Questionable God? [Archive]

Obbe

2007-07-15, 04:23

Space is nothingness, and time is a concept created by man to organize things, memories do not transcend these because memories only exist in your brain.

'Space' could be considered the first triad of the dimensions of reality: length, width, and depth.

'Time' is a word usually used to describe our interpretation of the 4th dimension, but could also be used to describe the other 2 dimensions making up the second triad. It should be noted that memes transcend these dimensions as well, but I won't bother going into that right now.

Memes (http://www.google.ca/search?q=define%3Ameme&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) do transcend space and time. Certain memes, like "I like Pokemon" transcend a number of years, and a good amount of space across the globe. They also transcend alternate world-lines in the 5th and 6th dimensions.

'Big-Picture' memes, like the urge to last in the most desirable state for the longest amount of time, probably transcend multiple possible universes in the third triad. 'Small-picture' memes wouldn't exist here.

Thats all just ideas, just interpretations and opinions of reality.

Yes because you can only think with consciousness, and even you agree that plants don't have a train of thought.

They most likely don't. I agree that you probably need a brain for that. But do we know that? No.

And I disagree that consciousness requires a train of thought. It requires awareness. Even single-pointed awareness. Personally, I believe everything possesses consciousness.

Well, I dont see how they can be aware without being able to perceive outside objects with there senses that only can be done with a brain.

They are aware of their existence.

The only thing wrong is that new age beliefs are the hippies substitute for athiesm, and the only thing wrong with that is when you break it down, its just athiesm with bullshit thrown in to give you some higher than life hopes that again are unfourtanetly false.

I really don't see how my personal beliefs (which you call new age) are some substitute for atheism. I don't have any higher then life hopes. You are assuming shit here. This is simply the way I think the whole system works.

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-15, 05:13

'Space' could be considered the first triad of the dimensions of reality: length, width, and depth.

'Time' is a word usually used to describe our interpretation of the 4th dimension, but could also be used to describe the other 2 dimensions making up the second triad. It should be noted that memes transcend these dimensions as well, but I won't bother going into that right now.

Memes (http://www.google.ca/search?q=define%3Ameme&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) do transcend space and time. Certain memes, like "I like Pokemon" transcend a number of years, and a good amount of space across the globe. They also transcend alternate world-lines in the 5th and 6th dimensions.

'Big-Picture' memes, like the urge to last in the most desirable state for the longest amount of time, probably transcend multiple possible universes in the third triad. 'Small-picture' memes wouldn't exist here.

Thats all just ideas, just interpretations and opinions of reality.

Dimensions of reality? space goes in all directions because it consists of nothing besides suns and planets which are held together by the biggest bodys gravitational pull(with the exception of meteorites ect ect).Fourth dimension? Time is just a measurment made by the mind, and it seems to me, that "memes" are just concepts and ideas transfered via the internet through waves that run in cable lines that span across the whole world, or the socialization of people trading views and sharing there interests with other conscious people.

Urges are desires created by the mind and these desires cannot be in existence without awareness which cannot be in existence without the senses, which cannot be in existence without the mind. So if there are multiple dimensions which will probably never be proven, we most likely wont find out in our lifetime.

They most likely don't. I agree that you probably need a brain for that. But do we know that? No.

And I disagree that consciousness requires a train of thought. It requires awareness. Even single-pointed awareness. Personally, I believe everything possesses consciousness.

I think its safe to believe they don't, they may posses the means to transfer energy because of certain chemicals they have, but they are not conscious. I mean if you think my log of shit is consciously sitting in the toilet right now, you need to rethink some things.

They are aware of their existence.

Again, how can you be aware if you don't have a brain to perceive that you are aware? Your saying consciousness exists absent of matter? Which again is impossible because consciousness only exists because of matter, which is of coarse the body functioned by the brain that perceives through chemical transfers to different lobes. Without our brain we would not beable to perceive the matter that is inplace infront of us, we would not beable to think about the matter that is infront of us, not beable to see, not beable to taste, feel, or anything at all. So please explain to me how you still can be conscious without a brain?

I really don't see how my personal beliefs (which you call new age) are some substitute for atheism. I don't have any higher then life hopes. You are assuming shit here. This is simply the way I think the whole system works.

Ok so I did make a pre-assumption, but your view on the whole universe is very similar to new age beliefs.

karma_sleeper

2007-07-15, 06:25

The phrase
"God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?"
Has stuck in my mind for a while now, and i can't bring myself to look at it from any different angle.
If he can't make a rock that heavy he isn't omnipotent but if he CAN make it, but can't lift it then that also makes him not omnipotent.

I don't know what to make of it, and i'm confused.

Going back to the original question, I think a theist could make the argument that this question does not disprove God's omnipotence, but simply makes an observation about the characteristics of that omnipotence.

One might rephrase the statement "God is omnipotent" to read instead "God can do anything that is both logically possible and does not violate any of his other characteristics."

Take, for example, the statement, "God is omnipotent. Therefore, God can create a round square." It's absurd. What would a round square even look like? A square by definition cannot be round. It would cease to be a square if it were round. This is of course not logically possible. So even God, in his omnipotence if that is the case, has his limits.

So if God creates a rock he cannot lift, it would violate his being omnipotent, and therefore not possible. The question remains then whether or not God is still truly omnipotent. If defined as doing anything, then no. If defined as doing anything that is logically possible without violating any other quality of God, then yes. Accepting an understanding of omnipotence with "boundaries," for lack of a better word, is essential to being able to accept any counter of the rock question.

Obbe

2007-07-15, 07:18

Dimensions of reality? space goes in all directions because it consists of nothing besides suns and planets which are held together by the biggest bodys gravitational pull(with the exception of meteorites ect ect).Fourth dimension? Time is just a measurment made by the mind

Perceive it as you will.

However, if you would like to try to open your mind to what I'm saying, this short video would slightly help.

Video (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php)

and it seems to me, that "memes" are just concepts and ideas transfered via the internet through waves that run in cable lines that span across the whole world, or the socialization of people trading views and sharing there interests with other conscious people.

Again, perceive it as you will.

Maybe later I'll try to discuss my views on memes some more. Right now this is just pointless nit-picking.

I don't see how this,

Urges are desires created by the mind and these desires cannot be in existence without awareness which cannot be in existence without the senses, which cannot be in existence without the mind....

in any way, relates to this:

...So if there are multiple dimensions which will probably never be proven, we most likely wont find out in our lifetime.

And i think you are a little mixed up there. The senses cannot exist with out the mind? By 'the mind', I gather you mean your ego, which is dependent on the senses, not vice versa.

Awareness cannot exist without the senses? Awareness of the outer reality (or the consensual reality, I should say), sure, but even without the senses a sense of 'self' still exists.

I think its safe to believe they don't, they may posses the means to transfer energy because of certain chemicals they have, but they are not conscious. I mean if you think my log of shit is consciously sitting in the toilet right now, you need to rethink some things.

Why? The log of shit, collectively, may or may not be aware...but I believe the molecules are aware.

Again, how can you be aware if you don't have a brain to perceive that you are aware? Your saying consciousness exists absent of matter?

No, where did you get that idea?

One theory I like is that consciousness is like an interference pattern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference). The 2 interacting patterns could consist of the physical 'dimensional structure' (as described in the video) and the meme 'dimensional structure' (similar to the structure described in the video), which together create the third pattern; consciousness.

So wherever matter and memes overlap, a form of consciousness is created. "Molecule of two hydrogen and one oxygen", as a meme described as best I can given the circumstances, is defiantly possible.

Which again is impossible because ... please explain to me how you still can be conscious without a brain?

Something possessing consciousness, as in awareness, dose not necessarily have to be conscious of the consensual reality.

I am not saying things like dirt and rocks are conscious of our consensual reality. That is not the same this as not possessing awareness. Theres more then one kind of awareness.

Maybe this (http://www.multidimensions.com/MDC/mdc_1dim.html) can help?

Ok so I did make a pre-assumption, but your view on the whole universe is very similar to new age beliefs.

I still don't understand how either substitute atheism.

vagabondtramp

2007-07-15, 08:05

i think it's possible that he can create a rock that he can't life and still be able to do anything. look at zeno's paradoxes. they're logically sound, and yet i can still move around.

Xlite

2007-07-15, 10:52

Do you exist?

Define "Existence".

If your questions is: Do i exist in a physical form? then the answer is yes.

If your question is : Do i exist in your brain?
Then you should know the answer better than anyone else.

See the difference between the two options?

Obbe

2007-07-15, 17:43

i can still move around.

Personally, I think thats only an illusion.

Obbe

2007-07-15, 18:02

If your questions is: Do i exist in a physical form? then the answer is yes.

Is it? Then demonstrate to me how you exist in physical form. Because you certainly do not know.

If your question is : Do i exist in your brain?
Then you should know the answer better than anyone else.

In my brain? First off, I do not know I have a brain. And in either case, you could just be a projection of my feeling of self, for all I know.

In your brain? Again, you do not really know if you
have a brain...but you probably accept that you, the sense of self does exist. But how much is real?

Are you Xlite, or are you a form of awareness experiencing a version of Xlite?

See the difference between the two options?

One deals with your physical existence, while the other deals with your, ahem , 'soul'?

One deals with 'your' perception of reality, while the other deals with 'mine'?

I do not really know, as your questions were worded in ways that could be taken differently. Because of that, I wonder if you understand the 'difference' between the two. Do you think you know what it means to exist?

Define "Existence".

Does anybody really know what existence is?

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-15, 20:36

Perceive it as you will.

However, if you would like to try to open your mind to what I'm saying, this short video would slightly help.

Video (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php)

I know exactly what your saying, and know the basics behind string theory and all the pseudo-intellectual physicist
theories that will probably never be proven, and for now, its safe to say there just well funded theories.

Again, perceive it as you will.

Maybe later I'll try to discuss my views on memes some more. Right now this is just pointless nit-picking.

I don't see how this,

in any way, relates to this:

It seems that your view on memes is simple just your opinion and has nothing to do with reality. Oh and those two statements didn't directly relate, I just added the sentence abit late in the paragraph(not that it matters).

And i think you are a little mixed up there. The senses cannot exist with out the mind? By 'the mind', I gather you mean your ego, which is dependent on the senses, not vice versa.

Awareness cannot exist without the senses? Awareness of the outer reality (or the consensual reality, I should say), sure, but even without the senses a sense of 'self' still exists.

Mixed up? Please tell me how your ego is seperate from your mind, your ego is part of your mind. Mithout a mind, you cannot have an ego, because your ego is your past memories and experiences that define you(unless of coarse you define yourself by living in the now). You still cannot have an inner awareness without being aware that you exist. How can you have a sense of self if you dont have senses to percieve that your self exists?

Why? The log of shit, collectively, may or may not be aware...but I believe the molecules are aware.

Again, you believe, but when your having a debate such as this its best to relate things to reality, and in reality, molecules are not aware because they don't have senses to perceive and experiance awareness.

No, where did you get that idea?

One theory I like is that consciousness is like an interference pattern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference). The 2 interacting patterns could consist of the physical 'dimensional structure' (as described in the video) and the meme 'dimensional structure' (similar to the structure described in the video), which together create the third pattern; consciousness.

So wherever matter and memes overlap, a form of consciousness is created. "Molecule of two hydrogen and one oxygen", as a meme described as best I can given the circumstances, is defiantly possible.

Well thats great, but what does it prove? All these quantum mechanics theorys are simple theoretical and experimental, they really don't have much to do with reality whatsoever. There fun to read, but these things are most likely never going to be proven, its just well funded physicists having fun with high-tech governmental equipment.

Something possessing consciousness, as in awareness, dose not necessarily have to be conscious of the consensual reality.

I am not saying things like dirt and rocks are conscious of our consensual reality. That is not the same this as not possessing awareness. Theres more then one kind of awareness.

Maybe this (http://www.multidimensions.com/MDC/mdc_1dim.html) can help?

Awareness cannot be present in the absence of the mind perceiving awareness. So even if I was blind, def, and dumb, and my nerves didnt work, but somehow my mind still worked, I would still be aware that I was alive because my brain could perceive awareness. There cannot be more than one kind of awareness, because awareness is being aware that you exist, and to be aware that you exist, you must have a mind to perceive your existence. I have already read many things related to that link, because I used to believe the same things, but once you break these things down, they just don't make sense.

I still don't understand how either substitute atheism.

Because it substitutes matter with god, and adds in the universal consciousness belief, but again, that really isnt to relevant to this debate.

Xlite

2007-07-15, 21:16

Is it? Then demonstrate to me how you exist in physical form. Because you certainly do not know.

Now you're being stupid.

In my brain? First off, I do not know I have a brain. And in either case, you could just be a projection of my feeling of self, for all I know.

If you don't know you have a brain, you're either stupid or ignorant

And yes.. in theori i could just be a projection of you feelings "Which Comes From Your Brain"
But since i know that i'm here, i exist. Then i also know that i'm not a so called "projection of a feeling".

In your brain? Again, you do not really know if you
have a brain...but you probably accept that you, the sense of self does exist. But how much is real?

I know i have a brain..

And all you belive is real, to whoever belives it enough.
But that doesn't mean that its the truth.

Are you Xlite, or are you a form of awareness experiencing a version of Xlite?

I am me... just as much as you are you.

One deals with your physical existence, while the other deals with your, ahem , 'soul'?

There is no such thing as a soul.

"Souls" or Conscience as i call it. Is nothing more than a product of your brain.

One deals with 'your' perception of reality, while the other deals with 'mine'?

You're losing it man!

I do not really know, as your questions were worded in ways that could be taken differently. Because of that, I wonder if you understand the 'difference' between the two. Do you think you know what it means to exist?

The point of my question was that things can exist in more than one way.

It can exist in your head "Like god does"
And it can exist in a "stands right in front of you way".

Does anybody really know what existence is?

I belive i just explained it.

Obbe

2007-07-15, 22:17

I know exactly what your saying, and know the basics behind string theory and all the pseudo-intellectual physicist
theories that will probably never be proven, and for now, its safe to say there just well funded theories.

Do you realize that

"...space goes in all directions because it consists of nothing besides suns and planets which are held together by the biggest bodys gravitational pull. Time is just a measurment made by the mind..."

is also just your opinion, can never be proven, and is a very underdeveloped explanation of reality?

Their all just different perceptions. So I say again, perceive it as you will; but you won't leave yourself able to gain anything by closing yourself off to other opinions.

How would you arrange a meet up with an old friend? Perhaps you would tell him to meet you at the corner of 52nd and 17th (coordinates in 3d space) at noon (coordinates in 4th dimensional time).

It seems that your view on memes is simple just your opinion and has nothing to do with reality.

It is opinion, and not necessarily completely mine. But is our experience of reality really ever anything more then just opinion and perspective?

How can you say my views on memes have nothing to do with reality? With your preconceived notions of reality?...sure, maybe.

What are you not understanding about memes?

Oh and those two statements didn't directly relate, I just added the sentence abit late in the paragraph(not that it matters).

Sure it matters. It seemed like you were somehow trying to use your incorrect list of the 'order of dependence', to somehow reason that the multiple dimensions which I believe help make up our reality will never be proven in our life time.

Which wasn't even something I was arguing in the first place. You see how this could be taken as confusing?

Mixed up? Please tell me how your ego is seperate from your mind, your ego is part of your mind.

I never said the ego was separate from 'the mind'. I gathered you were referring to the ego with the blanket term 'the mind'. The ego can be separated from consciousness.

YOU were the one who said that

"...the senses, which cannot be in existence without the mind....",

which makes no sense. I am clearly confused, and do not understand what you are trying to communicate, and I have a feeling you are not understanding what I am trying to communicate.

So tell me, what do you mean by 'the mind'?

Mithout a mind, you cannot have an ego, because your ego is your past memories and experiences that define you

Again, I do not know what the hell you mean by 'the mind'. But, my understanding of the matter, is that the ego is part of this conglomerate we refer to as the mind.

