Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You last effort at a response was incoherent one line nonsense.

Everything that comes out of the human vocal cords is irrational nonsense..believed to be real as meaning is attached by a mentally constructed thought or idea. All human words are nothing other than sound and noise appearing from nowhere like a barking dog. A dog barks a bird chirps, a cat meows....do they make these noises to acquire a meaning to their existence? ..no of course not....Humans are the only creature that have made-up just about everything they think and believe to be true about the world using the sound that comes out of their vocal cords and turned them into words with attached meaning...do you not see the absurdity in that? ...it's totally irrational behavior and not real .....humans are living a lie, and don't even know it...but not their fault, mainstream don't teach us the truth, they don't want us humans to know the truth, we have to find that out for ourself...

You hear sound ..but no one knows what sound is, no one has ever seen a sound or heard a sound, the ear's dead mechanical apparatus hears the sound...in the same way the components of a radio sources it's sound....the senses are an optical illusion with no external or internal source ...it's an illusion to say a concept hears or senses anything...

A sound appears when two dead surfaces rub together...that contact is the cause of sound... heard by dead ear matter.... then turned into a dead concept and given meaning by a dead thought.

It's all energetic illusory wizardry appearing real... Aliveness in it's pure state of being is without concept or meaning...it's neither alive nor dead, it just is.

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You last effort at a response was incoherent one line nonsense.

Everything that comes out of the human vocal cords is irrational nonsense..believed to be real as meaning is attached by a mentally constructed thought or idea. All human words are nothing other than sound and noise appearing from nowhere like a barking dog..

Sorry I cannot possible begin to take anything you say seriously since, by your own admission, you are talking bollocks.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Sorry I cannot possible begin to take anything you say seriously since, by your own admission, you are talking bollocks.

Well at least we agree on something.

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Sorry I cannot possible begin to take anything you say seriously since, by your own admission, you are talking bollocks.

Well at least we agree on something.

No I cannot agree with bollocks, you are talking your own brand of gibberish.

sthitapragya wrote:There is nothing to suggest that it is a fundamental feature of the natural universe.

There's quite bit, actually. I like to keep well-informed with respect to science, but I'm not going to waste my time by posting links to experiments and papers that point to that very thing. You have a computer and internet access. There's also places called "libraries."

That is because Einstein could actually see the moon when he was looking at it. So it is not the same sentiment unless you can show me consciousness in the universe.

The comment was analogical: no one was suggesting that the moon isn't there when we aren't looking at it. Rather, he was protesting the interpretation of experiments that the wave function doesn't collapse until it is measured. Further experimentation has only served to verify that interpretation.

Many scientists suffer from cognitive dissonance: on the one hand, evidence is mounting that consciousness has a formative role in the evolution of the universe; while on the other hand, their training leads them to dismiss anything of the sort. That dismissal leads to leads to all kinds of speculative attempts to alleviate their discomfort, like multiverse theory and what have you.

There is no violence to common sense in asking how before asking why. Humanness? come on, that is melodramatic. And something for you to consider. God's existence is a "just because".

The function of science is to see what can be said about the universe, not to tell us how it is. It does its job very well, but scientists overstep their boundaries when they engage in writing books that try to debunk the God-concept. More often than not, they only succeed in making themselves look foolish, even to other atheists.

You can't get a "why" from a "how," or to use the more formal language, an "ought" from an "is." They are categorically distinct pursuits. The "is" informs the ought, but does not determine its unfoldment. Other than that, there is no overlap.

And no matter how determined a scientist might be to keep his objectivity pure, it ain't gonna happen. There's just no avoiding their humanness.

Edit: Of course God's existence is a "just because," but one with explanatory power -- just like "energy" -- but goes further to explain why energy is "just so."

Dontaskme wrote:A human maybe an animal but a dog or a cat is not a human.

Sure. But that doesn't imply that they don't have a sense of self, that they don't have concepts, etc.

Concepts are fixed.

I couldn't disagree more with that. Concepts are not fixed at all. They're dynamic, and they also vary from individual to individual.

An idea arises in this human mind.. that I am a self here and there is a cat over there who also has a self..but if there's just everything, then where is the divide except in the mind of human thought ?

"There's just everything" wouldn't imply "Nothing is distinguishable." Obviously things are distinguishable. Hence a cat over there and me over here.

more to the point where is the thought that divides here into there?...where is that thought?

We went over this part already. Thoughts are brain states. The location, thus, is a brain in a particular person's head.

I'm assuming other animals don't have thoughts about having a distinct self separate from their kind

Okay, but I'm not sure why you're assuming that. It's not something I'd assume.

...are they self conscious?...would they wee and poo in front of each other if they were self conscious?.....

You're conflating two different senses of "self conscious" there, by the way. The sense where it refers to simply "the idea or awareness of a self" and the sense of "insecurity re how one will be perceived by others due to social conventions and so on."

How can human know cat world...Can humanness experience catness or dogness?....

