Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:52 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 7:59 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 11:41 am We don't feel our self like we feel an arm or a smell. This is because the brain lacks proprioceptors like what other tissues have. We infer we have a self.

By "we,' don't you mean a "bundle of perceptions and passive ideas" are somehow inferring the existence of a self?

Again, if you are going to adopt and defend Hume's theory, then you forfeit the right to use certain words.

Furthermore, how many times do I have to point out to you that the brain itself doesn't feel or sense anything, and that it is the "I Am-ness" that senses, analyzes, and acts on (responds to) the information (qualia) relayed to it via the brain-body system?

In other words, the brain is the central connection (or "interface") through-which the "I Am-ness" gains access to the five sensory "windows" of the body,...

...which then gives the "I Am-ness" access to the interior reality of God's mind (the universe) of which the body and brain (but not the "I Am-ness") are a part of. And that would be metaphorically similar to how your mother's womb is a part of the interior reality of her body.*

*(I just don't know how to make the truth of reality sound more "natural" and "organic" than that. Which, in itself, should mean something.)

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 11:41 am You are of course correct that we feel qualia----subjective experiences---- however we can't locate those experiences to an anatomical locus.

There you go again with this "we" business.

Let me reword that for you so that it's more in line with Hume's philosophy...

A "bundle of perceptions and passive ideas" that goes by the label of "seeds" are of course correct that "bundles of perceptions and passive ideas" feel qualia----subjective experiences----however, "bundles of perceptions and passive ideas" can't locate those experiences to an anatomical locus.

There now, that's how you need to be wording your responses.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 11:41 am The "self" is an inferred locus.

Right, hence the need to look to the aforementioned "metaphysical suppositions" for the answer to this mystery.

Otherwise, we find ourselves in the absurd situation of denying the existence of the very thing that is doing the denying of its own existence.
_______

Descartes said: “I think, therefore I am.” — implying that the subjective self is the first certainty and foundation of existence.

But, 'it' does not imply 'this' at all.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:52 pm Kant, in contrast, said: “The ‘I think’ must be able to accompany all my representations.” — but he doesn’t treat that “I” as a concrete self. Rather, it’s a transcendental condition — a necessary structure that unifies experience.
(credit ChatGPT research)
Which of the above is closest to ,or identical with , your theory of existence?

Neither. "seed's" theory is nonsensical.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:52 pm I do understand the natural sciences are heuristics which I gather is what you allege I don't understand . My claim is the natural sciences are better heuristics than mysticism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:55 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:09 pm
But there's no evidence.

Anything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is evidence. Do you understand that much?

So the "evidence" is both nothing (since it's not distinct to Idealism in any way) and everything (since one is supposed to deduce idealism from all sensory data)? That's your alleged "evidence"?

If a detective were in court, and the lawyer were to ask him, "What evidence did you find that this was a murder," and he were to reply, "All I saw, heard, tasted and touched," what would the lawyer have to ask him next? And if he asked nothing further, just how solid would the case against the accused be?

Right. Zero.

LOL Once again "Immanuel can" has missed 'the point' absolutely.

Which is why it continually comes up with these completely 'off the mark' responses.

"Immanuel can" is a prime example of so many adult human beings, back when this was being written, when they just 'looked', and 'saw', 'the world' through their already obtained presumptions and beliefs, only. They were rarely, if ever, open to 'looking for' nor 'seeking' more, and so did not end up ever learning more. And, thus why 'they' took so, so long to 'catch up'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:55 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:28 pm
Anything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is evidence. Do you understand that much?

So the "evidence" is both nothing (since it's not distinct to Idealism in any way) and everything (since one is supposed to deduce idealism from all sensory data)? That's your alleged "evidence"?

If a detective were in court, and the lawyer were to ask him, "What evidence did you find that this was a murder," and he were to reply, "All I saw, heard, tasted and touched," what would the lawyer have to ask him next? And if he asked nothing further, just how solid would the case against the accused be?

Right. Zero.

The lawyer would ask the detective to specify the evidence which would have to be as irrefutable as possible----finger prints, DNA,dental records ,original documemnts.

But, 'evidence' never has to come anywhere close to being 'irrefutable'. That is 'the point' that "will bouwman" is pointing out, and showing, here.

