A proof for the existence of God?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I contend that all things spring forth from God's Mind. So in that sense, everyone is a distinct perception of God's Mind. However, this does not make us truly 'separate'.
When your mood changes, or when you change as you become older, have you become a different person? Of course not - you've merely shifted your perception of reality.
In the same sense, I advocate that each one of us is a distinct shift of God's perception. The same Mind, but with another perspective. That is why 'we' are not truly 'separate'. We might be having different thoughts, but those thoughts are not emanating from/within different minds. Just One Mind.

Let me put it this way, if there is a heaven and a hell, just as with the reality of the "external world," we will be held accountable for who we are ... more so "the act" in this world, as opposed to "our intent" (which gives rise to the act) in the next. None of which can be accomplished though, unless we are "judged seperately" and on an individual basis.

While I also understand a "commonality of minds" does exist in the spiritual world, where in fact thoughts and experiences are "shared mutually" but, only to the extent that each shares a similar demeanor (thus accounting for the differences between heaven and hell, as well as the different societies in heaven, etc.). For anyone who's interested, there's Emanuel Swedenborg's work, Heaven and Hell, which is available through the http://www.swedenborg.com/" .

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It says in the Bible that we're all brothers and sisters, and yet that separation does exist.

Let me ask you this? How do you distinguish between one form and another, if in fact it didn't have an "exterior" as well as an interior? At the same time, how is it possible to put one form inside another? Say like a ball inside a box? In which case you have one external reality resting "within" another? Why can't it be any different with our minds and the mind of God?

On my website http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology (16 pages) you can find a mechanism or process that describes such infolding. It shows that physical reality exists, but also contains the original energy (which Lifegrazer calls the Mind). The reversible connection between sub-dimensions happens with a type of white holes/black holes which create a new dimension (by adding an extra layer). Connection to the original source can not be reached through the joints but by resonance (inter-vibrations through the layers of the new entity). This universal manifold is a mechanism showing how the paradoxical joint between body and spirit can be explained. Lifegrazer failure is that he wants to explain all without the existence of separated but still joined structures which have there own freedoms.

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showt...611&perpage=15&highlight=influx&pagenumber=2" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The truth of God is without, the whole material universe. The Essence of God is within. Whereas the truth is discerned, and the essence is to be experienced. So why do we go to such great lengths to uncover the truth, when we don't partake of the experience which gives birth to it? We seek the truth in "its effect," but we don't seek the Life which leads to it?

The Mystery of Life, is also the mystery of conception and birth.

Originally posted by Iacchus 32

Originally posted by Mentat
Iacchus32, what do you mean by "the truth of God is without, the whole material universe"?

The whole material world is evidence (the truth), of the mystery that lay within ..." I don't know, does that make sense? The mystery is the beginning (essence), which gives rise to the physical effect, what we otherwise call the truth (or form).

And just as we all have a body, which manifests itself externally (and notice the external layers of our skin are considered "dead"), there's also a living entity or soul within, which dictates to the body what to do.

So why can't we address the Universe in the same fashion? In terms of that which manifests itself outwardly, in the physical sense, and that which exists inwardly as a soul? (consisting of motive, reason, etc.). In other words does the Universe have a soul? If so, then would that be God?

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
IACCHUS 32: I believe the Universe is a living, conscious Entity whose natural forces tend toward ORDER. On the physical "plane" (for want of a better way to express it), matter (which is actually energy, as we "know") accretes due to natural spin and gravity. I believe similar forces are at work in the "non-physical" Universe...namely consciousness (and spirit, as well).

I believe there's a similarity between the two, except that the spiritual realm is more "fluid" and in a state of flux, otherwise it wouldn't be able to "abide" in the subconscious realm. Whereas from top to bottom, Heaven and Hell if you will (pardon me), there is a constant influx by which everything exists, both internally and externally.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The whole material world is evidence (the truth), of the mystery that lay within ..." I don't know, does that make sense? The mystery is the beginning (essence), which gives rise to the physical effect, what we otherwise call the truth (or form).

And just as we all have a body, which manifests itself externally (and notice the external layers of our skin are considered "dead"), there's also a living entity or soul within, which dictates to the body what to do.

So why can't we address the Universe in the same fashion? In terms of that which manifests itself outwardly, in the physical sense, and that which exists inwardly as a soul? (consisting of motive, reason, etc.). In other words does the Universe have a soul? If so, then would that be God?

I believe there's a similarity between the two, except that the spiritual realm is more "fluid" and in a state of flux, otherwise it wouldn't be able to "abide" in the subconscious realm. Whereas from top to bottom, Heaven and Hell if you will (pardon me), there is a constant influx by which everything exists, both internally and externally.

As for mind, the whole essence of the world is that in ultimate sense, there is just matter in eternal motion. A mind cannot think and can not refer to itself as "I" without the material world being existent. All that in essence mind is (that it can refer to itself as "I"), is a capacity or quality, which are ultimately based on matter itself. Matter can only think for and about itself in the form of a mind, but matter does not depend on the mind to exist.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
On my website http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology (16 pages) you can find a mechanism or process that describes such infolding. It shows that physical reality exists, but also contains the original energy (which Lifegrazer calls the Mind). The reversible connection between sub-dimensions happens with a type of white holes/black holes which create a new dimension (by adding an extra layer). Connection to the original source can not be reached through the joints but by resonance (inter-vibrations through the layers of the new entity). This universal manifold is a mechanism showing how the paradoxical joint between body and spirit can be explained. Lifegrazer failure is that he wants to explain all without the existence of separated but still joined structures which have there own freedoms.