The ego cannot exist without the senses. Not the other way around.

The other part(s?) of 'the mind' (not including the shadow ego, or whatever you call it), such as the consciousness experiencing the ego, are NOT dependent on the senses for stimulation of 'outer' reality.

You still cannot have an inner awareness without being aware that you exist. How can you have a sense of self if you dont have senses to percieve that your self exists?

Again, is this something you know?

Or believe?

You would not have the senses to perceive an ego exists. However, that 'you' would still be there, unaware of space or time. Single-pointedly aware only of existence, and nothing else.

That is the 'true' self.

Again, you believe, but when your having a debate such as this its best to relate things to reality, and in reality, molecules are not aware because they don't have senses to perceive and experiance awareness.

And again, what is reality other then opinion or perception?

I could agree with you that molecules are not aware of the consensual reality which you and I (if separation is not an illusion) seem to share. And then, just as easily as you have done the opposite, declare that molecules are in fact aware of existence as-a-point.

Well thats great, but what does it prove? All these quantum mechanics theorys are simple theoretical and experimental, they really don't have much to do with reality whatsoever. There fun to read, but these things are most likely never going to be proven, its just well funded physicists having fun with high-tech governmental equipment.

What does anything prove? Is anything provable? Whats the point of proof?

Whats the point of anything?

Awareness cannot be present in the absence of the mind perceiving awareness.

Awareness of existence can be present with the absence of the ego perceiving outer reality.

Awareness of self exists without awareness of others.

So even if I was blind, def, and dumb, and my nerves didnt work, but somehow my mind still worked, I would still be aware that I was alive because my brain could perceive awareness.

Your brain has nothing to do with the basic awareness of the self. You would be aware of an existence, but not of space or time. You would have no concept of 'alive', because you would have no ego with which to try and interpret that concept, or even learn about it.

An atom is not alive, by the standard scientific definition of life. We can both agree on that. As far as we know, it posses no senses, therefore has no ego, and therefore no awareness of anything else. However, I still believe that atom has an awareness of existence.

There cannot be more than one kind of awareness, because awareness is being aware that you exist, and to be aware that you exist, you must have a mind to perceive your existence.

Read my replies above.

Because it substitutes matter with god, and adds in the universal consciousness belief,

And what is wrong with that?

that really isnt to relevant to this debate.

Its not? How?

Obbe

2007-07-15, 22:37

Now you're being stupid.

I am?

Really, how do you know your body exists? Your senses could be deceiving you.

If you don't know you have a brain, you're either stupid or ignorant

None of us know we have brains, although most of us choose to believe so.

And yes.. in theori i could just be a projection of you feelings "Which Comes From Your Brain"
But since i know that i'm here, i exist. Then i also know that i'm not a so called "projection of a feeling".

How can I be sure you are not an extension of myself?

How are YOU so sure that I am not an extension of yourself?

I know i have a brain..

You believe you know.

And all you belive is real, to whoever belives it enough.
But that doesn't mean that its the truth.

Do you think its possible to actually know the truth?

You can only interpret it.

I am me... just as much as you are you.

And we are all one.

There is no such thing as a soul.

"Souls" or Conscience as i call it. Is nothing more than a product of your brain.

There is no such thing as the Christian interpretation of the eternal soul. That is the ego, and the ego is not eternal.

Consciousness is the eternal soul. It is not a product of the brain, but perhaps the basis of existence.

You're losing it man!

Or am I gaining it?

Different sides to the same coin?

The point of my question was that things can exist in more than one way.

It can exist in your head "Like god does"
And it can exist in a "stands right in front of you way".

And can you verify that the things 'right in front of you' are not an illusion?

Anymore then you could verify the things in your head?

Its all in your head.

I belive i just explained it.

Did you now?

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-16, 00:07

What you have here are contradicting properties.

If there is such thing as an unstoppable force, then there can be no such thing as immoveable object, and so forth.

The existence of one absolute attribute precludes the existence of the other.

Not that such things exist to begin with, though.

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-16, 07:44

Do you realize that

"...space goes in all directions because it consists of nothing besides suns and planets which are held together by the biggest bodys gravitational pull. Time is just a measurment made by the mind..."

is also just your opinion, can never be proven, and is a very underdeveloped explanation of reality?

Their all just different perceptions. So I say again, perceive it as you will; but you won't leave yourself able to gain anything by closing yourself off to other opinions.

How would you arrange a meet up with an old friend? Perhaps you would tell him to meet you at the corner of 52nd and 17th (coordinates in 3d space) at noon (coordinates in 4th dimensional time).

Hah, well if the fact that both you and I can look at pictures, in the sky, or through a telescope and see for ourselves that space is nothingness with stars, rocks, planets ect ect, and you still consider it an opinion, then something is wrong with you. And to meet up with this old friend I would tell him to meet at the corner of 52nd and 17th (coordinates that where made by man to locate places on the planet earth) at noon(Which is part of the conceptual method to organize ones day by the revolution of earth around the sun).

It seems to me like your trying to overcomplicate simple things.

It is opinion, and not necessarily completely mine. But is our experience of reality really ever anything more then just opinion and perspective?

How can you say my views on memes have nothing to do with reality? With your preconceived notions of reality?...sure, maybe.

What are you not understanding about memes?

Reality is opinion and perspective, but what makes reality true is when it is consistent and empirical to anyone who observes it. And whats not to get about memes? There just ideas that are passed around.

Sure it matters. It seemed like you were somehow trying to use your incorrect list of the 'order of dependence', to somehow reason that the multiple dimensions which I believe help make up our reality will never be proven in our life time.

Which wasn't even something I was arguing in the first place. You see how this could be taken as confusing?

So you gave me a link to a video about multiple dimensions but you weren't arguing about it? It seems to me like your confusing yourself.

I never said the ego was separate from 'the mind'. I gathered you were referring to the ego with the blanket term 'the mind'. The ego can be separated from consciousness.

YOU were the one who said that

"...the senses, which cannot be in existence without the mind....",

which makes no sense. I am clearly confused, and do not understand what you are trying to communicate, and I have a feeling you are not understanding what I am trying to communicate.

So tell me, what do you mean by 'the mind'?

By mind, I mean brain, my mistake if it confused you. But the senses and the ego cannot exist without the brain, because the brain is what creates these things.

Again, I do not know what the hell you mean by 'the mind'. But, my understanding of the matter, is that the ego is part of this conglomerate we refer to as the mind.

The ego cannot exist without the senses. Not the other way around.

The other part(s?) of 'the mind' (not including the shadow ego, or whatever you call it), such as the consciousness experiencing the ego, are NOT dependent on the senses for stimulation of 'outer' reality.

The brain creates conscious functioning because it works the senses which are able to perceive reality and awareness . So you could say that the ego and the senses are dependent on consciousness, and consciousness is dependant on the brain. Consciousness needs stimulation from outer reality because without out it, the holder of the consciousness would die of lack of nutrition or dehydration, which would cause unconsciousness.

Again, is this something you know?

Or believe?

You would not have the senses to perceive an ego exists. However, that 'you' would still be there, unaware of space or time. Single-pointedly aware only of existence, and nothing else.

That is the 'true' self.

You cannot be aware that you exist if you dont have a brain to perceive your awareness. Your pretty much telling me that because something has energy its conscious, even though consciousness is only possible with a conscious brain. If you don't have senses to perceive that an ego exists, how can you be aware of existence at all? You would certainly be there, but you would be unaware of everything, including yourself. If this is the true self, then the true self is unconsciousness, which is unable to perceive any type of awareness whatsoever.

And again, what is reality other then opinion or perception?

I could agree with you that molecules are not aware of the consensual reality which you and I (if separation is not an illusion) seem to share. And then, just as easily as you have done the opposite, declare that molecules are in fact aware of existence as-a-point.

If I was def, blind, dumb, and all of my nerves where permanently numb besides the ones in my brain, I would only be aware of existence as a point, but I would beable to perceive my awareness because I would have a conscious brain. If I was a molecule, I would consist of energy and atoms, but I would not have a conscious brain, therefore I could not possess consciousness, and therefore I could not even perceive existence of any type, I would just be, but not be aware.

What does anything prove? Is anything provable? Whats the point of proof?

Whats the point of anything?

Hah, don't go all nihilistic on me now. If you truely believed that nothing proved anything, you would not be trying to prove to me that your point of proof is better than my point of proof, because it would be completely pointless. You would never talk to anyone because everything would be pointless, even your existence, but killing yourself would also be pointless because theres no point in anything.(nihilism is a paradox)

Awareness of existence can be present with the absence of the ego perceiving outer reality.

Awareness of self exists without awareness of others.

Of coarse awareness of the self exists without awareness of others(which is why a universal consciousness is bs) Everything is independant from your brain. And yes you can be aware without your ego perceiving outer reality,(meditation) but its only possible because you have a brain to perceive your existence.

Your brain has nothing to do with the basic awareness of the self. You would be aware of an existence, but not of space or time. You would have no concept of 'alive', because you would have no ego with which to try and interpret that concept, or even learn about it.

An atom is not alive, by the standard scientific definition of life. We can both agree on that. As far as we know, it posses no senses, therefore has no ego, and therefore no awareness of anything else. However, I still believe that atom has an awareness of existence.

You may believe that, but reality says otherwise. Explain to me how you can be aware of existence if you have no means of perceiving existence at all, you wouldn't be aware, you would just be.

Read my replies above.

And what is wrong with that?

Its not? How?

The thing thats wrong with the concept of a universal consciousness is partly, there is no consistency or empirical evidence to back it up, and also, it goes against the fact that to have consciousness, you must have a brain, unless this universal consciousness is just all experienced in the brain of god ;). But of coarse if reality was a universal consciousness I could telepathically send you the message that spirituality is bullshit. To answer your last question, I thought this debate was about the existence of consciousness in unconsciouss forms of matter, so why would we talk about athiesm and new age thoughts?

P.s. If you want to continue this debate, try to make the posts abit smaller.

Lord. Better Than You

2007-07-16, 13:35

Assuming god is omniscient as well as omnipotent, I doubt he'd have the same logic system as us.

So if there is such a god, he'd probably be able to understand such a conundrum - but we don't have the capacity.

Xlite

2007-07-16, 20:58

Did you now?

Okay... i'l try to make it simple.

There is no god.

There is only the univers.
And no, God is not a part of the univers.

What you seem to belive in, is just a lie.
Someone made it up because they refused to accept an unhappy ending.

This is how it is:

The univers is forever.
We are forever. We actually never die, since everything restarts after the "Big Rip".

Get it?? Can i possible make myself any more clear?

Besides.. if God did exist, so would the devil.
As one thing cannot exist without its opposite.

War cannot exist without Peace.
Death cannot exist without life.
Night cannot exist without day.
Everything cannot exist without nothing.
Men cannot exist without chicks.

The is no God, and there is no Religion!

Face it!

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-16, 22:34

You can't detect god because it's defined as undetectable. Which begs the question: How did anybody detect and confirm the existence of gods if there is no means by which we can detect it?

The obvious and only available rational conclusion is that it's all made up, and thus fiction.

Carl Sagan said it best when he said "There's a Dragon in my Garage" (http://web.archive.org/web/20070212121923/http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html).

----------------------------------------------

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me", you say, and I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle - but no dragon

"Where's the dragon", you ask.

"Oh, she's right here", I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon".

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea", I say, "but this dragon floats in the air". Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless", I say. You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, except she's an incorporeal (bodyless) dragon and the paint won't stick!"

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now what is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? You're inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

----------------------------------------------

Obbe

2007-07-16, 22:59

Hah, well if the fact that both you and I can look at pictures, in the sky, or through a telescope and see for ourselves that space is nothingness with stars, rocks, planets ect ect, and you still consider it an opinion, then something is wrong with you.

How do you know that we each perceive reality in the same manner?

Lets say you and I see an object we would both call the color red. Perhaps when I see it, I am actually seeing what you would call blue. Maybe you see what I actually call yellow. But we wouldn't know, or ever be able to tell, because of how communication works.

Maybe the entire reality works in a similar fashion. Its not like you would be able to tell by just asking someone.

It seems to me like your trying to overcomplicate simple things.

And amazingly enough, it seems to me your trying to over simplify complex things...such as reality.

Reality is opinion and perspective, but what makes reality true is when it is consistent and empirical to anyone who observes it.

See my first reply.

And whats not to get about memes? There just ideas that are passed around.

Yes, and more. Memes can be anything that can enter your mind...including states of being.

So you gave me a link to a video about multiple dimensions but you weren't arguing about it? It seems to me like your confusing yourself.

I gave you the link to help you to understand what I was trying to communicate about the complexity of multiple dimensions. I said, before I posted it,

"Perceive it as you will.

However, if you would like to try to open your mind to what I'm saying, this short video would slightly help."

I am not arguing about that. And I still don't understand how your little list would have even worked as an argument in the first place, which is what it seemed like you were trying to do.

By mind, I mean brain, my mistake if it confused you. But the senses and the ego cannot exist without the brain, because the brain is what creates these things.

Your brain may interpret data gathered by the senses and contain the ego within the frontal lobe, but I wouldn't call that creation.

Although, I agree that without a brain an entity would not have an ego, nor a way of interpreting any senses it may have had at one point. It would not be aware of any perceptions of outer reality.

The brain creates conscious functioning because it works the senses which are able to perceive reality and awareness . So you could say that the ego and the senses are dependent on consciousness, and consciousness is dependant on the brain. Consciousness needs stimulation from outer reality because without out it, the holder of the consciousness would die of lack of nutrition or dehydration, which would cause unconsciousness.

The brain and ego allow an entity to interact with the 'outside' world. Yes, without a brain, the entity would be seem 'unconscious' to all other observers, just as the entity is compliantly unaware of the others.

Yes, the entity is most likely unaware of its self. It would simply 'be'. It would simply 'exist'. And I think that is a state of consciousness too.

You cannot be aware that you exist if you dont have a brain to perceive your awareness. Your pretty much telling me that because something has energy its conscious, even though consciousness is only possible with a conscious brain. If you don't have senses to perceive that an ego exists, how can you be aware of existence at all? You would certainly be there, but you would be unaware of everything, including yourself. If this is the true self, then the true self is unconsciousness, which is unable to perceive any type of awareness whatsoever.

Again, you would not be aware of any kind of outer reality. You would have no ego, so nothing to interpret any data with.

You would not be aware of anything in particular, just aware. Ready to experience, and only experiencing nothing...the void (http://www.erowid.org/spirit/writings/spirit_writings1.shtml).

Your understanding of existence is from the viewpoint of an ego...thats why you aren't understanding this.

If I was def, blind, dumb, and all of my nerves where permanently numb besides the ones in my brain, I would only be aware of existence as a point, but I would beable to perceive my awareness because I would have a conscious brain.

The brain is really not necessary. No, you would not be conscious of forms of exterior reality, you would have no concept of time or space, and I think you would not even have the realization of what it means to exist. You just are, and thats what is.

If I was a molecule, I would consist of energy and atoms,

This is what everything detectable by you me is made up of.

This is why you have consciousness, not the brain.

I would just be, but not be aware.

I suppose this all comes down to what we mean by awareness.

Hah, don't go all nihilistic on me now. If you truely believed that nothing proved anything, you would not be trying to prove to me that your point of proof is better than my point of proof, because it would be completely pointless. You would never talk to anyone because everything would be pointless, even your existence, but killing yourself would also be pointless because theres no point in anything.(nihilism is a paradox)

Whats wrong with that? Its all true, it is all pointless.

I don't consider myself nihilistic.

I do truly believe nothing proves anything. That doesn't mean I do not enjoy certain things and dislike others.

The entire reason I asked those questions, was to show how stupid it was for you to ask me what one of the theories of consciousness proved.

