The Only Truth [Archive]

Obbe

2007-07-27, 12:09

To say all is merely an interpretation is nonsense. We know that insulin cures diabetes better than fingernail cuttings because through repetition, we discover that one makes the problem go away and the other does not. You can reply “but how do you know it actually works like that, it may have been an illusion all those other times or a coincidence”. Well, it could be, but you’re doing what all Cartesians are doing and presupposing knowing something 100% is necessary in order to say you know it.

The thing is, you really don't know any of that is not an illusion. You don't know if anyone else actually exists, and you don't know if you just instantly came into creation, and just happen to remember years of experiences.

You can't know anything 100% (except, maybe, that you are).

If this is the case, however, then we can ask positively “is this a dream?” and since we cannot be 100% sure, we cease believing it is a dream.

Why? Why not keep believing its a dream, or its real, or its all a computer program?

We can state positively “knowledge has to be 100% certain in order to be knowledge” but since we can’t prove that 100%, we cease believing in that too, making the whole Cartesian foundation tumble.

So?

This makes us come full circle to a very immediate situation, where all this speculation becomes nonsense because a girl is dying unless we give her something to save her life.

You don't really know anyones dying at all, or why that would even be a bad thing.

Do you consider death bad?

You may say you don’t know whether fingernails or insulin will save her life

But, since for all I know she is part of the illusion, I believe her to be diabetic, and I believe I have lived a life full of people telling me that diabetics need insulin, I would say thats the best solution.

I still don't know it'll do anything, I only believe it will.

but I sure know what I’m giving her: insulin. You can interpret the world as a world where insulin fails to cure diabetes and only fingernails can save diabetics, but you’ll be a danger to all diabetics because of postmodern nonsense.

If I did choose to ignore the 'rules' of whatever illusion I am experiencing. But If I did that, would I have bothered making this thread?

I don’t know how anyone can honestly believe in your statement 100%.

I doubt most people can too.

It seems to me that most the time, on this forum, when people start spouting solipsism it’s because a position of theirs has been crumbled. It’s an attempt to ruin the other person’s position too and say “since all is an interpretation, I’m right and you’re wrong, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah”.

I'm sure its happened.

But knowledge is something very serious that is important for survival in everyday life - one of the reasons I study epistemology

Well when you find out what knowledge is, you come and tell me.

- and so when you begin stating this farce belief of yours to get one over on others who have shown your tenth dimension idea to be speculative nonsense [...] then you’re being a danger to society.

Nobody has 'got one over me' recently, or at any time which would have upset me enough to drop my old belief and just begin blathering on about things I half-understand to try and 'win'.

And I don't recall anyone showing me that the tenth dimensions is speculative nonsense (which of course it is....what isn't?). I still love that theory. But since I've discovered solipsism, its gotten pushed further back in the line.

I do genuinely like the ideas of solipsism and pantheism. And I really fail to see how thats threatening society. That sounds like politicians talking about how potheads can be a threat to society.

How is it?

Scraff

2007-07-27, 13:40

Rizzo in a box

2007-07-27, 18:18

That's not a contradiction, that's a supporting statement. Can't you tell the difference?

Obbe

2007-07-27, 22:39

You said the only thing you can possibly know 100% is that you exist. Yet if this is the case, then you cannot know that you have to know something 100% in order to say you know it

And maybe I am wrong. But have I not said before that we can use lies to communicate truth?

I only believe that the only thing I can know is that I am. I don't know it is.

All I know, is I am.

And I agree that this cannot be proven. I have said things along those lines many times in the past.

This is a word game. You’re simply renaming “external reality” “illusion caused by underlying consciousness” when you haven’t even given a reason for why it might be so. You’ve given a reason for why we might doubt its externality, but, as I said subtlety beforehand, it makes no sense to speak of knowing something in a situation where you cannot doubt it, and you’ve given no substantial reason, no evidence, for believing it's a dream.

An illusion is when you are experiencing something you consider to be a distortion from that which you believe you know to be the norm.

If all you truly know is 'I AM', then that truly is the norm. Every other experience (time, space, sex, friends) would be an illusion to this state.

If we accept your idea that to know means to know 100%, then you don’t know that there’s life after decomposition of the body. This means you could have lost a girl her one and only life and this is why your belief is dangerous. Of course, you can always say "but if she's dead, then it won't matter to her", but this will only make me question your humanity and ability to consider the feelings of the family of the deceased.

So what?

You assume I believe theres more after death. And yes, I do. But how does this mean I would have lost the girl?

I said I would choose the insulin, not your babble about toenails.

Even if I am wrong about beliefs, and for some reason I decided not to help her, or give her toenails or something, and did not care that she was dead, and her family was in depression...

So what?

Obbe

2007-07-27, 22:43

You are contradicting this statement of yours from another thread:

How do you see it as contradicting?

I might as well just say, that I used the word absurd in that quote because it seemed funny to me, coming after the previous poster. I had not actually put much thought into the meaning of the word.

But seriously, even then...how do you see it as contradicting?

Scraff

2007-07-28, 01:07

But, since for all I know she is part of the illusion, I believe her to be diabetic, and I believe I have lived a life full of people telling me that diabetics need insulin, I would say thats the best solution.

How do you see it as contradicting?

If all beliefs are absurd, it would make no sense to choose the belief that she is a diabetic over the belief that she is a figment of your imagination and that you have chosen the "best" solution.

You know it is best to give a diabetic insulin whether or not there is a possibility you're a brain in a jar and no one else really exists. It is best to assume that real harm may come to others if you neglect people based on a possibility that this is a solution. Of course it's possible no one else exists and we are a figment of your imagination. So what? It is possible that tomorrow up may be down, down may be up, and all the rules of physics will go topsy-turvy. But you know that banking on this possibility isn't very wise. You do know that it's best to give a diabetic insulin because you have no reason to believe that not doing it will somehow be more beneficial just because you can't know anything 100%.

Obbe

2007-07-28, 06:11

Before you decided to play the morally depraved nihilist, the reason you then gave for choosing the insulin was: “But, since for all I know she is part of the illusion, I believe her to be diabetic, and I believe I have lived a life full of people telling me that diabetics need insulin, I would say thats the best solution.”

You used this cheap argument that was nothing but a word game for obvious reasons: that it is the case that insulin cures diabetes, toenails do not and you would be mad not to give a dying girl the real cure for her illness. “I am” is not the only truth.

Wanting to save someone is a belief. Ethics.

:(

Obbe

2007-07-28, 06:21

If all beliefs are absurd, it would make no sense to choose the belief that she is a diabetic over the belief that she is a figment of your imagination and that you have chosen the "best" solution.

Why? If I believe the life of these supposed others is worth anything, then of course I would do what I believe is right to save them. What I believe to have learned from what I believe to be the consensual reality, is that the insulin would save her.

But that doesn't make any of it real, anything you know.

And, as I've said earlier, I used the word absurd for other reasons and had not really thought about the meaning.

You know it is best to give a diabetic insulin whether or not there is a possibility you're a brain in a jar and no one else really exists. It is best to assume that real harm may come to others if you neglect people based on a possibility that this is a solution. Of course it's possible no one else exists and we are a figment of your imagination. So what?

So...nothing.

It doesn't matter, either way. Do what you do.

It is possible that tomorrow up may be down, down may be up, and all the rules of physics will go topsy-turvy. But you know that banking on this possibility isn't very wise. You do know that it's best to give a diabetic insulin because you have no reason to believe that not doing it will somehow be more beneficial just because you can't know anything 100%.

When did I say it would be more beneficial?

Rizzo in a box

2007-07-28, 08:38

absurd

a busrd.

a bursd of laughter.

Scraff

2007-07-28, 16:09

Why? If I believe the life of these supposed others is worth anything, then of course I would do what I believe is right to save them.
You realize that you may just be a brain in a jar. Then why do you believe that "the life of these supposed others is worth anything"? Did you pick that belief nily-willy?

What I believe to have learned from what I believe to be the consensual reality, is that the insulin would save her.
Right. Which is why you say it is the best solution. It's best because risking that she is just an illusion and not helping her would be foolish and psychopathic.

And, as I've said earlier, I used the word absurd for other reasons and had not really thought about the meaning.
Yeah, I heard. Nice attempt to wiggle out of admitting that you're wrong. "Hey, I wasn't thinking of the definition of a word when I used it".

If you didn't really mean to say absurd or "I used the word absurd in that quote because it seemed funny to me", why didn't you clarify that in the other thread instead of you repeatedly defending what you wrote?

So...nothing.

It doesn't matter, either way. Do what you do.
I don't think you really believe that. I don't think you believe that if I told you I was thinking about shooting up a mall, you would answer, "It doesn't matter, either way. Do what you do." as if you thought that the possibility that no one else exists makes it okay to make that assumption.

When did I say it would be more beneficial?
You didn't; that's the point. There are no reasonable explanations for not giving a diabetic her insulin. A possibility that she doesn't exist is not a reason to risk her health. If there are no reasonable explanations that risking her health are more beneficial than helping her, saying that it doesn't matter what you do to this girl makes you a nutjob.

Obbe

2007-07-28, 16:40

You realize that you may just be a brain in a jar. Then why do you believe that "the life of these supposed others is worth anything"? Did you pick that belief nily-willy?

I may just be a 'brain-in-a-jar', but that too would be a belief that I'm a brain-in-a-jar.

I picked insulin, because I believe thats the right choice.

I believe thats the right choice, because I believe helping people is the correct thing to do in that situation.

I believe that, because of everything I believe I've experienced in my life.

Could perspectives exist which would see the situation differently? People who "lived" a life of pain and hate, and would not help a dying person?

Of course there could be.

Right. Which is why you say it is the best solution. It's best because risking that she is just an illusion and not helping her would be foolish and psychopathic.

No, it would just be another perspective. It would only seem foolish or psychopathic to someone who has experienced a life similar to mine or yours, where he has come to the conclusion that letting someone die would be a negative.

To someone you would consider to be one of these fools or psychos, they might see the complete opposite.

Yeah, I heard. Nice attempt to wiggle out of admitting that you're wrong. "Hey, I wasn't thinking of the definition of a word when I used it".

Well, I was wrong. I wasn't thinking when I used it.

However, after some thought on the matter...

The beliefs you hold never seem absurd compared to others that you know of, and do consider absurd. But if you held those beliefs, would the previous ones not seem absurd instead?

Is it not all perspective?

If you didn't really mean to say absurd or "I used the word absurd in that quote because it seemed funny to me", why didn't you clarify that in the other thread instead of you repeatedly defending what you wrote?

Simply because I was still not thinking of the meaning of the word when we had started arguing. A few posts later, I thought about the meaning. So I admitted that I had not thought about it earlier.

:eek:

I don't think you really believe that. I don't think you believe that if I told you I was thinking about shooting up a mall, you would answer, "It doesn't matter, either way. Do what you do." as if you thought that the possibility that no one else exists makes it okay to make that assumption.

You asked me "so what?".

I thought that you were referring to the belief that perceptions of reality are illusions. If that was the case, then so nothing. Do what you do.

If you told me (as my ego), that you were going to shoot up a mall, of course I would say 'don't do that' because of my belief that people dying is a bad thing.

That doesn't make it a truly bad thing man.

You didn't; that's the point. There are no reasonable explanations for not giving a diabetic her insulin. A possibility that she doesn't exist is not a reason to risk her health. If there are no reasonable explanations that risking her health are more beneficial than helping her, saying that it doesn't matter what you do to this girl makes you a nutjob.

It truly doesn't matter. You believe that it does.

I never said there was reason not to give her medicine based on the fact it doesn't matter.

And of course saying it doesn't matter would make me a nut job in your eyes, because you hold an entirely different perspective on that matter.

Scraff

2007-07-28, 19:28

I may just be a 'brain-in-a-jar', but that too would be a belief that I'm a brain-in-a-jar.
We've established that.

I picked insulin, because I believe thats the right choice.
And when Hare_Geist responded similarly to that, you asked "Why? Why not keep believing its a dream, or its real, or its all a computer program?"

Now you have to answer your own question.

I believe thats the right choice, because I believe helping people is the correct thing to do in that situation.
No, that doesn't cut it. Did you think Hare_Geist didn't feel that helping people is the right thing to do? That still doesn't answer your question I quoted from you above.

I believe that, because of everything I believe I've experienced in my life.
And so do the rest of us. So what is your problem? Are you just playing Devil's advocate asking why we all believe others' feelings are real or do you still believe all beliefs are absurd?