This pelestration idea (I don't know if i can call it a scientific hypothese), do you think that it is fundamentaly a materialistic concept? (so far I guess it is).
What is your exact idea between the way matter and mind relate? Is mind in your opinion the highest form of material structure which is capable of relating to itself (having the essence of being able to refer to itself as "I")?

 

[heusdens]

Any conclusion we can make now regarding the hypothese of Lifegazer?

Is it reasonable to conclude that the world as such, as something independend of the mind, exists on it's own?
Is it reasonable to say that thinking as such in ultimate sense is based on material existence, and that thinking without being is an impossible concept?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I protest againt this. You just 'state' or 'assume' that we have knowledge about the things we perceive prior to perceiving them.
That isn't in the least true.

All sensations are subjective. Things like 'pain' are sensations which the Mind imposes upon concious-awareness via sensory-awareness. Hence; the Mind creates its own sensations.
But these sensations must mirror the 'order' which exists amongst the universe. Therefore, these sensations must be created to mirror this order. This requires knowledge of universal-order prior to creating the sensation of it.
Whenever the Mind becomes conciously aware of sensation, we can say without doubt that an aspect of that Mind already understands universal-order prior to imposing the sensations of this order upon sensory-awareness. I.e., the Mind has universal-knowledge before it acquires universal-sensation.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
All sensations are subjective. Things like 'pain' are sensations which the Mind imposes upon concious-awareness via sensory-awareness. Hence; the Mind creates its own sensations.
But these sensations must mirror the 'order' which exists amongst the universe. Therefore, these sensations must be created to mirror this order. This requires knowledge of universal-order prior to creating the sensation of it.
Whenever the Mind becomes conciously aware of sensation, we can say without doubt that an aspect of that Mind already understands universal-order prior to imposing the sensations of this order upon sensory-awareness. I.e., the Mind has universal-knowledge before it acquires universal-sensation.

It might be small and acceptable leap to you, but where did you proof the existence of that Mind? This you haven't prooved to us in the least. Further I think we should discuss the development of sensory organs on known facts from biology and evolution theory. It is non-sensical to talk about the feelings and perceptions of that, without stating their material origin. Guesses as to what the mind of God might or might not be, are just guesses, and not something solid.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
It might be small and acceptable leap to you, but where did you proof the existence of that Mind? This you haven't prooved to us in the least.

The existence of the Mind as a creatively-free entity with prior-knowledge of universal-order, is certainly true. If it wasn't, then sensory-awareness would not be possible, since sensory-creation could not happen.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heusdens
This pelestration idea (I don't know if i can call it a scientific hypothese), do you think that it is fundamentaly a materialistic concept? (so far I guess it is).
What is your exact idea between the way matter and mind relate? Is mind in your opinion the highest form of material structure which is capable of relating to itself (having the essence of being able to refer to itself as "I")?

For sure it's not an idealistic approach. You can say it is indeed a materialistic concept since it describes a type of omnivalent mechanism, but its object is omnivalent

From our daily reality we know that we have a body, a house ... we know that we can travel ... and that we can calculate our position by GPS on earth. We measure events, calculate how we send people to the Moon and build the machines to put them there, we photograph nano-tubes, we can measure pain-levels with electrical systems, we know (starting to know) how endorphines works, ... etc. That is a tangible level, we can have a tactile contact with a number of things and we can locate them by coordinates. Observation of this level brings us 'repeatable' knowledge, and facts.

Next to that level we have what we call the meta-physical level including all kinds of un-proven events (because we have not yet the measure devices) and un-provable events (since they pass our measurement level).

Now the first class can be de-mystified when we progress in measurement systems. There will be probably a number of the so called pseudo-science proven from the moment we can measure them.
The measuring of this level is for the moment only a type of personal "experience", thus colored by the limits of the human structure and the semantic limits to express these experiences. Having such as experience is not provable (and is not transmittable), thus is accepted or rejected by the others. Proving (or indications of proof) can be indirect by the results (cfr. PSI clairvoyance like Hurko (famous 30 years ago) specialized in finding corps of missing murdered people).

The un-provable events are related to believes and the (in general) only way to have information about them goes over 'revelations', 'insights', etc. These revelations don't have to be put into the scam box
Religions can be situated here since most of them are based on holy revelations, described and written in holy books.

This dichotomy of our world provokes extreme points of view in philosophy, forums, etc.
There are "energetic" events in both worlds. Science today (cfr Michio Kaku) confirms that everything is vibration.
Different kind of vibrations occur on different levels, but they can interact or join action under certain conditions.

Originally posted by heusdens
What is your exact idea between the way matter and mind relate?

Matter and (lets call it) spirit are two presentations of the same. They only differ in level of re-structuring. Matter has more layers. But to the observer in the real world only the similar vibrating "products" are observed. When he observes through introspection "other information" it is by internal vibrations (from his internal structure).

Originally posted by heusdens
Is mind in your opinion the highest form of material structure which is capable of relating to itself (having the essence of being able to refer to itself as "I")?

I don't like the word mind. Consciousness is in essence the understanding that one ("I") is an isolated entity in reference to the surrounding world. Collective consciousness (CG Jung) and archetypes are probably stored in lower layers of each human. In dreams or meditation we can "feel" indirectly those other layers. Eventually, if you do mental exercises in the correct way you can willfull penetrate in those hidden layers of yourself.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm all ears. But if you come out with meaningless statements such as "A bus will kill you."; or "Physics works."; then you obviously don't understand that these things can be true whether there is an external reality or not.