Of coarse awareness of the self exists without awareness of others(which is why a universal consciousness is bs) Everything is independant from your brain.

What do you mean when you say universal consciousness, and why is it bullshit?

And what do you mean that everything is independent from your brain(I don't see what you're referring to here.)?

And yes you can be aware without your ego perceiving outer reality,(meditation) but its only possible because you have a brain to perceive your existence.

I believe differently.

You may believe that, but reality says otherwise.

LoL

What does reality tell you? And how are you so sure thats reality?

Explain to me how you can be aware of existence if you have no means of perceiving existence at all, you wouldn't be aware, you would just be.

I admit, I may have chosen my words poorly in past posts...but I also blame this on language.

Yes, you would just be. You would be aware...but not actually of anything in particular.

You would just be.

Thats what the self is, beneath the ego, behind the illusions.

And without that...i think you would not exist. Even to others (although I do not believe in separation -- which makes room for more thoughts...such as, maybe then nothing would exist?).

The thing thats wrong with the concept of a universal consciousness is partly, there is no consistency or empirical evidence to back it up

What evidence do you have to back up anything?

and also, it goes against the fact that to have consciousness, you must have a brain

Fact, eh? :rolleyes:

Again, I think one of the problems is that we have different understandings of what consciousness means.

unless this universal consciousness is just all experienced in the brain of god ;)

;)

But of coarse if reality was a universal consciousness I could telepathically send you the message that spirituality is bullshit.

I guess that would depend on what you mean by universal consciousness.

And how much you're aware of.

To answer your last question, I thought this debate was about the existence of consciousness in unconsciouss forms of matter, so why would we talk about athiesm and new age thoughts?

The debate expanded when you brought the terms up.

P.s. If you want to continue this debate, try to make the posts abit smaller.

I'll do my best!

Obbe

2007-07-16, 23:19

There is no god.

Depends what you mean by God.

There is only the univers.
And no, God is not a part of the univers.

Yeah, the universe is part of God.

What you seem to belive in, is just a lie.
Someone made it up because they refused to accept an unhappy ending.

Everything you believe is real, is just an illusion. You just go along with it and continue to make it up because you refuse to accept an unhappy ending.

This is how it is:

The univers is forever.

You understand what a red-shift is?

Science has proven the universe does not continue on forever.

We are forever. We actually never die, since everything restarts after the "Big Rip".

Genuinely Interesting.

I've thought many 'a similar theory.

Can you prove that?

Get it?? Can i possible make myself any more clear?

I understand what you are saying.

But....get this!

I disagree.

Besides.. if God did exist, so would the devil.
As one thing cannot exist without its opposite.

LoL

What, do you think I'm Christian or something?

How is the devil the opposite of God?

In a reality where that 'God' and devil exist, if my concept of God also existed, it would be a conglomerate of that 'God', the devil, and all that is within that reality.

Whats the opposite of all? Nothing?

Well guess what, I believe in nothing as well. (Theres a sentence that could be taken multiple ways:rolleyes:)

The is no God, and there is no Religion!

Face it!

There is God, but your concept of it is completely off anyways. Religion is the opiate of the masses, and the red-headed step-child of spirituality.

Face it or not. Who really cares.

Obbe

2007-07-16, 23:23

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself.

I would simply wonder if the garage itself exists, and if you are no more then an illusion.

987royalman

2007-07-17, 01:46

This thread is making my head hurt. it's making MY head hurt. :confused:

Obbe

2007-07-17, 02:04

This thread is making my head hurt. it's making MY head hurt. :confused:

If you are confused about anything which I have been trying to communicate here and wish to understand, ask me now while I am online, and I will do my best to explain my concept better.

987royalman

2007-07-17, 02:11

If you are confused about anything which I have been trying to communicate here and wish to understand, ask me now while I am online, and I will do my best to explain my concept better.

No, I understand. Just makes my head hurt when you go into the thinking fully.

Obbe

2007-07-17, 02:15

Complex concepts.

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-17, 07:12

How do you know that we each perceive reality in the same manner?

Lets say you and I see an object we would both call the color red. Perhaps when I see it, I am actually seeing what you would call blue. Maybe you see what I actually call yellow. But we wouldn't know, or ever be able to tell, because of how communication works.

Maybe the entire reality works in a similar fashion. Its not like you would be able to tell by just asking someone

Ahh, but modern science says otherwise! Colors are measured by the wavelength of a light in nm(nanometers), here, start your road to sanity by checking this out (http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html)

And no, reality does not work in that fashion ether, modern science has also proved that outdated philosophy wrong. Reality is matter and energy, and even when theres no light the matter is still there, and this matter is independant from us, since its empirical and consistent to everyone and everything that views it.

And amazingly enough, it seems to me your trying to over simplify complex things...such as reality.

Am I? Reality as a whole is very complex I agree, we don't know eveyrthing about everything in the universe, but we can still see all the building blocks of reality with our senses, and with the help of technology.

See my first reply.

Again, technology can prove that we all perceive the same peices of matter, and the same colors, from years of empirical and consistent data.

Yes, and more. Memes can be anything that can enter your mind...including states of being.

States of being? All this eastern spirituality nonsense is outdated, you believing this shit is like me believing that earth is still flat.

I gave you the link to help you to understand what I was trying to communicate about the complexity of multiple dimensions. I said, before I posted it,

"Perceive it as you will.

However, if you would like to try to open your mind to what I'm saying, this short video would slightly help."

I am not arguing about that. And I still don't understand how your little list would have even worked as an argument in the first place, which is what it seemed like you were trying to do.

Yes its complex, but proven, no. Interesting to watch some experimental physisict share his opinions with us, but again, it has nothing to do with empricism or consistency.

Your brain may interpret data gathered by the senses and contain the ego within the frontal lobe, but I wouldn't call that creation.

Although, I agree that without a brain an entity would not have an ego, nor a way of interpreting any senses it may have had at one point. It would not be aware of any perceptions of outer reality.

I would call it creation, because the ego starts forming when the conscious being starts experiencing.

It would not be aware of anything because consciousness would not exist in that entity.

The brain and ego allow an entity to interact with the 'outside' world. Yes, without a brain, the entity would be seem 'unconscious' to all other observers, just as the entity is compliantly unaware of the others.

Yes, the entity is most likely unaware of its self. It would simply 'be'. It would simply 'exist'. And I think that is a state of consciousness too.

Ok, so you admit that the entity is unaware, and that it would just simply exist, which I fully agree with. Now lets look at what google ("http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:consciousness&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title) has to say about consciousness. Obviously theres a few different opinions here, but its safe to say that a entity must have awareness to possess any form of consciousness whatsoever, and of coarse to be aware of anything whatsoever, the entity must also have a brain.

Again, you would not be aware of any kind of outer reality. You would have no ego, so nothing to interpret any data with.

You would not be aware of anything in particular, just aware. Ready to experience, and only experiencing nothing...the void (http://www.erowid.org/spirit/writings/spirit_writings1.shtml).

Your understanding of existence is from the viewpoint of an ego...thats why you aren't understanding this.

Interesting read, but lets check out the definition of void (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3A+void) real quick. I hope you established that the void is simply non-existence, and there is no life beyond our physical self and ego, besides the void, which is nothingness, ceasing to exist. What these mystics are good at is switching around words and making nothing sound like something. And of coarse I can only understand existence as an ego, becuase without it, I would just cease to exist.

The brain is really not necessary. No, you would not be conscious of forms of exterior reality, you would have no concept of time or space, and I think you would not even have the realization of what it means to exist. You just are, and thats what is.

Yea, so you would not be conscious, I dont understand why its so hard to grasp the simple fact that consciousness is not some spiritual bullshit, its simply the brain in a functioning order.

This is what everything detectable by you me is made up of.

This is why you have consciousness, not the brain.

Thats kind of like saying that the reason a computer exists is because of the ram, even though the ram just helps build the computer. Yes these molecules build up matter in the form of a brain, and the chemicals would react with each other, powering nuerons and lobes and all the brains sensory inputs, creating a conscious brain. Yes they are the building blocks of life, but not everything that molecules are in are conscious. Molecules create matter which creates lighters which spark fire, but that lighter isnt conscious, matter is only conscious when its formed in a certain way, and sparks certain chemical reactions, that create the brain, which holds the consciousness.

I suppose this all comes down to what we mean by awareness.

Yea but you arn't aware when you just are. My guitar, which is located infront of me just is, but it is not aware of its existence, because it dosn't have the brain to perceive its existence. It exists, but it is not aware that it exists.

Whats wrong with that? Its all true, it is all pointless.

I don't consider myself nihilistic.

I do truly believe nothing proves anything. That doesn't mean I do not enjoy certain things and dislike others.

The entire reason I asked those questions, was to show how stupid it was for you to ask me what one of the theories of consciousness proved.

Well according to the definition of nihilism, you certainly are one. I don't understand though, that if you truely believe nothing proves anything, why do you waste your time to try and prove to me that your proof that proves nothing is any better than mine? Of coarse you shouldn't even be debating whatsoever if you actually believe that nothing proves anything, since a debate is simply trying to prove your point to someonelse, eventhough your proof proves nothing, since nothing is proves anything.(even though I can prove to you that the totse website consists mostly of shades of blue, or that blue jeans are blue, and cold air is cold) But of coarse I can see how you would believe in such ridiculous things since you think consciousness can exist without a conscious being.(so really, how stupid is that)

What do you mean when you say universal consciousness, and why is it bullshit?

And what do you mean that everything is independent from your brain(I don't see what you're referring to here.)

"God" "cosmic consciousness" "universal consciousness." And its bullshit because its implying that everything is interconnected, we are all one being, even though we can't psychically kick in with this universal consciousness, we can't feel this universal consciousness, we can't perceive it, we can't communicate through it, so to believe in this, we must put faith into it, but we must put faith into something we can't perceive, just like all the religious gods.

I believe differently.

Good for you, I think its safe to assume now that most of your beliefs are false though.

LoL

What does reality tell you? And how are you so sure thats reality?

Reality tells me that I can perceive the communcation between us through my senses. How am I sure its reality? Well, again, its empirical, its consistent, its measurable, and its all those things to everyone who looks at it. If I'm in my room with a friend, and we started to look around, we would both see the same things, the same colors, because its all empirical reality, the same goes to anyone else who came into my room.

I admit, I may have chosen my words poorly in past posts...but I also blame this on language.

Yes, you would just be. You would be aware...but not actually of anything in particular.

You would just be.

Thats what the self is, beneath the ego, behind the illusions.

And without that...i think you would not exist. Even to others (although I do not believe in separation -- which makes room for more thoughts...such as, maybe then nothing would exist?).

Ever blame yourself for poorly using the language? But yes, beneath the ego is the functioning brain, and again, if you just are, you arn't aware at all, and how could you have awareness without having something to be aware of? What illusions? Theres matter and energy which creates life, if you take the matter and energy away, you have nothingness(space). And of coarse you couldn't exist if you just were, but werent't aware. Your lifeless body would exist as matter, but your ego and your consciousness would not, and your body would rot, the matter would decompose, and nothing of you would exist anymore.

What evidence do you have to back up anything]

Empirical evidence, which backs up almost all my propositions.

Fact, eh? :rolleyes:

Again, I think one of the problems is that we have different understandings of what consciousness means.

Obviously, you think consciousness is energy and matter, which is ok, but completely illogical.

I guess that would depend on what you mean by universal consciousness.

And how much you're aware of.

I explained it already, its "god" but if it existed, everyone would be aware of it.

The debate expanded when you brought the terms up.

My bad

I'll do my best!

That was a lie (like spirituality is)

Xlite

2007-07-17, 11:36

Depends what you mean by God.

God = Some dude people belive in.

Yeah, the universe is part of God.

No, God only exist in your brain.

Everything you believe is real, is just an illusion. You just go along with it and continue to make it up because you refuse to accept an unhappy ending.

Not an illision, Reality.
I already accepted the fact that the ending of the univers is "unhappy"

You understand what a red-shift is?

Alot lot of rable about photons and radio waves.
Your point?

Science has proven the universe does not continue on forever.

No, thats what they belive because human beings does not understand the word "Unlimited"

Your mind cannot invent something you haven't learned anything about.

Forexample.. try to imaging a world like ours, just without mass.

Or draw a monster without it having any parts from other things you know about in it.

Genuinely Interesting.

I've thought many 'a similar theory.

Can you prove that?

Déjà vu:

:From Wikipedia:

The experience of déjà vu is usually accompanied by a compelling sense of familiarity, and also a sense of "eeriness", "strangeness", or "weirdness". The "previous" experience is most frequently attributed to a dream, although in some cases there is a firm sense that the experience "genuinely happened" in the past. Déjà vu has been described as "remembering the future."

The experience of déjà vu seems to be very common; in formal studies 70% of people report having experienced it at least once. References to the experience of déjà vu are also found in literature of the past, indicating it is not a new phenomenon. It has been extremely difficult to invoke the déjà vu experience in laboratory settings, therefore making it a subject of few empirical studies. Recently, researchers have found ways to recreate this sensation using hypnosis.

And Big Rip:

:From Wikipedia:

The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis about the ultimate fate of the Universe, in which the matter of the universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Technically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future.

The hypothesis relies crucially on the type of dark energy in the universe. The key value is the equation of state w, the ratio between the dark energy pressure and its energy density. At w < − 1, the universe will eventually be pulled apart. Such energy is called phantom energy, a more extreme form of quintessence.

In a phantom energy dominated universe the "fabric" of the universe expands at an ever increasing rate. However, this implies that the size of the observable universe is continually shrinking; the distance to the edge of the observable universe which is moving away at the speed of light from any point gets ever closer.

When the size of the observable universe is smaller than any particular structure, then no interaction between the furthest parts of the structure can occur, neither gravitational nor electromagnetic (nor weak or strong), and they will be ripped apart.

First, the galaxies would be separated from each other. Arguably, this is what is happening right now, with galaxies that move outside the observable universe (approximately 46.5 billion light years away).

About 60 million years before the end, gravity would be too weak to hold the Milky Way and other individual galaxies together. Approximately three months before the end, the Solar system will be gravitationally unbound. In the last minutes, stars and planets will be torn apart, and an instant before the end, atoms will be destroyed.

The authors of this hypothesis calculate that the end of the universe as we now know it would be approximately 35 billion years after the Big Bang, or 20 billion years from now.

All the evidence i got.. and all the evidence i need.

I understand what you are saying.

But....get this!

I disagree.

I don't care.
You belive in your lie.. and let me belive in the truth.

LoL

What, do you think I'm Christian or something?

How is the devil the opposite of God?

In a reality where that 'God' and devil exist, if my concept of God also existed, it would be a conglomerate of that 'God', the devil, and all that is within that reality.

Whats the opposite of all? Nothing?

Well guess what, I believe in nothing as well. (Theres a sentence that could be taken multiple ways:rolleyes:)

First. I know what you are. You're a human being.

Second. The devil has always been stated as creater of evil bla bla.
And if god is the major good guy, then the devil would without a doubt be the major bad guy.

There is God, but your concept of it is completely off anyways. Religion is the opiate of the masses, and the red-headed step-child of spirituality.

Face it or not. Who really cares.

God = Exists in your brain.

Remove your brain = You remove god.

Simple!

In any case, i doubt i will discuss this anymore with you, cuz you just repeat the same rable over and over again.

Ehh! what if your brain isn't real?

What if the internet isn't real?

What if what we're doing right now isn't real?

Bla bla.. You fail at life...

As long as you don't think anything is real, you will never be happy.

Obbe

2007-07-17, 12:07

In any case, i doubt i will discuss this anymore with you, cuz you just repeat the same rable over and over again.

Great.

Dragon Slayer, I don't have the time right now. Maybe later, but a reply to that would really just be a waste of time.

For now...your first few posts? Check out solipsism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Explanation)

Other people cannot validate anything man. Sorry.