No, it would just be another perspective. It would only seem foolish or psychopathic to someone who has experienced a life similar to mine or yours, where he has come to the conclusion that letting someone die would be a negative.
So, you asked Hare_Geist the question that you did because you thought he might have some other sort of reality where not giving a diabetic insulin is a positive? Please, cut the bullshit! What you're pulling now seems nothing more than trolling.

The beliefs you hold never seem absurd compared to others that you know of, and do consider absurd. But if you held those beliefs, would the previous ones not seem absurd instead?
Huh?

You asked me "so what?".

I thought that you were referring to the belief that perceptions of reality are illusions. If that was the case, then so nothing. Do what you do.

Uhh, no. I said:
You know it is best to give a diabetic insulin whether or not there is a possibility you're a brain in a jar and no one else really exists. It is best to assume that real harm may come to others if you neglect people based on a possibility that this is a solution. Of course it's possible no one else exists and we are a figment of your imagination. So what?

You said:
So...nothing.

It doesn't matter, either way. Do what you do.
You stated that it doesn't matter either way because "it's possible no one else exists and we are a figment of your imagination".

If you told me (as my ego), that you were going to shoot up a mall, of course I would say 'don't do that' because of my belief that people dying is a bad thing.
Again, then what is your beef with Hare_Geist, others, and me? We all have the same belief. We all also believe that there is a possibility that ourselves may just be a brain in a jar. I don't think anyone here has stated that they believe differently.

That doesn't make it a truly bad thing man.
If I exist and the rest of you don't, I will almost certainly experience suffering if I shoot up a mall, whether it be in jail, from living with what I've done, etc. What the fuck point are you trying to make by saying, "That doesn't make it a truly bad thing man"?

It truly doesn't matter. You believe that it does.
Here we go again. It truly doesn't matter if a diabetic that may be a figment of my imagination doesn't get her insulin? Please explain how that truly doesn't matter?

And of course saying it doesn't matter would make me a nut job in your eyes, because you hold an entirely different perspective on that matter.
Please articulate what your perspective is again because you seem to be wavering back and forth on your philosophies.

When I asked you what your response would be if I told you I was going to shoot up a mall, you responded: "I would say 'don't do that' because of my belief that people dying is a bad thing.".

How then can you feel one withholding insulin from a diabetic "truly doesn't matter"? By stating that it truly doesn't matter, you must have come to the conclusion that she is a figment of the imagination.

Thunderhammer

2007-07-29, 00:26

*Cough*

Instead of trying to determine who has the right interpretation - which we can all agree is impossible (although that would be a belief.) one could always just assume that everyone who has an 'interpretation' or belief is grasping for something that they cannot rightly understand.

Of course, this is no excuse for not trying.

Obbe

2007-07-29, 03:42

I knew I shouldn't have written "and you would be mad not to give a dying girl the real cure for her illness", because you would ignore everything else I said and therefore the entire point. Is it just me, or do you love dodging problems because you know you're talking nonsense?

What should I have said to your first two paragraphs? If I'm not understanding what your saying, or think you're saying something else....well, sorry.

No, I'm not changing my beliefs at all. I can still use my ego and believe I'm interacting with a reality.

What problems am I dodging? Bring them to my attention, and in different wording if you already have and I've already misunderstood.

Doesn’t this statement refute your statement “the only truth is ‘I am’”?

No, thats still the only truth. Its a matter of perspective that nothing truly matters.

I suppose I could have (or, since I'm talking with you, should have) worded it differently...but after all, this is all coming from an egos perspective. 'My' perspective. So I may tend to word things as such.

Of course, you could try and get out of it by saying “I believe it to be true, I don’t know it’s true”, ignoring the entire point of my argument about your Cartesian presupposition.

According to you, I've missed what you've been trying to say with that this entire thread.

So, what is your point? In words you think I'll understand.

Besides, it makes no sense to say you believe something is true unless you hold it to be true, by which I mean hold that it is the case that it is the case. You can go on all you want about not knowing for certain, but that again entirely misses my point about the Cartesian presupposition and brings your entire original statement into question.

Please, shed some light on your point for me.

This is the closest thing I’ve seen you give to an argument for your belief that all is an interpretation, and the conclusion doesn’t follow. It is possible that there is a group of objects that exist independently of all minds and is therefore real, whether or not it is believed in. One opinion could correspond with these objects and therefore be a true opinion, while another opinion about them could not correspond with them and therefore be false. If this is the case, then it would be totally irrelevant if the man in the wrong held the truth to be absurd, but then believed in the truth and held the falsity to be absurd, because it doesn't effect the truth (what is the case) in any way whatsoever.

How would I go about finding out which objects exist independent of all minds? Is this not assuming there is more then one mind?

Apparently, thats one more thing which cannot be proven. I can never 'know' if something you are believing is an absolute truth or not. Except I know 'I AM'.

That's all I'll ever know. Even if there are more absolute truths which my opinion coincides with, I'll never 'know' that they do.

My question, is how can a truth exist without being believed in? If it is in fact some universal truth, would it not have to be true for everyone?

I think it is very likely that it is the case that there is an external world, but of course you have your poor Cartesian presupposition of absolute certainty that, if accepted, makes it impossible to accept itself and most statements that can be formulated positively (which includes “all is an interpretation”) as true, simply because of the human ability to imagine alternatives.

If I read this a couple more times, I might be able to understand. But I've already had to do that with most of your posts in this thread. I mean, thats one sentence.

Please, I would love to respond. Write it simpler.

Obbe

2007-07-29, 04:29

And when Hare_Geist responded similarly to that, you asked "Why? Why not keep believing its a dream, or its real, or its all a computer program?"

Now you have to answer your own question.

Because I have 'experienced' things which make be believe thats the correct choice.

However, I also appear to have experienced things which make me doubt reality. So why choose that? Why not realize that its only belief, saving her makes no difference, its all an illusion...why not let it all crumble down to the base of 'I AM'?

Because, I enjoy this illusion. Or at least I believe I do. :D

No, that doesn't cut it. Did you think Hare_Geist didn't feel that helping people is the right thing to do? That still doesn't answer your question I quoted from you above.

I didn't say that in response a decision made by Hare about a girls life. That was a response to:

If this is the case, however, then we can ask positively “is this a dream?” and since we cannot be 100% sure, we cease believing it is a dream.

Why should we believe anything other then 'I AM'?

We choose to, it seems.

And so do the rest of us. So what is your problem? Are you just playing Devil's advocate asking why we all believe others' feelings are real or do you still believe all beliefs are absurd?

Why do you think I have a problem with anything or anyone?

So, you asked Hare_Geist the question that you did because you thought he might have some other sort of reality where not giving a diabetic insulin is a positive?

No, just trying to show him that deciding to give a diabetic insulin is a belief based on other beliefs. Not anything known.

Huh?

The beliefs you hold never seem absurd compared to others that you know of, and do consider absurd. But if you held those beliefs, would the previous ones not seem absurd instead?

Your personal beliefs do not seem absurd if you're comparing them to beliefs which you do believe to be absurd. But thats a matter of perspective.

From another perspective, the 'original' beliefs may seem just as absurd.

Edit- I suppose this means all beliefs are just as logical as they are absurd, but...like I've said many times....wasn't really thinking when I wrote that, in another thread.

You stated that it doesn't matter either way because "it's possible no one else exists and we are a figment of your imagination".

And...?

Again, then what is your beef with Hare_Geist, others, and me? We all have the same belief. We all also believe that there is a possibility that ourselves may just be a brain in a jar. I don't think anyone here has stated that they believe differently.

Why do you think I have a problem with you guys? The only thing I don't like is your attitudes.

You're the one who came here to tell me I'm making contradicting statements, out of context, from separate threads. Whats you're problem with me?

If I exist and the rest of you don't, I will almost certainly experience suffering if I shoot up a mall, whether it be in jail, from living with what I've done, etc. What the fuck point are you trying to make by saying, "That doesn't make it a truly bad thing man"?

Just because I (rather, my ego) believe the event to be a bad one, doesn't mean it really is.

You would only experience suffering on your own terms. If you believe that going to jail is suffering, or if you believe you have done a bad thing.

Here we go again. It truly doesn't matter if a diabetic that may be a figment of my imagination doesn't get her insulin? Please explain how that truly doesn't matter?

For the same reasons that nothing really matters? Its perspective man. It matters if you want it to.

Why would it matter to you? That reason is based on a belief, its something you think you know, or is true.

Please articulate what your perspective is again because you seem to be wavering back and forth on your philosophies.

When I asked you what your response would be if I told you I was going to shoot up a mall, you responded: "I would say 'don't do that' because of my belief that people dying is a bad thing.".

How then can you feel one withholding insulin from a diabetic "truly doesn't matter"? By stating that it truly doesn't matter, you must have come to the conclusion that she is a figment of the imagination.

Not necessarily. My ego believes that death should be avoided, and believe others to be real.

At the same time, I can recognize that its all a matter of perspective, and that either choice ultimately wont change anything.

Obbe

2007-07-29, 04:31

Instead of trying to determine who has the right interpretation - which we can all agree is impossible (although that would be a belief.) one could always just assume that everyone who has an 'interpretation' or belief is grasping for something that they cannot rightly understand.

Indeed.

Sjet

2007-07-29, 10:48

Why do you think I have a problem with you guys? The only thing I don't like is your attitudes.

You're the one who came here to tell me I'm making contradicting statements, out of context, from separate threads. Whats you're problem with me?

lol they still havn't replied to this...

Funny them telling you first what problem you have with them when you never stated anything against them whatsoever.

Obbe

2007-07-29, 16:24

The fact that you’ve yet to give a sound argument for why you are all that is. The fact that you cannot, because in order to do so, you require a Cartesian presupposition that doesn’t even allow itself to be accepted. The fact that until you do prove so, you’re simply playing word games, calling “external reality” “dream world”, when this in no way changes what it is whatsoever and there’s a clear reason for why you would give that girl insulin.

First, you know as well as I do that this isn't something that can be proven. Not that it was ever something which I was trying to prove, thats an assumption you made.

Did I not say, within this very thread as a reply to you, that truth can be communicated through lies?

Its not a word game, its a matter of perspective.

You're just calling an unbelievably complex seeming illusion 'external reality'. The 'clear reason' to help the girl is a desire based off the belief that you should help her.

All this discussion...over what it means to know.

Google's answers (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3Aknow&btnG=Search&meta=).

one definition: be aware of the truth of something

another: have a belief or faith in something

If you go by the second definition, then certainly you know she needs insulin and feels she needs to be saved. But by know, you mean believe.

But if you're going by the first definition, to know means to know 100%. Its not belief, it is. The only thing which fits this definition is 'I AM'.

By trying to communicate this to other people, yes, it becomes a belief. It cannot be demonstrated. But, within my own mind, I know I am.

This is what I mean by using lies to communicate truth.

edit-unless you get all hung up on the 'of something' part. In this case though, the something would be reality...existence maybe?

I find it strange that you believe that for something to be the case, someone must hold it to be the case. I’ve course, if this is the case (which it would have to be, even if no one held it to be the case, otherwise it would be begging the question, wouldn't it?), then what is the point of logical arguing, of giving evidence, of scientific research, etc. etc.? Why not simply interpret that toenails cure diabetes and give the girl you’re trying to save toenails instead of insulin?

I do not clearly understand what you are saying here.

But I'll try. If I misunderstand you, we'll try again.

I don't think there is a point to arguing, giving evidence, scientific research...except that you perceive such things as a useful way of gaining "correct" information about the consensual reality.

Why not simply interpret toenails as the cure? Because I have been given no reason to believe so. I (rather, the ego) do believe that I have lived a life where people use insulin to help diabetics.

I believe that other people have experienced that too, and believe they have confirmed it works. It appears that insulin helping diabetics is a universal truth.

However, I can't confirm anything I experience besides 'I AM'. I can't confirm anything about what I perceive to be a consensual reality. I can't know if its a universal truth or not, I only believe it is. And, if I go by the first definition I posted for know, then I cannot say that 'insulin helps diabetics' is a universal truth...or truth.

I don’t understand how you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I don’t think I’m using too many technical terms and I purposely try and write as clearly as possible.

I actually think I'm getting it now, but I can't be sure.

Its hard because of the way you word things. And because you use too many comas, and not enough periods.

Oh, and I didn't clearly understand your second or third paragraphs either. I think I might have covered them in my opening reply, but...I'm not sure:(.

