Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote:
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to travel this path with you anymore because (to me) it feels too much like it’s your path rather than an equally shared path. I wish you well.

I'm so relieved to see you're not going to let him lead you up the garden path, Lacewing. The next thing you knew, he would have been asking if you wanted to look inside his shed.

mystical_universe wrote:[Questioning Everything]

Does the universe itself really exist ?,

What do you mean "universe"?

BradburyPound wrote:

mystical_universe wrote:[Questioning Everything]

Does the universe itself really exist ?,

What do you mean "universe"?

The Universe is defined as everything that exists, so asking if the universe exists is a meaningless question.

ken wrote:You want to look on things mostly from the brain or only from the knowledge that has already been obtained. I, on the other hand, want to look from the Mind or from a truly open perspective.

Perspectives, the kind you refer to, are usually encased in fog. Questions may arise denoting awareness within that field but not its resolution and the yearning persists which may be pleasant for a while but doomed eventually to unwind itself and stop ticking. It's the brain which provides what the mind is seeking and builds within that space. A "truly open perspective" cannot exist even within the mind. Expanses must be circumscribed and measured to be acknowledged. The frontiers of that are the questions which persist.

thedoc wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:

mystical_universe wrote:[Questioning Everything]

Does the universe itself really exist ?,

What do you mean "universe"?

The Universe is defined as everything that exists, so asking if the universe exists is a meaningless question.

Well obviously but I was asking "mystical_universe".

Dubious wrote:

ken wrote:You want to look on things mostly from the brain or only from the knowledge that has already been obtained. I, on the other hand, want to look from the Mind or from a truly open perspective.

Perspectives, the kind you refer to, are usually encased in fog.

Do you have any examples of this, regarding Me?

Dubious wrote:Questions may arise denoting awareness within that field but not its resolution and the yearning persists which may be pleasant for a while but doomed eventually to unwind itself and stop ticking. It's the brain which provides what the mind is seeking and builds within that space.
A "truly open perspective" cannot exist even within the mind. Expanses must be circumscribed and measured to be acknowledged. The frontiers of that are the questions which persist.

You sound like you are trying to propose you know what you are talking about. What is the 'Mind'?

If the belief that a truly open perspective can not exist is maintained and persists, then an open perspective can NOT exist, for YOU. But have you got any proof for that belief, for Me?

I do NOT belief nor do I disbelief, therefore I am truly OPEN ALWAYS. Now can you prove that statement is incorrect, false, or wrong?

I have questioned YOU about what you say, now why not try and challenge Me, by questioning Me?

YOU can either prove Me wrong by writing a sound, valid argument against what I say or by questioning Me until I contradict or stumble. But you can NOT just write what YOU, yourself, do and expect that to be the TRUTH for every one.

BradburyPound wrote:

thedoc wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:
What do you mean "universe"?

The Universe is defined as everything that exists, so asking if the universe exists is a meaningless question.

Well obviously but I was asking "mystical_universe".

How about the "Mystical Realm", might be a bit less confusing, and while it certainly has no physical existence, It can exist in some peoples minds. In the mind is where most people who believe it will find it.

ken wrote: You sound like you are trying to propose you know what you are talking about. What is the 'Mind'?

Imagine it as the way you expressed it.

ken wrote:If the belief that a truly open perspective can not exist is maintained and persists, then an open perspective can NOT exist, for YOU. But have you got any proof for that belief, for Me?

Why like so many others in philosophy forums do you constantly ask for proof where "proof" as such, can never apply? But your request firmly proves one thing, namely that by asking for proof you cannot possess an "OPEN MIND" as constantly claimed never noticing the inherent contradiction! It seems you have no means of harnessing your ego running rampant by making such claims.

ken wrote:I do NOT belief nor do I disbelief, therefore I am truly OPEN ALWAYS. Now can you prove that statement is incorrect, false, or wrong?

Human psychology preempts any such certitude or degree of "OPENNESS" as if it were some indigenous propensity unless it becomes pathological. Once again, your extraneous "prove" statements confirm that YOU are "incorrect, false and wrong" by challenging others through non sequiturs hoping that your ego will feel warm and cozy.

ken wrote:YOU can either prove Me wrong by writing a sound, valid argument against what I say or by questioning Me until I contradict or stumble. But you can NOT just write what YOU, yourself, do and expect that to be the TRUTH for every one.

What I write are my views which I do not denote as TRUTH, whatever that may mean, though not exempt from occasionally declaring one acknowledged or not.

Dubious wrote:

ken wrote: You sound like you are trying to propose you know what you are talking about. What is the 'Mind'?

Imagine it as the way you expressed it.