For the other half? We mostly have different understandings of words like awareness and consciousness.

I believe everything is aware. Not of anything in particular, most things are only aware of the void. This is the base which everything is built off of. I believe without this 'awareness', this simple being...existence would be impossible/meaningless.

Xlite

2007-07-17, 13:04

Great.

You're not muslim are you?

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-17, 21:00

Great.

Dragon Slayer, I don't have the time right now. Maybe later, but a reply to that would really just be a waste of time.

For now...your first few posts? Check out solipsism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Explanation)

Other people cannot validate anything man. Sorry.

For the other half? We mostly have different understandings of words like awareness and consciousness.

I believe everything is aware. Not of anything in particular, most things are only aware of the void. This is the base which everything is built off of. I believe without this 'awareness', this simple being...existence would be impossible/meaningless.

Hah, all radical skepicist philosophys are bullshit, and where created before modern science was born. I just think its funny because your trying to succeed in accurately telling me my senses are inaccurate. And if other people couldn't validate anything, I couldn't validate the post you made was correctly the english language, and wouldn't beable to type back to you in any legible form whatsoever. You can't reply in full because your replys would look foolish, just like your beliefs. So you can go on and create your own definitions for words that have been defined. And yes I agree most things are only aware of the void (which is actually being aware in nothing at all, hence the word "void").

So now that we've established you believe that its possible to have awareness without having anything to be aware of besides nothing, we know that existence is possible without being aware of anything, and thats what I was trying to explain to you this whole time! How can it be impossible to exist without awareness when most of the matter in the world exists without being aware? Your beliefs are so contradictory It's quite ridiculous, but of coarse, to each his own, so continue to believe your contradicting bullshit, and I'll continue to believe what I can validate with empiricism.

Obbe

2007-07-17, 22:16

You're not muslim are you?

What in the fuck could have given you that idea?

I mean really. After all that discussion, what makes you think I consider myself a member of ANY religion?

Obbe

2007-07-17, 22:39

I just think its funny because your trying to succeed in accurately telling me my senses are inaccurate.

Obviously I did succeed, as you seem to have wrote it down.

Did you mean I was trying to get you to believe that? I don't really care. I am telling you what I believe.

And if other people couldn't validate anything, I couldn't validate the post you made was correctly the english language, and wouldn't beable to type back to you in any legible form whatsoever.

Oh? So how do you know another person is actually reading your posts and replying to them? Maybe I am all in your head.

You can't reply in full because your replys would look foolish, just like your beliefs.

All beliefs are foolish, because they are beliefs.

I have this terrible thing I have to go to everyday after waking up called work. That, and I tire of explaining this to the same person again and again and again, only to have it all fly over their head.

You won't accept that. So I will reply to that monster. A few hours from now.

So you can go on and create your own definitions for words that have been defined.

Words and letters are used to represent concepts. Sometimes a complex concept can be viewed under different perspectives, or even mistaken for similar concepts.

Its for reasons like these, that language is a poor means of communication...

which is actually being aware in nothing at all

...like this for example.

By aware of nothing, you mean unaware.

But when I say aware of nothing, I mean aware...of nothing.

we know that existence is possible without being aware of anything, and thats what I was trying to explain to you this whole time!

That would be great, except that your understanding of that sentence is different then mine.

And no, I don't care if you believe my concepts. You just haven't properly understood them yet. Naturally, I would like you to, so I have persisted.

How can it be impossible to exist without awareness when most of the matter in the world exists without being aware?

If it did not contain the type of awareness I have been trying to describe to you, it wouldn't exist. IMO anyways.

Your beliefs are so contradictory It's quite ridiculous, but of coarse, to each his own, so continue to believe your contradicting bullshit, and I'll continue to believe what I can validate with empiricism.

So...I can keep believing in my bullshit, while you go believe in some other bullshit?

Sounds good.

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-18, 00:31

Empiricism is as far from bullshit as it gets.

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-18, 03:59

Obviously I did succeed, as you seem to have wrote it down.

Did you mean I was trying to get you to believe that? I don't really care. I am telling you what I believe.

Exactly, that was a contradictory statement, proving to you in logic that my senses are indeed accurate. If you where just telling me what you believed you wouldn't break down my propositions and reply, because telling me what you believe is just your opinion, like saying I believe ice cream is better than cake. But what your trying to argue here with me, is that the ice cream you like has invisible pixies living inside it that I cannot perceive with any of my senses, or measure with any type of technology. Of coarse I'm going have a few things to say about your statements here, and try to use reason and logic to show yout that your ice cream does not have invisible pixies living in it.

Oh? So how do you know another person is actually reading your posts and replying to them? Maybe I am all in your head.

Well if there wasn't another person reading these posts and replying then obviously it would be impossible to be having this debate. If you just existed in my head then why couldn't I control you also, since you would just be a figment of my imagination? I would assume that if everything existed just in my head, life would be just like a lucid dream, unfourtanetly thats not the case.

All beliefs are foolish, because they are beliefs.

I have this terrible thing I have to go to everyday after waking up called work. That, and I tire of explaining this to the same person again and again and again, only to have it all fly over their head.

You won't accept that. So I will reply to that monster. A few hours from now.

There is a difference between belief and reality. Reality is something that is consistent, emprircal, and measurable. Yes work is part of reality, if it was just a figment of your imagination obviously you'd beable to make your workplace disappear.

I have this thing in my brain called a bullshit detector (logic) which is why I counter the same old bullshit that you explain to me again and again with reasonable and logical responses, but they all seem to just fly over your head.

Words and letters are used to represent concepts. Sometimes a complex concept can be viewed under different perspectives, or even mistaken for similar concepts.

Its for reasons like these, that language is a poor means of communication...

Yes words and letters are used to represent concepts, but when those concepts are consistent, empirical, and measurable to anyone who views them, they can be taken on as truth, and most likely won't be mistaken as something else (unless the person wants to avoid truth). Like the concept of god for example, god can be mistaken as matter, a man in a white beard, the universe, or whatever the hell people want to think, but each of these concepts have nothing to do with reality, since the only one that can be reproduced, measured, and empirical for everyone, is mistaking god for matter, but thats simply just matter, not "god".

And if language is such a poor way to communicate, what do you suggest instead? Pointing and grunting, screaming, snarling? If we didn't have language you wouldnt beable to spread your bullshit around anyways, and would accept that your senses let you perceive truth.

...like this for example.

By aware of nothing, you mean unaware.

But when I say aware of nothing, I mean aware...of nothing.

Ya, there the same thing except your trying to add something mystical with the underlines and the italics.

Unaware= Aware of nothing

Aware= Aware of something

At least now you accept the fact that unconsciouss entitys are unaware.

...That would be great, except that your understanding of that sentence is different then mine.

And no, I don't care if you believe my concepts. You just haven't properly understood them yet. Naturally, I would like you to, so I have persisted.

The only way you can understand such a simple sentence differently is if you fail to accept the truth. Trust me, I understand exactly what your saying because I used to believe the same things, I'm just trying to logically break down your concepts to show you that they are bullshit.

If it did not contain the type of awareness I have been trying to describe to you, it wouldn't exist. IMO anyways.

The type of awareness you are trying to explain to me is being aware of nothing, which is being unaware, which is what most of the existing matter is.

So...I can keep believing in my bullshit, while you go believe in some other bullshit?

Sounds good.

You can call my beliefs bullshit, but if you do so, your saying the senses are bullshit, and again, accurately telling me my senses are inaccurate.

It may sound good to you, but its contradictory to everyone else.

Obbe

2007-07-18, 04:53

Ahh, but modern science says otherwise! Colors are measured by the wavelength of a light in nm(nanometers), here, start your road to sanity by checking this

And what do you perceive those measurements with? The senses?

Which you have no way of finding out actually depict reality as it is or not.

And no, reality does not work in that fashion ether, modern science has also proved that...since its empirical and consistent to everyone and everything that views it.

And you know this how?

How does everyone compare their views of reality with one another? By...talking about it? Describing it in other methods? Alright.

Then how do you receive 'their' information? Using your senses? Which, again....you do not know are accurate.

You go right back to square one. You can't validate your perception of reality with others, because they are part of that perception.

we can still see all the building blocks of reality with our senses, and with the help of technology.

I could see my ceiling crawl if I ate some mushrooms.

I could talk to 'people who aren't there' if I took a large amount of deleriants.

Do you consider that reality?

Well hey! There has been much documentation of groups experiencing the same trip while sharing a hallucinogen.

I guess that validates their experience as reality, right?

Again, technology can prove that we all perceive the same peices of matter, and the same colors, from years of empirical and consistent data.

Read my last few replies.

States of being? All this eastern spirituality nonsense is outdated, you believing this shit is like me believing that earth is still flat.

Yes states of being. I hope you understand the rest of this quote is your opinion and belief, which according to you, has no effect on reality.

Yes its complex, but proven, no. Interesting to watch some experimental physisict share his opinions with us, but again, it has nothing to do with empricism or consistency.

I never claimed my concepts to be proven.

In fact, I do claim that an impossibility.

And, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know the person who made that video and wrote that book is NOT a physicist.

Ok, so you admit that the entity is unaware, and that it would just simply exist, which I fully agree with.

No, thats your interpretation of my choice of words.

I mean its aware of nothing.

...and of coarse to be aware of anything whatsoever, the entity must also have a brain.

Again, you do not know this.

Interesting read, but lets check out the definition of void real quick.

What does the word 'stacks' mean to you?

Now, what does that mean to a librarian.

What does 'dribbling' mean to a 5 year old?

Now, what does it mean to a basketball player?

...becuase without [my ego], I would just cease to exist.

Thats a misconception many believe.

Your ego would cease to exist. You are the eternal awareness experiencing that particular ego.

...consciousness is...simply the brain in a functioning order.

Care to explain the process which creates consciousness, then?

matter is only conscious when its formed in a certain way, and sparks certain chemical reactions, that create the brain, which holds the consciousness.

Again, you do not know this.

Well according to the definition of nihilism, you certainly are one. I don't understand though, that if you truely believe nothing proves anything, why do you waste your time to try and prove to me that your proof that proves nothing is any better than mine?

You are the one who needed the explanation in the first place buddy. YOU responded to MY two sentences.

"God" "cosmic consciousness" "universal consciousness." And its bullshit because its implying that everything is interconnected, we are all one being, even though we can't psychically kick in with this universal consciousness, we can't feel this universal consciousness, we can't perceive it, we can't communicate through it, so to believe in this, we must put faith into it, but we must put faith into something we can't perceive, just like all the religious gods.

Ever hear of nirvana? The void?

Ever taken quality psychedelics?

Even then, you can't just sit back and wait for it to happen.

Good for you, I think its safe to assume now that most of your beliefs are false though.

You haven't been assuming that since the beginning?

How am I sure its reality? Well, again, its empirical, its consistent, its measurable, and its all those things to everyone who looks at it. If I'm in my room with a friend, and we started to look around, we would both see the same things, the same colors, because its all empirical reality, the same goes to anyone else who came into my room.

Check out my second reply to in this post, again.

Ever blame yourself for poorly using the language?

Yes, that is to blame as well.

But yes, beneath the ego is the functioning brain, and again, if you just are, you arn't aware at all, and how could you have awareness without having something to be aware of? What illusions?

Aware...of nothing.

Empirical evidence, which backs up almost all my propositions.

2nd reply

Obviously, you think consciousness is energy and matter, which is ok, but completely illogical.

I don't think I've thought about the matter enough.

I explained it already, its "god" but if it existed, everyone would be aware of it.

Look around you...what do you see?

Listen closely...hear that?

Can you feel that?

God.

That was a lie (like spirituality is)

No, my next post was much smaller. But you just bitched about it.

Hope you like the new one.

And what do you mean "spirituality is a lie"?

Obbe

2007-07-18, 04:54

Empiricism is as far from bullshit as it gets.

Admitting you know nothing is a far from bullshit as it gets.

Dragon Slayer, you're gonna have to wait till tomorrow...maybe. Maybe I'll take a crack at that now.

Fuck sleep.

Obbe

2007-07-18, 05:11

Exactly, that was a contradictory statement, proving to you in logic that my senses are indeed accurate.

If I did not think that, would I not be carrying on a conversation with you?

However, we do not know the nature of this 'connection'. It may be a part of the entire illusion. I am still not sure if you are just a 'voice in my head', as you are not with me.

Well if there wasn't another person reading these posts and replying then obviously it would be impossible to be having this debate. If you just existed in my head then why couldn't I control you also, since you would just be a figment of my imagination? I would assume that if everything existed just in my head, life would be just like a lucid dream, unfourtanetly thats not the case.

Can the insane control their delusions?

I mean, its all in their head. They should just stop seeing, and feeling, those beetles crawling under their skin.

There is a difference between belief and reality. Reality is something that is consistent, emprircal, and measurable. Yes work is part of reality, if it was just a figment of your imagination obviously you'd beable to make your workplace disappear.

No, there is no difference. At least from our perspective as humans. Work is part of the illusion.

I have this thing in my brain called a bullshit detector (logic) which is why I counter the same old bullshit that you explain to me again and again with reasonable and logical responses, but they all seem to just fly over your head.

Then tell me, how are you confirming your experience of reality with another person, without using your senses?

...reproduced, measured, and empirical for everyone, is mistaking god for matter, but thats simply just matter, not "god".

What is it with this everyone business?

And if language is such a poor way to communicate, what do you suggest instead? Pointing and grunting, screaming, snarling?

Uh, no. And as I have not experienced other methods of communication, I would not know. But I would assume they would be just as poor, for all the same reasons.

Ya, there the same thing except your trying to add something mystical with the underlines and the italics.

No, thats to show a word is important.

At least now you accept the fact that unconsciouss entitys are unaware.

No, you just can't understand what I have been trying to tell you.

The only way you can understand such a simple sentence differently is if you fail to accept the truth.

You mean, 'change your perspective'.

The type of awareness you are trying to explain to me is being aware of nothing, which is being unaware, which is what most of the existing matter is.

I disagree.

You can call my beliefs bullshit, but if you do so, your saying the senses are bullshit, and again, accurately telling me my senses are inaccurate.

You have some sort of...proof that their not?

It may sound good to you, but its contradictory to everyone else.

Only cause their all buying into bullshit of their own.

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-18, 07:38

And what do you perceive those measurements with? The senses?

Which you have no way of finding out actually depict reality as it is or not.

When everyone perceives the measurements in the same way with there senses its safe to say its true.

Are you trying to imply that we live in some sort of matrix? If so, so what? How does thinking about that add to the experience of reality in the now?

And you know this how?

How does everyone compare their views of reality with one another? By...talking about it? Describing it in other methods? Alright.

Then how do you receive 'their' information? Using your senses? Which, again....you do not know are accurate.

You go right back to square one. You can't validate your perception of reality others, because they are part of that perception.

Well, we can both agree that every humans brain is made out very similar matter right? So assuming we agree this, lets look at basic processing with the same basic matter. A computer for example, is built up of generally the same hardware, some run faster, but some have more memory ect, ect. Now the motherboard (or the brain) is needed for anything else in the computer to work, and of coarse you need a processor and ram, and a cd-drive, but most other things are optional. Now there happens to be alot of different programming languages for computers, but each one does the same function, it creates programs, the computers might perceive the programing language differently, but the languages reletivley do the same thing.

So lets say that our perception was like html(which is the website scripting language), which of coarse lets the computer perceive things from outside of itself. If someone wrote a website in english in html, the mac is going to perceive that website in the exact same way the the pc did, even though there differences are more than there similarities, they are both made up of very similar matter, so there going to perceive things very much alike. Totse used certain html codes for each color, and each computer perceives that color in the exact same way, unless the computer is faded, or you fuck with the contrast so much its different (like chemical imbalances in the brain) but its safe to say that all computers perceive the same html codes, in the same manner.