I already said what was wrong with it. You have been saying all this time that "all perception occurs in the mind" to "all reality exists in the mind". That is the illogical leap. And then the leap from "my mind" to "god's mind" is totally unwarranted.

My conclusion follows my whole argument; and I have enforced this argument with an analysis of external-reality, a few pages back.

But that's the whole problem--your conclusion does not follow from your argument. There is no valid deduction anywhere in your arguments.

I would appreciate your comments, but I think you need to step-up a gear from Heusden's approach.

LOL Your approach is not any different, really. You just take up the opposite point of view. Neither materialism nor idealism can be arrived at via logic alone. There has to be some other evidence. I think that materialism has it, and idealism doesn't.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The existence of the Mind as a creatively-free entity with prior-knowledge of universal-order, is certainly true. If it wasn't, then sensory-awareness would not be possible, since sensory-creation could not happen.

No, it is not "certainly true". Sensory awareness could be possible through entirely material processes, with no prior knowledge needed. Your reasoning here is every bit as ineffectual in proving your case as "getting hit by a bus" is for proving materialism.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
I already said what was wrong with it. You have been saying all this time that "all perception occurs in the mind" to "all reality exists in the mind". That is the illogical leap.

I remember that you agreed that all experience of existence is sensed. So, at this stage of the argument you can agree that reality is mindful - sensations + will; reason; emotion. Now; I acknowledge your point that this alone does not disprove an external-reality (to the mind). But the argument doesn't finish there.
The important aspects of the argument show two things:-
1. The Mind creates its own sensations.
2. The Mind already has universal-knowledge of events that it can then create sensations of. I.e., The Mind knows about things before it senses them - always. For example, if you were to create an animation of things that mirrored the laws of physics, then you would have to have knowledge-of-Law for all animation-effects that you portray in your animation. Knowledge precedes animated-effect.

In the case of human sensation; we can now say that our subconcious-Mind had the knowledge to create the universe which we ourselves are now coming to understand. We're talking about a seriously smart 'Mind' here. It's created the sensations which mirror the complex-order apparent within the Laws-of-Physics. In fact, it's created the whole of human history, through human knowledge - through human sensation. It's created our understanding of cosmology too. In fact, all of human knowledge has been gleaned through human-sensation. And therefore, what we know - it already knows.

Not only can it be shown that the Mind created everything which we sense; It can also show that The Mind has knowledge of everything we sense.
I think you should read my argument again.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I remember that you agreed that all experience of existence is sensed. So, at this stage of the argument you can agree that reality is mindful - sensations + will; reason; emotion. Now; I acknowledge your point that this alone does not disprove an external-reality (to the mind). But the argument doesn't finish there.
The important aspects of the argument show two things:-
1. The Mind creates its own sensations.
2. The Mind already has universal-knowledge of events that it can then create sensations of. I.e., The Mind knows about things before it senses them - always. For example, if you were to create an animation of things that mirrored the laws of physics, then you would have to have knowledge-of-Law for all animation-effects that you portray in your animation. Knowledge precedes animated-effect.

In the case of human sensation; we can now say that our subconcious-Mind had the knowledge to create the universe which we ourselves are now coming to understand. We're talking about a seriously smart 'Mind' here. It's created the sensations which mirror the complex-order apparent within the Laws-of-Physics. In fact, it's created the whole of human history, through human knowledge - through human sensation. It's created our understanding of cosmology too. In fact, all of human knowledge has been gleaned through human-sensation. And therefore, what we know - it already knows.

Not only can it be shown that the Mind created everything which we sense; It can also show that The Mind has knowledge of everything we sense.
I think you should read my argument again.

And yet you still fail to address my argument. This is what happened to my "Hurdles" thread - in the old PFs. I had to make another thread that said that I declared victory over your hypothesis, in order to get you to even look at my thread again, and even when you did, you didn't respond to the counter-arguments. That doesn't say a lot for the credibility of your idea.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I remember that you agreed that all experience of existence is sensed. So, at this stage of the argument you can agree that reality is mindful - sensations + will; reason; emotion.

No, I can't agree that reality is mindful. That was precisely my objection!

Now; I acknowledge your point that this alone does not disprove an external-reality (to the mind). But the argument doesn't finish there.
The important aspects of the argument show two things:-
1. The Mind creates its own sensations.
2. The Mind already has universal-knowledge of events that it can then create sensations of. I.e., The Mind knows about things before it senses them - always. For example, if you were to create an animation of things that mirrored the laws of physics, then you would have to have knowledge-of-Law for all animation-effects that you portray in your animation. Knowledge precedes animated-effect.

Two things:

First, there is no reason to suppose that the mind works like that, unless one assumes that the universe only exists in the mind. That makes the argument circular. I can tell you for certain that nowhere in my mind are the laws of physics stored, apart from my having studied them, of course. This part of the argument is pure supposition on your part.

Second, you seem to advocating some strange variant of solipsism here after all. Namely, that a universe exists within the mind of each person. There is no need to do that, either. Indeed, it even runs contrary to your ultimate point that god exists.

In the case of human sensation; we can now say that our subconcious-Mind had the knowledge to create the universe which we ourselves are now coming to understand.

What do you mean by 'subconscious mind', and why should one think that such a thing exists?

Not only can it be shown that the Mind created everything which we sense; It can also show that The Mind has knowledge of everything we sense.