If I imagine the Mind as I expressed it, then what you are saying is so totally incorrect.

You wrote, the mind seeks and builds, and, a truly open perspective can not exist within the mind, so I asked you, "What is the 'Mind'?" and the best answer you have got, is to tell Me to imagine It as the way I expressed It. Do you really expect others to understand what it is that you are trying to express when you supply answers like this? You are trying to appear as you know what the Mind is, yet fail to clarify anything at all, regarding this point.

Dubious wrote:

ken wrote:If the belief that a truly open perspective can not exist is maintained and persists, then an open perspective can NOT exist, for YOU. But have you got any proof for that belief, for Me?

Why like so many others in philosophy forums do you constantly ask for proof where "proof" as such, can never apply?

Because if you claim some thing is true, like "A truly open perspective" can not exist, then are you really surprised if others wonder if you have any proof of that claim or view? Just expressing a view is perfectly normal and fine, but If a view is being expressed as though it is the truth, just like you have done here, then there also needs to be some sort of proof, evidence, arguments, or clarity from questioning, to follow, in order to substantiate the view.

WHY like so many in forums when I ask to be challenged and questioned regarding my claims and/or views I only on the very rarest of occasions get some sort of a slight challenge? You are in a perfect position to answer this question because you are another one who never challenged Me about what I wrote, even after asking to be challenged. You could also answer why so many in philosophy forums do not answer the questions I pose to them for clarity of what they are actually saying? Further to this I already KNOW the true and right answers, I only ask to see if any others can provide those answers also.

By the way if proof can never apply, then HOW can you be sure that your view is true, right, and/or correct?

I can and will prove what I say and write.

Dubious wrote:But your request firmly proves one thing, namely that by asking for proof you cannot possess an "OPEN MIND" as constantly claimed never noticing the inherent contradiction!

I will have to apologize here for being way to slow because I still can NOT notice any inherent contradiction in what I wrote. Just maybe you can enlighten all of us here and point out very clearly the contradiction you appear to see in what I write. Please feel free to do this.

I, however, can see a very clear and distinct obvious contradiction in what you write.

By its very nature 'asking questions' implies being OPEN, right?

If not, then explain why not.

You may have forgotten I was only claiming what I do. I, unlike you, was NOT claiming what others, can or can NOT, do. So, I was only asking you to prove the claims YOU made. One claim was that open perspectives are usually encased in fog. I asked you to provide some examples, however you failed to supply any examples at all. As for all the other claims you made, which I asked for clarification and/or proof, you have shown absolutely no clarity nor proof for either.

If any person makes any claim and any person believes it to be true, then that is NOT being open. The belief creates the closedness. But when questioning everything then that is what being OPEN IS, about. Let Me make this very clear, I was NOT asking you for proof, in the belief that what I said was true, and if you could not prove it, then you were wrong. I already KNOW you can not disprove what I say I do. I was asking for proof because you were expressing views, which appeared to be expressed as being claimed as true, right, and/or correct. I only said what I do, so if you are going to propose that I am not doing what I say I do, then you need some very good backup for your claims. Unfortunately, you provided none. You have only proposed that no human being can be truly open. If you were take notice I was talking only about Me and what I do, whereas you were trying to talk for every one and what they do.

I CAN prove what I said I do, thus the reason I ask to be challenged. Being challenged means questioning Me for clarification because obviously you, and others, do NOT yet know what I am saying.

Now can you see that I was NOT actually contradicting any thing at all, because I can clearly see, so obviously, how you are the one completely contradicting what you write?

If you believe that Me asking for proof is, so that when you can not then that proves what I am saying is correct, then you are completely incorrect. I KNOW what I am saying IS correct and I can prove it all alone. In fact I am proving what I am saying already, through these writings, and which is being evidenced by the replies I get back.

Dubious wrote: It seems you have no means of harnessing your ego running rampant by making such claims.

You could not even begin to imagine the ego that I am harnessing right now. And, you will also NEVER know until either you ask and I tell you, or you learn and/or discover who I am. That is the I in the question, Who am I? By the way if you want to begin to assume there is any negative connotation to any of the ego, then you would be completely wrong and incorrect again.

Also, I can also see a very strong and clear image being mirrored back in this statement of yours. By the way, that is in the negative connotation way this time.

Dubious wrote:

ken wrote:I do NOT belief nor do I disbelief, therefore I am truly OPEN ALWAYS. Now can you prove that statement is incorrect, false, or wrong?

Human psychology preempts any such certitude or degree of "OPENNESS" as if it were some indigenous propensity unless it becomes pathological. Once again, your extraneous "prove" statements confirm that YOU are "incorrect, false and wrong" by challenging others through non sequiturs hoping that your ego will feel warm and cozy.