So when you compare this concept to the human brain, you can see that because every brain is made of similar matter, every brain perceives reality in the same manner, red is red (wavelengths like html color codes) a tree is a tree (Matter like internet pictures) So on and so on. So saying that everyone sees a different reality is kind of ridiculous, cause our brains are all composed of very similar matter.

Of coarse, you can call the internet which connects each computer god, or the universal consciousness, but those are just alternatives to matter and energy. And when you look at it that way anyways it dosnt make sense because each computer is an individual, and the internet would not exist if a computer didn't exist in the first place, so relating to the human mind, this concept can only go so far. (which is also why the concept of a over-soul or w/e is not really likely)

I could see my ceiling crawl if I ate some mushrooms.

I could talk to 'people who aren't there' if I took a large amount of deleriants.

Do you consider that reality?

Well hey! There has been much documentation of groups experiencing the same trip while sharing a hallucinogen.

I guess that validates their experience as reality, right?

I have taken psychedelics before, but what they basically do to your brain is rewire it for about 6 hours, and let your subconsciouss mind go apeshit on you.

The psilocybin rewired your brain to come into a closer contact with your subconscious mind, which is why you have healing and "spiritual" experiences, because the subconsciouss mind shows you the truth about yourself. You hallucinate because your brain chemistry is changing, and it creates things you normally don't see in reality. To call these hallucinations as real as your normal life reality, you would have to beable to verify them with your touch. Obviously this is not the case, and they are just subjects of the mind during a rewiring, but regardless, they are fun as hell.

Well, I have to admit, I've experienced the same hallucinations as my friend while tripping on mushrooms, so I want to put out some ideas to why this would happen. (yes, with the presence of an open mind)

I'm gana take my concept of the brain/computer, and explore it here abit.

Lets assume that without the ingestion of mushrooms (thats the only substance that hallucinations were ever similar with another persons) Our minds are just like emailing programs, or Instant messaging, or w/e. So we can send information, and recieve information, but were only connecting by sending and receiving, thats what connects us, but its not constant. When we take psilocybin mushrooms, it re-wires our brains, and its sort-of like linking screen names on aim, so were still two seperate people, but linked to the same program so we see the same hallucinations, just like you would see both of the screen names messages on aim. It only lasts for about 6 hours though, which is why its not reality, because its not consistent, and the same effects cannot be reproducible. (each trip is different)

Read my last few replies.

The only one that makes sense is the statement of groups experiencing the same hallucinations.

Yes states of being. I hope you understand the rest of this quote is your opinion and belief, which according to you, has no effect on reality.

Yes, my well backed up opinion though.

I never claimed my concepts to be proven.

In fact, I do claim that an impossibility.

And, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know the person who made that video and wrote that book is NOT a physicist.

My bad, but he did know alot about physics.

No, thats your interpretation of my choice of words.

I mean its aware of nothing.

Same thing as unaware, to be aware you must be aware of something.

Again, you do not know this.

Well if its possible to be aware and unaware at the same time wouldn't someone know this?

What does the word 'stacks' mean to you?

Now, what does that mean to a librarian.

What does 'dribbling' mean to a 5 year old?

Now, what does it mean to a basketball player?

A large number of any item. To a librarian it means a large number of books.

Dribbling could mean peed abit to a 5 year old, but once he gets older he will realize it means to bounce a ball within your feet or hands.

Thats a misconception many believe.

Your ego would cease to exist. You are the eternal awareness experiencing that particular ego.

How could I be eternal if I had no ego to be aware of after the death of this one?

Care to explain the process which creates consciousness, then?

Yea, when the brain is developed in a baby, the baby now has working senses, and can now perceive awareness, and can now be considered conscious.

Again, you do not know this.

Yea, since the pillow on my bed does not have a brain, it dosn't have anything to be aware of besides nothing.

You are the one who needed the explanation in the first place buddy. YOU responded to MY two sentences.

Your the one who believes that nothing proves anything, and your still trying to prove something to me.

Ever hear of nirvana? The void?

Ever taken quality psychedelics?

Even then, you can't just sit back and wait for it to happen?

Yea, there fun as hell, and intensify creativity.

You haven't been assuming that since the beginning?

I knew you where spiritual, but not a radical skepticist.

Check out my second reply to in this post, again.

Yea, same basic matter, same basic perception.

Yes, that is to blame as well.

It happens.

Aware...of nothing.

I'll substitute nothing with the void, but the void is nothing, so thats still aware of nothing.

Aware of nothing but itself? Still, even if you mean this, an entity that dosn't have any means to be aware of itself, is aware of nothing.

Aware of nothing, not aware of anything, nothing to be aware of, unaware.

2nd reply

;)

I don't think I've thought about the matter enough.

I can tell, as a matter of fact.

Look around you...what do you see?

Listen closely...hear that?

Can you feel that?

God.

I see matter?

I hear my computer?

And I can feel my blood pump through my veins?

Reality.

No, my next post was much smaller. But you just bitched about it.

Hope you like the new one.

And what do you mean "spirituality is a lie"?

I mean that spirituality is a lie, and that your believing a false concept.

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-18, 09:05

If I did not think that, would I not be carrying on a conversation with you?

However, we do not know the nature of this 'connection'. It may be a part of the entire illusion. I am still not sure if you are just a 'voice in my head', as you are not with me.

Your starting to make less and less sense as the debate goes on, but if my senses were inaccurate, we could not accurately have this debate.

Are you a schizophrenic? It is just plain foolish to think that I am a voice in your head, and still try to persuade this voice in your head that your propositions are correct, even though a voice can't read text on a message board on the internet.

Can the insane control their delusions?

I mean, its all in their head. They should just stop seeing, and feeling, those beetles crawling under their skin.

People are insane by chemical imbalances. This happens through overuse of drugs, natural disorders, or horrifying past experiences. They can't control the delusions because they can't control the fact that there brain pumps out to much DMT, creating there hallucinations.

No, there is no difference. At least from our perspective as humans. Work is part of the illusion.

Are you expecting to wake up in a bed with 42 virgins after you die, or just expecting to not exist? If this reality is an illusion, its the only damn thing we got, so why would it even concern you that were living in an illusion? Then again, lets assume we live in an illusion, but lets also realize that after we die, we cease to exist. So if we live our entire lives in an illusion, then cease to exist, can we really ever consider our life experience an illusion?

What is it with this everyone business?

I mean empiricism is data that is measurable, and consistent, by every single person who views it.

Uh, no. And as I have not experienced other methods of communication, I would not know. But I would assume they would be just as poor, for all the same reasons.

So you don't like this language, but any other form of communication would not please you either, very odd.

Lets again assume that there is no form of verbal communication, how can you perceive truth then? Of coarse the only way would be with the senses..

No, thats to show a word is important.

How could aware and nothing put together be important?

Nothing is aware? Awareness is nothing? Aware of nothing?

Obviously theres plenty of aware entitys on the planet, including you and I.

If awareness was nothing then we wouldn't be aware so we would be aware of nothing and be unaware (like most of the existing matter)

No, you just can't understand what I have been trying to tell you.

Because what your telling me makes no sense whatsoever.

You keep saying its possible to be aware of nothing and still be aware, when to be aware you must of aware of something

Unaware= Aware of nothing

You mean, 'change your perspective'.

So how can I change my perspective of perceiving awareness of nothing any differently than it sounds?

I disagree.

You disagreeing with reality isn't going to change things one bit. I can disagree with my friend henry because he believes in gravity, but its not going to change the fact that matter still falls when dropped.

You have some sort of...proof that their not?

Ya, part of the proof is sitting infront of my eyes right now, accuratley producing what im accurately typing. Accurately hearing what the musician is accurately playing and being accurately recorded. Accurately typing to you that your beliefs are inaccurate.

Only cause their all buying into bullshit of their own.

Your pretty much saying again that all senses are inaccurate because I accurately told everyone they were, and do not believe anything anyone says because nothing is true, even though me saying this is implying that I'm true so don't believe me either that nothing is true.

Contradictory bullshit at its finest.

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-18, 11:02

Admitting you know nothing is a far from bullshit as it gets.

Now you're getting into philosophy, which quickly goes in the other direction.

Obbe

2007-07-18, 13:29

When everyone perceives the measurements in the same way with there senses its safe to say its true.

Again, you do not know if everyone perceives reality the same because you do not know

a)If there are separate entity's.

b)How you would communicate with these entity's, without using the senses which could already be fooling you about these entity's existence.

Are you trying to imply that we live in some sort of matrix? If so, so what? How does thinking about that add to the experience of reality in the now?

I am trying to imply that you know nothing. So what? So nothing. Why should that changed anything?

Its also not something I ever asked you to believe. It was something YOU asked ME to explain to you.

Well, we can both agree that every humans brain is made out very similar matter right?

No, for the same reasons you can't assume there are even other humans.

Or that you ARE a human.

Which makes everything else you've typed down here based on absolutely nothing. I don't mean to put it down, its a nice metaphor.

But if I cut open 100 peoples heads just to make sure they had brains, I would still be perceiving all that with my senses.

And when you look at it that way anyways it dosnt make sense because each computer is an individual, and the internet would not exist if a computer didn't exist in the first place,so relating to the human mind, this concept can only go so far. (which is also why the concept of a over-soul or w/e is not really likely)

Who's to say thats what God is? The connection, I mean. I wasn't saying that.

Even if I did, we aren't computers. You really have no clue if your mind is based on the reality you are perceiving, or vice versa.

Obviously I believe vice versa.

To call these hallucinations as real as your normal life reality, you would have to beable to verify them with your touch. Obviously this is not the case, and they are just subjects of the mind during a rewiring, but regardless, they are fun as hell.

Someone talking to their cousin who died when they were five, after taking a large dose of datura that is, certainly can feel that person, and completely believes what they are experiencing is reality.

Well, I have to admit, I've experienced the same hallucinations as my friend while tripping on mushrooms, so I want to put out some ideas to why this would happen. (yes, with the presence of an open mind)

I'm gana take my concept of the brain/computer, and explore it here abit.

I've already replied more then once in this thread why you can't know any of this.

And all of that is speculation on your part. Wheres your important empirical evidence that you and your 'friend' are 'instant messaging'?

The only one that makes sense is the statement of groups experiencing the same hallucinations.

Only because thats the only one you've allowed yourself to understand.

Yes, my well backed up opinion though.

By what evidence? All that you've gathered via the senses?

Which you can't even validate?

Then to the psycho/drug user 'hallucinating' beetles under his skin, according to everything he's gathered via the senses, beetles really ARE crawling under his skin. And according to you, that alone is enough to prove he is experiencing reality.

Or he could always 'verify' his experience with someone suffering the same delusions. No different then you and your friend, or me and anyone else.

My bad, but he did know alot about physics.

Indeed. The physics which are responsible for how this perception of a/the universe works.

Same thing as unaware, to be aware you must be aware of something.

I disagree, and because I know you've asked this (or similar) questions more then once, I'll try to cover it all right here.

I say aware of nothing. I do not mean unaware.

The void, nirvana, etc...

Its the state of nothing and of everything. When I say 'the void' or 'aware of nothing', I don't mean negatives or positives.

I don't mean 100% or 0.

Its the balance between two opposites. Its the 'equals sign'.

Balance. Aware(+)...of...nothing(-).

It is also simultaneously the lowest and highest state of mind/being, IMO.

Hope that cleared it up, but somehow I doubt it.

How could I be eternal if I had no ego to be aware of after the death of this one?

You would stay in the state I've been trying to describe for what would seem like forever(as there is no awareness of time, hence, the term eternal), and maybe one day, experience another ego.

I have no idea how likely that is though.

Yea, when the brain is developed in a baby, the baby now has working senses, and can now perceive awareness, and can now be considered conscious.

I hope you don't consider this a serious explanation of what consciousness is.

Or, of what I actually asked, how consciousness is produced by the brain like you believe.

Your the one who believes that nothing proves anything, and your still trying to prove something to me.

I'm quite enjoying the discussion.

And, as I have already stated more then enough times, I am not trying to prove anything to you, do not believe anything can be proven, and do not care what you believe.

I have only been trying my hardest to politely get you to correctly understand my concepts, which you asked me to do.

Yea, there fun as hell, and intensify creativity.

It seems to me like you haven't been listening to the entheogen very well.

But thats just IMO.

I knew you where spiritual, but not a radical skepticist.

Perceive me as you will.

Aware of nothing, not aware of anything, nothing to be aware of, unaware.

I tried clearing this up a few posts up.

I see matter?

I hear my computer?

And I can feel my blood pump through my veins?

Reality.

Perception...of reality. Reality, which is God.

I mean that spirituality is a lie, and that your believing a false concept.

LoL, of course its false, just like all beliefs.

They're all lies.

But what do you mean 'spirituality' is a lie? I mean, spirituality isn't one specific thing.

Thats like me saying things like 'economy' are lies.

Obbe

2007-07-18, 13:31

This was originally part of my first reply, but was too long for totse.

I do not know if it does, but sorry if because of this it looks messed up (as in random spaces being thrown in...I pasted it into Notepad).

Your starting to make less and less sense as the debate goes on, but if my senses were inaccurate, we could not accurately have this debate.

Unless its all an illusion...like I've been saying.

Are you a schizophrenic? It is just plain foolish to think that I am a voice in your head, and still try to persuade this voice in your head that your propositions are correct, even though a voice can't read text on a message board on the internet.

I put 'voice in head' in quotation marks in hopes you'd realize what I was getting at...an illusion. As usual, it seems my hopes were too high.

What isn't foolish? I mean, I am enjoying myself, so why not?

People are insane by chemical imbalances.

a) How do you know you are not one of them, locked in a cell only believing you are on a computer replying me?

b) How do you know, for sure, that they are not sane, and 'we' all are sane? And not vice versa?

c)Observing an insane person, and any chemical imbalances they have, is done using your senses.

Are you expecting to wake up in a bed with 42 virgins after you die, or just expecting to not exist?

I do not know what to expect.

How ever, I do believe that 'the void' will be a big part of the experience. And I also expect to always exist, just not in all ways.

Again, I do not know this, or consequently what to expect.

So if we live our entire lives in an illusion, then cease to exist, can we really ever consider our life experience an illusion?

I for one do not believe we cease to exist.

How could you consider your life experience an illusion?

In all the ways I have been trying to explain to you.

That in no way makes your life experience any less 'meaningful', or 'pointless', or a waste. Unless you choose for it to mean that.

I mean empiricism is data that is measurable, and consistent, by every single person who views it.

Again, you cannot be sure their are others, and you can only exchange that data via the senses.

So you don't like this language, but any other form of communication would not please you either, very odd.

Not just this language. I said language, as in all of them.

...how can you perceive truth then? Of coarse the only way would be with the senses..

Which is why I said, if you noticed,'I would assume they would be just as poor, for all the same reasons.'

So how can I change my perspective of perceiving awareness of nothing any differently than it sounds?

This is what I have been trying to explain to you. I tried to cover this in one of my first few replies my other response.

You disagreeing with reality isn't going to change things one bit. I can disagree with my friend henry because he believes in gravity, but its not going to change the fact that matter still falls when dropped.

I understand my (or your) disagreement won't change anything. I never asked it of you.

Who's perceiving it falling....you and your 'friend', right? So how are you 'verifying' your 'friend' perceived this too...with the senses?

The same senses which you do not know actually allow you to know anything real?

Have you caught on yet?

And what makes you think whatever he does and doesn't believe would even make a difference? What makes you think he has any power over his illusion?

I'm not saying that he doesn't either...but I fail to see what led you to assume that.

Ya, part of the proof is sitting infront of my eyes right now, accuratley producing what im accurately typing.

Accurately hearing what the musician is accurately playing and being accurately recorded. Accurately typing to you that your beliefs are inaccurate.

All of which is being observed by your senses, and could all be part of a complex illusion.