Obbe

2007-07-29, 16:34

lol they still havn't replied to this...

That might be a blessing, I would probably get shit for spelling 'your' wrong.:rolleyes:

FreedomHippie

2007-07-29, 17:03

know[/I] she needs insulin and feels she needs to be saved. But by know, you mean believe.

But if you're going by the first definition, to know means to know 100%. Its not belief, it is. The only thing which fits this definition is 'I AM'.

This is true, unless you aren't 100% sure that you exist. If you were unsure, than your existance itself would only be the belief or faith that you have in it.

By trying to communicate this to other people, yes, it becomes a belief. It cannot be demonstrated. But, within my own mind, I know I am.

This is what I mean by using lies to communicate truth.

I agree with you, just as in my mind I know "I AM". I think lies is a strong word though but i understand the idea you have behind that and i can deff agree there.

I don't think there is a point to arguing, giving evidence, scientific research...except that you perceive such things as a useful way of gaining correct information about the consensual reality.

Why not simply interpret toenails as the cure? Because I have been given no reason to believe so. I (rather, the ego) do believe that I have lived a life where people use insulin to help diabetics.

I believe that other people have experienced that too, and believe they have confirmed it works. It appears that insulin helping diabetics is a universal truth.

However, I can't confirm anything I experience besides 'I AM'. I can't confirm anything about what I perceive to be a consensual reality. I can't know if its a universal truth or not, I only believe it is. And, if I go by the first definition I posted for know, then I cannot say that 'insulin helps diabetics' is a universal truth...or truth.

That kind of goes back to the "in my own mind" . Whether you (and your ego) believe something to be truth or a universal truth, is only based on what you experience. You experience the belief that other people accept, or deny yours and this in turn backs up what you know to be true.

Obbe

2007-07-29, 17:35

This is true, unless you aren't 100% sure that you exist. If you were unsure, than your existance itself would only be the belief or faith that you have in it.

Yes. Although, I'm not sure if you can be unsure of your existence. I'm sure that you could question the form of your existence...but I think that would still conclude with 'I AM'.

Look at how you worded the question...if you are unsure of your existence...theres still a 'you' posing that question, isn't there?

I don't really know on this one. I've heard the root of existence is someone else witnessing that you do, in fact, exist. But theres lots of problems with saying that...do other people exist?

You are the only one who can confirm your existence. So who knows?

I agree with you, just as in my mind I know "I AM". I think lies is a strong word though but i understand the idea you have behind that and i can deff agree there.

Lies may be a bad word for that. But I suppose, as with any word, it also depends on what meaning it has to you.

And thank you for the support. :)

You experience the belief that other people accept, or deny yours and this in turn backs up what you know to be true.

Er...I kinda fell of the train when I saw this one. Sorry, I'm assuming you're agreeing with me on something, but I don't exactly what you're saying here.

FreedomHippie

2007-07-29, 17:42

Er...I kinda fell of the train when I saw this one. Sorry, I'm assuming you're agreeing with me on something, but I don't exactly what you're saying here.

Here ill explain what i meant, you said:
Why not simply interpret toenails as the cure? Because I have been given no reason to believe so. I (rather, the ego) do believe that I have lived a life where people use insulin to help diabetics.

Basically i was saying the life that you and your ego believe to live experiences other people believing that insulin will help a diabetic. Therefore you "believe" it because it makes sense in your reality. Does that make sense? lol

Obbe

2007-07-30, 00:10

Basically i was saying the life that you and your ego believe to live experiences other people believing that insulin will help a diabetic. Therefore you "believe" it because it makes sense in your reality. Does that make sense? lol

yes. good job.

Obbe

2007-07-30, 00:17

I’m ever so sorry, but I had to delete all my posts and now I have to leave the conversation.

:( Man...this reminds me of the Cannabis Conspiracy thread all over again.

I will end by simply saying this: nowhere in that link does it say that to “be aware of the truth of something” you have to be 100% certain that it is the case. This is something you have brought to the table, and I cannot see the justification for it.

Its all definition behind the word. Thats perspective.

Forget the word. You understand the idea which I'm trying to express with it.

I can easily imagine a world in which it is not necessary to be 100% certain that something is the case in order to say you know it is,

This is the world you (well, most people) believe to be reality.

so I can call your presupposition into doubt and therefore reject it. However, you can defend it, but only by proving that it is the case, but in order to do this, if it is the case, you would need an argument that cannot be doubted. I do not believe you can provide such an argument.

Nor do I.

But you know that you exist. You know 'I AM' (spoken from your perspective).

Sjet

2007-07-30, 04:26

I was wondering about do I truely exist in the state I percieve myself to be in, but then you said regardless, in the round-about you still end up realising I AM is true, regardless of what form you've taken or life your experienceing, I exist in some way. Even if it were to be an illusion to you, and I'm really just a thought in your head-I DO exist in some form, otherwise you'd be incapable of reading this post. Even if you posted this very post I'm typing right now and your really in a psyche ward, you fabricated me, therefore I exist. In one way or another, I exist. It doesn't have to always be in the way we think "existence" MUST work, regardless, like you said, in the end, you find existence exists in one form or another, even if it were to be created in ways we've never thought yet.

However, for me I am is true. I don't know why those other guys gave you such a hard time, or why they were trying to denote your truth, but your correct and there's no argument that could go against it. We could all be in my or your head, or we could exist in a different way. When you begin questioning reality it's very confusing, when you begin questioning existence itself, then things go far deeper.

Although the only truth is personal truth, through personal experience. It's your belief and you most likely got that belief because something happened to make you have that belief. For instance I'm psychic, I didn't just one day say "hey I'm going to start calling myself psychic and then try and ruin my reputation just to perform some magic tricks" No, if I wanted to do magic tricks I would've been a magician. I chose to manipulate reality with my mind because I found it extraordinarly interesting, and so for the past 5 years of my life I devoted to parapsychology (study of psychic abilities). I became interested how dreaming of the future tends to be very natural for humans, and I began to realize (I studied religion) why the bible says to be psychic is bad. It's because when a generation of people is psychic in a family-that generation tends to become stronger in whatever specific ability they know about. It's encoded in our genes. I have learned nearly every psychic ability that exists, and at first I didn't understand that with so much proof, how psychic abilities were looked at as being obscure rather if they exist or not. Becoming psychic first handedly is a threat to national security as far as the government is concerned (in truth), because if a person can remote view, or astral project to a remote military outpost that were to be top secret, that could leak vital information. The government has been researching psychic abilities for years, and yet they speak of how it isn't statistically significant. Basically if they were to say they do exist, everyone would want to be psychic, everyone would attempt to further themselves. The reason why it says it's bad in the bible for instance is because manipulating reality isn't safe for an idiot to do.

After some of the things I've seen in my life, reality is as real as a dream, while existence is far beyond and always will be realer then reality. Since Reality is only speaking of one plane of existence, which is ours, and this seems to say that it's impossible for other dimensions, or planes of existence to possibly exist, and that everything that exists is holding on by one form of motion, and that motion is the motion of a atom, which is basically electrons surrounding this tiny tiny nucleus, which isn't even solid, and can go on for (most likely) infinity to the core. Making thougts be stronger fabrications then reality. Either way, the system and outlook we have on existence and reality today is monotonous with a infinite amount of gaps, and everyone just tends to ignore those gaps and pretend like everything is solid. We created the concept of good and evil, we created the concept of recording time, we created the concept of everything being solid and existing in front of us. (In dreams you even sometimes question if your dreaming or not, regardless if your flying through the air...)

The brain doesn't know the difference between reality, and thoughts. One just tends to be more intense.

FreedomHippie

2007-07-30, 04:38

Amazing post Sjet, i tried to take my time and read it carefully. Its like someone believeing in god. I myself may believe in god, and god may exist solely inside my mind, but it still exists somewhere. So you cant prove that god doesnt exist, because it obviously does, if only to me.

Sjet

2007-07-30, 05:20

Hexadecimal

2007-07-30, 06:17

Am I allowed to help the women find some backbones and a pair of cajones?

Obbe

2007-07-30, 12:02

It's nothing like that, it's my fucking OCD. I had you on the ropes, I know you're talking bullshit and I can prove you're talking bullshit, but it won't fucking let me.

I didn't mean in the 'I'm winning, you're a dumbass' way, I meant in the 'I'm going to delete all my posts and never return' kinda way. Like what Sotb did. I don't recall you posting in that thread.

Had me on the ropes? WTF? When did this become a battle of who's right and who's wrong? Are those two choices even possible?

PS, the meaning of the word ("to be aware of the truth of something") has remained the same, the only difference is the requirements necessary to be allowed to apply it to a piece of information. You admit you cannot prove yours and therefore your definition fails. To say "all is a perspective" is itself a perspective and therefore begs the question, unless it has some inherent truth independent of the mind, but if it had that then it would be false too, because not everything would be a perspective.

I'm not trying to prove anything, nor do I think its possible. I can't explain my opinion, as in the process, to say these things would change the meaning, change the perspective on the idea.

So, go ahead and continue arguing your point if you wish. You're only talking to hear how great you think you sound.

Scraff

2007-07-31, 15:54

Because I have 'experienced' things which make be believe thats the correct choice.
No shit, Obbe. So has everyone else. We all experience things as if others actually exist. You are in no way answering the question.

However, I also appear to have experienced things which make me doubt reality. So why choose that? Why not realize that its only belief, saving her makes no difference, its all an illusion...why not let it all crumble down to the base of 'I AM'?

Because, I enjoy this illusion. Or at least I believe I do. :D
And most others enjoy it, or simply believe it wouldn't be wise to let themselves or others suffer just because there's a possibility others don't exist. I don't know what your point of asking others this question is.

I didn't say that in response a decision made by Hare about a girls life. That was a response to:

Why should we believe anything other then 'I AM'?

We choose to, it seems.
We choose to it seems? How deep. This is going nowhere.

Why do you think I have a problem with anything or anyone?You're avoiding the two questions I asked.

I suppose this means all beliefs are just as logical as they are absurd, but...like I've said many times....wasn't really thinking when I wrote that, in another thread.
But now you're saying you wrote the same thing in this thread? You weren't thinking again I guess?

No, just trying to show him that deciding to give a diabetic insulin is a belief based on other beliefs. Not anything known.
So what? Are you back to thinking all beliefs are absurd? Do you think you have actually enlightened anyone to new information? I'm asking what the point is. We ALL realize that nothing can be proven 100%. So what?

You stated that it doesn't matter either way because "it's possible no one else exists and we are a figment of your imagination".
And...?
And? And saying it doesn't matter if others suffer because there is a possibility they don't exist or experience suffering is psychotic! You can't ignore the possibility that they DO exist unless you are a psychopath. Are you fucking for real? Does it matter if your loved ones suffer? And if you're going to answer with, "Yes, because I choose to believe they exist" you ARE contradicting yourself. You have said it DOESN'T matter. How have you come to the conclusion that others suffering doesn't matter?

For the same reasons that nothing really matters? Its perspective man. It matters if you want it to.
Good. Now you have confirmed that what you said earlier is your belief although you claimed you weren't thinking when you wrote it. You believe all beliefs are absurd. Which would mean that that belief was absurd. People suffering don't really matter. If that's what you have been trying to prove to others in all of these threads you've wasted your time.

Why would it matter to you? That reason is based on a belief, its something you think you know, or is true.
And you are making the mistake of believing all beliefs are equal. I have enough evidence that others exist and experience pain the way I do. The possibility that I only exist is not enough for me to conclude that others suffering doesn't matter. The possibility that they do exist is why normal, rational people care.

Please articulate what your perspective is again because you seem to be wavering back and forth on your philosophies.

When I asked you what your response would be if I told you I was going to shoot up a mall, you responded: "I would say 'don't do that' because of my belief that people dying is a bad thing.".

How then can you feel one withholding insulin from a diabetic "truly doesn't matter"? By stating that it truly doesn't matter, you must have come to the conclusion that she is a figment of the imagination.

Not necessarily. My ego believes that death should be avoided, and believe others to be real.

At the same time, I can recognize that its all a matter of perspective, and that either choice ultimately wont change anything.
Choices don't change anything?

You separate yourself from your ego as an excuse to have two beliefs that contradict one another and claiming that you aren't contradicting yourself. You are.

You would tell me not to shoot up a mall and also believe that not giving a diabetic her insulin truly doesn't matter. Direct contradiction. Separating yourself in to two personalities is not a way of claiming you're not contradicting yourself that anyone is going to buy.