Right. I wouldn't say that we know what cat or dog mentality would be typically like (ignoring problems with the idea of "what mentality is typically like" in general), but that doesn't imply that they don't have any mentality, either.

It's obvious they live via instinctive dna programming put there by nature itself,

Yet here you're claiming that you know just what their mentality--or the absence of the same--is like. You don't, though.

the human sense of self is an idea, it's not real.

Ideas are not real in your view? I take it you're using "real" in the Scholastic (Medieval) philosophical sense where it denotes "extramental" more or less. In that case, obviously ideas are not extramental, and neither would selves be extramental. That doesn't imply that they do not occur, however.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:There is nothing to suggest that it is a fundamental feature of the natural universe.

There's quite bit, actually. I like to keep well-informed with respect to science, but I'm not going to waste my time by posting links to experiments and papers that point to that very thing. You have a computer and internet access. There's also places called "libraries."

One link would have stopped this from looking like a cop out disguised as an insult.

Oh and something to keep in mind at all times while reading this stuff on Collective Evolution :" In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that affects the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process."

A little science is a superstitious thing.

Reflex wrote:The function of science is to see what can be said about the universe, not to tell us how it is. It does its job very well, but scientists overstep their boundaries when they engage in writing books that try to debunk the God-concept. More often than not, they only succeed in making themselves look foolish, even to other atheists.

Agreed.

Reflex wrote:Edit: Of course God's existence is a "just because," but one with explanatory power -- just like "energy" -- but goes further to explain why energy is "just so."

You wrote: Rational beings demand rational answers. "Just because" doesn't provide that -- especially when it does violence to our common sense, experience and humanness.

God not only does not explain why energy is just so, it also does not explain why the universe is just so. And it definitely does not explain why God exists. Where is the common sense in saying God exists just because? If God can exist just because, what prevents the universe from existing just because?

Can you see the bias here?Your just because is better than my just because.

bahman wrote:We agree that God created the universe by His Divine act. We believe that God could decide about the act of creation. This requires decision before act. This is however problematic since we believe that God is in state of timeless where there is no before and after (this is true since time/change is part of creation only). This means that we have to give up either the decision or the act of creation. We exist hence we cannot give up the act of creation so we are left with the option that God cannot decide. This means that the concept of God is incoherent because He is not a person (a person can decide).

What do you think?

I've come to the conclusion that you're quite young. It's your avatar and how you frame your ideas. I'll not hold your command of English against you as it would seem it's your second language. I can barely handle my first, let alone a second.

Anyway, my advice to you is to not try and build arguments based upon things that are so flimsy. I can think of many ways to really challenge the question of mans god, that man's made in his image.

Terrapin Station wrote:Sure. But that doesn't imply that they don't have a sense of self, that they don't have concepts, etc.

There is no way of ever knowing that...we can only assume we know. We can only assume we known using the knowledge we have invented for our assumed self, so the whole inquiry into the nature of other selves assumed to be in other creatures remain mute and irrational from the start...for the obvious reason that no two minds could ever meet since the mind is just an idea.

Terrapin Station wrote:couldn't disagree more with that. Concepts are not fixed at all. They're dynamic, and they also vary from individual to individual.

I'm referring to objects such as an orange, banana, apple, tree....etc.( the actualities)
An apple will always be an apple, it can never be a banana...although an apple may differ in it's variation, the concept apple will never change. The main premise of what I'm trying to point to is there's just one substance transforming itself into myriad of things...that's the dynamic principle in action here...and not the object itself. Objects are not dynamic, objects have never been seen, objects are known...they are put in place by subjective conceptual knowledge (ideas) which are not the object at all...the object is only and ever the one unchanging substance changing itself in infinite ways as one whole unitary action.

Terrapin Station wrote:"There's just everything" wouldn't imply "Nothing is distinguishable." Obviously things are distinguishable. Hence a cat over there and me over here.

Only the mind divides and distinguishes. Life evolved the mind in man in order for man to make sense of reality, but at base fundamental level - all is one appearing as ten thousand things. Or many of the one. As the Zen saying goes...''When the self advances, the ten thousand things retreat. When the self retreats, the ten thousand things advance.''

Terrapin Station wrote:You're conflating two different senses of "self conscious" there, by the way. The sense where it refers to simply "the idea or awareness of a self" and the sense of "insecurity re how one will be perceived by others due to social conventions and so on."

No, The 'self conscious' I'm referring to is only one of it's kind not two as you seem to believe...there is only one kind of ''self consciousness'' and that is when someone thinks someone else is looking at them. This is a false idea. There is no one looking out of a persons or dog or cats eyes. There is only ONE seeing, seeing as and through every single eye... There is only light reflecting itself everywhere through everything. Dogs and cats don't see them selves separate from their owners, the intention or idea that THEY are separate from US has never been planted in them, they do not have a mind to receive such information. We know this by the sheer fact that if they could receive such information they would be plotting negative things against us for how we sometimes treat them.