Your pretty much saying again that all senses are inaccurate

Yes.

because I accurately told everyone they were,

I do not know this, maybe I've been talking to voices in my head.

and do not believe anything anyone says because nothing is true,

Depends. Within the illusion, if my nephew came to me and said billy beat him up, I would believe him.

But on a different level, I believe him, me and billy are all one. As with our consensual and non-consensual versions of reality.

even though me saying this is implying that I'm true so don't believe

That is a contradiction, obviously I believe whats in my own head.

And everything is bullshit bud. Everything.

Obbe

2007-07-18, 13:33

Now you're getting into philosophy, which quickly goes in the other direction.

Lets make sure we avoid that then, eh?

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-19, 02:30

Lets make sure we avoid that then, eh?

Obbe, I have tried everything in reason to explain to you how useless and ridiculous radical skpeticism is, and how stupid unaware awareness is, but for some reason you seem to be trapped in there clenches. Your leaving out parts of my posts and ignoring content, you keep repeating the same things over and over again that do not make sense. Your denying yourself under illusions, and you've obviously abused way to many drugs. Reality is reality, becuase its our reality, and the point in consistent philosophy is to help us experience our reality in full, to be happy.

If you stick with your beliefs you will never truly be happy, because there is no way to prove them wrong, or to prove them right, which assuming these things, there not even worth thinking about. So do what you do, but think about whats infront of you, and think how you can get the best out of it, instead of torturing yourself and others with the paradoxes and condradictions you've been ranting.

P.S. If you truly wish to continue this debate, I would still have time to do so via aim.

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-19, 02:35

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."

- Thomas Paine

Obbe

2007-07-19, 02:59

Obbe, I have tried everything in reason to explain to you how useless and ridiculous radical skpeticism is

Why? Its not negatively effecting my life or happiness, and it effectively explains reality in a way I understand.

My concept I mean, as you are the one who labeled me a radical skeptic.

and how stupid unaware awareness is

And I have tried very hard to type it in a way you'll understand it. It only seems stupid because you do not seem to understand what I mean.

Your leaving out parts of my posts and ignoring content

I only leave out the parts I consider unnecessary to reply to, either because I feel it has been covered, or is not important to the discussion.

Please, go ahead and point out anything you think I missed and would like covered.

And honestly, it seems to me your the one ignoring content. Such as...

you keep repeating the same things over and over again that do not make sense.

Only because you keep repeating yourself.

Example? You tell me again and again how you believe you can verify you perception of reality by confirming it with others.

I keep trying to tell you that is impossible, because they are a part of that perception. You do not seem to understand this. Thus, I repeat it.

(edit- Oh, and as for leaving out parts of posts, how about you go back and quote the posts which were intended for you, and answer some of my questions? I've already done that for you in this thread.)

Your denying yourself under illusions, and you've obviously abused way to many drugs.

You deny that you truly do not know anything. And at least I treat drugs with respect and use them as entheogens as well as for recreation. I do not abuse drugs, and my usage is very minimal considered the intake of most of BLTC.

Reality is reality, becuase its our reality

At the most, its a consensual reality. You cannot know what is real.

and the point in consistent philosophy is to help us experience our reality in full, to be happy.

What do you mean by consistent philosophy? And I really don't see how my point of view makes me miserable.

I mean, I'm happy man.

If you stick with your beliefs you will never truly be happy

Again dude...

I am happy.

because there is no way to prove them wrong, or to prove them right, which assuming these things

Yes.

, there not even worth thinking about.

I disagree.

So do what you do, but think about whats infront of you, and think how you can get the best out of it, instead of torturing yourself and others with the paradoxes and condradictions you've been ranting.

Torturing you, am I? If anything, it has been torture for me to explain my concept to you. Something you asked me about. Its a good thing for you I actually have been enjoying this.

What can you do, but think about anything?

(edit- Contradictions? Heres one. How can you verify something with someone you aren't sure exists?)

If you truly wish to continue this debate, I would still have time to do so via aim.

I don't have aim.

But if you would care to continue this, feel free to reply when you have the time. I would much rather you have a proper understanding of what I'm trying to communicate here, then have misconceptions thought about me and my ideas.

Obbe

2007-07-19, 03:00

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."

- Thomas Paine

Quite true.:D

No, I'm not talking about me.;)

Xlite

2007-07-19, 11:35

What in the fuck could have given you that idea?

I mean really. After all that discussion, what makes you think I consider myself a member of ANY religion?

Haha, it was a joke man...

However, you actually remind me of it..

They also tend to belive that everything we know doesn't really exist.

Obbe

2007-07-19, 11:42

They also tend to belive that everything we know doesn't really exist.

I did not know that.

Xlite

2007-07-19, 11:45

Again dude...

I am happy.

Btw man... how do you know that?

Obbe

2007-07-19, 11:55

Btw man... how do you know that?

Because I feel happy.

Is that something interpreted by the ego? Probably.

Emotion is probably not something which exists outside of the ego.

But I currently do have an ego...obviously.

So, beneath the illusion, am I happy? No, but I also doubt the existence of any emotion within that state. Within this illusion, do I believe I am happy? Yes.

Xlite

2007-07-19, 15:00

Because I feel happy.

Is that something interpreted by the ego? Probably.

Emotion is probably not something which exists outside of the ego.

But I currently do have an ego...obviously.

So, beneath the illusion, am I happy? No, but I also doubt the existence of any emotion within that state. Within this illusion, do I believe I am happy? Yes.

So feelings is a part of the ego?

Hmm.. okay.
Makes no sense really...

so we try another one.

If i'm a part of your imagination. Then my knowlegde is limited to your knowlegde right?

So in that manner. I can't possible tell you anything you don't already know now can i?

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-19, 17:39

And honestly, it seems to me your the one ignoring content. Such as...

Only because you keep repeating yourself.

Example? You tell me again and again how you believe you can verify you perception of reality by confirming it with others.

I keep trying to tell you that is impossible, because they are a part of that perception. You do not seem to understand this. Thus, I repeat it..

Everything that we perceive with is made out of similar matter. Eyes are made out of similar matter, ears, nerves, taste buds, all of it in everyone is made up of similar matter, and it all goes back to the brain, which again, is made up of similar matter in everyone. So to say we can't verify something with the senses, which are similar to everyone elses senses, is quite absurd. Now what I agree with you here is that we can't verify if we are all living in a matrix or not, which again, does not matter whatsoever, and never will.

Of coarse what makes people seperate is that fact that everyone has seperate emotions, seperate likes, dislikes, looks, shapes, thougts, and a bundle of other things. I think what your trying to say here is that there is no way to verify if this reality which everyone is experiencing in a similar matter, is indeed real, if it is absolute truth. And again, so what? We still verify this "illusion" in the same manner, every individual sees the same matter that is seperate from themselves. Is the matter real? Well it's sure as hell real to us, and relates to everything we do. Are you trying to view reality in the perspective of "god" or something? Which of coarse according to you, could also be an illusion.

P.S. Didn't reply to anything else because this arguement seems to be the basis around the rest, and, my time is limited.

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-19, 22:13

If i'm a part of your imagination. Then my knowlegde is limited to your knowlegde right?

So in that manner. I can't possible tell you anything you don't already know now can i?

Interesting line of thought. I've never considered that idea when discoursing with Solipsists/Nihilists. If we take that into account, then it should be impossible to learn anything from anyone other than oneself.

Of course they'll likely make up some bullshit about you being a subconscious maniftestation of something they know yet weren't aware of in order to preserve their precious worldview.

Obbe

2007-07-19, 22:51

So feelings is a part of the ego?

Hmm.. okay.
Makes no sense really...

Why?

Please notice that I tired to indicate by using 'probably' twice, that I myself am not completely decided on this.

However, I see emotions as a response to stimuli within the illusion. You feel good when you believe good things are happening, and you feel bad when you believe bad things are happening. Of course, how 'you' choose to deal with these things also affects how you feel...but the 'you' in this case is the still just the ego.

If this is all an illusion, then the 'real you', in the void, is actually emotionless or apathetic.

Is that clearer?

so we try another one.

If i'm a part of your imagination. Then my knowlegde is limited to your knowlegde right?

So in that manner. I can't possible tell you anything you don't already know now can i?

Maybe you can. Who really knows...maybe if you believed it, you would gain that ability...which 'everyone' would probably call telepathy...

But thats not what I am saying.

Lets look at this in another way. In a consensual reality shared between you and I, a legally insane person is locked away in a padded cell. From his perception of reality, he constantly hallucinates people that he has never met before, who never stop harassing him.

He doesn't know why they do it or what goes on in their heads, he wishes they would go away, and he has no clue as to why you and I can't see them, or that from our shared perspective, they are not real. To him, they are part of reality.

How do you know your life is not like that? How do you know that all of this is not illusion? Simply put, you don't know. You believe you do, just like the insane person. But you can never really know.

Obbe

2007-07-19, 23:18

Everything that we perceive with is made out of similar matter. Eyes are made out of similar matter, ears, nerves, taste buds, all of it in everyone is made up of similar matter, and it all goes back to the brain, which again, is made up of similar matter in everyone. So to say we can't verify something with the senses, which are similar to everyone elses senses, is quite absurd.

As you are verifying that everything we perceive with is made out of the same matter, you are using those senses to observe that matter. That matter which makes up the parts of your body we call our senses is also part of the illusion, and you cannot verify anything about it.

Also, as you are 'comparing' the matter from one person with matter from another person, you are again using your senses to do so. So once again, the comparison and verification are not things which you actually know.

Now what I agree with you here is that we can't verify if we are all living in a matrix or not, which again, does not matter whatsoever, and never will.

Yes, you cannot verify it and it doesn't matter anyways. But I still would like to point out that you cannot know if other 'observers of reality' are real, or just part of the illusion.

Of coarse what makes people seperate is that fact that everyone has seperate emotions, seperate likes, dislikes, looks, shapes, thougts, and a bundle of other things.

Its not a fact, since its not something that can be known. But within the illusion, it seems quite obvious, yes.

I think what your trying to say here is that there is no way to verify if this reality which everyone is experiencing in a similar matter, is indeed real, if it is absolute truth.

I am saying there is no way for you to be sure if anything you experience, including encounters of other people, is real or an illusion. I am saying you cannot know, you can only believe.

And again, so what? We still verify this "illusion" in the same manner, every individual sees the same matter that is seperate from themselves. Is the matter real? Well it's sure as hell real to us, and relates to everything we do.

I have already answered this twice in those big long posts you haven't replied to.

So what? So nothing. Why should that changed anything?

[The illusion] in no way makes your life experience any less 'meaningful', or 'pointless', or a waste. Unless you choose for it to mean that.

Are you trying to view reality in the perspective of "god" or something? Which of coarse according to you, could also be an illusion.

As I have already said, I believe believe 'the void', 'aware of nothing', etc. to be the perspective of God, in one of those long replies,

It is also simultaneously the lowest and highest state of mind/being, IMO.

and probably in a more direct way in an earlier post...although I may be thinking of another thread here. Either way, there it is.

Didn't reply to anything else because this arguement seems to be the basis around the rest, and, my time is limited.

I believe I may have asked questions unrelated to the focus point of this post. Please, take your time in responding. Try responding to small sections per post if you cannot find time to reply to them all in one sitting.

edit - I even went and looked, there aren't that many questions...it wouldn't take too long. Unless you still don't understand anything that I've tried to cover in this post as well.

Obbe

2007-07-19, 23:24

Interesting line of thought. I've never considered that idea when discoursing with Solipsists/Nihilists. If we take that into account, then it should be impossible to learn anything from anyone other than oneself.

Maybe you can't learn anything from anyone but yourself...maybe you don't actually learn anything at all, and are only believing you are. Who knows?

In any case, my reply to Xlite should be sufficient for you as well.

Of course they'll likely make up some bullshit about you being a subconscious maniftestation of something they know yet weren't aware of in order to preserve their precious worldview.

As I have already said, everything is bullshit...even your precious perception. Why would I have to make any of it up?

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-20, 02:46

Obbe

2007-07-20, 02:55

So how did you come to the determination that everything was bullshit?

In other words, if something wasn't bullshit, what would give it away?

"If you can show _______, then that would be evidence that something is not bullshit".

If you can't filli n that blank with some criteria, then the statement "Everything is bullshit" seems to be without content since no matter what the evidence was, you'd think it was bullshit.

As far as I believe I know, everything you perceive about reality is bullshit. You can't put anything in the blank, because no evidence of anything can be observed without use of the senses/ego.

Well...I suppose the one thing an individual could put in the blank, is that they exist. Or maybe the words 'I AM'? :)

Edit - oh, how did I come to this conclusion? Through more bullshit, probably!

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-20, 03:39

As far as I believe I know, everything you perceive about reality is bullshit. You can't put anything in the blank, because no evidence of anything can be observed without use of the senses/ego.

Well...I suppose the one thing an individual could put in the blank, is that you exist. Or maybe the words 'I AM'?

Edit - oh, how did I come to this conclusion? Through more bullshit, probably!

I understand what your saying Obbe, but you could of simply said that the now is what we have no way of identifying. Our brain is present so we can store memories, build an ego, and experience a life in the now. Kind of like how when you dream, all the beings in your dream are seperate, but part of the same now which you yourself create. So you can relate this concept to our now, and see even though we are seperate, we are part of the same now that there is no way of seperating from, which could be created from a seperate dreamer, or what you call "god".

Obbe

2007-07-20, 04:06

Ya lost me.

Dragon Slayer

2007-07-20, 04:08

Ya lost me.

In other words, I see what your saying now.

Obbe

2007-07-20, 04:15

In other words, I see what your saying now.

Actually I don't think you've quite got it yet, what with separation and all, but I do think you are starting to.

Maybe I just read your post wrong.

Either way, you grow tired of this me, this thread, and do not wish to answer questions in my two very large posts. I do not blame you.

If you do wish for this discussion to continue, then it will. If not, it will fall to the archives.

But right now I'm logging off. I hope I did not seem annoying or aggressive during this, as I was only trying to clearly communicate my ideas.

Obbe

2007-07-20, 11:51

Xlite, Dark_Magneto....

Do you want anything cleared up?

Xlite

2007-07-20, 20:22

A Story based From Obbe's point of view. I think.

Hello everyone, my name is obbe.. well actually i don't have a name because name's don't really exist.. And you people don't either. hehe.

Anyway. I am about to tell you how i've seen my life (Which Doesn't Exist Ofc)

Ever since i imagined my birth a long time ago, i've always seen the world different than others.. well, since i'm the only one here. then i guess.. um. never mind.

I'l just write down what happend today.(actually it never happend.. it was all in my head, and still is.)

I woke up early in the morning.. Did what i always do.. eat some "made up" food, take a "shower".. Got wet.. Well actually water can't get me wet cuz it doesn't exist.

In any case.. after my "shower" i went out to my "car" and took it for a ride.. Suddenly i smashed into some random idiot. He died.. Never mind that.. he was just a part of my imagination
Well.. as i stood above the dead junkie, i heard the sound of another car comming towards me very fast.. It hit me. Broke both my legs ( which ofc doesn't exist )
The paramedic arrived 1 minute later.. And since i imagined that my legs was broken.. there would be no way for me to walk.. so i had the two medics lift me into the vehicle.
However since the medics didn't really exist eiter, i actually floated into the vehicle, standing on the non-existing road in the non-existing world in the non-existing univers in the non-existing.

Anyway.. 1 hour later i find myself at a hospital taking pills and shit, to remove my "made up" pain.
The cops wanna talk to me, so they come in and starts asking me questions. 10 pills and 20 questions later they decide to arrest me.. So they lift me against my will and carry me out to the police vehicle.. The non-existing police vehicle... Bla bla..

That was my non-existing story. I hope you enjoyed reading.. or, well.. i am the only one who exists.. so... well, I enjoyed reading it.

