Philosophy Now Forum

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:12 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:21 am
Well it’s a good job I’ve stopped believing in untruths...what you think of me is non of my business.

I actually think Nick to be a very intelligent speaker...he’s not hating on any one..he’s just high lighting issues that apparently exist within the human psyche....

I just don’t get why people here can’t see that...

I see that, and probably some others see that as well.

What YOU can't see, however, at least you give no evidence of it, is that Nick_A and you hold strong beliefs that can't be verified and you want us to accept your views as truth; and we hold views that can be and are verified by senses and logic, and yet you deny their validity.

It's not even that your (Dontaskme's and Nick_A's) views are opposed to ours. (Which they are, but that's not the main point.) The most disturbing about your posts, and what we, the rest of the board hold grievance against, is that you place value on completely unknowable things, and call it "knowledge" and "truth".

How many people does it take to observe a concept before it is considered real? If person "A" and "B" perceive in "Z", but person "C" does not perceive "Z", does person "C" actually perceive a grade of person's "A" and "B"'s perception because it changes the actions of person "A" and "B" through which "C" relates?

If a person says their is more to reality than meets the eye, but another say's only what we see exists, does that mean we can observe that some people see more or less of reality than we do?



I don't know what you mean, does that mean you are wrong? Or am I ignorant? Both?

Or does the fact that both sides acknowledge the other is wrong, observe a "constant" both agree on, hence to some degree we understand eachother? Saying the other is wrong, may not fundamentally equate to the same understanding of wrong, but does it change both are observing "wrong" exists at minimum as a concept?

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:12 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:21 am
Well it’s a good job I’ve stopped believing in untruths...what you think of me is non of my business.

I actually think Nick to be a very intelligent speaker...he’s not hating on any one..he’s just high lighting issues that apparently exist within the human psyche....

I just don’t get why people here can’t see that...

I see that, and probably some others see that as well.

What YOU can't see, however, at least you give no evidence of it, is that Nick_A and you hold strong beliefs that can't be verified and you want us to accept your views as truth; and we hold views that can be and are verified by senses and logic, and yet you deny their validity.

It's not even that your (Dontaskme's and Nick_A's) views are opposed to ours. (Which they are, but that's not the main point.) The most disturbing about your posts, and what we, the rest of the board hold grievance against, is that you place value on completely unknowable things, and call it "knowledge" and "truth".

Nobody knows anything or what they are doing....but what we do know is we like to be safe and warm and loved...all of us need that basic requirement ..it’s a universal moral eternal law.

.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:44 am But didn't you agree with me that they can also be seen by the creator of the idea, that is that they are images, sounds and feelings in one's head?

No, I said the image seen is a reflection of the idea, it's a recording. There is no entity to be seen in a recording or in a photograph. And there is no entity to be seen inside ones head or body. There is no one here except a light and sound show of appearances appearing in nothing.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:44 amBang goes that two-hundred quid I just spent on a fitted gum shield to stop my teeth biting themselves at night then.

Lets try another metaphor then clever dick. How about a knife. A knife can cut things into many pieces but it cannot cut itself.

That's what reality is, it's one without a second = no-thing and everything.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:49 pm
Nobody knows anything or what they are doing....but what we do know is we like to be safe and warm and loved...all of us need that basic requirement ..it’s a universal moral eternal law.

.

Incredibly irrelevant bull. Your comments are not even close to worth reading.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:58 pm How many people does it take to observe a concept before it is considered real? If person "A" and "B" perceive in "Z", but person "C" does not perceive "Z", does person "C" actually perceive a grade of person's "A" and "B"'s perception because it changes the actions of person "A" and "B" through which "C" relates?

If a person says their is more to reality than meets the eye, but another say's only what we see exists, does that mean we can observe that some people see more or less of reality than we do?



I don't know what you mean, does that mean you are wrong? Or am I ignorant? Both?

Or does the fact that both sides acknowledge the other is wrong, observe a "constant" both agree on, hence to some degree we understand eachother? Saying the other is wrong, may not fundamentally equate to the same understanding of wrong, but does it change both are observing "wrong" exists at minimum as a concept?

I will answer you as soon as you write nominative sentences with assertions, instead of questions. Who do you think you are, that we hop to answering your questions? State your position, we don't play your guessing game. Actually, I won't answer your nominative sentences either.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:17 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:49 pm
Nobody knows anything or what they are doing....but what we do know is we like to be safe and warm and loved...all of us need that basic requirement ..it’s a universal moral eternal law.

.

Incredibly irrelevant bull. Your comments are not even close to worth reading.

