, the rain God, imaginary friends, etc., I am totally in doubt. Is there any evidence to make fictious characters, real? I can't refute evidence that doesn't exist. But you can say "You can't refute it." I can't because it is a figment of your imagination and you are bound to that thought.

[Arising_uk]

... There are no objective or subjective truths, subject and object are ONE = NO TRUTH, IS THE TRUTH.

So that is not true then?

[Dontaskme]

... There are no objective or subjective truths, subject and object are ONE = NO TRUTH, IS THE TRUTH.

So that is not true then?

Truth can never not be truth else it wouldn't be truth.

Subjective or Objective truths imply a claimer of those truths.

Real truth stands alone, it's neither sub or objective, it's unclaimed.

There is no substitute for truth. It's self standing.

.

[Arising_uk]

Truth can never not be truth else it wouldn't be truth.

Make your mind up as you said there is no truth?

Subjective or Objective truths imply a claimer of those truths.

Subjective truths imply conscious beings, objective truths imply an external reality not dependent upon them.

Real truth stands alone, it's neither sub or objective, it's unclaimed.

Then you don't know it?

There is no substitute for truth. It's self standing.

Make your mind up as you said there are no truths.

[Dontaskme]

Truth can never not be truth else it wouldn't be truth.

Make your mind up as you said there is no truth?

Subjective or Objective truths imply a claimer of those truths.

Subjective truths imply conscious beings, objective truths imply an external reality not dependent upon them.

Real truth stands alone, it's neither sub or objective, it's unclaimed.

Then you don't know it?

There is no substitute for truth. It's self standing.

Make your mind up as you said there are no truths.

There is no one to make up their mind, there is only mind which is no thing making one up.

.