Have a nice day.. oh sorry you can't.. there is no such thing as nice.. or day, or night. or anything else.

Xlite, Dark_Magneto....

Do you want anything cleared up?

Why would you try to explain stuff to your own imagination?

Obbe

2007-07-21, 00:44

That was my non-existing story. I hope you enjoyed reading.. or, well.. i am the only one who exists.. so... well, I enjoyed reading it.

I'm glad you enjoyed yourself, as that should be what you want do. And yes, for all you know, you are all that exists. As awareness, not as the form you believe you exist as, I mean.

However, I have some problems with your version of my perception. Example:

"...so i had the two medics lift me into the vehicle.
However since the medics didn't really exist eiter, i actually floated into the vehicle, standing on the non-existing road in the non-existing world in the non-existing univers in the non-existing."

Now, you're not making sense..at least it seems to me. I would not float magically into the vehicle, because for one, I cannot be anymore sure the vehicle exists then I can be that the medics exist. And two, since its all part of my illusion, I experience it all happening.

Your biggest misconception is that you seem to believe I wander around this illusion, not caring what I perceive going on around, believing that nothing is happening to me, and apparently do not experience pain.

But I obviously do interact with this illusion, as I am participating in this conversation with you. I have stated numerous times that I do not believe having my perception about reality means this illusion is a meaningless waste. You choose what it means to you. I choose to enjoy it.

Why would you try to explain stuff to your own imagination?

That judgment is yours, part of your perception. Why shouldn't I try to explain stuff? I enjoy it. And as I do not seem to have complete control over this illusion, I can at least still choose to 'do' things I perceive as enjoyable, presently.

Oh, and on a last note, I would like to point one more thing out. You mentioned something about me remembering my birth. Of course I, like you, believe I remember things from the past.

However, we actually cannot be anymore sure about our past as we can about our future. And, within the illusion, there are just as many 5th dimensional paths that could have lead to this 'moment' as there are branching away from it into the future.

Sex Panther

2007-07-21, 02:24

God is all.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Obbe

2007-07-21, 02:49

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Pantheism is great.

Xlite

2007-07-21, 17:20

That judgment is yours, part of your perception.

But am i not a part of your perception?

I think you lost me a while back..

What exactly do you think we are a part of??

Your imagination?
Or "gods"?

Obbe

2007-07-21, 17:58

But am i not a part of your perception?

Who knows?

From my perspective, since I can't verify that you are an individual observer of this illusion, I also can't know that you are not just a part of it.

From your perspective (if you are an actual awareness), you too cannot verify I am an individual observer, or know if I am just part of the illusion.

Although, if I am just an illusion to you (or you to me), why shouldn't I (or you) be able to make different judgments on an issue?

Just like the 'insane' person I used as a demonstration in an earlier post to you. From the consensual perspective of 'you and I', he is simply hallucinating people. But from his perspective, those people are just as real as the rest of reality...he still has no control over what they do(or what he believes/perceives they do), and of course over what they think(or what he believes/perceives they think).

What exactly do you think we are a part of??

Your imagination?
Or "gods"?

I do not know.

But, following everything I have been saying, I (or you) cannot know anything is more then a part of my(or your) perspective, just an illusion. I(or you) cannot truly know anything more then 'I AM' (the void, aware of nothing, that which experiences, etc.)

And, as I have stated earlier, I believe that to be equal to the perspective of God.

So take it however you want to...but if you take it the same way I do, it'll sure help all that "the kingdom of God is within you" and "all these things I have done, you will do also" Jesus-stuff seem to make sense.

Edit-BTW, imagination is a stupid word to be using, because its implying that the imaginer has control over the imagined. Perception is much better a word, because we do not seem to have total control over this perception(at the level of awareness which we are perceiving it from, at least).

Xlite

2007-07-21, 19:24

Who knows?

From my perspective, since I can't verify that you are an individual observer of this illusion, I also can't know that you are not just a part of it.

From your perspective (if you are an actual awareness), you too cannot verify I am an individual observer, or know if I am just part of the illusion.

Although, if I am just an illusion to you (or you to me), why shouldn't I (or you) be able to make different judgments on an issue?

Just like the 'insane' person I used as a demonstration in an earlier post to you. From the consensual perspective of 'you and I', he is simply hallucinating people. But from his perspective, those people are just as real as the rest of reality...he still has no control over what they do(or what he believes/perceives they do), and of course over what they think(or what he believes/perceives they think).

I do not know.

But, following everything I have been saying, I (or you) cannot know anything is more then a part of my(or your) perspective, just an illusion. I(or you) cannot truly know anything more then 'I AM' (the void, aware of nothing, that which experiences, etc.)

And, as I have stated earlier, I believe that to be equal to the perspective of God.

So take it however you want to...but if you take it the same way I do, it'll sure help all that "the kingdom of God is within you" and "all these things I have done, you will do also" Jesus-stuff seem to make sense.

Edit-BTW, imagination is a stupid word to be using, because its implying that the imaginer has control over the imagined. Perception is much better a word, because we do not seem to have total control over this perception(at the level of awareness which we are perceiving it from, at least).

So.. you base your belives on "I Do Not Know".

Okay man.. listen.. i'm not trying to belive what you belive, because its wrong.

However.. I am really trying to find out why you belive in it.

What made you belive in this from the start?

Obbe

2007-07-21, 19:43

So.. you base your belives on "I Do Not Know".

I dunno. :D

Okay man.. listen.. i'm not trying to belive what you belive, because its wrong.

Good, I'm not asking you to believe it. But, I also have to point out, you don't know its wrong, you only believe you know its wrong.

However.. I am really trying to find out why you belive in it.

What made you belive in this from the start?

I don't really remember. A combination of things, I suppose.

Solipsism, different books on consciousness and awareness, the author of the tenth dimensions ideas, pantheism, daily cannabis use for years and other drugs, ritual meditative practices (which I actually haven't practiced for about a year now), and many other things have all had influence on what I believe.

What exactly makes you believe your theory? Lets go into detail on it. I will return in a few hours.

Xlite

2007-07-21, 23:14

What exactly makes you believe your theory? Lets go into detail on it. I will return in a few hours.

Well... tbh i actually belived in god in the "Christianity" way many years ago.

I'm not sure, but i think it was love that got me into philosophy. And the "Existance" from there on.

It started out thinking about fate.

Found out that if there was such thing, you would be bound by it... You would never be able to leave the track designed for you...

Ofcourse i couldn't accept that.

So from there on, i went deeper. What actually created "fate"? if there even was such thing.

I'm obviously not able to remember what exactly i was thinking the night i went away from "god".
But i know that it proved to me that there is no such thing.

So.. I had to find an alternative.

I found out that everything has an opposite, and nothing can exists without it.

So.. Death must be the exact opposite of life.
Life = Everything.
Death = Nothing.

That way i also found out that nothing can end without starting first.

Which lead me to:

Something also has to end before it can start again.

Big Bang = Big Rip = Big Bang = Big Rip and so on.

This way, nothing will ever start, or end.

Since there is something that can start.. there must also be something that never started, but was always just there.

I'm not 100% sure that we will make the exact same choices on our next pass.. but it would deffenetly explain Déjà vu.

I've experienced it many times before... Having that strange feeling that you've been this place, and done this before. Even tho its the first time you're actually there.

It often makes me wonder that no matter what we chose do to we will always end doing the same again.

If what i belive in is correct. (Hope Not)
Then we will do the same over and over again for an eternity. The univers will reset and so on.

No-one wants this ofc.. Its some fucked up shit.

But we can't decide the fate of the univers.
It was never meant to be decided, its always been this way.

In 20 billion+ years, i will write this crap down again.
And you will write your crap down again the exact same way.

I just don't see how you can belive what you belive.

Being an illusion with a conscience.. Makes no sense to me.

If we were a part of some greater beings imagination there would be a huge possibilety for us to change form / personality etc, each time "The Being" thought about something.
And we would also be unlimited.
No boundaries what so ever.

Its not possible to be aware/control every mind on earth without fucking up.

Thats why we cannot be a controlled illusion.

We can control ourselfs.
An illusion can't do that.

Because an illusion can't think, see, feel etc..

Your illusion is just an illusion.

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-21, 23:49

Your illusion is just an illusion.

Yeah, that's basically what this topic amounts to in a nutshell.

Obbe

2007-07-22, 03:37

Well... tbh i actually belived in god in the "Christianity" way many years ago.

I too disagree with how that religion depicts God.

I'm not sure, but i think it was love that got me into philosophy. And the "Existance" from there on.

It started out thinking about fate.

Found out that if there was such thing, you would be bound by it... You would never be able to leave the track designed for you...

Ofcourse i couldn't accept that.

Perhaps it was fate that you wouldn't accept that. LoL :D

Why couldn't you accept that? I'm not saying fates a sure thing either, but would you know there is no such thing?

So from there on, i went deeper. What actually created "fate"? if there even was such thing.

I'm obviously not able to remember what exactly i was thinking the night i went away from "god".
But i know that it proved to me that there is no such thing.

No such thing as the Christian depiction of God? Okay.

So.. I had to find an alternative.

I found out that everything has an opposite, and nothing can exists without it.

How did you find this out?

So.. Death must be the exact opposite of life.
Life = Everything.
Death = Nothing.

I think you're applying this 'rule' pretty poorly. How does life equal everything, and death equal nothing?

That way i also found out that nothing can end without starting first.

Which lead me to:

Something also has to end before it can start again.

Although I try not to see things like life and death as beginning and ending, but a change from one state to another, I pose the question:

Why does anything have to ever start again?

Big Bang = Big Rip = Big Bang = Big Rip and so on.

This way, nothing will ever start, or end.

Since there is something that can start.. there must also be something that never started, but was always just there.

What, besides Déjà vu, makes you believe in this theory?

And I'm sorry to ask this, but can you please try to be a little clearer? I don't understand your reasoning here.

I'm not 100% sure that we will make the exact same choices on our next pass.. but it would deffenetly explain Déjà vu.

I've experienced it many times before... Having that strange feeling that you've been this place, and done this before. Even tho its the first time you're actually there.

It often makes me wonder that no matter what we chose do to we will always end doing the same again.

What makes you believe this explanation of Déjà vu over others? There are many someone could think of.

Perhaps you had a dream and somehow glimpsed the future.

Perhaps somehow 2 or more paths in the 5th dimension overlapped?

I'm not saying your theory is wrong either. But what makes you choose it over others?

If what i belive in is correct. (Hope Not)
Then we will do the same over and over again for an eternity. The univers will reset and so on.

No-one wants this ofc.. Its some fucked up shit.

But we can't decide the fate of the univers.
It was never meant to be decided, its always been this way.

In 20 billion+ years, i will write this crap down again.
And you will write your crap down again the exact same way.

And what exactly is making you believe in this?

I thought you said above you didn't believe in fate. So what makes you so sure it exists?

I just don't see how you can belive what you belive.

And I can't see how you believe what you do. All beliefs are lies anyways.

Being an illusion with a conscience.. Makes no sense to me.

That makes no sense to me either.

I believe I am. I exist, I am awareness, I am consciousness. And I have no way of knowing whatever I experience is real or true.

If we were a part of some greater beings imagination there would be a huge possibilety for us to change form / personality etc, each time "The Being" thought about something.
And we would also be unlimited.
No boundaries what so ever.

Again, you're mistakenly using imagination.

Perhaps each time you die, you 'change form'.

Perhaps each 'observer of reality' is a different perspective of God perceiving parts of itself.

But you don't know anything, especially not if your preconceived notions about different concepts of reality and existence other then your own are correct or not.

Its not possible to be aware/control every mind on earth without fucking up.

How do you know this? And why would it need to be controlled?

Do you need to control every cell in your body for it to function properly? It doesn't seem so.

On the other hand, maybe 'you' do need to control it, but 'you' aren't able to perceive that control from your current level of awareness. If thats the case, it still seems to function properly.

In any case, you can't know that.

Thats why we cannot be a controlled illusion.

Who ever said anything about control? And again, how is this demonstrating I am wrong?

We can control ourselfs.
An illusion can't do that.

Because an illusion can't think, see, feel etc..

You really don't know if you can or can't, or what an illusion can do.

But how does being able to control yourself not make your perception an illusion?

Your illusion is just an illusion.

Uh...yeah.

It is.

You mean, believing that my perception of reality is an illusion is wrong? How so?

Obbe

2007-07-22, 03:42

Yeah, that's basically what this topic amounts to in a nutshell.

Do you believe in Xlites theory?

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-22, 03:55

I think that our senses are, for the most part, more or less accurate, and that we should accept the information they provide us is real until compelling reasons arise to think otherwise.

It's like the whole Matrix argument. We could be in a Matrix-like system right now with little to no glitches. But if that was the case, how would we know? I say instead of delving into these psychotic episodes where we reject all rational constraints and become awash in a sea of illusion, the default position should be that what we perceive is real. There are obvious exceptions, like if you are known to hallucinate, just dropped a tab of acid, took a major blow to the head, etc. But for the majority of us, we can assume within reason that what we empirically experience to be valid.

Obbe

2007-07-22, 04:21

I think that our senses are, for the most part, more or less accurate, and that we should accept the information they provide us is real until compelling reasons arise to think otherwise.

You must recognize though, that it is not something which you know. You believe your senses accurately depict reality, and theres nothing wrong with believing that. I never said that there was.

It's like the whole Matrix argument. We could be in a Matrix-like system right now with little to no glitches. But if that was the case, how would we know? I say instead of delving into these psychotic episodes where we reject all rational constraints and become awash in a sea of illusion, the default position should be that what we perceive is real.

What you perceive is what you believe is real.

There are obvious exceptions, like if you are known to hallucinate, just dropped a tab of acid, took a major blow to the head, etc. But for the majority of us, we can assume within reason that what we empirically experience to be valid.

Are you saying that the experiences of those who 'hallucinate', who have dropped acid, or had their brain scrambled are not valid?

Again, its something they experienced, so its reality to them. It may not seem valid to us, because their experiences are not part of our 'consensual reality', the things that we agree are happening.

But we cannot be sure the consensual reality is correct either, because the people you verify your experiences with may just be illusions. The 'consensual reality', is actually just your perception of what is real.

In the end of it, all you have is beliefs.

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-22, 08:53

You must recognize though, that it is not something which you know. You believe your senses accurately depict reality, and theres nothing wrong with believing that. I never said that there was.

Dictionary.com defines belief as "Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". My perception of reality is subject to rigorous proof.

Are you saying that the experiences of those who 'hallucinate', who have dropped acid, or had their brain scrambled are not valid?

They're not accurate reflections of what is actually going on.

Someone hallucinating on acid might look at the sky and see millions of MIRV ICBM warhead payloads being dropped on their position, but sure enough, we don't all die in a nuclear holocaust. The effects of the drug wear off after awhile, and they realize that what they saw was not an accurate depiction of reality, for if it were, we'd all be dead right now.

Likewise, they might believe themselves to be invincible and that they can fly. When they jump off of a skyscraper though, the reality of gravity overrides their personal delusions, causing them to fall and die, contrary to their beliefs.

Time and time again, we see this situation where cold, empirical meathook reality destroys these fantasies and makes abundantly clear what is real/possible and what is not.

Xlite

2007-07-22, 09:26

Why couldn't you accept that? I'm not saying fates a sure thing either, but would you know there is no such thing?

I'm not willing to walk this planet without being able make my own path.

How did you find this out?

I started to remove things in my head, and found out that by doing so, i also removed its opposite.

I think you're applying this 'rule' pretty poorly. How does life equal everything, and death equal nothing?

Well, if life is what we see now: Trees/grass/water/heaven/chicks.. everything.

Then death must be nothing, unless death is just a start of something we don't have a word for(Which then would be nothing)

Why does anything have to ever start again?

How would i know?

Why does everything have to be an illusion?

What, besides Déjà vu, makes you believe in this theory?