And how can you claim what truly doesn't matter? Do you have some inside information to reality you can let the rest of us in on?

Obbe

2007-08-08, 12:14

No shit, Obbe. So has everyone else. We all experience things as if others actually exist. You are in no way answering the question.

Yes, I am. I still use my ego to experience 'reality', and my ego developed with those beliefs.

And most others enjoy it, or simply believe it wouldn't be wise to let themselves or others suffer just because there's a possibility others don't exist. I don't know what your point of asking others this question is.

Which question is that again?

Yes, many enjoy it. And you recognize this doesn't make it any of it 'true'.

We choose to it seems? How deep. This is going nowhere.

That is certainly how it seems.

You're avoiding the two questions I asked.

How so? How can I answer a meaningless question?

I have no problems with you, or anybody posting in this thread. Remember who came here to nit-pick.

But now you're saying you wrote the same thing in this thread? You weren't thinking again I guess?

No, I don't think of every possible perspective of an opinion at once. Notice how you quoted something I edited it later.

I wasn't thinking of this when I posted it in the other thread. I was thinking it sounded funny.

I'm asking what the point is. We ALL realize that nothing can be proven 100%. So what?

So nothing. Thats part of my point man. If you realized it, then why bother arguing with me?

You have said it DOESN'T matter. How have you come to the conclusion that others suffering doesn't matter?

I said it doesn't matter either way. It does not matter if they suffer or if they experience eternal bliss.

Perhaps it may feel like it matters to you. But thats based on the belief that letting others suffer is a bad thing, based on the belief that other people exist, and you recognize that. My point is that.

You are choosing to believe other people exist.

People suffering don't really matter. If that's what you have been trying to prove to others in all of these threads you've wasted your time.

I have been trying to show many things, actually.

But how have I wasted my time? Besides in this endless nit-picking over specific terms with you and hare? Which...you provoked...?

To me, it seems you're wasting my time.

And you are making the mistake of believing all beliefs are equal. I have enough evidence that others exist and experience pain the way I do. The possibility that I only exist is not enough for me to conclude that others suffering doesn't matter. The possibility that they do exist is why normal, rational people care.

You have no evidence that others exist and experience pain. Oh, unless you mean within this illusion. Which is of course what you mean.

Choices don't change anything?

You separate yourself from your ego as an excuse to have two beliefs that contradict one another and claiming that you aren't contradicting yourself. You are.

You would tell me not to shoot up a mall and also believe that not giving a diabetic her insulin truly doesn't matter. Direct contradiction. Separating yourself in to two personalities is not a way of claiming you're not contradicting yourself that anyone is going to buy.

And how can you claim what truly doesn't matter? Do you have some inside information to reality you can let the rest of us in on?

Its not two personalities buddy. Its what I recognize as illusion and not.

Within this illusion, of course I would give a diabetic insulin, and tell you not to kill people. This is obvious, for reason you are already aware of.

This, in no way stops me from realizing that such choices are based on beliefs, and all of it only matters within the illusion. However these hypothetical events turn out, truly doesn't matter.

Want the inside information?

I AM.

Scraff

2007-08-09, 18:22

Yes, I am. I still use my ego to experience 'reality', and my ego developed with those beliefs.
You haven't answered the question.

Which question is that again?
Oh brother. :rolleyes:

How so? How can I answer a meaningless question?
They weren't meaningless.

No, I don't think of every possible perspective of an opinion at once. Notice how you quoted something I edited it later.

I wasn't thinking of this when I posted it in the other thread. I was thinking it sounded funny.
But you have continued to say basically the same thing in this thread.

So nothing. Thats part of my point man. If you realized it, then why bother arguing with me?
That's not the part I have a problem with.

I said it doesn't matter either way. It does not matter if they suffer or if they experience eternal bliss.
Why does the suffering of others not matter?

You have no evidence that others exist and experience pain. Oh, unless you mean within this illusion. Which is of course what you mean.
Within this illusion? So now you have evidence that this is an illusion? Please share.

Its not two personalities buddy. Its what I recognize as illusion and not.
What do you recognize as an illusion? Are you actually going to give share with us the evidence that you have that your external reality is an illusion?

This, in no way stops me from realizing that such choices are based on beliefs, and all of it only matters within the illusion. However these hypothetical events turn out, truly doesn't matter.
Please tell us how if others are real, there suffering doesn't matter. Especially when you could have easily stopped one's suffering by giving her her insulin.

Want the inside information?

I AM.
Because you are then you can tell us that others suffering doesn't matter? Makes no sense.

You have in no way shown how these statement aren't contradictory:

"Not necessarily. My ego believes that death should be avoided, and believe others to be real."

"At the same time, I can recognize that its all a matter of perspective, and that either choice ultimately wont change anything."

Obbe

2007-08-10, 12:17

You haven't answered the question.

I have many times actually.

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

They weren't meaningless.

But you have continued to say basically the same thing in this thread.

That's not the part I have a problem with.

I don't know if you actually expect a response from these, but I'm assuming responding to them with similar one sentence answers won't get us anywhere fast.

If you have a problem, think they had meaning, or have something else to say then rolling your eyes, they say it.

I have continued to say basically the same thing in this thread. But, as I have pointed out several times now, your quote of me saying absurd is from another thread, where I used it for different reasons. I then thought of a way it could make sense in my position, while you continued to ask about it.

Why does the suffering of others not matter?

It not that the suffering of others does not matter. Its that their suffering matters no more then their enjoyment. The choice is yours, and either choice ultimately makes no difference.

I could be asking you why the joy of others doesn't matter, and why you don't walk around giving away all your wealth to others, giving out blow jobs and back rubs, smiling and waving.

Within this illusion? So now you have evidence that this is an illusion? Please share.

No, and I have not ever been trying to prove it is with evidence. Do you have evidence other people exist and suffer, and their suffering should be corrected?

That said, all you know is I AM. Thats the only truth, and everything besides that you do not know, and its impossible to know. Thinking you know anything besides that is just that...you think you do.

If I said I saw bunnies everywhere, you would consider this an illusion, since you don't see bunnies. To anyone who considers I AM to be reality, everything else could be considered an illusion.

What do you recognize as an illusion? Are you actually going to give share with us the evidence that you have that your external reality is an illusion?

I recognize everything other then I AM to be an illusion, or an alteration of the only thing I know to be true. Which is I AM.

No evidence exists or could exist, or could be demonstrated.

Please tell us how if others are real, there suffering doesn't matter. Especially when you could have easily stopped one's suffering by giving her her insulin.

It only matters if you want it to, if you allow it to.

Because you are then you can tell us that others suffering doesn't matter? Makes no sense.

No, I AM is the inside truth.

The suffering of others doesn't matter any more then their enjoyment.

You have in no way shown how these statement aren't contradictory:

"Not necessarily. My ego believes that death should be avoided, and believe others to be real."

"At the same time, I can recognize that its all a matter of perspective, and that either choice ultimately wont change anything."

How are they contradictory? My ego does believe death should be avoided and other people are real.

I do recognize that all of this, including the above statement (the position of my ego) is all perspective, and that either choice makes no difference.

Tell me why you think they are contradicting if it truly makes no sense to you...that might help.

Rust

2007-08-10, 18:01

You've told yourself you've answered the question, Obbe...

:rolleyes:

Obbe

2007-08-10, 22:21

You've told yourself you've answered the question, Obbe...

:rolleyes:

"Why? Why not keep believing its a dream, or its real, or its all a computer program?"

Because I have 'experienced' things which make be believe thats the correct choice.

However, I also appear to have experienced things which make me doubt reality. So why choose that? Why not realize that its only belief, saving her makes no difference, its all an illusion...why not let it all crumble down to the base of 'I AM'?

Because, I enjoy this illusion. Or at least I believe I do.

That was my original answer to my own question Scraff asked me after I asked Hare. I was trying to use the question to show Hare something, I didnt actually care about the specific answer, just so you know.

Besides that...what is your point, Rust?

Rizzo in a box

2007-08-10, 23:10

words in a post

Rust

2007-08-11, 03:22

.
Besides that...what is your point, Rust?

My point? You've just made it; and quite expertly I should say. My point? That all these uninteresting, tired, cliché, rehashed "musings" of yours are utterly worthless.

You say that man "told himself he knows"? I say "you told yourself man told himself he knows". This bullshit can continue ad-nauseum.

In the end, if you believe all of this is an illusion yet live life as if it weren't (i.e. "Why not realize that its only belief, saving her makes no difference...why not let it all crumble down to the base of 'I AM"?) then you've discovered, mused on, and described absolutely nothing. Congratulations.

Obbe

2007-08-11, 04:09

My point? That all these uninteresting, tired, cliché, rehashed "musings" of yours are utterly worthless.

In the end, if you believe all of this is an illusion yet live life as if it weren't then you've discovered, mused on, and described absolutely nothing.

Yeah. But what isn't worthless?

Its not absolutely nothing unless you perceive it to be. Its a perspective of it all that makes a lot of sense to me, and explains it all while I choose to continue experiencing it.

If I decided to stop experiencing it, and to try and embrace the oneness, try to cut all ties to reality, I would not be contemplating anything at all nor I would need explanations...I would simply be, or...'I AM'. Which is at least one thing these musings teach.

What makes one perspective worthwhile and another worthless?

Hexadecimal

2007-08-11, 04:18

Imagination vs. Logic...
Imagination is the 'could be'.
Logic is the 'probably is'...

Obbe's the imaginative type: it appears as if he's using a system of certainty and uncertainty to separate the idea of what could be illusion and what must be reality to an absolute certainty. The existence of self is the only absolute certainty, everything else is possibly illusory and leads to major doubts (and opportunities for imaginative play...something I'm willing to bet Obbe puts a lot of time into :P).

Mr. Geist, from what I've seen, is definitely the logical type: he too uses a system of certainty in his arguments. Although rather than attempting to ascertain an absolute certainty, it seems his line of thought is more about the utility of perceived knowledge. In other words, if the idea functions as if it were true, it is given the benefit of the doubt. Solipsism doesn't function as if it were true...quite the opposite. The belief 'all that exists is real' functions as if it were true and possesses a great deal more utility for the individual, whether or not it is the truth.

Rust

2007-08-11, 04:32

Yeah. But what isn't worthless?

Brilliant rebuttal: Everything else is worthless, so why not join in!

Its not absolutely nothing unless you perceive it to be. Its a perspective of it all that makes a lot of sense to me, and explains it all while I choose to continue experiencing it.

If I decided to stop experiencing it, and to try and embrace the oneness, try to cut all ties to reality, I would not be contemplating anything at all nor I would need explanations...I would simply be, or...'I AM'. Which is at least one thing these musings teach.
Sorry, but you've only told yourself you've experienced it.

I absolutely love idiotic statements that consume themselves, so thank you for the above nugget.

What makes one perspective worthwhile and another worthless?What perspectives? The "illusion" vs. non-illusion perspective? It's precisely because there is absolutely no difference between the two, in (your) practice, that makes musing that it is an "illusion" a pretty transparent excercise in sophistry.

P.S. I couldn't help but noticing the "rolling eyes" emoticon you chose for your post. What, not liking your illusion?

Obbe

2007-08-11, 04:41

...and opportunities for imaginative play...something I'm willing to bet Obbe puts a lot of time into

Aww, shucks, ya know me so well. :D

The belief 'all that exists is real' functions as if it were true and possesses a great deal more utility for the individual, whether or not it is the truth.

Which is why observers still toying with an ego and a perceived external reality have to play by the same rules.

Of course someone with my perspective would question the utility of the above quoted belief outside of the very system we perceive as illusion...for within the system itself is the only place that belief works.

Obbe

2007-08-11, 05:06

Brilliant rebuttal: Everything else is worthless, so why not join in!

Sorry, but you've only told yourself you've experienced it.

I absolutely love idiotic statements that consume themselves, so thank you for the above nugget.

Yes, why not? Whats the difference between worthwhile and worthless?

I understand that I've told myself that I have experienced events creating an ego. I understand that thats another belief. I understand saying that its just another belief is just another belief, and so forth.

It would only be idiotic if I was claimed to be a total solipsist. Since I'm not, its a useful nugget for trying to understand what you would experience without an ego, while still possessing one...which is perfect, because anyone reading it would also posses an ego.