Your sentences here do NOT follow. For example;
HOW would you KNOW what human psychology preempts?
How could just one person know this?
Where you around in the "beginning" and has evolution finished yet?
If not, then how would you KNOW what human psychology preempts.
You have to understand who 'you' are, who 'I' am, before you could even begin to know what human psychology actually is and/or preempts.
For all you know openness, in the true sense, IS what has probably allowed human beings to have "progressed", and I use that word very lightly, as far as they have hitherto.
The subject title here is 'Questioning Everything' and to Me questioning everything comes from being open, which is what the Mind IS, ALWAYS.
HOW can I be incorrect, false, and wrong when I explaining what I, this Self, does?
By your very own admission you have no way to prove what I do, so how can you be so sure that I am allegedly incorrect, false and wrong as you preempt that I am?
You have absolutely no idea, YET, of who I am, so you have absolutely no idea about ego, warmth, and coziness regarding Me.
So, your last statement, and all your other statements by the way, do not logically follow each other. Mainly because you have no idea what the MInd is, and how It works, yet all your statements are based around the idea that you do know what the Mind actually IS.

Dubious wrote:

ken wrote:YOU can either prove Me wrong by writing a sound, valid argument against what I say or by questioning Me until I contradict or stumble. But you can NOT just write what YOU, yourself, do and expect that to be the TRUTH for every one.

What I write are my views which I do not denote as TRUTH, whatever that may mean, though not exempt from occasionally declaring one acknowledged or not.

So if the views you write, which do not denote as being truth, which you have just admitted that you do not even know what 'truth' means, right? Then why does what you write appear as though you are denoting it as truth? For instance, A "truly open perspective" can not exist even within the Mind, appears as though it is being denoted as some kind of true statement or proposition.

Are you now suggesting that a truly open perspective CAN exist? If so, then that is great. You will find being open like this is truly wonderful and enlightening. But, if there is a belief that a truly open perspective can not exist, (even within the Mind), then sadly you are proving that belief true, right, and correct, but only for you. You will find being closed like this will leave you bewildered and confused about what is really going on here. That bewilderment and confusion has already been proven to be correct.

By the way, I wonder if you could enlighten us to what the Mind actually means, to you, by now?

If, and when, you do fully know what the Mind IS, and know how It works exactly, then I am sure you will be able to clearly see what has just happened here.

What are you trying to prove with such long posts? It looks as if you're trying to convince yourself more than me or anyone else. I have no objection you attempting to maintain your stance in all your "open mindedness" though quite clear that it remains closed to all other ideas except yours.

ken wrote:If I imagine the Mind as I expressed it, then what you are saying is so totally incorrect.

As the saying goes, the mind is what the brain does. The mystery here is not the former but the latter...think of it however you will. Consciousness to me is a fugue coalescing many different themes into one abstraction called "a thought" the plurality of which denotes MIND. This conclusion is merely my brain thinking retroactively on the idea.

ken wrote:I will have to apologize here for being way to slow because I still can NOT notice any inherent contradiction in what I wrote. Just maybe you can enlighten all of us here and point out very clearly the contradiction you appear to see in what I write. Please feel free to do this.

Like a thousand others who require proof whenever a contrary idea obstructs their own is again testament to a mind which hardly allows access to anyone else's and yours is such. This mundane demand for proof is opposite to one which grants access to possibilities and from there filters out the probabilities. An "open mind" is one that doesn't automatically deny simply because it doesn't conform to a counter view and neither is it one which continuously demands proof as if it were a cash transaction. Therefore your continuously repeated claim of having an open mind that will neither believe or disbelieve is totally bogus and untrue making conversation futile no matter how long your posts.

Dubious wrote:What are you trying to prove with such long posts? It looks as if you're trying to convince yourself more than me or anyone else. I have no objection you attempting to maintain your stance in all your "open mindedness" though quite clear that it remains closed to all other ideas except yours.

ken wrote:If I imagine the Mind as I expressed it, then what you are saying is so totally incorrect.

As the saying goes, the mind is what the brain does. The mystery here is not the former but the latter...think of it however you will. Consciousness to me is a fugue coalescing many different themes into one abstraction called "a thought" the plurality of which denotes MIND. This conclusion is merely my brain thinking retroactively on the idea.

ken wrote:I will have to apologize here for being way to slow because I still can NOT notice any inherent contradiction in what I wrote. Just maybe you can enlighten all of us here and point out very clearly the contradiction you appear to see in what I write. Please feel free to do this.