Even if it did not realize that it was.

And, 'this' is why I continually say and point out why I do not do 'evidence' and only do 'proof', instead. 'Proof' is always irrefutable. 'Evidence', however, can always be refuted, in regards to what 'it' is claimed to mean or to be 'pointing to'.

For example, 'data' is 'evidence', but 'data' can be 'evidence' for a trillion different interpretations, theories, or guesses. All of which, by the way, could all be Wrong and Incorrect, or partly wrong and incorrect.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:12 pm Circumstantial evidence such as that the accused was in a certain place at a certain time would also be relevant.

Theories of existence may depend on evidence from the senses i.e. empirical evidence such as what is acceptable in a court of law; or alternatively theories of existence that depend solely on rational thought.
Empiricists (like Locke or Hume): trust sensory data as the source of knowledge.

But, what is 'warm', (sensory data), to one, could be 'cool', to another.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:12 pm Rationalists (like Descartes): trust reason as the source of certainty, and only later justify the senses through reason.

But, what is 'assumed or believed', (reason), if used, produces 'confirmation bias', which obviously affects 'the way' one 'looks at', and 'sees', things.

As I just pointed, and showed, 'sensory data', (what is, supposedly, 'justified', through the senses, or 'sensory data', can be different, very different, and even opposing to two people. What is 'warm' to one can be 'cool' to another.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:12 pm Law courts use empirical methods to find truth, and rational methods to apply it.

And, yet they, still, send completely innocent ones to prison, and some to even 'death', itself.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:12 pm Idealists talk about experience a lot — but they don’t use experience as evidence in the empirical sense.
They analyze what experience must be like, or what it presupposes, using reason.

Let 'us' not forget that 'illogical reason', and, 'nonsensical reason', still exists, and is, still, attempted to be used. One only has to 'look' throughout this forum to see 'this', very clearly. Some people, still, believe that the whole Universe began, and/or was created, all at once, with some, laughably, claiming that 'It' was all started with or by a thing with a penis, or, with a bang.

And, if some might adult human beings could not believe such nonsense and illogical reasoning, then just ask two people, here, who are fighting and bickering over 'this very thing'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:12 pm So, while empiricists ask, “What do we observe?”,
idealists ask, “What makes observation possible at all?”

Does 'this' apply to all of these 'imagined people', or to some of them, only?

Also, is it an impossibility for 'the other' to ask 'the other question'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:29 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:55 pm
So the "evidence" is both nothing (since it's not distinct to Idealism in any way) and everything (since one is supposed to deduce idealism from all sensory data)? That's your alleged "evidence"?

If a detective were in court, and the lawyer were to ask him, "What evidence did you find that this was a murder," and he were to reply, "All I saw, heard, tasted and touched," what would the lawyer have to ask him next? And if he asked nothing further, just how solid would the case against the accused be?

Right. Zero.

The lawyer would ask the detective to specify the evidence which would have to be as irrefutable as possible----finger prints, DNA,dental records ,original documemnts. Circumstantial evidence such as that the accused was in a certain place at a certain time would also be relevant.

Absolutely. So my asking Will "what evidence?" is perfectly reasonable -- and his declining to provide any...not so much.

But again, it's all moot. The infinite regress problem is confirmable and, so far as I can find, irrefutable, as well, on mathematical, not merely empirical grounds.

The fact that you will not present any so-called 'infinite regress problem', here, so that 'you' can be shown where and why 'your presumption and belief' is so far off, here, just goes to show what the actual fear is within 'you'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 4:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:29 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:12 pm

The lawyer would ask the detective to specify the evidence which would have to be as irrefutable as possible----finger prints, DNA,dental records ,original documemnts. Circumstantial evidence such as that the accused was in a certain place at a certain time would also be relevant.

Absolutely. So my asking Will "what evidence?" is perfectly reasonable -- and his declining to provide any...not so much.

But again, it's all moot. The infinite regress problem is confirmable and, so far as I can find, irrefutable, as well, on mathematical, not merely empirical grounds.

But it is not reasonable to ignore that law courts use rational methods (evidence not involved ) to apply evidence.

To put it simply when a sensible person

LOL 'Sensible person'.