Now, are you still talking about an individual human mind, or The Mind? You have taken to the confusing habit of capitalizing both of them.

I think you should read my argument again.

I read it. As everyone here has been telling you, it has a number of illogical leaps that you just don't seem to want to see.

 

[Mentat]

18 pages...

How much farther have we gotten? It's getting a little pointless, IMO. But, then again, my points have been ignored, so why shouldn't I think that the thread is going nowhere?

 

[CJames]

Originally posted by Fliption
Cjames my synopsis about 6 pages ago was very similar to this. But no oneresponded to it. I think I agreed with and had problems with the exact same points that you do.

But I still continue to disagree with the way Heusdens is presenting his case. He is basically disagreeing with number 3 even though he says "right" in response to it. There is no way to "know" the material world exists. Building evidence for it can only give you assurance to some percentage less than 100%. But there is no logical argument that will allow you to know this for sure.

Your comments in your last post are more of the same comments dealing with common sense notions and and evidence. None of this will give you knowledge of an external material world.

I'm sorry I missed your post Flipton, there were so many things being said I had to skim through some sections.

I agree, there is no way to know that the material world exists. My point is that the material world is in fact real, whether or not it exists external to us, because our sensations of it are real. Lifegazer would even agree with this. The reason I reject LG's hypothesis is because he claims to have proven the external world does not exist, while in fact he has not. I am not a materialist and am quite sick of being referred to as one. Somehow these discussions always end up being arguments with an "us verses them" mentality.

Take care. --Carter

 

[CJames]

Hello Lifegazer. I would very much appreciate it if you went over my step-by-step analysis of your first post on page 16. Thank you.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
There's a fatal flaw in your reasoning...
The Mind can only become aware of a sensation through having prior knowledge of what it is trying to represent as 'reality' (as sensation).

It is pointless to restate this premise. I already understand what you're saying. I'm pointing out that you have not proven this. The mind does not require prior knowledge of the universe to be capable of learning how to represent it. It must only have the ability to learn how to represent it. Knowledge of the material world is not necessary either for a material or "mindful" universe. If the mind is built to recognize patterns in sensory data, and it receives sensory data that is patterned, it will eventually recognize those patterns and gain the ability to represent them in an understandable way. This is a very simple concept.

Remember that our sensations must mirror the order inherent within the Laws of Physics. That is why sensation necessarily proceeds knowledge of the Mind which creates those sensations.

Did you state this backward?, because you are agreeing with me. The sensation comes before the understanding of it, as I said.

You cannot escape this obvious conclusion.
You infer that the Mind has 'learnt' about the external reality. But 'knowledge' is gleaned through the concious-reasoning of those sensations. It is 'our' knowledge.
And you should not be confusing the knowledge gleaned from concious-reasoning as a reflection of the knowledge required to create the very sensations which all living things do have.
You infer that knowledge proceeds sensory-awareness.

No, I do not. I infer that the ability to acquire knowledge proceeds sensory-awareness, and I am almost positive you agree with this. The "knowledge required to create the sensations" doesn't come until quite a while after birth. Pattern recognition is not knowledge, it's an ability.

Yet this is so obviously incorrect for the Mind as a whole. It only applies to conciousness within those sensations. It does not apply to the conciousness which has created those sensations.

It is impossible for you to prove that "the conciousness which has created those sensations" is creating them from scratch. You haven't done this, and you can't possibly do so. This subconscious part of the mind is subconscious and there is no way to figure out what it's thinking or doing via your own conscious mind.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
No, I can't agree that reality is mindful. That was precisely my objection!

Okay. Then experience of existence is via mind-ful attributes: sensation-upon-awareness; will; reason; emotion. That's an absolute-fact. This is our existence. How can you object to that? Are you not human?
Human existence is within the singularity of its own awareness. It is not sensing external-stimulae. It is sensing (and interacting) with internal stimulae.
Only our inner-existence can be confirmed. But like I said, the argument doesn't finish there.

Two things:

First, there is no reason to suppose that the mind works like that

Would you mind telling me how I feel 'pain'? You know yourself that an aspect of the mind must create this sensation (even if the data is external). Having knowledge that my hand is in the fire is one thing. But that pain thing is something else. You must see that?
Therefore, the fact that the Mind creates its very own sensations is beyond dispute. And if it does this; then it must have knowledge of what it is creating, prior to creating it. And this applies to all sensations.

unless one assumes that the universe only exists in the mind. That makes the argument circular.

I've not assumed anything. Our experience of existence is mind-ful, as explained above. And the fact that the Mind creates its own sensations is true, regardless. Call it the brain if you like; but the fact is that there cannot be sensory-experience unless the brain creates ~a sensory-portrait~ of existence (even as a response to external data). There needs to be a Knowledgable Artist, even in the brain!

Second, you seem to advocating some strange variant of solipsism here after all.

I'm clueless as to what my philosophy represents in established opinion. I'll take your word for it.

Namely, that a universe exists within the mind of each person. There is no need to do that, either. Indeed, it even runs contrary to your ultimate point that god exists.

My philosophy is that a universe exists (singular), within the many shifting-perspectives of One Mind.

What do you mean by 'subconscious mind', and why should one think that such a thing exists?

Do 'you' know how the sensations were created? No. Are 'you' not the awareness of the sensory-experiences you have had? Yes.
When The Mind creates sensation, it also creates 'you'. Or rather, it creates the idea of 'you'. The perception of 'you'.
But clearly, 'you' are not It. There is an aspect of your Mind which has created the existence which you have. It is rightly called the subconcious... since few, if any of us, have ever become aware of it.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My point was valid. The conclusion of my philosophy is one which might be rejected through fear alone. That would be criminal.