What perspectives? The "illusion" vs. non-illusion perspective? It's precisely because there is absolutely no difference between the two, in (your) practice, that makes musing that it is an "illusion" a pretty transparent excercise in sophistry.

Yes, the 'All but I is Illusion' vs. 'All perceived is real, all else is not'...from the viewpoint of a readers ego.

Yes, exactly Rust. There is no difference between worthwhile or worthless, nor the two perspectives, nor you or I, as All is One (in my practice). It is not an...exercise in sophistry. I'm not trying to trick anyone to win an argument.

What I am trying to do is communicate this truth realized by one ego to another ego. Could this be considered pointless, as others may not exist? Sure, but what isn't pointless? Why not try to spread some truth and change the world I perceive while choosing to perceive it?

Sadly this can only (obviously) be done through these lies, as you seem to think I have not realized. Although, I have said this many time

P.S. I couldn't help but noticing the "rolling eyes" emoticon you chose for your post. What, not liking your illusion?

Like or dislike has no role in the matter of what is and is not.

Rust

2007-08-11, 05:23

Yes, why not? Whats the difference between worthwhile and worthless?

It would only be idiotic if I was claimed to be a total solipsist. Since I'm not, its a useful nugget for trying to understand what you would experience without an ego, while still possessing one...which is perfect, because anyone reading it would also posses an ego.

Yes! What is the difference between worthwhile and worthless!? What makes total solipsism idiotic, and not brilliant? What makes it less worthwhile than incomplete solipsism? This got more pathetic than I thought possible.

I'm not trying to trick anyone to win an argument.

By "sophistry" I mean, "pseudo-intellectual bullshit"; and that it is, big time.

What I am trying to do is communicate this truth realized by one ego to another ego.

You mean, what you've told yourself is a truth?

Could this be considered pointless, as others may not exist? Sure, but what isn't pointless? Why not try to spread some truth and change the world I perceive while choosing to perceive it?

It's not just that others might not exist, it's that you don't know that is a truth to begin with! What you are trying to "spread" refutes itself! We can apply the same arguement ("man told himself he knows") to anything you say:

Truth? You've told yourself that is a truth. You percieve it? You've told yourself you percieve it.

If we take your argument as valid, then we should ignore it: there is no reason to believe that you yourself haven't "told yourself" everything you claim.

Like or dislike has no role in the matter of what is and is not.

Then why say you enjoy the illusion in the first place?

Obbe

2007-08-11, 05:50

Yes! What is the difference between worthwhile and worthless!? What makes total solipsism idiotic, and not brilliant? What makes it less worthwhile than incomplete solipsism? This got more pathetic than I thought possible.

You seem to have trouble following the discussion.

I did not say total solipsism is worthless, I said claiming to be a total solipsist and then saying things like your quoted text, or even interacting with others would be idiotic...because obviously that person is not a total solipsist.

You mean, what you've told yourself is a truth?

No, the blatantly obvious truth 'I AM', and what this might mean for other things we as egos consider to be truth. And I understand that in order to contemplate this truth, you need an ego.

Without the ego, the contemplation, you simply are.

If we take your argument as valid, then we should ignore it: there is no reason to believe that you yourself haven't "told yourself" everything you claim.

Sure there is...I have been having (or at least perceived having(or perceived I perceived having them, etc)) arguments with others about this topic. They obviously appeared to disagree.

Do they exist? Does anything? I do not know, but as an ego I would believe I experienced it.

Yes, in order to contemplate any of this, you must posses an ego. Realization of the things you are 'bringing to my attention' is part the reason these contemplations are posed by me.

Then why say you enjoy the illusion in the first place?

Because as an ego I believe I do. Durrr...

Rust

2007-08-11, 06:08

I did not say total solipsism is worthless, I said claiming to be a total solipsist and then saying things like your quoted text, or even interacting with others would be idiotic...because obviously that person is not a total solipsist.

The exact same applies. What makes "claiming to be a total solipsist and then saying things like I quoted" idiotic, or worthless, and not worthwhile and brilliant? The same inane questions can be asked then too. The same "you've only told yourself..." comments can be said there as well. My point exactly!

No, the blatantly obvious truth 'I AM', and what this might mean for other things we as egos consider to be truth. And I understand that in order to contemplate this truth, you need an ego.

Without the ego, the contemplation, you simply are.

This are things you've simply "told" yourself. I have no reason to believe they are true. Sorry, you can't claim mankind is ignorant only to then claim you possess a truth.

Sure there is...I have been having (or at least perceived having(or perceived I perceived having them, etc)) arguments with others about this topic. They obviously appeared to disagree.

Do they exist? Does anything? I do not know, but as an ego I would believe I experienced it.

Yes, in order to contemplate any of this, you must posses an ego. Realization of the things you are 'bringing to my attention' is part the reason these contemplations are posed by me.

Again: If you are free to say "man told himself that" then we can say that of everything you have said, and will say in the future. Your whole point becomes just as untrustworthy as the knowledge you claim man has told himself he has.

There is no way around this. No amount of your pseudo-intellectual bullshit will change this.

Because as an ego I believe I do. Durrr...

Hence my initial fucking question...

Why the "rolling eyes" emoticon in your post?

Obbe

2007-08-11, 16:49

The exact same applies. What makes "claiming to be a total solipsist and then saying things like I quoted" idiotic, or worthless, and not worthwhile and brilliant? The same inane questions can be asked then too. The same "you've only told yourself..." comments can be said there as well. My point exactly!

What made you think my original statement was idiotic and worthless?

"What makes "claiming to be a total solipsist and then saying things like I quoted" idiotic, or worthless, and not worthwhile and brilliant?"

An ego as we know it reading that claim would interpret it as worthless and idiotic, or an oxymoron. The entire point of my writing these musings down is so other egos can learn them. There is no way for them to contemplate these things without reading a lot of lies unless they came about the contemplations completely on their own.

Coming about the realization that the medium through which they are learning about these ideas (my posts) are themselves lies, or untrue, etc...is completely part of the point Rust.

You haven't pointed out anything new here. I understand what you are trying to show me.

Understand that I already understand that.

This are things you've simply "told" yourself. I have no reason to believe they are true. Sorry, you can't claim mankind is ignorant only to then claim you possess a truth.

Yes, all of it crap. Or lies.

The only truth I posses is 'I AM', and everything else I say to 'show others how to discover this one truth' is crap, including this sentence.

Please Rust, don't believe any of the things I say. Don't even believe I exist. Thats the goal.

Again: If you are free to say "man told himself that" then we can say that of everything you have said, and will say in the future. Your whole point becomes just as untrustworthy as the knowledge you claim man has told himself he has.

There is no way around this. No amount of your pseudo-intellectual bullshit will change this.

If you turn out that way then you can't believe anything at all, can you? You end up exactly as I intended.

Hence my initial fucking question...

Why the "rolling eyes" emoticon in your post?

The answer 'Like or dislike has no role in the matter of what is and is not' has nothing to do with that question, it was the answer to 'What, not liking your illusion?'.

Why the rolling eyes? I dunno, cause I feel you point out the obvious? Or maybe cause you were still throwing around terms like 'worthless'?

Why does that even matter to you?

Rust

2007-08-11, 19:45

I understand what you are trying to show me.

Understand that I already understand that.

It is painfully obvious that you don't.

If you did, you wouldn't be saying things like " An ego as we know it reading that claim would interpret it" or " The only truth I posses is 'I AM'"

You cannot vomit out comments such as "man only told himself he knows" and then claim that you possess a truth,. Hell you cannot claim it is the only truth you possess, because that requires knowledge of the truth of numbers! If you don't possess that, then for all you know, that isn't the only truth you possess!

If you turn out that way then you can't believe anything at all, can you? You end up exactly as I intended.

You don't know that either, that's the point! Claiming to know what I could or couldn't believe, already refutes the idea that you believe you can't believe anything at all!

The answer 'Like or dislike has no role in the matter of what is and is not' has nothing to do with that question, it was the answer to 'What, not liking your illusion?'.

Then it wasn't an "answer" to begin with, because it doesn't answer the question.

Why the rolling eyes? I dunno, cause I feel you point out the obvious? Or maybe cause you were still throwing around terms like 'worthless'?

Why would you role your eyes at me using the term "worthless" if there is no difference between worthwhile and worthless - if everything is worthless? What makes saying worthless preferable to not saying it?

Obbe

2007-08-12, 03:01

It is painfully obvious that you don't.

If you did, you wouldn't be saying things like " An ego as we know it reading that claim would interpret it" or " The only truth I posses is 'I AM'"

Those are just beliefs held by my ego. Saying something like 'the only truth I posses is I AM' is a belief held by my ego...its a lie, because the only thing I absolutely know is I am. I cannot even explain this without lying. Yes, I do actually understand that.

If someone reads that (within the illusion I believe to be experiencing and typing these things in) and begins to understand what I am saying, and through this understanding then realizes that the events of me saying these things were not real and the contemplations used to reach this understanding are lies (as is everything), then they have realized exactly what I intended.

You cannot vomit out comments such as "man only told himself he knows" and then claim that you possess a truth,. Hell you cannot claim it is the only truth you possess, because that requires knowledge of the truth of numbers! If you don't possess that, then for all you know, that isn't the only truth you possess!

I can claim whatever I want to, as I appear to have done so this entire discussion with you.

I actually can vomit out comments such as 'the only truth is I AM', because it is my ego which believes that and my ego which I believe to be doing so within the illusion I believe I am perceiving.

There is no truth of numbers, as there is no truth to anything in this illusion. All of it is lies. Claiming it all to be a lie is a lie too.

The reason I voice my belief of these things, and try to 'spread the word', is because my ego enjoys it.

You don't know that either, that's the point! Claiming to know what I could or couldn't believe, already refutes the idea that you believe you can't believe anything at all!

I don't believe that you can't believe anything at all.

In fact, that might be considered the opposite of what I believe. That all of this is merely belief.

Yes, claiming to know what you could or couldn't know would refute the idea that I don't actually know anything at all...if I actually knew that. But I don't. Having others obtain a realization of this is part of the point in my saying these things.

Within this illusion which I believe I experience if someone were to actually turn out the way you described, and understand that even the medium through which they are learning 'the truth' is itself a lie, then they really could not believe anything else they experience because they would now believe that to be lies.

Now, realize all the above (and this) is lies, and the only truth is I AM.

Then it wasn't an "answer" to begin with, because it doesn't answer the question.

Sure it does. It wouldn't matter if someone liked or disliked the idea...its what is.

I don't like or dislike it, because its what I believe is.

Why would you role your eyes at me using the term "worthless" if there is no difference between worthwhile and worthless - if everything is worthless? What makes saying worthless preferable to not saying it?

Is everything worthless, or does no difference make it all worthwhile? :D

One isn't preferable over the other, its because you did not seem to realize this that I rolled them.

Rust

2007-08-12, 05:43

Rizzo in a box

2007-08-12, 06:16

http://www.diyplanner.com/files/0.jpg

xray

2007-08-12, 15:42

Please Rust, don't believe any of the things I say. Don't even believe I exist. Thats the goal.
I'm assuming you mean that that is your goal? Why? I can see wanting to let others know that's it's possible no one else exists, but why try to convince others that it is true that no one else exists? WHY do you believe everyone is an illusion?

Those are just beliefs held by my ego. Saying something like 'the only truth I posses is I AM' is a belief held by my ego...its a lie, because the only thing I absolutely know is I am.
So you admit you are telling us things you believe are lies, yet you say them as if you believe they are truth. Oh, that's right, you separate yourself into you and your ego, and then claim that by doing this your statements which supposedly reflect your beliefs aren't contradictory. Brilliant.

All of it is lies. Claiming it all to be a lie is a lie too.
You realize that what you claimed is a lie, but you claimed it anyway? Sorry, this separating your ego from yourself bullshit doesn't fly.

Obbe

2007-08-12, 15:59

You're a waste of my time, so I'm not going to bother anymore.

Whats not a waste of time?

Its only your opinion thats its a waste. And you only believe you experience time.

I'm just glad nobody else - save for the token gullible idiots that gobble this shit up as soon as you spew it (aka Hexadecimal and Rizzo) - has bothered with this transparent attempt at sophistry either.

This is not sophistry, this has been an attempt to explain an idea which ends up destroying the medium of its explanation.

Rizzo, Hex, me...and even you Hare and Scraff...we are all fools Rust. The wise man has only ever been an idea.