There is no one who reads this shit or writes it. It's all pie in de sky. Pure dreamscape fantasy.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:34 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:17 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:49 pm
Nobody knows anything or what they are doing....but what we do know is we like to be safe and warm and loved...all of us need that basic requirement ..it’s a universal moral eternal law.

.

Incredibly irrelevant bull. Your comments are not even close to worth reading.

There is no one who reads this shit or writes it. It's all pie in de sky. Pure dreamscape fantasy.

It seems there are those rare occasional flashes in your dreamscape fantasy when do "know yourself", due perhaps to an involuntary moment of self-critique? It would suit you well to continue any such instances of self-revelation offered by serendipity.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:40 am Arising-uk mentions phenomenology with reference to Prof Needleman. I looked it up in Stamford Dictionary of Philosophy.

Phenomenology is commonly understood in either of two ways: as a disciplinary field in philosophy, or as a movement in the history of philosophy.

The discipline of phenomenology may be defined initially as the study of structures of experience, or consciousness. Literally, phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view. This field of philosophy is then to be distinguished from, and related to, the other main fields of philosophy: ontology (the study of being or what is), epistemology (the study of knowledge), logic (the study of valid reasoning), ethics (the study of right and wrong action), etc.

I am puzzled as to why phenomenology is classed as philosophy and not psychology. Also may we say "from the phenomenological perspective" as if to mean "from the subjective perspective" ?

Personally, I see it as psychology, but then philosophy is the father of all science, and psychology is considered a science. Though some see it as a soft science, it's science none the less, just harder to pin down. That is until we fully understand the brain.

psychology [sahy-kol-uh-jee]
noun, plural psychologies.
1. the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.
2. the science of human and animal behavior.
3. the sum or characteristics of the mental states and processes of a person or class of persons, or of the mental states and processes involved in a field of activity: the psychology of a soldier; the psychology of politics.
4. mental ploys or strategy: He used psychology on his parents to get a larger allowance. --dictionary.com--

psychology
noun
1 mass noun The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in a given context.
2 in singular The mental characteristics or attitude of a person or group. ‘the psychology of child-killers’
2.1 The mental factors governing a situation or activity. ‘the psychology of interpersonal relationships’ --https://en.oxforddictionaries.com--

I see that we tend to draw lines between different aspects of all that is human, and that it's unnecessary to attempt to segregate and classify things that are, of the human, as separate entities. They are all pertaining to us humans after all. What else to we really care about? So why draw arbitrary lines in the sand?

Dontaskme wrote:No, I said the image seen is a reflection of the idea, it's a recording. ...

Of what and whose idea is it then?

There is no entity to be seen in a recording or in a photograph. ...

There's loads of entities in a photo and a recording?

And there is no entity to be seen inside ones head or body.

I agree as the body is the entity.

There is no one here except a light and sound show of appearances appearing in nothing.

Not nothing, the body in an external world.

That's what reality is, it's one without a second = no-thing and everything.

I thought you agreed with Kant that we cannot saay anything about 'reality'? Other than that there are phenomena that is.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:58 pm How many people does it take to observe a concept before it is considered real? If person "A" and "B" perceive in "Z", but person "C" does not perceive "Z", does person "C" actually perceive a grade of person's "A" and "B"'s perception because it changes the actions of person "A" and "B" through which "C" relates?

If a person says their is more to reality than meets the eye, but another say's only what we see exists, does that mean we can observe that some people see more or less of reality than we do?



I don't know what you mean, does that mean you are wrong? Or am I ignorant? Both?

Or does the fact that both sides acknowledge the other is wrong, observe a "constant" both agree on, hence to some degree we understand eachother? Saying the other is wrong, may not fundamentally equate to the same understanding of wrong, but does it change both are observing "wrong" exists at minimum as a concept?

I will answer you as soon as you write nominative sentences with assertions, instead of questions. Who do you think you are, that we hop to answering your questions? State your position, we don't play your guessing game. Actually, I won't answer your nominative sentences either.

In all truth you can't answer anything...yet you claim to argue strict logic...anything you don't understand you considering wrong. The questions only prove you cannot face any form of adversity.

The point of the question is you claim because someone else experienced something you have not, it is not truth, but considering their are relativistic truths you cannot claim someone else is ignorant when you openly admit to not understanding what they state.

I underlined the multiple verbs, it is important to follow the standards one places on others.

-1-

What YOU can't see, however, at least you give no evidence of it, is that Nick_A and you hold strong beliefs that can't be verified and you want us to accept your views as truth; and we hold views that can be and are verified by senses and logic, and yet you deny their validity.

It's not even that your (Dontaskme's and Nick_A's) views are opposed to ours. (Which they are, but that's not the main point.) The most disturbing about your posts, and what we, the rest of the board hold grievance against, is that you place value on completely unknowable things, and call it "knowledge" and "truth".