Every one of 'these people', here, thought that 'they' were 'the sensible ones'. Yet, one has to 'look at' some of 'their beliefs and/or assumptions' to see who was/is clearly sensible from who was/is not.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 4:03 pm wants to know the facts about what to do they find evidence.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This is the very opposite of what a Truly sensible person would do.

What you are 'talking about', here, is 'confirmation bias'. Which 'finding evidence' is some thing a Truly 'sensible person' would not and never do.

LOL "Immanuel can" believes that God created the whole Universe, all at once, and so goes 'looking for' 'evidence' of 'that'. Whereas, "will bouwman" believes that some bang created the whole Universe, all at once, and so goes 'looking for' 'evidence' of 'that'.

Now, do you, really, believe that 'doing this' is what a 'sensible person' would really do?

What would you call 'the person' who 'just remains open always, while waiting' for the actual 'facts and proof' to come to light?

A 'non sensible person', or, something else?

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 4:03 pm THEN they use reason to APPLY the evidence.

you are 'talking about' 'confirmation bias', exactly.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 4:03 pm Example: Is this fish wholesome? Evidence---smell, texture, bright or dim eyes, reputation of the fishmonger. Reason---- I must eat but am not 10O% sure about the fish so I use my reasoned judgement what some people call common sense.

And, 'this' is what 'they had', and 'used', back in the 'olden days', when this was being written.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 5:54 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 5:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:55 pm
So the "evidence" is both nothing (since it's not distinct to Idealism in any way) and everything (since one is supposed to deduce idealism from all sensory data)?

No, one is not supposed to deduce anything. The point is that one can deduce a number of things from the same sensory data. Do you understand that?

If "nobody is supposed to deduce anything," then there is no such thing as knowledge -- and you cannot possibly be having the knowledge that this is so, since that would undermine your own theory. So that's utterly anti-educational, anti-science, and anti-intellectual, as well as being self-contradictory. So there's nothing to "understand" about that, except that it's absurd.

Again, you're also mixing up epistemology with ontology. Somebody "can deduce" -- or better, can estimate -- many things from sensory data. But as the data changes, so too ought the estimations. It's called "learning." And these estimations can often be wrong, or they may be right; either way, it makes no difference to ontology.

Ontology refers to what really exists, whether anybody estimates it correctly or not. If not a single person in the world knew what "gravity" was, gravity would still kill those who step off cliffs. In that way, ontological reality pre-exists us, it compels our sensory inputs, and delimits what we can reasonably estimate about what's 'out there.' But no matter how faulty somebody's epistemology may be, ontological reality does not alter. It is always whatever it is. Epistemology doesn't change that. And when faulty epistemology runs into ontology, then ontology wins, every single time.

But again, all this is totally irrelevant to the infinite regress problem. It's like you're trying to argue against pythagorean theorem with reference to watermelons. There's no logical connection there. So let's go back to that issue, and we can simply dismiss all this speculative rubbish about "Idealism." It's not relevant to the topic. Even if you somehow managed to win on the empirical point (which I think you can't, and that's why you can't specify evidence) you would still lose to the mathematics.

The question posed, and asked, to you "Immanuel can" was,

Do you understand that?

The amount of times 'these people' missed and/or misunderstood when a question was posed, and asked to them, here, in this forum, would be Truly amazing, if why they did was not already known.

Obviously "immanuel can", still, does not understand 'that' "will bouwman". Even considering the amount of times you have explained 'that', in a variety of different ways. But, again, 'this' is just the result of when one has or holds 'an assumption or a belief'.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:29 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:52 pm Descartes said: “I think, therefore I am.” — implying that the subjective self is the first certainty and foundation of existence.

Kant, in contrast, said: “The ‘I think’ must be able to accompany all my representations.” — but he doesn’t treat that “I” as a concrete self. Rather, it’s a transcendental condition — a necessary structure that unifies experience.
(credit ChatGPT research)
Which of the above is closest to ,or identical with , your theory of existence?

Well, if you've paid any attention to what I have been promoting in this forum for the last 9 years, then you would know that what Chat had to say about the Cartesian axiom is closest to my theory of existence.

Indeed, to me, the "I Am"...

(which is simply just another name for our eternal soul, or, again, the "locus" of our being)

Who and/or what does the 'our' and the 'soul' word, here, refer to, exactly?