Obbe

2007-08-12, 16:16

I'm assuming you mean that that is your goal? Why? I can see wanting to let others know that's it's possible no one else exists, but why try to convince others that it is true that no one else exists? WHY do you believe everyone is an illusion?

I've actually explained this to you before, and many times in this thread.

Why do I do it? Because my ego enjoys interaction with this illusion.

Why do I believe others are just illusion? Because the only thing you know is I AM. An illusion is an alteration of that which you believe to be true. If all that is true is I AM, then everything else is an illusion.

Including other people.

So you admit you are telling us things you believe are lies, yet you say them as if you believe they are truth. Oh, that's right, you separate yourself into you and your ego, and then claim that by doing this your statements which supposedly reflect your beliefs aren't contradictory. Brilliant.

No not at all. There is just no other way to go about doing this.

The things I am saying, they cannot be true or known because as far as you know I am part of the illusion I am describing. You do not know if I am, but you know I AM(read from your perspective....you are the I in I AM...but not your ego.)

All this interaction is obviously done by my ego, and I'm not separating myself into two parts anymore then this:

Everything I think, do, say to others, believe...is done by my ego. All of it is lies (including everything I am typing here) because its all part of the illusion.

Existence is done by the true observer.

Even that sentence above is false because it is my ego that typed it, and your reading of it is just an illusion. Everything being done here is lies, an ego-playground.

Realization of this leads to liberation from it.

You realize that what you claimed is a lie, but you claimed it anyway? Sorry, this separating your ego from yourself bullshit doesn't fly.

I realize that this is a very tough cookie for most people to swallow...but I've patiently explained myself to everyone so far, haven't I?

All is lies buddy. To try and tell you the truth is to lie.

But I'll say it again anyways: The truth is 'I AM'.

Read that from your perspective, and realize how everything you experience is illusion.

Obbe

2007-08-12, 17:16

So you weren't lying through your teeth when you said "I'm not trying to prove anything, nor do I think its possible.", even though beforehand you said "No, just trying to show him that deciding to give a diabetic insulin is a belief based on other beliefs. Not anything known." and afterward continued to make such statements. It was merely your ego! :rolleyes:

Obviously, as you have enjoyed showing again and again, none of this can be proven. I do not think thats possible.

And thinking that you should give a diabetic insulin is a belief based on other beliefs.

Yes, my ego is the only thing that can transfer this bundle of lies to you. And actually, I'm always lying through my teeth, because everything I do or say is a lie.

The truth is 'I AM'.

All you have done in this thread is make self-refuting ideas and then, when they're pointed out to be such, dress them up in an armour of nonsense.

What isn't nonsense?

I'm not dressing anything up in armor, I've been trying to explain how the act of saying these things, is itself a lie.

So, did the ol' OCD ease up on you for a few minutes? Long enough to let me see this before you delete it?

...when I see someone like Obbe creating sophistry, I naturally criticize their claims.

Again, this has been an attempt to explain an idea which ends up destroying the medium of its explanation.

Being a critic is fucking easy Hare. You don't bring anything meaningful to the table, you get to pick a part other peoples ideas and write up clever negative comments about them, which is all very fun and risk free.

But across the table, to be the one presenting your ideas and beliefs before a group, to defend it in the face of such criticism, to risk it all...that takes true grit.

xray

2007-08-12, 17:28

Why do I do it? Because my ego enjoys interaction with this illusion.
I've got that. You enjoy this illusion. I'm not asking you to repeat that. I asked you why is it your goal to convince others that they are the only ones that exist? Not for them to just consider the possibility, but to believe it is true.

Why do I believe others are just illusion? Because the only thing you know is I AM.
We've all got that too. We know we can't know anything 100%. Why is it your goal to convince everyone that others don't exist rather than to let them know it is only possible that others don't exist? What good would come from others actually concluding that everything but their existence is an illusion and what evidence do you have to convince others that this is true?

Please don't repeat that the only thing you can know for sure is that you exist. This is not evidence that others don't.

No not at all. There is just no other way to go about doing this.
No other way of doing what? Contradicting yourself?

Everything I think, do, say to others, believe...is done by my ego. All of it is lies (including everything I am typing here) because its all part of the illusion.
When are you going to provide evidence that this is an illusion? Oh, you don't have to, because you admit your statement was a lie.

You don't see that you're not making any sense, eh?

Existence is done by the true observer.

Even that sentence above is false because...
Why did you bother writing a statement as if it were fact if you are immediately going to declare that it wasn't true? This whole thing is really looney!

Realization of this leads to liberation from it.
Most of us realize it is possible all of our experiences are illusions. I don't feel liberated from anything because of it. This is still different than what you are claiming though, because you are affirmatively declaring that it is an illusion and not just that it's possible.

I realize that this is a very tough cookie for most people to swallow...but I've patiently explained myself to everyone so far, haven't I?
No, you haven't. You wrote words, but they have not confirmed that your contradictions aren't contradictions.

But I'll say it again anyways: The truth is 'I AM'.

Read that from your perspective, and realize how everything you experience is illusion.
Proving to myself that I exist is not proof that everyone else is an illusion. You can repeat that over and over but proof of my own existence is not proof of everyone else's non-existence.

---Beany---

2007-08-12, 18:55

Rust

2007-08-12, 19:26

Being a critic is fucking easy Hare. You don't bring anything meaningful to the table, you get to pick a part other peoples ideas and write up clever negative comments about them, which is all very fun and risk free.

But across the table, to be the one presenting your ideas and beliefs before a group, to defend it in the face of such criticism, to risk it all...that takes true grit.

Oh, please, shut the fuck up. :rolleyes:

Making up bullshit ideas that don't work out, that can't stand up to criticism or scrutiny, that are utterly worthless, and that make conversation totally impossible, now that is a fucking joke; any fucking moron can do that ... and they have, hence why these so called "ideas" of yours are so tired and annoying. Presenting ideas that require some imagination, some thought and some reasoning - ideas that can stand up to scrutiny- that takes true grit. These ramblings of yours don't even come close.

Rizzo in a box

2007-08-12, 22:04

dental insurance

Obbe

2007-08-13, 04:17

I've got that. You enjoy this illusion. I'm not asking you to repeat that. I asked you why is it your goal to convince others that they are the only ones that exist? Not for them to just consider the possibility, but to believe it is true.

Like I said, the ego enjoys interaction with this illusion. I also believe the illusion would be more peaceful and less...hmmm....going-to-shit if more of the 'people' in it were aware of these ideas.

But I suppose I could settle for consideration of the possibility. I do also enjoy just seeing what peoples reactions are to these ideas.

We've all got that too. We know we can't know anything 100%. Why is it your goal to convince everyone that others don't exist rather than to let them know it is only possible that others don't exist? What good would come from others actually concluding that everything but their existence is an illusion and what evidence do you have to convince others that this is true?

Please don't repeat that the only thing you can know for sure is that you exist. This is not evidence that others don't.

I'm not trying to convince others that they don't exist, fool.

When you read 'I AM', it is meant to be read from your own perspective.

I am trying to convince others that the only thing they know is that they exist, and everything else...even who they think they are, and the thought or recognition of their existence is illusion...no different then what you would now consider a drug or psychosis-induced hallucination.

I am trying to do this regardless of their actual existence or not, because even if they are just observer-less egos, I think changing the way they think would my experience of this reality.

I know that saying the only thing you know is 'I AM' is not evidence of another persons existence. There is no such fucking thing.

But consider this:

Right now, it seems to me that you consider...or believe that which you experience to be true. Things such as your friend tripping on drugs are false, or illusions, because YOU are not experiencing them. If you did take the drug, experienced something you haven't before, you would still consider or believe that experience to be an illusion, because it is so different from what you believe you know to be true.

However, thats still only what you believe you know to be true. The only thing you know is...I AM. Using the same logic you apply to drug-induced hallucinations, could you not then consider all experience...including experience of other existences, to be nothing but illusion?

No other way of doing what? Contradicting yourself?

No, no other way to tell the truth but to lie.

Try considering my statements from a different perspective...such as one which considers the observers existence to be the only true knowable thought, and that even recognition of that thought is itself an illusion to the truth.

When are you going to provide evidence that this is an illusion? Oh, you don't have to, because you admit your statement was a lie.

You don't see that you're not making any sense, eh?

Evidence of that is impossible to provide because it would disprove itself.

But, try considering what I asked you to in the second reply of this post.

I can understand how it would seem I'm not making sense, but its only because you do not skew your own perspective so I do.

Why did you bother writing a statement as if it were fact if you are immediately going to declare that it wasn't true? This whole thing is really looney!

To try and demonstrate to you how the truth can only be communicated through lies.

Most of us realize it is possible all of our experiences are illusions. I don't feel liberated from anything because of it. This is still different than what you are claiming though, because you are affirmatively declaring that it is an illusion and not just that it's possible.

Realization of this leads to liberation from it, but thats a choice. Like myself choosing to interact with it, while I could also choose to ignore it and focus only on my existence...liberation from the illusion.

No, you haven't. You wrote words, but they have not confirmed that your contradictions aren't contradictions.

They explain themselves, you just don't understand why.

Proving to myself that I exist is not proof that everyone else is an illusion. You can repeat that over and over but proof of my own existence is not proof of everyone else's non-existence.

What you believe exists and what does not is a matter of what you consider to be true. If you consider others to be true, and your idea of the consensual reality to be true, then they are even if only just to you.

But if you choose to recognize that those things cannot be known to be true, and that in fact the only thing which can is I AM, then everything else can then be considered an illusion to this truth. The only thing you can know, the only thing that is true, is I AM.

Oh, please, shut the fuck up.

Making up bullshit ideas that don't work out, that can't stand up to criticism or scrutiny, that are utterly worthless, and that make conversation totally impossible, now that is a fucking joke; any fucking moron can do that ... and they have, hence why these so called "ideas" of yours are so tired and annoying.

How is it bullshit? The idea is that the only truth is I AM. It destroys even the recognition of itself, leaving only exactly what it was saying...I AM.

Anyone can realize it. Thats what makes it so true.

Presenting ideas that require some imagination, some thought and some reasoning - ideas that can stand up to scrutiny- that takes true grit. These ramblings of yours don't even come close.

I can agree that it it take more grit to post ideas about things believed to be true within the illusion itself, more then it takes to not believe its real. But the second opinion is closer to the truth.

However, presenting either opinion still takes more grit then criticizing either.

Rust

2007-08-13, 04:24

It destroys even the recognition of itself, leaving only exactly what is was saying...I AM.

No, it leaves nothing of the sort. There is nothing left, and you saying that there is is nothing but a lie; hence: bullshit.

However, presenting either opinion still takes more grit then criticizing either.

Criticizing is presenting an idea, a different one. A meaningful, valid, thoughtful idea, not the rehashed bullshit you spew every second.

Obbe

2007-08-13, 04:30

No, it leaves nothing of the sort. There is nothing left, and you saying that there is is nothing but a lie; hence: bullshit.

How would it leave nothing? If an observer was contemplating the issue, and realized that the concept destroyed the medium through which he learned it(my posts for instance) and contemplated it with(his ego), and accepted this then the observer himself would still exist, aware only of the truth which he had been contemplating. I AM.

Criticizing is presenting an idea, a different one. A meaningful, valid, thoughtful idea, not the rehashed bullshit you spew every second.

So then what idea are you presenting? That reality is exactly as it seems to you? Or that even your existence is false?

Or option number three?

Rust

2007-08-13, 04:56

How would it leave nothing? If an observer was contemplating the issue, and realized that the concept destroyed the medium through which he learned it(my posts for instance) and contemplated it with(his ego), and accepted this then the observer himself would still exist, aware only of the truth which he had been contemplating. I AM.

For the observer to be "aware" of anything in the first place, much more than just he would have to exist. If not, he wouldn't even know the meaning of the word/concept "exist", let alone know that he does. He wouldn't be aware of (or possess) any system of logic or reason which would make it so that the "concept would have to be destroyed the medium through which he learned it". For he to realize this, much more than just his existence is needed; knowledge, as a fact, would be needed.

So then what idea are you presenting? That reality is exactly as it seems to you? Or that even your existence is false?

Or option number three?The idea that whether reality is as it seems to me is irrelevant if I'm to live it as if it were. The idea that your bullshit is as unimportant and trivial as saying that a God has implanted all of our memories from this very instant and before; in other words, a meaningless, unimportant, trivial, idea. One that helps us in no way, one that does not give fruit to any discussion, one that stifles all intellectual thought. That's my idea: that your idea sucks, big time.