Terrapin Station wrote:Yet here you're claiming that you know just what their mentality--or the absence of the same--is like. You don't, though.

No we can't know anything about anything in life...no creature has ever been alive before. Humans make assumptions about life via the knowledge that has been passed on to them by others, no one has ever had an original thought. Everything we think we know is born of the mind which doesn't exist except as an idea. We basically make it all up as we go along, we are living in a man-made fantasy world of make belief where we believe to be separate individuals living in our bodies separate from the world ''out-there'' ..but that is the big the illusion...that's not what's happening at all.

Terrapin Station wrote:Ideas are not real in your view?

I've never seen an idea, ideas are known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness. Consciousness has never been seen. The whole of reality is an illusion appearing and happening to no one. The word ''Real'' is not an object known ...it can't be conceived or seen or known, so it's arbitrary nonsense to even consider it to be an actuality...what is known is make-belief (the actualities)

It's perfectly coherent if you don't accept the concept. Nothing is easier to accept than that which doesn't exist. It requires no effort at all since there's nothing to think about.

sthitapragya wrote: One link would have stopped this from looking like a cop out disguised as an insult.

What's wrong with calling someone who is too intellectually lazy to look for themselves intellectually lazy?

Oh and something to keep in mind at all times while reading this stuff on Collective Evolution :" In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that affects the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process."

You failed to mention that's a philosophical position and one with which those doing recent experiments disagree.

A little science is a superstitious thing.

Scientists stepping outside their field of expertise and calling it science is a "superstitious thing."

You wrote: Rational beings demand rational answers. "Just because" doesn't provide that -- especially when it does violence to our common sense, experience and humanness.

God not only does not explain why energy is just so, it also does not explain why the universe is just so. And it definitely does not explain why God exists. Where is the common sense in saying God exists just because? If God can exist just because, what prevents the universe from existing just because?

Can you see the bias here?Your just because is better than my just because.

You're anthropomorphizing again; you're forgetting that God is not a being alongside other beings.

Dubious wrote:It's perfectly coherent if you don't accept the concept. Nothing is easier to accept than that which doesn't exist. It requires no effort at all since there's nothing to think about.

So it is logically acceptable to deny that about which you know nothing?

Dontaskme wrote:There is no way of ever knowing that...we can only assume we know.

We can say we don't know, too. At that I think there are better reasons to assume that at least some other animals have mentalities similar to human mentalities in some respects than to assume that they do not.

the whole inquiry into the nature of other selves assumed to be in other creatures remain mute and irrational from the start...

Maybe "irrational" if one doesn't understand the conventional definition of "rational."

I'm referring to objects such as an orange, banana, apple, tree....etc.( the actualities) An apple will always be an apple, it can never be a banana...

Then you're making a very elementary (and unfortunately all-too-common) philosophical mistake. Concepts are not identical in such cases to what they're concepts of. A concept of an apple is different than an apple. Concepts of apples etc. are not fixed.

the concept apple will never change.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

The main premise of what I'm trying to point to is there's just one substance transforming itself into myriad of things...

What would be the reason that you'd believe that?

Only the mind divides and distinguishes.

You're using "distinguishes" with a mental connotation there, so obviously it would be the case under that sense that only minds do it. The issue is whether it's done completely arbitrarily or not. There's absolutely no reason to assume that it has no correspondence to how the world really is.

Life evolved the mind in man in order for man to make sense of reality,

Believing that, it would make no sense to assume that the external world is really a homogeneous soup.

but at base fundamental level - all is one appearing as ten thousand things.

And again,the reason to believe that is....?

No,

No to your no. You really were conflating different senses of "self conscious."

there is only one kind of ''self consciousness''

Again, you couldn't be further from the truth here. You have a really bad batting average.

and that is when someone thinks someone else is looking at them. This is a false idea.

??? What the heck does that mean--it's a "false idea"?

There is no one looking out of a persons or dog or cats eyes.

You're just descending into gibberish now.

There is only ONE seeing, seeing as and through every single eye...

What in the world are you talking about?

There is only light reflecting itself everywhere through everything.

You're claiming that only light exists or something? C'mon man. You're wasting my time with this nonsense.

Maybe it would be interesting to see if there's even one view you have that I would agree with.

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Sorry I cannot possible begin to take anything you say seriously since, by your own admission, you are talking bollocks.

Well at least we agree on something.

If you think that you're "talking bollocks," then that's definitely something I agree with you on.

Let's see if we can find something else we'd agree on.

Reflex wrote:

Dubious wrote:It's perfectly coherent if you don't accept the concept. Nothing is easier to accept than that which doesn't exist. It requires no effort at all since there's nothing to think about.

So it is logically acceptable to deny that about which you know nothing?

Bottom line. There is no greater example of a nonreciprocating assignment than attempting to know by any logic known what is forever unknowable.