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:29 pm ...is what is truly real and permanent, while all else is but mere illusion.

So, even though (whatever the 'our' is) owns/has some so-called 'eternal soul', it is the 'eternal soul' you say and claim is the 'truly real and permanent' one.

Which, as some, and hopefully more, now, can very clearly see is very contradictory.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:29 pm However, the word "illusion" might be misleading, for without the existence of the illusory substance that comprises the soul's thoughts, and dreams, and the phenomenal features of the universe, then not only would the "I Am" find itself in the hellish state of having nothing to see, feel, hear, smell, or taste,...

Which is even more contradictory, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect.

And, as always with absolutely every thing that 'I' have said and claimed, here, if absolutely any one would like the irrefutable proof, for what 'I' say and claim, here, then allow 'us' to just have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:29 pm ...but it would also have no means by which to replicate itself as is witnessed in how the greater "I AM-NESS" of this universe (God) has replicated itself by forming its own mental (illusory) substances into a setting that has facilitated the manifestation of billions of new "I Am-nesses" (us).

LOL So, 'now' there are greater and less than 'I Am-nesses'. Which is just getting more stranger and more weirder. Or, in other words, just more contradictory, and hypocritical.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:29 pm We're talking about new "I Am-nesses" who have not only been created "...in the image of..." the greater "I AM-NESS" of this universe, but have each been imbued with the same potential of that greater "I AM-NESS."

So, just more or less 'the same' of what "christians" will 'tell you'.

Also with not absolutely any clarity, elaboration, explanation, or justifcation.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:29 pm And what all of that implies is that the Cartesian "I Am" and that of the illusory substance that the "I Am" uses to create reality out of, are, in fact, two complementary features of the same indivisible (Spinoza-ish) "?something?" that...

(like the wave/particle duality of matter)

...do not (cannot) exist independent of one another.

On the other hand, the only thing of value that I've derived from Kant's contribution to this picture is his theory of the "noumenal world" and the complementary duality that exist between what he called the un-experienceable (unknowable) "noumenon" and that of the experienceable (knowable) "phenomenon."

Which, to my mind, closely parallels the same complementary relationship that the un-experienceable "wave" has to the experienceable "particle" in quantum mechanics.

I guess my main complaint with Kant is that he introduced weeds and obfuscating fog into the (truth-revealing) pathway that Descartes had (at least rudimentarily) cleared for us by formalizing the importance and substantiality of the "I Am".

Imagine being so 'unknowing' and so 'unsure' of thy 'self' that 'you' go to and use 'others' as 'your guiding light'.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:29 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:52 pm I do understand the natural sciences are heuristics which I gather is what you allege I don't understand . My claim is the natural sciences are better heuristics than mysticism.

Yeah, but the "natural sciences" (which limit themselves to the study of matter) have taken us about as far as they can go and have yet (and are unlikely) to yield any plausible answers to the mystery of how and why the universe exists,...

LOL
LOL
LOL

There is absolutely 'no mystery' at all to how and why the Universe, Itself, exists. Well not to some of 'us' anyway.

How the Universe, also known as, 'Everything', 'All-there-is', 'Totality', exists is because it is an absolute impossibility to not to.

The Universe, at Its most fundamental level, consists of two things. 'matter', and, 'space'. Now, some might be considering that, actually the Universe could exist of just either 'matter', or, 'space', only. (Which some might refer to as 'some thing', or, 'no thing', only). However, because the Universe exists, 'currently', NOW, with both 'matter', and, 'space', then the Universe always had/has to. (Again for the irrefutable proof of 'this', a discussion is needed).

Why the Universe, 'Everything'; 'All-there-is', 'Totality', exists is so that 'I' can bear witness to the beauty that 'I' am Creating, HERE.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:29 pm ...and therefore, only a closed-minded fool would refuse to allow metaphysical avenues of investigation onto the table of possible routes to pursue in the quest for the Truth.
_______

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 11:55 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 12:07 pm Age wrote: So, 'a penis' created every thing, all at once, in the beginning, right?

——-

Response:
No,

Great answer.

Thank you for Correcting "your" 'self', here. And, especially so when, and after, you had, previously, claimed that it was blindingly obvious.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 12:07 pm God is the creator and created both. Everything is God, God is all there is. God is infinity, everything for eternity.