Obbe

2007-08-13, 05:06

He would, literally, understand nothing, even his own existence.

Alright. I shouldn't have said he was aware of it, I can see what you're saying. But he would exist. And the truth I AM still stands, even if there is no awareness of it.

The idea that whether reality is as it seems to me is irrelevant if I'm to live it as if it were.

Then fine. But does it have to be irrelevant?

Rust

2007-08-13, 05:29

Alright. I shouldn't have said he was aware of it, I can see what you're saying. But he would exist. And the truth I AM still stands, even if there is no awareness of it.

No, you can't even say he would exist! Who is determining that he exists? You? Me? Through what? Logic? Reason? Then "I AM" isn't the only truth!

Then fine. But does it have to be irrelevant?

Yes. It's pseudo-intellectual bullshit; a waste of time.

Hexadecimal

2007-08-13, 08:24

Aww, shucks, ya know me so well. :D

Which is why observers still toying with an ego and a perceived external reality have to play by the same rules.

Of course someone with my perspective would question the utility of the above quoted belief outside of the very system we perceive as illusion...for within the system itself is the only place that belief works.

The belief that the system is an illusion has absolutely no utility whatsoever unless a way can be found to free one's self from the lie. Until then, the observer who believes all is illusion is still bound by the same system as he who believes all is real, thus having no utilitarian advantage. Solipsism, while based upon an axiom, is fucking useless unless you figure out how to stop the illusion. 'tis all I was trying to get across.

I don't know about you, but I'm not the kind of guy to bet $100 on a race that automatically ties unless something impossible happens. There is no reason to be solipsist. Even if it were true that all is fake, that couldn't be known unless you've been in a frame of reference that encompassed the entire illusion, plus x. Nihilism and solipsism are fun friggin' ideas to wrap your head around, I won't deny that, but I frankly wish I had spent more time fucking sluts than thinking about how certain I can be the sluts I had been fucking were even real.

Hexadecimal

2007-08-13, 08:28

You're a waste of my time, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I'm just glad nobody else - save for the token gullible idiots that gobble this shit up as soon as you spew it (aka Hexadecimal and Rizzo) - has bothered with this transparent attempt at sophistry either.

Ahahaha...now I'm a token gullible idiot because you aren't one of the four people I let in on the joke? Damn man...eight more and you just might laugh. Har har har. ;)

Obbe

2007-08-13, 11:37

No, you can't even say he would exist! Who is determining that he exists? You? Me? Through what? Logic? Reason? Then "I AM" isn't the only truth!

I think I see what you are saying, although I think the observer would still exist aware of nothing, because simply being is what he would have determined before ceasing to be aware of something.

Unless I suppose existence requires knowledge of existence. Does it?

Obbe

2007-08-13, 11:38

...but I frankly wish I had spent more time fucking sluts than thinking about how certain I can be the sluts I had been fucking were even real.

:D well thats all a matter of perception :D

Rust

2007-08-13, 11:42

Ahahaha...now I'm a token gullible idiot because you aren't one of the four people I let in on the joke? Damn man...eight more and you just might laugh. Har har har. ;)

That made no sense. Thank you for making my point!

Rust

2007-08-13, 11:43

I think I see what you are saying, although I think the observer would still exist aware of nothing, because simply being is what he would have determined before ceasing to be aware of something.

Unless I suppose existence requires knowledge of existence. Does it?

Ahh... how quickly your bullshit crumbles to piece. Funny.

Who says he "ceases" to be aware of "something"? From where did you get that? How in the world does one "cease" to be aware of something, or everything?

As for existence requiring knowledge of existence, I would imagine it doesn't; that isn't my point. My point is, you can't say he exists. Either you are him, and thus must be aware of your own existence (and everything that entails) in order to say you exist, or you're somebody else who is somehow knowledgeable of whether or not he exists (through a system of logic and reason lets say). Either of these implies more truths than just "I AM".

Obbe

2007-08-13, 11:52

Ahh... how quickly your bullshit crumbles to piece. Funny.

Who says he "ceases" to be aware of "something"? From where did you get that? How in the world does one "cease" to be aware of something, or everything?

How would they not?

If while still attached to an ego, still interacting with this illusion, he realized it was all bullshit and decided to stop interaction with anything, how would he be aware of anything?

The 'me', the observer, the 'self', the thing which when we talk about 'awareness' is that which is aware, the 'void'...this is what I believe would be left, in a state aware of nothing.

Damn, you edited after I quoted:

As for existence requiring knowledge of existence, I would imagine it doesn't; that isn't my point. My point is, you can't say he exists. Either you are him, and thus must be aware of your own existence (and everything that entails) in order to say you exist, or you're somebody else who is somehow knowledgeable of whether or not he exists (through a system of logic and reason lets say). Either of these implies more truths than just "I AM".

He wouldn't know he exists, he would be in a state aware of nothing. Nobody else can say he exists truthfully, because saying that is within the illusion...its not a knowable thing.

As I have been saying since the beginning, the only thing I know is I AM.

As I have also been saying, this information can only be exchanged through lies. Of course its implying more then one truth, just like saying or thinking anything does. Its up to the observer to realize that there isn't more then one.

Rust

2007-08-13, 12:00

How would they not?

If while still attached to an ego, still interacting with this illusion, he realized it was all bullshit and decided to stop interaction with anything, how would he be aware of anything?

He would be aware of something, because not interacting with anything does not imply no awareness. Does he suddenly lose all knowledge of the idea that it's all bullshit?

Does self existence require knowledge of existence?

See my post again, I was editing while you posted. Whether it does or does not is irrelevant to what I'm saying. My point is, you can't say he exists. Either you are him, and thus must be aware of your own existence (and everything that entails) in order to say you exist, or you're somebody else who is somehow knowledgeable of whether or not another person exists (through a system of logic and reason lets say). Either of these implies more truths than just "I AM".

Obbe

2007-08-13, 12:07

He would be aware of something, because not interacting with anything does not imply no awareness. Does he suddenly lose all knowledge of the idea that it's all bullshit?

How do you know he does not? If he truly doesn't believe it, why would he continue to experience it?

Calm-abiding meditation demonstrates this.

See my post again, I was editing while you posted.

I did. And I went back and saw you did that to another post as well:

The idea that your bullshit is as unimportant and trivial as saying that a God has implanted all of our memories from this very instant and before; in other words, a meaningless, unimportant, trivial, idea. One that helps us in no way, one that does not give fruit to any discussion, one that stifles all intellectual thought. That's my idea: that your idea sucks, big time.

So how is this any closer to truth?

Its your opinion that it sucks, but you don't think its possible for someone to see it otherwise?

Rust

2007-08-13, 15:21

How do you know he does not? If he truly doesn't believe it, why would he continue to experience it?

How do you know he would? It's not that he would "experience it" it's that he would possess such knowledge - he would be aware of everything being bullshit. He would still possess awareness of the language that this "truth" was said to him. You've yet to prove how this awareness would suddenly vanish.

In any case, you said he would lose all awareness hence it's your burden, not mine, to prove so. If you cannot support your claims, then my point is made as well - even if I don't substantiate the oppossite claim.

Calm-abiding meditation demonstrates this.

"Calm-abiding medition" shows no such thing, or at least, you haven't proven such.

So how is this any closer to truth?

Who said it did?

Its your opinion that it sucks, but you don't think its possible for someone to see it otherwise?

Who said I don't think that's possible?

----

Nobody else can say he exists truthfully, because saying that is within the illusion...its not a knowable thing.

Thus, you've just proven my point!

As I said before, "No, you can't even say he would exist!"

Its up to the observer to realize that there isn't more then one.

Which he cannot do without knowledge of what "one" or "more" even mean! He cannot determine that something is the "only" thing, if there are no other truths! He must possess truth of what it means to exist, and what it means for there to be "no more than one".

xray

2007-08-13, 16:08

Like I said, the ego enjoys interaction with this illusion. I also believe the illusion would be more peaceful and less...hmmm....going-to-shit if more of the 'people' in it were aware of these ideas.
So, you only want us (people who don't exist in reality, only in your illusion) to believe your ideas because your existence would be more peaceful if you changed the mind of those who don't really exist? Alrighty then!

Why not just meditate on how it doesn't matter what we believe because we don't exist?

But I suppose I could settle for consideration of the possibility.
So after you've been asked several times why you believe it's true and not just a possibility, now you concede? It's about fucking time!

I do also enjoy just seeing what peoples reactions are to these ideas.
Oh, so you don't necessarily believe everything you've claimed you did, but you wanted reactions. Terrific.

I'm not trying to convince others that they don't exist, fool.

When you read 'I AM', it is meant to be read from your own perspective.
And when I wrote 'others', it was meant to be read from anyone else's own perspective, fool.

I am trying to convince others that the only thing they know is that they exist, and everything else...even who they think they are, and the thought or recognition of their existence is illusion...no different then what you would now consider a drug or psychosis-induced hallucination.
No, I and others brought up several times that we're all aware of this possibility. What you've been asked to answer and you kept dodging was why do you believe it is an illusion and not just a possibility?

If you have come to the conclusion that it is only a possibility, do you feel different about it mattering if other people suffer?

No, no other way to tell the truth but to lie.
You're convinced you possess the truth?

Evidence of that is impossible to provide because it would disprove itself.
Then why do you keep claiming that it is the truth instead of it just being possible? Do you find it more likely that you are the only one that exists or that it is more likely we all do too?

I can understand how it would seem I'm not making sense, but its only because you do not skew your own perspective so I do.
What?

To try and demonstrate to you how the truth can only be communicated through lies.
You did no such thing.

Realization of this leads to liberation from it, but thats a choice. Like myself choosing to interact with it, while I could also choose to ignore it and focus only on my existence...liberation from the illusion.
I'll as again, why are you concluding that the rest of us are an illusion and don't really exist?

Do you think coming to the conclusion that you don't need to focus on others because they don't exist and just focusing on yourself is liberating? That would make you happy?

But if you choose to recognize that those things cannot be known to be true, and that in fact the only thing which can is I AM, then everything else can then be considered an illusion to this truth. The only thing you can know, the only thing that is true, is I AM.
You keep repeating the same mistake over and over again and no matter how many times it's pointed out to you, you can't seem to pick it up. I'll attempt one more time and then I'm tired of posting in this thread.

I DO recognize that nothing can be known 100% to be true. WE ALL do! The fact that I have more evidence that I AM then I do YOU ARE does not mean "then everything else can then be considered an illusion to this truth." It means that it is only possible that others don't really exist. You have given zero reasons to assume that my senses are inaccurate! Even if they are, you have also given zero reasons for anyone to convince themselves that they are some sort of brain in a jar and that that conviction would lead to some sort of liberation.

You have said that you are convinced everyone else is an illusion yet would tell others not to shoot up a mall because your ego believes this illusion is real. What the fuck is that all about? Do YOU believe this is an illusion or don't you?

Obbe

2007-08-13, 22:56

How do you know he would? It's not that he would "experience it" it's that he would possess such knowledge - he would be aware of everything being bullshit. He would still possess awareness of the language that this "truth" was said to him. You've yet to prove how this awareness would suddenly vanish.

The language and the knowledge are still illusions, and these are things he would have to leave as well. I doubt that for most individuals (lol) this would seem to suddenly happen once they desire to loose it, but instead seem as though it takes lots of long efforts, as we are obviously attached to this illusion in so many ways.

But once the realization that it all is illusion is reached...every last part of the ego and illusion will have been lost. All includes that realization...which means it is the last to loose. And then they just...are.

In any case, you said he would lose all awareness hence it's your burden, not mine, to prove so. If you cannot support your claims, then my point is made as well - even if I don't substantiate the oppossite claim.

I don't think awareness of nothing can be proven. But thats not the point of saying these things.

"Calm-abiding medition" shows no such thing, or at least, you haven't proven such.

If you choose to believe that, but I have reason to believe otherwise.

And no, I haven't proven anything. Ever.

Who said it did?

What?

I think you meant...who said it was...?

If you did, then obviously you don't care about that. Okay.

But the reason I made this thread was to teach others about truth. Not to find a more interesting or meaningful seeming theory to those highly defensive of their illusions.

Who said I don't think that's possible?

I suppose I assumed you did. Sorry. I could now assume you do, and say that I'm glad you do...but I do not want to make any assumptions I am aware of.

Thus, you've just proven my point!

As I said before, "No, you can't even say he would exist!"