What is most disturbing about your posts is willingly limiting yourself to defining knowledge by sensory scientific truth and values by societal pragmatic decisions. Plato wrote of a greater reality above the divided line and sensory experience. You deny it while I'm open to it. Being open isn't believing but allowing for the conscious use of the quality of intuition to experience it. You believe in the Great Beast as the highest form of consciousness and I am open to a quality of consciousness far greater than Man on earth exhibits.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:05 am -1-

What YOU can't see, however, at least you give no evidence of it, is that Nick_A and you hold strong beliefs that can't be verified and you want us to accept your views as truth; and we hold views that can be and are verified by senses and logic, and yet you deny their validity.

It's not even that your (Dontaskme's and Nick_A's) views are opposed to ours. (Which they are, but that's not the main point.) The most disturbing about your posts, and what we, the rest of the board hold grievance against, is that you place value on completely unknowable things, and call it "knowledge" and "truth".

What is most disturbing about your posts is willingly limiting yourself to defining knowledge by sensory scientific truth and values by societal pragmatic decisions. Plato wrote of a greater reality above the divided line and sensory experience. You deny it while I'm open to it. Being open isn't believing but allowing for the conscious use of the quality of intuition to experience it. You believe in the Great Beast as the highest form of consciousness and I am open to a quality of consciousness far greater than Man on earth exhibits.

He just pretends to be logical, let him be, he needs the practice. He cannot take the fact that their might exist things outside of his understanding and it threatens his perspective of reality.

I dealt with him for the past couple months, he just self-destructs in a self-righteous "babies die in Africa; therefore God does not exist" mode, then cracks a few jokes about the absurdity of life in a vain effort to do a "yo bro" thing.

Half the time I am manipulating him and he doesn't even know it...its happening right now.

His most likely response will be to throw a few labels, accuse someone of obscurity, throw a joke, or all of the above. The question is, because I state this will happen, will he not do it to in an effort to prove I am wrong...or am I using reverse psychology to prove a point?

Dontaskme wrote:No, I said the image seen is a reflection of the idea, it's a recording. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:08 pmOf what and whose idea is it then?

No one's and everything's..which is the same one, which is not-a-thing.

There is no entity to be seen in a recording or in a photograph. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:08 pmThere's loads of entities in a photo and a recording?

There is nothing behind the recorded image to show up as a living thing, all recordings are dead things...you can burn an imaged photo of yourself..but you cannot burn the real self, because it's unavailable - it doesn't exist, and yet.. here it is watching it's imaged photograph of itself go up in flames...isn't that cool?

And there is no entity to be seen inside ones head or body.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:08 pmI agree as the body is the entity.

The body is the body, there is nothing occupying the body that is anything other than the body itself. To say the body is the entity is to imply the body is something else.

There is no one here except a light and sound show of appearances appearing in nothing.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:08 pmNot nothing, the body in an external world.

There is no external world separate from the inner world, there is no room to make such an approach to either except through ''thought'' which is non-locatable as well.

That's what reality is, it's one without a second = no-thing and everything.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:08 pmI thought you agreed with Kant that we cannot saay anything about 'reality'? Other than that there are phenomena that is.

We cannot talk about this or describe it...no word can describe what is without altering it into what isn't..

No word can describe this...or all words describe it.

It's just what appears to be happening.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:47 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:45 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:31 am Yeah, I guess it is kind of sad you're still getting all hung up on fairy stories.

Actually, you are the one still getting lost in a fairy story that's only half true. You never managed to properly integrate the new understanding, and you can't really make others see it either by talking word salads.

Resonance.

I don't give a toss about the word salad, it's all oil and vinegar.

You seem to be convinced of this dangerous Neo-Advaitan bullshit where you think that you don't exist at all. But the human self is real. (Well unless you are one of those few p-zombies who really lack self-awareness.)

Also, how can you be a nondualist and also be against science? That's a contradiction you know.

Atla replied to Dontaskme:

Also, how can you be a nondualist and also be against science? That's a contradiction you know.

Dontaskme is 'nondualist' by which DAM means there is one substance which is mental substance (to use the standard Western ontology lexicon, which DAM has not learned).

I don't agree with what you wrote, above, Atla. According to the standard Western ontological lexicon few Cartesian dualists ,i.e. substance dualists , are proper scientists. Proper scientists are monists not dualists. However proper scientists are seldom substance idealists like DAM. They are neutral monists. For instance a neurologist will not be averse in theory to working alongside a psychiatrist. And a physicist will concede that the observer affects the interpretation of the experimental finding.