Actually, every thing is a part of God, whereas God is Everything.

When and if 'you' ever come to understand 'this', then 'you' will be closer to coming to understanding, and knowing, thy Self.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 12:07 pm God is every image conceivable in this conception, including every concept, penis not excluded.

But, this is not Correct, at all.

It could be said, and argued, that every image conceivable in 'this conception', including every concept, penis not excluded, is a 'part of God', but God is certainly not 'any of those particular perceived and/or conceived things'.

Come to learn, understand, and know, the difference between 'every thing', and, 'Everything', then 'you' are coming closer to learning, understanding, and knowing far more, here, and thus also 'catching up'.

Know thyself is to recognise there is only “Self” one without a second, this is infinity.
This One doesn’t play the game of catch-up, it’s completely alone, all one. Omnipresent Omnipotent Omniscient.

The notion that this One is playing a game of catch-up is based on the idea of a secondary artificial illusory dream of separation, where many identities or entities are interacting with each other. Where it’s mostly a game of hide and seek, or, now you see me, now you don’t kind of play. Yet, this play is known only to thy One, as the only One, who is interacting with itself. That’s how one knows thyself.

The people on this forum interacting with each other are just pretentious performers of God’s illusory dream. It’s all just God playing puppet characters experiencing the play of what it’s like to be human, every philosopher knows that Age, this is nothing that philosophers don’t know yet, especially since the work of a philosopher is to deep dive into introspecting the nature of reality,

It’s just that most philosophers choose to speak in human terminology, not from the God self, like you do. And that’s why you always seem to struggle with how to communicate with philosophy now members properly, or in a way that benefits all of us here.

That’s just some constructive criticism for you Age, it’s not personal, take it or leave it.

Also Age, to know thyself unconditionally is to surrender totally without resistance to the finite notion of temporal individuality where you disappear from illusions to merge with the unconditional love that is the infinite God.

This coming into phase is the perfect alignment of what is the true nature of every conceivable being.
Once this transition is made true to oneself there’s no further requirement to speak about it ever again, especially to others. Especially since others no longer exist once you are fully realised, and awakened.

To speak about this to others is only going to cause confusion because some people in the dream don’t understand God, and yet that is still just a role God is playing. So confusion will still arise as you’ll be yanking yourself back into the dream of separation again, attempting to talk to others about your own awakening to God. And this can feel uncomfortable and be frustratingly difficult to deal with already knowing these others are an illusion, and not thy real self.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 8:18 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 11:55 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 12:07 pm Age wrote: So, 'a penis' created every thing, all at once, in the beginning, right?

——-

Response:
No,

Great answer.

Thank you for Correcting "your" 'self', here. And, especially so when, and after, you had, previously, claimed that it was blindingly obvious.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 12:07 pm God is the creator and created both. Everything is God, God is all there is. God is infinity, everything for eternity.

Actually, every thing is a part of God, whereas God is Everything.

When and if 'you' ever come to understand 'this', then 'you' will be closer to coming to understanding, and knowing, thy Self.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 12:07 pm God is every image conceivable in this conception, including every concept, penis not excluded.

But, this is not Correct, at all.

It could be said, and argued, that every image conceivable in 'this conception', including every concept, penis not excluded, is a 'part of God', but God is certainly not 'any of those particular perceived and/or conceived things'.

Come to learn, understand, and know, the difference between 'every thing', and, 'Everything', then 'you' are coming closer to learning, understanding, and knowing far more, here, and thus also 'catching up'.

Know thyself is to recognise there is only “Self” one without a second, this is infinity.

Why do you call the 'only Self', 'infinity'?

'I', by the way, call the 'Self', 'I', and not 'infinity'. As the word, 'infinity', to me, refers to something else,

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 8:18 am This One doesn’t play the game of catch-up, it’s completely alone, all one. Omnipresent Omnipotent Omniscient.

Yet, here, 'you' are temporal, not really that strong nor powerful, at all, and, still, searching and 'looking for' answers.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 8:18 am The notion that this One is playing a game of catch-up is based on the idea of a secondary artificial illusory dream of separation, where many identities or entities are interacting with each other.