My point was that this sort of statement is only made by someone who "knows" he is right. Prior to an acceptance by others, this implies a feeling of faith in one's own theory, and this is never reasonable. You cannot approach a discussion from this standpoint, from which you are unwilling to compromise. The only thing that this road aims for it is a preach. And this has no place in what is reasonable.


Let's just list the points you need to address, to make this clearer.

1. You must PROVE that sensations are purely of the mind. This cannot be self-concluded and used as the basis of an argument.

2. You must PROVE that there is no logical conflict between the perceived objective infallibility of "reason" and the idea of a subjective reality of perspectives. Ie. you must validate your method itself.

3. You must PROVE that external reality cannot co-exist outside of a reality mind, and outside the domain of mindful reason.

4. You must PROVE that perception of reality is equivalent to reality itself. Ie. what is not perceived cannot exist.

5. You must PROVE that external reality does not exist, as well as the assumptions that led up to this. Eg. uniform fabric of reality, uniform = indivisible etc. You must PROVE that mindful reality is not also excluded by this argument.

6. You must PROVE that similarities between mind implies the existence of a "One Mind", and not a matter of a reflection of your mind with your senses.

7. You must PROVE that all minds are real.

There may be others...
Until you PROVE all of the above, your argument does not constitute a proof of god, merely a statement of possibilities. You point is hence invalid.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Okay. Then experience of existence is via mind-ful attributes: sensation-upon-awareness; will; reason; emotion. That's an absolute-fact. This is our existence. How can you object to that? Are you not human?

You are still equating "experience of existence" with "existence", and it is still unjustified. There is nothing in my experiences that rules out the possibility that my existence can still be a body of flesh and bone walking around a mechanical universe.

Human existence is within the singularity of its own awareness. It is not sensing external-stimulae. It is sensing (and interacting) with internal stimulae.

*yawn* Same old assumption, and still no proof.

Would you mind telling me how I feel 'pain'? You know yourself that an aspect of the mind must create this sensation (even if the data is external). Having knowledge that my hand is in the fire is one thing. But that pain thing is something else. You must see that?
Therefore, the fact that the Mind creates its very own sensations is beyond dispute. And if it does this; then it must have knowledge of what it is creating, prior to creating it. And this applies to all sensations.

Again, there is no logical reason why the knowledge must be there. That is an assertion on your part. I don't know how you feel pain, but I do know that this argument has holes in it. I'm skipping over the part about the "Knowledgeable Artist", because I have the exact same objection to that.

I'm clueless as to what my philosophy represents in established opinion. I'll take your word for it.

You mean you're clueless about it after Fliption, heusdens and I went over it in such great detail in this very thread? I guess Mentat was right--you aren't reading other people's posts.

In short, rejecting solipsism is a necessary step to even arriving at the decision of whether or not to argue about god. The fact that you are still clinging to solipsist notions here makes your argument look all the more incoherent.

My philosophy is that a universe exists (singular), within the many shifting-perspectives of One Mind.

Oh, I know the punch line, believe me. It's just that there is no reason to think that it is "The Truth".

Do 'you' know how the sensations were created? No. Are 'you' not the awareness of the sensory-experiences you have had? Yes.
When The Mind creates sensation, it also creates 'you'. Or rather, it creates the idea of 'you'. The perception of 'you'.

I do think that my personal identity comes from the interconnectedness of my thoughts, but I still don't see why I can't also have a material body, nor do I see why a material brain is not the thing that allows those thoughts to transpire.

But clearly, 'you' are not It. There is an aspect of your Mind which has created the existence which you have. It is rightly called the subconcious... since few, if any of us, have ever become aware of it.

I still don't see any reason to accept that I have a subconscious, nor do I see any reason to accept that it contains any universal knowledge. For all your verbosity, at the end of the day a material brain receiving data from a material universe is still a viable option.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Okay. Then experience of existence is via mind-ful attributes: sensation-upon-awareness; will; reason; emotion. That's an absolute-fact. This is our existence. How can you object to that? Are you not human?

This is our awareness of existence. This is not neccessarily our existence in entirity. Experience does not equal reality. You have not shown this. Whether one is human cannot eliminate this logical fallacy.

Human existence is within the singularity of its own awareness. It is not sensing external-stimulae. It is sensing (and interacting) with internal stimulae.
Only our inner-existence can be confirmed. But like I said, the argument doesn't finish there.

But no outer existence cannot be confirmed either. You have asserted we are not sensing external-stimulae invalidly. You cannot assume that internal stimuli does not have an external source.

Would you mind telling me how I feel 'pain'? You know yourself that an aspect of the mind must create this sensation (even if the data is external). Having knowledge that my hand is in the fire is one thing. But that pain thing is something else. You must see that?
Therefore, the fact that the Mind creates its very own sensations is beyond dispute. And if it does this; then it must have knowledge of what it is creating, prior to creating it. And this applies to all sensations.

The data is external. Precisely. You have not justified your assertion that sensations are entirely mindful. It is easy to see that the pain comes as a cause of the electrical impulses from your arm, and the far older external data evolved as a reaction to injury over the ages. The pain is not a phantom, but shares an essential real component. Eliminate the impulses, and you eliminate the pain. This can be easily argued that pain is in essence entirely material, wrapped in a package of emotional interpretation. The data is not created, but transformed. Your idea of the requirement of prior knowledge can be easy used as the need for an external basis to all sensation. You have not proven that the opposite is neccessarily true.
And this applies to all sensations.
And to use the fire, you in fact react to the fire WITHOUT a conscious response. You move your hand away automatically without knowledge of the sensation. This is a direct application of reality directly to reality without perception. In your philosophy, this reaction is entirely illusionary. The heat does not feature in your existence. The motion does not feature in your existence.