If we are talking about another person, sure. You can't know anything about that dude. But he's just a story, just a lie used to tell the truth.

From your own perspective, you know that you exist...or I AM. Put yourself into that scenario. Once you come to the realization that all is illusion, you become aware of nothing. But theres still a 'you' there which I am describing.

Which he cannot do without knowledge of what "one" or "more" even mean! He cannot determine that something is the "only" thing, if there are no other truths! He must possess truth of what it means to exist, and what it means for there to be "no more than one".

And these are the last thing you are aware of. Using that realization to dissolve itself leaves you with nothing.

Rust

2007-08-13, 23:20

But once the realization that it all is illusion is reached...every last part of the ego and illusion will have been lost. All includes that realization...which means it is the last to loose. And then they just...are.

Anyone can spew forth unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove that he would magically lose all knowledge he once had or kindly shut the fuck up. You can't claim to be teaching truth and then pull things straight out of your ass because you "idea" is crumbling with each passing second.

I could just as easily say that he wouldn't cease to be aware, which would completely refute your "idea". Who would be "teaching about truth" then?

I don't think awareness of nothing can be proven. But thats not the point of saying these things.

Then you can't say it's a the only truth to begin with! For all you know, he doesn't cease to be aware! At best, you have an ignorant "guess".

If you choose to believe that, but I have reason to believe otherwise.

And no, I haven't proven anything. Ever.

I too have reason to believe what I do.Great! Where does that leave your "idea"? As unsubstantiated as it was in the first place! You still can't say, as a matter of fact, that he would cease to be aware. You don't know, hence you can't say he would exist. Neither can he.

But the reason I made this thread was to teach others about truth. Not to find a more interesting or meaningful seeming theory to those highly defensive of their illusions.

And you've failed miserably because as I have already explained you cannot say that is true to begin with!

From your own perspective, you know that you exist...or I AM. Put yourself into that scenario. Once you come to the realization that all is illusion, you become aware of nothing. But theres still a 'you' there which I am describing.

If you haven't proven that he becomes aware of nothing, then you cannot say that is a truth. Period. It is as valid as me saying that he wouldn't become aware of nothing.

Not to mention that even if we take what you say as true, he STILL can't say he exists because for all he knows, he could have ceased to exist the moment he came to realize that "all" is an illusion (i.e. the moment you say he would magically cease to be aware). How would you/he know that he still exists after he ceases to be aware? You/He don't!

And these are the last thing you are aware of. Using that realization to dissolve itself leaves you with nothing.

No, you can't even say that, because in order to say that he exists, and didn't cease to exist at that very moment himself, you still need other truths. For all you know, at that very moment he ceased to exist!

Obbe

2007-08-13, 23:39

So, you only want us (people who don't exist in reality, only in your illusion) to believe your ideas because your existence would be more peaceful if you changed the mind of those who don't really exist?

The observer-less egos? Well I don't know that...maybe they are different perceptions of myself perceiving different perceptions of reality?

But not my existence. The ego's perception of what that is, would be more peaceful.

Why not just meditate on how it doesn't matter what we believe because we don't exist?

Why do you need the same answer more then once? I choose not to.

But this whole thing I'm describing is the main point of many traditional meditations, of gurus sitting in caves for years.

So after you've been asked several times why you believe it's true and not just a possibility, now you concede? It's about fucking time!

Uh...WTFare you talking about?

I believe its true.

I would like it if others in this illusion I choose to partake in would believe so too.

But, I can settle for them considering the possibility.

Do I have to explain fucking everything? Try to follow the fucking conversation.

Oh, so you don't necessarily believe everything you've claimed you did, but you wanted reactions. Terrific.

No, numbnuts, I believe in it. But one of the reasons I tell others is to see how they reacted.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? If you do, then sorry for being harsh....well, no, I'm not really.

And when I wrote 'others', it was meant to be read from anyone else's own perspective, fool.

Which includes your own perspective, so I fail to see how that makes any difference.

No, I and others brought up several times that we're all aware of this possibility. What you've been asked to answer and you kept dodging was why do you believe it is an illusion and not just a possibility?

I have no idea what you are saying no to, you might want to clarify.

And I did answer why I believe this, about two or three fucking paragraphs beneath the one you quoted for this reply. Which you ignored.

If you have come to the conclusion that it is only a possibility

I haven't, you just can't read.

You're convinced you possess the truth?

Only one, but speaking it or thinking about it is untrue. What the words represent is true.

Then why do you keep claiming that it is the truth instead of it just being possible? Do you find it more likely that you are the only one that exists or that it is more likely we all do too?

I've explained why in the post you are quoting me out of.

All I know is I AM.

Based on that as the only truth, everyone else is considered illusion.

Consider this:

Does that mean they are me too?

What?

You deaf?

You did no such thing.

You only think I didn't.

I'll as again, why are you concluding that the rest of us are an illusion and don't really exist?

You totally missed it.

But remember. Its in no way evidence.

Do you think coming to the conclusion that you don't need to focus on others because they don't exist and just focusing on yourself is liberating? That would make you happy?

Happiness is part of the illusion.

My concept of myself, or Obbe, is part of the illusion.

Its liberation from the illusion which I am talking about. And if its not something you would want to do...then don't.

You keep repeating the same mistake over and over again and no matter how many times it's pointed out to you, you can't seem to pick it up. I'll attempt one more time and then I'm tired of posting in this thread.

Is anything a mistake?

I DO recognize that nothing can be known 100% to be true. WE ALL do! The fact that I have more evidence that I AM then I do YOU ARE does not mean "then everything else can then be considered an illusion to this truth."

Yes it does, using the same logic used to call another persons hallucinations an illusion.

This all comes down to consideration and opinion. You could conversely consider all, everything even that which you have not experience to be true.

They both mean the same thing, just opposite ways of saying it. Think about it.

It means that it is only possible that others don't really exist.You have given zero reasons to assume that my senses are inaccurate! Even if they are, you have also given zero reasons for anyone to convince themselves that they are some sort of brain in a jar and that that conviction would lead to some sort of liberation.

No, no...you just can't see the other side.

You have said that you are convinced everyone else is an illusion yet would tell others not to shoot up a mall because your ego believes this illusion is real. What the fuck is that all about? Do YOU believe this is an illusion or don't you?

Yes, I do, but I also enjoy it. I don't want to experience bad shit, and the ego with which I interact with this illusion believes shooting up the mall to be bad shit.

Even if these other people are just illusions.

Obbe

2007-08-14, 00:02

Anyone can spew forth unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove that he would magically lose all knowledge he once had or kindly shut the fuck up. You can't claim to be teaching truth and then pull things straight out of your ass because you "idea" is crumbling with each passing second.

I could just as easily say that he wouldn't cease to be aware, which would completely refute your "idea". Who would be "teaching about truth" then?

Proof would be experience.

I can't prove any of it, nor do I really care that I can't. It destroys its own proof. If you don't agree with this idea, then so be it.

But you only can't because you do not imagine what an experience-void existence would be like.

Then you can't say it's a the only truth to begin with!

I can to bring the idea to another's attention.

I too have reason to believe what I do.Great! Where does that leave your "idea"? As unsubstantiated as it was in the first place! You still can't say, as a matter of fact, that he would cease to be aware. You don't know, hence you can't say he would exist. Neither can he.

I agree I cannot truthfully say something about another, but I can lie about them to tell the only truth.

And you've failed miserably because as I have already explained you cannot say that is true to begin with!

And didn't I agree with you? We can only speak lies!

If you haven't proven that he becomes aware of nothing, then you cannot say that is a truth. Period. It is as valid as me saying that he wouldn't become aware of nothing.

I'm not trying to say anything about anyone, just use them to tell the truth about myself, I AM, and show others the truths they know about themselves.

Not to mention that even if we take what you say as true, he STILL can't say he exists because for all he knows, he could have ceased to exist the moment he came to realize that "all" is an illusion (i.e. the moment you say he would magically cease to be aware). How would you/he know that he still exists after he ceases to be aware? You/He don't!

At that point, is there really a difference between the two?

Perhaps this point is the balance...as Ive said it is in other threads. Aware of nothing, as xray might remember.

No, you can't even say that, because in order to say that he exists, and didn't cease to exist at that very moment himself, you still need other truths. For all you know, at that very moment he ceased to exist!

If we can say that the root of existence is someone confirming that you do actually exist, then what does that, and my above reply, say about this?

Rust

2007-08-14, 02:51

But you only can't because you do not imagine what an experience-void existence would be like.

Who are you to say why I can or cannot agree with something? Or for that matter, what I can or cannot imagine?

I can to bring the idea to another's attention.

You only THINK you're doing so.

I agree I cannot truthfully say something about another, but I can lie about them to tell the only truth.

No, you only THINK you can.

And didn't I agree with you? We can only speak lies!

I thought so at first, but since you continue to say that you can teach truth, then you obviously don't.

I'm not trying to say anything about anyone, just use them to tell the truth about myself, I AM, and show others the truths they know about themselves.

And I'm trying to tell you that you can't claim that's a truth in the first place, because you don't know that.

At that point, is there really a difference between the two?

How would you know if there isn't? Especially since you cannot prove that the man wouldn't experience anything else! That's a guess of yours, one that remains completely unsubstantiated.

If we can say that the root of existence is someone confirming that you do actually exist, then what does that, and my above reply, say about this?

Who said anything about the "root of existence being someone confirming that you do actually exist"?

Obbe

2007-08-14, 11:59

Who are you to say why I can or cannot agree with something? Or for that matter, what I can or cannot imagine?

I do not know.

But that is what my ego perceives of you.

You only THINK you're doing so.

Exactly. My ego and its beliefs are illusions.

No, you only THINK you can.

Exactly. My ego and its beliefs are illusions.

Can you actually tell me I just think I can, or do you just think you can?

I thought so at first, but since you continue to say that you can teach truth, then you obviously don't.

You can teach this truth using lies, although don't think I mean directly. I can't truthfully tell anyone I AM, even though I know it, because they can't truly know it. And I can't truthfully tell them 'they are', because I can't truthfully know if they are.

But I can still tell them these things in an attempt to get them to realize I AM, from their perspective, is the only thing they already actually know. Plenty of people were able to do this (or at least seemed to from my perspective) reading what I wrote.

And no, I don't know they know that...but that doesn't matter, because the whole point of my doing this is to make my experience more enjoyable, regardless of whether they actually exist or not.

And I'm trying to tell you that you can't claim that's a truth in the first place, because you don't know that.

What, you think I don't know that I am?

Its true you can't know that about me, but you seem to think that I at least believe I am.

How would you know if there isn't?

I don't, simply. What do you think the difference would be if there is?

Who said anything about the "root of existence being someone confirming that you do actually exist"?

I'm not sure.

What is existence, Rust?

Hexadecimal

2007-08-15, 04:34

That made no sense. Thank you for making my point!

Rust, the only time you ever argue with me is when I'm purposefully spouting nonsense for my own entertainment (and that of a few others). You've never once had an argument against my genuine approaches at discussion. Frankly, I know my shit. I like to troll though...so feel free to think I'm a gullible dipshit or whatever the hell it is you believe me to be.

Rust

2007-08-15, 17:39

Yes, you're not stupid, you just say stupid things. Brilliant.

Rust

2007-08-15, 17:47

I do not know.

But that is what my ego perceives of you.

No, that's what you think your ego perceives of me.

Exactly. My ego and its beliefs are illusions.

No, you only think they are illusions.

Exactly. My ego and its beliefs are illusions.

No, you only think they are illusions.

Can you actually tell me I just think I can, or do you just think you can?

Can you actually tell me I even asked you that question?

You can teach this truth using lies, although don't think I mean directly. I can't truthfully tell anyone I AM, even though I know it, because they can't truly know it. And I can't truthfully tell them 'they are', because I can't truthfully know if they are.

You don't know "YOU ARE", you only think you do.

And no, I don't know they know that...but that doesn't matter, because the whole point of my doing this is to make my experience more enjoyable, regardless of whether they actually exist or not.

No, you don't know if your experience is being made more enjoyable. You don't even know if you think you do.

What, you think I don't know that I am?

No, you think that.

I don't, simply. What do you think the difference would be if there is?

How would I know that?

I'm not sure.

What is existence, Rust?

I'm not sure, what is non-existence, Obbe?

---

Thank you for the awesome conversation. Simply amazing; really deep and thoughtful and intelligent. Not stupid, worthless and full of shit at all.