Well considering that there is no one, here, saying, nor claiming, that 'the One' is playing a game if catch-up. So, once again, and still, you are way off, here.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 8:18 am Where it’s mostly a game of hide and seek, or, now you see me, now you don’t kind of play. Yet, this play is known only to thy One, as the only One, who is interacting with itself. That’s how one knows thyself.

'I', actually, came to know thy Self, differently, just in case 'you' were curios.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 8:18 am The people on this forum interacting with each other are just pretentious performers of God’s illusory dream.

Once again, 'I/God' am not the One who is dreaming, nor dreams, here.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 8:18 am It’s all just God playing puppet characters experiencing the play of what it’s like to be human, every philosopher knows that Age, this is nothing that philosophers don’t know yet, especially since the work of a philosopher is to deep dive into introspecting the nature of reality,

Can you name another so-called "philosopher" who would come forward and agree and say that absolutely 'every' "philosopher" knows, 'It is all just God playing puppet characters experiencing the play of what it’s like to be human'?

If no, then it might just be 'you' who is actually dreaming, here.

But, if you came name another "philosopher", then will you please do it?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 8:18 am It’s just that most philosophers choose to speak in human terminology, not from the God self, like you do. And that’s why you always seem to struggle with how to communicate with philosophy now members properly, or in a way that benefits all of us here.

But, am 'I' always actually struggling with how to communicate with 'you' human being posters, here, in this philosophy forum?

Could it be, instead, you people be struggling with how to actually 'listen' and understand 'I', sometimes?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 8:18 am It’s all just God playing puppet characters experiencing the play of what it’s like to be human,

Do you think, or believe, that God would be wondering some thing like, 'What is it like to be human?'

I think you might find that it is some of 'you' human beings who might wonder, 'What is it like to be God?' Whereas, 'I', God, already knows what it is like to be 'you' human beings, exactly.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 8:18 am That’s just some constructive criticism for you Age, it’s not personal, take it or leave it.

But, to me, it was not actually criticism, itself. To me, it was, instead, just 'your', human being, thoughts and beliefs.

The first valid evidence that God DOES exist.

The “Seeing” or “Seer” is known conceptually, and NEVER actually seen directly as if the seeing/ seer can be viewed as an actual looked upon object existing independently of the seer. Seeing is seamless and can’t be divided.



The seeing/seer, is the entire absolute universal self pushed out so as to appear as a duality, but is really only the infinite one looking at itself through it's own reflective mirroring as it projects an objective world full of multiple finite conceptually constructed images of itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 4:07 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 4:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:29 pm
Absolutely. So my asking Will "what evidence?" is perfectly reasonable -- and his declining to provide any...not so much.

But again, it's all moot. The infinite regress problem is confirmable and, so far as I can find, irrefutable, as well, on mathematical, not merely empirical grounds.

But it is not reasonable to ignore that law courts use rational methods (evidence not involved ) to apply evidence.

A law court in which "rational methods" that do not involve "evidence"? Give such a case, if you would be so kind. To my knowledge, in a genuine court there has never been a conviction as a consequence of no evidence, regardless of what "rationality" was summoned.

You mistake my point.
You are of course correct that the court always requires evidence.
The time for rational judgement is AFTER evidence has been presented.

To apply these procedures to the existence or otherwise of God we need evidence. You yourself present evidence from The Bible as a God-given text. Others often present miraculous evidence of prayers answered, mystical experience, God's providence, God's grace.
Even “empirical” arguments for God ultimately rely on reasoning beyond the data of experience — inference to a metaphysical cause.
So while they start empirically, they end rationally.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:55 pmIf "nobody is supposed to deduce anything," then there is no such thing as knowledge --

Well, when it comes to philosophical questions, that is true; that is what makes them philosophical.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 5:54 pm...and you cannot possibly be having the knowledge that this is so, since that would undermine your own theory.

One can know that a number of deductions can be made from the same sensory data, not least because people manifestly do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 5:54 pmIf not a single person in the world knew what "gravity" was, gravity would still kill those who step off cliffs.

I think most people are aware that stepping off a cliff isn't going to end well. What nobody knows is the mechanism that causes gravity.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:55 pmBut again, all this is totally irrelevant to the infinite regress problem.