Like a thousand others who require proof whenever a contrary idea obstructs their own is again testament to a mind which hardly allows access to anyone else's and yours is such. This mundane demand for proof is opposite to one which grants access to possibilities and from there filters out the probabilities. An "open mind" is one that doesn't automatically deny simply because it doesn't conform to a counter view and neither is it one which continuously demands proof as if it were a cash transaction. Therefore your continuously repeated claim of having an open mind that will neither believe or disbelieve is totally bogus and untrue making conversation futile no matter how long your posts.

Another one who can NOT back up what they claim is true, when challenged, and another one who is also unable to, or will NOT even attempt to, challenge Me.

You claim no person can be open, but you can not back this up with any thing substiantial.

WHY?

I claim I am always open, but you will not even challenge Me on this.

WHY?

The reasons for these are clearly obvious.

Questioning everything is likely to get us closer to truth. There is a custom of asking questions from Plato to someone like J. Krishnamurti, a thinker from India. But the essence we all want is never arrived at. Whether it is through science or metaphysics the basic question ‘why we are here’ never gets answered. But questioning is something that makes us philosophers thinkers but cannot enlighten us.

haribol acharya wrote:Questioning everything is likely to get us closer to truth. There is a custom of asking questions from Plato to someone like J. Krishnamurti, a thinker from India. But the essence we all want is never arrived at. Whether it is through science or metaphysics the basic question ‘why we are here’ never gets answered. But questioning is something that makes us philosophers thinkers but cannot enlighten us.

Are you absolutely sure of this?

How do you know for sure that I or another, for example, have NOT answered the question 'why we are here'?

If questioning, and answering, can NOT enlighten us, then how did human beings become enlightened as much as we have?

The question ‘why we are here’ is a metaphysical question and since science has little to do with the purpose. Yes, you can have so many reasons as to why we are here but you cannot satisfy all with your answer(s). This is a classical debate and it is to metaphysics we will have to rely on. But metaphysics has little to do with rationalism and empiricism or with any scientific reasoning. But humans never stop asking such questions though he is unsure of arriving at the truth he is desperately searching. Our domain of inquiry is limited by our brain- capacity. It has its own limitations if we try to reason or logically try to prove this notion. Today most of us have been skeptical and seek for reasons, logics, and experiments. Enlightenment is something of the religious or spiritual stuff. But we are gradually becoming less and less religions-centric since science has disproved many of our age-old notions of creation, grand design or the existence of God. However enlightenment, spirituality is still gaining significance. Consciousness is something that distinguish humans from animals, though someone like Daniel Dennett is skeptical about this. I however, believe in universal consciousness and think that realization or awareness of our integrality to cosmic consciousness will awaken us to the meaning of our existence on this planet and this realization will answer our eternal question “ why we are here”.

haribol acharya wrote:The question ‘why we are here’ is a metaphysical question and since science has little to do with the purpose. Yes, you can have so many reasons as to why we are here but you cannot satisfy all with your answer(s). This is a classical debate and it is to metaphysics we will have to rely on. But metaphysics has little to do with rationalism and empiricism or with any scientific reasoning. But humans never stop asking such questions though he is unsure of arriving at the truth he is desperately searching. Our domain of inquiry is limited by our brain- capacity. It has its own limitations if we try to reason or logically try to prove this notion. Today most of us have been skeptical and seek for reasons, logics, and experiments. Enlightenment is something of the religious or spiritual stuff. But we are gradually becoming less and less religions-centric since science has disproved many of our age-old notions of creation, grand design or the existence of God. However enlightenment, spirituality is still gaining significance. Consciousness is something that distinguish humans from animals, though someone like Daniel Dennett is skeptical about this. I however, believe in universal consciousness and think that realization or awareness of our integrality to cosmic consciousness will awaken us to the meaning of our existence on this planet and this realization will answer our eternal question “ why we are here”.

WHY do so many people try talk for all people? YOU may not be able to satisfy all with YOUR answers, but that does NOT mean another can not. YOU talk about what human beings HAVE DONE and what YOU, yourself, DO and put this onto everyone as if all do the same. YOU, like I have witnessed so many times so far, contradict what you say when you try to put YOUR knowledge into others. YOU start off with, the 'why we are here' question never gets answered. YOU imply this question will not possibly be known, but then YOU end up saying we will answer the question 'why we are here'. What is it that YOU are trying to say here?

To Me, any and ALL metaphysical questions have already been answered. I KNOW this because I am left without any confusion of how ALL the answers fit perfectly together to form the big picture of Life. There is no ambiguity, no contradiction, nor any fault at all. So, please talk for YOU only. Leave Me out of what you assume, think, and believe is true. If YOU want to know what I could know and already do know, then just ask. Do NOT presume you already know.