I've not assumed anything. Our experience of existence is mind-ful, as explained above. And the fact that the Mind creates its own sensations is true, regardless. Call it the brain if you like; but the fact is that there cannot be sensory-experience unless the brain creates ~a sensory-portrait~ of existence (even as a response to external data). There needs to be a Knowledgable Artist, even in the brain!

You have, right there. You have assumed that experience of existence is equivalent to existence itself. Even the artist needs data. You have not given proof for the necessary originality of the mind.

I'm clueless as to what my philosophy represents in established opinion. I'll take your word for it.

My philosophy is that a universe exists (singular), within the many shifting-perspectives of One Mind.

That is solipsism, which you make equivalent absolutely to external reality by making the mind boundless. the mind is a fudge factor.

Do 'you' know how the sensations were created? No. Are 'you' not the awareness of the sensory-experiences you have had? Yes.
When The Mind creates sensation, it also creates 'you'. Or rather, it creates the idea of 'you'. The perception of 'you'.

Do you know? You don't. So no proof lies in this thread.

But clearly, 'you' are not It. There is an aspect of your Mind which has created the existence which you have. It is rightly called the subconcious... since few, if any of us, have ever become aware of it.

By definition, the subconscious mind exists outside of perception. It is not a matter that few people perceive it. It is a scientific division between what is of the mind, and what carries functions over and around the mind. By your philosophy, this does not exist.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The existence of the Mind as a creatively-free entity with prior-knowledge of universal-order, is certainly true. If it wasn't, then sensory-awareness would not be possible, since sensory-creation could not happen.

Where did you proof the existence of this Mind? Don't go around the real issue of this thread. All you did was trying to convince us of there not being really an outside world, etc. Which I sufficiently prooved to be a non-sensical conclusion, which was based on arbitrary assumptions and wrong judgements.

Did you read my post on why there really is a world in 'The Fundamentel Question' thread?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
You are still equating "experience of existence" with "existence", and it is still unjustified.

Our experience of existence is the basis of our knowledge of existence. For humanity, the experience of existence is the only thing we can actually confirm. From a rational point-of-view, all knowledge is derived from the 'experience of existence'.
Consequently, any philosophical argument which seeks to support materialism or Idealism, must be founded upon this fact.

There is nothing in my experiences that rules out the possibility that my existence can still be a body of flesh and bone walking around a mechanical universe.

There is my argument. And that emanates from human experience. And that is built upon the above-confirmed fact. There was also that other argument I gave, which directly-assaulted the credibility of an external-realm.

You mean you're clueless about it after Fliption, heusdens and I went over it in such great detail in this very thread? I guess Mentat was right--you aren't reading other people's posts.

Why should I be interested in reading about Solipsism? I'm presenting my own philosophy. I take no responsibility for whatever 'they' might be saying; and I make no excuse for making any diversification away from their wisdom. I don't really care what 'they' say, to be honest. My argument is my own. It is wrong for anyone to classify me as a 'whatever', and then to judge my philosophy by the standards of past-whateverers.
You can label me what you like. I was called a 'mystic' by Boulderhead. Wuli calls me a panantheist (sp?), I think. It doesn't matter to me what you label me. It just matters to yourself, apparently. Why should that be?

I do think that my personal identity comes from the interconnectedness of my thoughts, but I still don't see why I can't also have a material body, nor do I see why a material brain is not the thing that allows those thoughts to transpire.

The sensations are not the same as the data. 'Pain' clearly illustrates this. Hence, 'pain' is created in the Mind (even as a response to external-data). Hence, The Mind (or even the brain) would need to understand that data, or even already have knowledge of reality, prior to creating the mirroring-sensation. Either way, the brain/Mind needs to understand the universe on a level depicted within the sensations which it creates. How, for example, could the brain/Mind create the sensations which 'we' all have, unless that brain/Mind already comprehends the universe to a level depicted within those sensations?
A monkey has ears. If we tell it a joke, will it laugh? Of course not. But why not? - Because the monkey doesn't understand the joke. Therefore, there is no laughter.
Similarly, there can be no sensation without prior understanding.

I still don't see any reason to accept that I have a subconscious,

The brain/Mind performs many functions. You are not aware of any of them. Or at least, you are not aware of how the brain/Mind performs these functions. The subconscious is also an integral-aspect of psychology, and of other such practises. The subconscious is under close scrutiny in regards to the 'placebo effect'. The subconscious is
what hynotists utilise to make their own livings. The subconscious is what you slide towards in sleep, wandering through bizarre dreams created by It, in response to your emotional-state.
The subconscious is not some bizarre religious-type character. It is integral to our understanding of the Mind as a whole. It is a scientific term. Your reluctance to accept it doesn't do much for the science which you would have us believe is the road to truth. Does it?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Our experience of existence is the basis of our knowledge of existence. For humanity, the experience of existence is the only thing we can actually confirm. From a rational point-of-view, all knowledge is derived from the 'experience of existence'.
Consequently, any philosophical argument which seeks to support materialism or Idealism, must be founded upon this fact.

Well, there is some progress anyway. You have at least stopped saying that "inner experience of existence" implies "inner existence".