I ruled out everything else because it does not fit with the "Rules" of "opposite"

What makes you believe this explanation of Déjà vu over others? There are many someone could think of.

Perhaps you had a dream and somehow glimpsed the future.

I remember my dreams. Been doing some Dream Training for a few years now.. no such thing as the future.. besides, even if that was the case, then i would remember it from when i woke up, and not when i'm actually experiencing
the situation.

Perhaps somehow 2 or more paths in the 5th dimension overlapped?

Not possible. This is the only dimension i exist in. And nothing can intercept with the dimension bellow, or above.

I thought you said above you didn't believe in fate. So what makes you so sure it exists?

I belive that we will repeat ourselfs no matter what.
But i don't want to call it fate.

And I can't see how you believe what you do. All beliefs are lies anyways.

Thats what you belive.

That makes no sense to me either.

I believe I am. I exist, I am awareness, I am consciousness. And I have no way of knowing whatever I experience is real or true.

Its quite simple. The answers is in your head.

Again, you're mistakenly using imagination.

Perhaps each time you die, you 'change form'.

Perhaps each 'observer of reality' is a different perspective of God perceiving parts of itself.

But you don't know anything, especially not if your preconceived notions about different concepts of reality and existence other then your own are correct or not.

I KNOW the above is wrong.

How do you know this? And why would it need to be controlled?

Why not?

Do you need to control every cell in your body for it to function properly? It doesn't seem so.

On the other hand, maybe 'you' do need to control it, but 'you' aren't able to perceive that control from your current level of awareness. If thats the case, it still seems to function properly.

My brain is controling itself.
My brain is actually an important part of me.
If you remove my brain, i die.

In any case, you can't know that.

Like i said a few posts back:

If you belive something enough, it will eventually become real.

You can't change that!

Who ever said anything about control? And again, how is this demonstrating I am wrong?

That was not the idea.

You really don't know if you can or can't, or what an illusion can do.

But how does being able to control yourself not make your perception an illusion?

It doesn't.

Uh...yeah.

It is.

You mean, believing that my perception of reality is an illusion is wrong? How so?

Well since its not right, it can only be wrong.

Obbe

2007-07-22, 16:08

Dictionary.com defines belief as "Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". My perception of reality is subject to rigorous proof.

Oh? Then please, demonstrate some for me.

They're not accurate reflections of what is actually going on.

As far as you can tell using your senses, right?

Someone hallucinating on acid might look at the sky and see millions of MIRV ICBM warhead payloads being dropped on their position, but sure enough, we don't all die in a nuclear holocaust. The effects of the drug wear off after awhile, and they realize that what they saw was not an accurate depiction of reality, for if it were, we'd all be dead right now.

There are many potential explanations for this. Perhaps on another 5th dimensional line the person somehow stayed under the effects forever. Perhaps they experienced the death and destruction of much of society, and then as the effects 'wore off', they experienced all of the destruction reversing itself.

Observing a person take acid, experience that, and then experience a realization that everything is fine, is all done using your senses.

If you were the person who just took acid, experienced something horrible, and then discovered that the experience was not part of the 'consensual reality', that 'consensual reality' is still just part of your perspective on reality.

The descriptions of how you acted while on the drug would have been described to you(and observed using your senses), and the destruction which seems not to have happened would also be something being observed by the senses.

So you wouldn't really know if the experiences on acid was a 'lie', and this is all real, or if the acid was real, the world was destroyed, and this is all illusion....or if it is all an illusion.

Likewise, they might believe themselves to be invincible and that they can fly. When they jump off of a skyscraper though, the reality of gravity overrides their personal delusions, causing them to fall and die, contrary to their beliefs.

This is something you would be observing happening to them, using the senses. We can never know what they experience.

Time and time again, we see this situation where cold, empirical meathook reality destroys these fantasies and makes abundantly clear what is real/possible and what is not.

Everything you believe to be real you base on the confirmation of your experiences with the experiences of other people, which for all you know, are not actually experiencing anything and are just part of an illusion you are experiencing.

Time and time again.

Obbe

2007-07-22, 16:53

I'm not willing to walk this planet without being able make my own path.

And this proves to you there is no fate how?

I started to remove things in my head, and found out that by doing so, i also removed its opposite.

And this proves everything has an opposite? I don't disagree with you, but I'm not following your logic.

Also, how does this 'everything has its opposite' belief act as an alternative for the Christian God?

Well, if life is what we see now: Trees/grass/water/heaven/chicks.. everything.

Then death must be nothing, unless death is just a start of something we don't have a word for(Which then would be nothing)

Life and death could be called many things. A flower is alive, what does it experience?

Does experience need to be dependent on the living?

How would i know?

Why does everything have to be an illusion?

You would know, because thats what you wrote you believe.

I have explained why I believe everything to be an illusion many, many times. An illusion is when we are experiencing things we would consider a distortion from the things we believe we know to be the norm. For most people, that means the consensual perception of reality.

However, there is no 'consensual reality', because you don't know if those other people experienced what they tell you they have. Since we can't know anything other then 'I AM', everything besides that should be considered an illusion.

I ruled out everything else because it does not fit with the "Rules" of "opposite"

The rule which you have so far failed to demonstrate, or show reason for your belief in it.

Also, how does the rule apply to deja vu, and then allow us to declare that it means reality was exactly the same roughly 20 billion years ago, and will be exactly the same 20 billion years from now?

Whats the opposite of deja vu?

I remember my dreams. Been doing some Dream Training for a few years now.. no such thing as the future.. besides, even if that was the case, then i would remember it from when i woke up, and not when i'm actually experiencing
the situation.

There is no such thing as the future, depending on your perspective of time and choice.

But if you believe there to be no such thing as future, how do you believe the universe will repeat itself forever?

And how do you know you remember all of your dream? How do you know none of it could be repressed?

How do you know deja vu isn't an experience bordering on pre-cognition? Perhaps you 'remember' the experience of something right before, or as it is happening. That sounds like just as good an explanation of deja vu.

Not possible. This is the only dimension i exist in. And nothing can intercept with the dimension bellow, or above.

How do you know its not possible?

And do you even know what you are talking about? 'This is the only dimension I exist in.' What?

So theres no such thing as length, width or depth? Or the experience of a flow of time?

I belive that we will repeat ourselfs no matter what.
But i don't want to call it fate.

Fine, make communication harder.

So you believe we are all going to do the exact same thing again and again, and nothing will ever change, but....its not called fate. Okay, whatever.

Then what makes you believe whatever-you-call this concept?

Thats what you belive.

It sure is.

Its quite simple. The answers is in your head.

The illusion is in your head.

Its all in your head man.

I KNOW the above is wrong.

No, you believe its wrong, but you don't know it is any more then you know its right.

And you really are mistakenly using the word imagination.

Why not?

I didn't say it did not have to be. I didn't write down an opinion. I only asked you what makes you hold the opinion you do.

So...real answer?

My brain is controling itself.
My brain is actually an important part of me.
If you remove my brain, i die.

All things you believe because you believe you learned them from the illusion.

What does this reply have to do with your quote?

Like i said a few posts back:

If you belive something enough, it will eventually become real.

You can't change that!

So why do you believe this concept? Has it been demonstrated to you?

Does that mean if I keep believing everything is an illusion, I'm right? :p

That was not the idea.

Then what was the idea behind writing 'Thats why we cannot be a controlled illusion.'?

If you're going to respond so simply, its going to take us twice as long to discuss this.

It doesn't.

Oh, so now you are agreeing that you perception of reality is an illusion?

WTF?

Well since its not right, it can only be wrong.

How is it not right?

And is that another example of your 'rule of opposites'?

Xlite

2007-07-22, 18:17

Whats the opposite of deja vu?

(Never Seen)

In any case.. i dont wanna spend more time discussing this with you. You keep repeating yourself.

Obbe

2007-07-22, 18:36

i dont wanna spend more time discussing this with you. You keep repeating yourself.

I don't blame you. Nobody likes someone else questioning their beliefs.

Although I think theres lots in there you could respond to that has not been brought up before. :rolleyes:

Xlite

2007-07-22, 18:46

I don't blame you. Nobody likes someone else questioning their beliefs.

Although I think theres lots in there you could respond to that has not been brought up before. :rolleyes:

If you look carefully on all my posts i think you will find your answers there.

Good luck with your illusion.

Obbe

2007-07-22, 18:49

If you look carefully on all my posts i think you will find your answers there.

No, all I find is incomplete reasoning and grammatical errors.

If I found answers, I wouldn't have had to post so many more questions.

Good luck with your illusion.

Uh....thanks? But what would I need luck for? Am I trying to do something with it?

Xlite

2007-07-22, 18:51

No, all I find is incomplete reasoning and grammatical errors.

If I found answers, I wouldn't have had to post so many more questions.

Well, i find more reasoning in my belives than i do in yours.

Gimme some proof that you're right.

Uh....thanks? But what would I need luck for? Am I trying to do something with it?

You tell me.. its your belives, not mine.

Obbe

2007-07-22, 19:00

Well, i find more reasoning in my belives than i do in yours.

Gimme some proof that you're right.

There is no way for me to prove anything to you.

But, I've already said this:

An illusion is when we are experiencing things we would consider a distortion from the things we believe we know to be the norm. For most people[you], that means the consensual perception of reality.

However, there is no 'consensual reality', because you don't know if those other people experienced what they tell you they have. Since we can't know anything other then 'I AM', everything besides that should be considered an illusion.

But in any case, I am not trying to prove to you that I am are right. I was asking you to explain to me why you believe what you do. You aren't explaining yourself well.

You tell me.. its your belives, not mine.

You are the one who told me to have good luck, so obviously you're the one who thinks I need it for something.

So you tell me what you meant, please. :rolleyes:

Xlite

2007-07-22, 19:05

So you tell me what you meant, please. :rolleyes:

Seems you don't want to let me go :P

But okay.. It was pure kindness.. as i have no idea where your "belives" ends (if it even ends) i might aswell wish you good luck with it.

Obbe

2007-07-22, 19:47

Seems you don't want to let me go :P

Not until you explain yourself, I don't. But you go and do what you want to.

But okay.. It was pure kindness.. as i have no idea where your "belives" ends (if it even ends) i might aswell wish you good luck with it.

I wasn't aware that my...ahem, beliefs...were flowing, in any sense of the word.

But I seriously doubt it was pure kindness, given your previous attitude towards me throughout this thread. And given your past history of using little quips to demonstrate your point,

[quoting me as saying]God is Shit and Puke.

Exactly!

I would guess that telling me to have good luck with my illusion (coming from a perspective which does not understand why I believe this all to be an illusion, and thus wouldn't understand my use of the word) is actually an attempt to be a smart ass.

Who knows maybe I'm wrong. But weren't you going to stop responding like four posts ago?

Xlite

2007-07-22, 20:32

Who knows maybe I'm wrong. But weren't you going to stop responding like four posts ago?

Well.. i don't remember saying i would stop writing..

I said i would no longer discuss the current topic with you.

Obbe

2007-07-22, 20:45

Well.. i don't remember saying i would stop writing..

I said i would no longer discuss the current topic with you.

Then maybe you should you should have posted something else to discuss?

Either way, theres nothing I can do if you just decide not to respond, but I would really enjoy it if you tried to explain yourself. I have spent days now explaining myself to you, despite your apparent lack of the ability to understand something which isn't a part of your previously conceived understanding of reality and existence.

It would be 'pure kindness' if you spent more then two posts trying to explain why you believe what you do to me.

Xlite

2007-07-22, 21:06

Then maybe you should you should have posted something else to discuss?

Either way, theres nothing I can do if you just decide not to respond, but I would really enjoy it if you tried to explain yourself. I have spent days now explaining myself to you, despite your apparent lack of the ability to understand something which isn't a part of your previously conceived understanding of reality and existence.

It would be 'pure kindness' if you spent more then two posts trying to explain why you believe what you do to me.

We're not meant to understand everything.
I already told you what i can.

The version of my theory is much larger in my head.
I'm not english, so its harder for me to explain the exact story.. I tried tho, and if its not enough for you then i'm sorry.

Obbe

2007-07-22, 21:32

So be it.

I wonder if Dark_Magneto has anything further to post.

youth in asia

2007-07-23, 04:12

Totally inane question. If he is ominpotent, a quality which is assumed in the paradox, then it follows that there is nothing that God can not lift.

Dark_Magneto

2007-07-23, 06:27

There are many potential explanations for this. Perhaps on another 5th dimensional line the person somehow stayed under the effects forever. Perhaps they experienced the death and destruction of much of society, and then as the effects 'wore off', they experienced all of the destruction reversing itself.

It's called "Refuting Unfalsifiable Claims with Superior, Incompatible Explanations" (http://winace.andkon.com/critical_thinking/unfalsifiable_claims.htm).

Obbe

2007-07-23, 12:00

It's called "Refuting Unfalsifiable Claims with Superior, Incompatible Explanations" (http://winace.andkon.com/critical_thinking/unfalsifiable_claims.htm).

First of all, I'm not going to read all of that.

However, the part of my post which you quoted weren't answers to the question. They were just questions I thought would show you there are possible situations you probably hadn't considered.

The important parts I wanted you to see, were the next couple of paragraphs, leading up to this one,

So you wouldn't really know if the experiences on acid was a 'lie', and this is all real, or if the acid was real, the world was destroyed, and this is all illusion....or if it is all an illusion.

So please, because I honestly don't want to read all that, tell me how it applies. You don't know the accuracy of your senses, you don't know if other people exist or not. So you cannot confirm anything about reality (except, as I have shown, what you believe to be the consensual reality...which you can't know is actually a consensual reality).

From your article, in the 'conclusions' section:

That's irrelevant when dealing with such intentionally unfalsifiable claims--all things considered, the best explanation is that both [vampires or ghosts] were invented by superstitious people when they were working with limited observations and just didn't know any better.

When are you able to observe anything besides 'I AM', and know its not an illusion?

Obbe

2007-07-23, 23:11

If you think something flew over my head, point it out.

And are you going to present any of your 'rigorous proof'?

Obbe

2007-07-25, 12:10

Alright, well, I guess you just don't want to talk about it anymore.

Oooooooo-kay!

Xlite

2008-09-21, 11:05

This thread is lol tbh.
I got bored and started reading everything again, and its just so funny.

Lets continue eh?

So Obbe, you're beliving in some sort of solipsism ye?

The theory is the result of a social interaction, and it just makes it silly to belive that the single consciousness suddenly starts to belive that its the only one who exists.

And if nothing is "real" then it would be impossible for you to learn, because nothing can be learned from what doesn't exist.
Everything eventually cancel itself out, because the thought of you living in an illusion, could really just be an illusion itself etc.
I'l bring up your "mental illness patient"
He might experience a differerent world ye.
But maybe thats just an illusion made up by his brain cuz of the mental illness?
Because we all experience the state of the mental patient the same way, except for the patient ofc.

And maybe its possible that you're actually the mental patient we're talking about?
If not, then prove it :P

Found some nice stuff.
1: Can one's perception, within one's mind exist without an external something to exist in, such as a biological brain?

2: Does one consider all of perceptual reality as part of one's faculty of being, such as high math, music composition and other creative work which one can not consciously re-produce?

3: An objection could be termed a corollary to the two above. It asks a question about the functioning of one's personal perceptions. The solipsist cannot deny the fact that he thinks, thus going through reasoning processes about his perceptions. His consciousness is not just perceptions; it's also thinking about them. How is this possible without some mental machinery which can perform such thinking? But if such mental machinery exists independent and apart from his perceptions, this also contradicts the "perceptions only" premise. Otherwise a solipsist can define his consciousness to contain perception and thinking processes together.

A solipsist who declares that he is not really thinking cannot hold that he is really speaking.
-wiki

If i was an illusion i would not be bound by limits, since limits is just an illusion aswell.
I "think" that what you're "thinking" is crap.