Which I have already rejected on two counts. Firstly, it is based on an unsound premise - that the world is causal. As I said, quantum mechanics seriously challenges that assumption. Secondly, I'm not convinced the leap from numbers to reality is valid.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:55 pmSo let's go back to that issue, and we can simply dismiss all this speculative rubbish about "Idealism." It's not relevant to the topic. Even if you somehow managed to win on the empirical point (which I think you can't, and that's why you can't specify evidence)...

You don't understand that idealism is an argument based on the same evidence as your own argument for common sense realism.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 11:50 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 4:07 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 4:03 pm

But it is not reasonable to ignore that law courts use rational methods (evidence not involved ) to apply evidence.

A law court in which "rational methods" that do not involve "evidence"? Give such a case, if you would be so kind. To my knowledge, in a genuine court there has never been a conviction as a consequence of no evidence, regardless of what "rationality" was summoned.

You mistake my point.
You are of course correct that the court always requires evidence.
The time for rational judgement is AFTER evidence has been presented.

Well, yes...but that observation isn't at all informative here. It's not as if the court can make a decision with no evidence produced. And Will is implying we should be worried about Idealism, even though there is no particular evidence that favours it over any other view. And I see that as unreasonable. Why should we accept a postulate that does not have any definite advantage over a mere contrary speculation?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 3:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:55 pmIf "nobody is supposed to deduce anything," then there is no such thing as knowledge --

Well, when it comes to philosophical questions, that is true; that is what makes them philosophical.

Wow. That strikes me as a jaded, unduly pessimistic view of human knowledge and of philosophy. Why even be here, if there's no such thing as "knowledge"?

And how could you KNOW there's no such thing as knowledge? If you KNOW it, it can't be true. If you don't KNOW it, then why believe it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 5:54 pm...and you cannot possibly be having the knowledge that this is so, since that would undermine your own theory.

One can know that a number of deductions can be made from the same sensory data, not least because people manifestly do.

Again, if you KNOW anything, then epistemic relativism is false. So you could say, "I wish to think that any number of deductions...etc." But you can't say you KNOW. If you did, you'd disprove yourself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 5:54 pmIf not a single person in the world knew what "gravity" was, gravity would still kill those who step off cliffs.

I think most people are aware that stepping off a cliff isn't going to end well. What nobody knows is the mechanism that causes gravity.

And yet, it will continue to work, despite that lack of knowledge.

And that's the important point: what people know does not alter reality. It only alters their own assumptions about reality, their own relation to the truth, and those can be correct or incorrect. The misperceiving individual always loses, in that conflict.

As I said, quantum mechanics seriously challenges that assumption.

It doesn't, actually. All it tells us is that our earlier understandings were not complete. We really don't know what quantum mechanics is "telling" us yet. So far, all its doing is indicating in some strange directions, but none of them tells us what our definite conclusions should yet be. If it's otherwise today, it's very recent.

Again, our faulty epistemology, whether CSR or Idealism or quantum speculations, will not change reality. Reality will always win. It's up to us, and to science, to catch up with reality, and not lose our way in faulty speculations.

Secondly, I'm not convinced the leap from numbers to reality is valid.

You don't have to be. You can prove it is. Because you can do the same experiment both mathematically and empirically, with as many tries as you like, and you'll get identical results in both. You can do as many trials as you need to convince yourself, and the same results will issue every time.

You don't understand that idealism is an argument based on the same evidence as your own argument for common sense realism.

No, I don't agree that it is. I understand what you're saying, I just find it to be premised on a fallacy. For it is not the case that evidence is ever "the same" for any two propositions, and certainly not for Idealism and CSR, except where a) two theories are so tightly close to each other as to be indistinguishable, in which case they don't present significant alternatives, or b) data taken is so limited that it applies to everything equally...and thus is uninformative of any theory at all.

Meanwhile, Common Sense Realism has the default going for it, as it's the way everybody lives and operates. Idealism has...what going for it? Nothing, you say. Everything, you say. Nothing different from CSR, you say. And I do think that Idealism has some arguments particularly going for it, and I know what some of them are supposed to be. I don't find them conclusive, or even close to conclusive. But I know of them.

Interestingly, you don't seem to know what they are. If you do, you won't say which ones you think work. So, based on that data, whom should we guess doesn't "understand"?