There is my argument. And that emanates from human experience. And that is built upon the above-confirmed fact. There was also that other argument I gave, which directly-assaulted the credibility of an external-realm.

But neither of those arguments proved or disproved anything. There is still no reason to think that "mindful experience of existence" implies "mindful existence". You seem to have softened your stance on that above, but I still think that is your ultimate conclusion.

Why should I be interested in reading about Solipsism? I'm presenting my own philosophy. I take no responsibility for whatever 'they' might be saying; and I make no excuse for making any diversification away from their wisdom. I don't really care what 'they' say, to be honest. My argument is my own. It is wrong for anyone to classify me as a 'whatever', and then to judge my philosophy by the standards of past-whateverers.

So now you admit it--you are ignoring other people's points.

This is exactly why having any conversation with you is like dragging a dead elephant around. You are so resistant to learning new things, that it makes it impossible to refer to other concepts which have bearing on your own ideas. "Solipsist" is not just a label, it means something, and we explored that earlier in the thread.

The sensations are not the same as the data. 'Pain' clearly illustrates this. Hence, 'pain' is created in the Mind (even as a response to external-data). Hence, The Mind (or even the brain) would need to understand that data, or even already have knowledge of reality, prior to creating the mirroring-sensation. Either way, the brain/Mind needs to understand the universe on a level depicted within the sensations which it creates. How, for example, could the brain/Mind create the sensations which 'we' all have, unless that brain/Mind already comprehends the universe to a level depicted within those sensations?

That's an easy one: It could be that the mind is all hardware, and the similarity in the hardware is responsible for the similarity of the experience. You're still just asserting here.

A monkey has ears. If we tell it a joke, will it laugh? Of course not. But why not? - Because the monkey doesn't understand the joke. Therefore, there is no laughter.
Similarly, there can be no sensation without prior understanding.

That's way to simple minded. The complete system of hardware includes the brain. You should know better than that.

Your reluctance to accept it (edit: the subconscious) doesn't do much for the science which you would have us believe is the road to truth. Does it?

That's not it, really. I don't know anything about the subconscious. If I did, I wouldn't be asking you what it is. But I did ask you what you mean by it. I think I know now.

 

[Lifegazer]

I cannot believe that there are members within this forum who don't have the intelligence to realize that a representational-portrayal (through the creation of sensation) of a reality, cannot happen
unless the Creator of said-sensation(s) has a prior understanding of the reality it is supposed to be representing via sensation.

If we bombard a rock with photons reflected off a specific object (a tree, for example), then you can bet your lives that the rock won't be experiencing the sensations we have of 'a tree' until something within that rock understands exactly what those photons are telling it. Whether the rock ever has the sensory-experiences of that tree is dependent upon it having an understanding of the universe to such a degree that it can actually ~paint an image of a tree, upon awareness~ through the knowledge which it has prior to doing so.
And without this knowledge/understanding, the rock can never create the sensations.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I cannot believe that there are members within this forum who don't have the intelligence to realize that a representational-portrayal (through the creation of sensation) of a reality, cannot happen
unless the Creator of said-sensation(s) has a prior understanding of the reality it is supposed to be representing via sensation.

This is the kind of nonsense that will get this thread locked. LG, you are absolutely the last member here who should be impugning anyone's intelligence. In fact, you have looked like a complete dimwit over the last 18 pages (I should say 18 months!), still having failed to grasp the concept of deductive validity.

If we bombard a rock with photons reflected off a specific object (a tree, for example), then you can bet your lives that the rock won't be experiencing the sensations we have of 'a tree' until something within that rock understands exactly what those photons are telling it. Whether the rock ever has the sensory-experiences of that tree is dependent upon it having an understanding of the universe to such a degree that it can actually ~paint an image of a tree, upon awareness~ through the knowledge which it has prior to doing so.
And without this knowledge/understanding, the rock can never create the sensations.

And there is an alternative explanation:

The rock does not have those experiences because it does not have a nervous system. I just pointed that alternative out in my last post, and we have all been pointing it out throughout this entire thread.

Get a clue.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
So now you admit it--you are ignoring other people's points.

I ignore people who want to bracket my philosophy, and then judge it within those brackets. My philosophy is unique to me. I have not learned it from any other 'sect'... whether solipsism, mysticism, or panantheism.
When you make judgements about Solipsism, it doesn't affect my argument because I do not classify myself as a solipsist. That's why I disregarded all such conversation.
I'll deal with the rest of your post later.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I ignore people who want to bracket my philosophy, and then judge it within those brackets. My philosophy is unique to me. I have not learned it from any other 'sect'... whether solipsism, mysticism, or panantheism.
When you make judgements about Solipsism, it doesn't affect my argument because I do not classify myself as a solipsist. That's why I disregarded all such conversation.
I'll deal with the rest of your post later.

This is a total cop out.

It does not matter that you did not learn your ideas from anyone. The point is that your ideas are solipsistic, and they do in fact share the problems of solipsism.

Would you have listened if I had not used the word "solipsism"?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
If you have little time to think, and your life is in danger, what do you think you will do? Our brains are built to deal with that, and don't need 100% certainty. Now the study of the biological organism will tell you that everywhere in nature you will find behaviour that absolute shows that organism behave acoording to their senses and according to the assumption that there is an external reality.

And for supplying even more reasons. Suppose that some biological species would appear, that would not apply this logic/reason and subsequent behaviour that there is an external reality according to their senses. It would not take long for such a species to go extinct. This is true for humans too of course. No matter how consequent an Idealist is in his thinking, he will still take care not to be droven over by a bus.

Your just doing the same thing here. Your using common sense notions about how you believe things work in the external reality to then prove the external reality. This is just not good philosophy. The truth is, that you cannot know what will happen when you get driven over by a bus until it actually happens. To assume your fate would be similar to what you have observed happens to other people assumes that those other people exists to begin with! You wouldn't expect this same thing to happen to you if you were the only mind that existed would you? No matter how hard you try, you will always end up assuming your conclusion on this.

You are going about this the wrong way. You should pick LG's idea apart because he hasn't proven his case. By trying to prove the opposite view, your task is just as difficult. I contend it is impossible.

 

[quantumdude]

Fliption,

I left a post for you in Heusdens' thread ("Proof Against LG's Theory") asking basically: What exactly would you accept as good philosophy?

It seems to me that you would only accept solipsism, and that no inductive logic is allowed at all. If so, then you are always going to be thinking "That is just not good philosophy," no matter who writes what.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
Fliption,

I left a post for you in Heusdens' thread ("Proof Against LG's Theory") asking basically: What exactly would you accept as good philosophy?

It seems to me that you would only accept solipsism, and that no inductive logic is allowed at all. If so, then you are always going to be thinking "That is just not good philosophy," no matter who writes what.

Ok Tom. How many times have you in the past allowed LifeGazer to stray from logic IN ANY WAY to come to his conclusions? How can we hold him to strict logical standards but allow Heusden so much freedom? BTW, I am certainly not saying that solipsism is all that's acceptable. I am claiming that you cannot know what the truth is either way. I have some issues with LG's argument as well. My point to Heusdens has been that it would be much easier to show that LG hasn't proven his case logically, then it is to try to prove the opposite view. He cannot do this in a satisifactory way and there are much more glaring issues with LG's points. He doesn't even need to do this.

And your example of someone manipulating their world with their mind would not be sufficient proof that one lives in the Matrix. You would first have to rule out that such a thing is not possible in a material universe. (Some people believe that it is!) Or I can argue that a mindful world which invokes order consistently with a law of physics wouldn't allow this sort of manipulation unless it too had a lawful explanation.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Fliption
Ok Tom. How many times have you in the past allowed LifeGazer to stray from logic IN ANY WAY to come to his conclusions? How can we hold him to strict logical standards but allow Heusden so much freedom?

You're missing a fundamental point here though:

LG claims that he has proven his conclusions, which entails that the negation of his conclusions must be false. That requires absolute adherence to deductive logic from self-evident premises. Heusdens, on the other hand, has repeatedly acknowledged that no philosophical stance can be proven absolutely.

If LG would stop insisting that his conclusion is anything more than a mere possibility, I would stop hassling him (except when he goes loopy with scientific theories, in which case I have to step in not as "Tom", but as "PF Mentor").

BTW, I am certainly not saying that solipsism is all that's acceptable. I am claiming that you cannot know what the truth is either way.

I agree with that.

I have some issues with LG's argument as well. My point to Heusdens has been that it would be much easier to show that LG hasn't proven his case logically, then it is to try to prove the opposite view. He cannot do this in a satisifactory way and there are much more glaring issues with LG's points. He doesn't even need to do this.

That is an equally frustrating route as LG has no recognition of--and sees no need for--logic. If you get the PF v2.0 archives, you will find many instances of people pointing out both formal and informal errors to LG, only to have him shrug it off. This is especially frustrating when LG constantly demands that we address his "logic".

I can completely understand Heusdens' impulse to say, "to hell with it" and try to argue the materialist case. He may not prove it, but he can at least show that an alternative explanation exists, which would show that LG's argument is not valid.

And your example of someone manipulating their world with their mind would not be sufficient proof that one lives in the Matrix. You would first have to rule out that such a thing is not possible in a material universe. (Some people believe that it is!)

It isn't possible in a material universe. Of course, I say that as the conclusion of an inductive argument, which brings me to my other question: Do you accept inductive logic?

Or I can argue that a mindful world which invokes order consistently with a law of physics wouldn't allow this sort of manipulation unless it too had a lawful explanation.

I don't think that would matter, as the mere occurance of it would have no explanation in a material universe.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
You're missing a fundamental point here though:

Heusdens, on the other hand, has repeatedly acknowledged that no philosophical stance can be proven absolutely.

Well Tom then it seems you and I are not so far apart. But you would be right that I have missed one fundamental part. This statement you make about Heusdens has not been my observation at all. I've seen nothing but absolute statements about what is true and what is false from him/her. If I have misunderstood, then I'll bow out with Heusdens because this is my only objection.

That is an equally frustrating route as LG has no recognition of--and sees no need for--logic. If you get the PF v2.0 archives, you will find many instances of people pointing out both formal and informal errors to LG, only to have him shrug it off. This is especially frustrating when LG constantly demands that we address his "logic".

I can completely understand Heusdens' impulse to say, "to hell with it" and try to argue the materialist case. He may not prove it, but he can at least show that an alternative explanation exists, which would show that LG's argument is not valid.

I never understood why you guys don't just ignore him then. If it truly is not worth discussion due to this apparent hard headedness then why don't people just ignore the threads? This would be a much better tactic then to commit the same crimes by trying to prove the opposite view.

It isn't possible in a material universe. Of course, I say that as the conclusion of an inductive argument, which brings me to my other question: Do you accept inductive logic?

Well that's a very open ended question. It depends on what it's being used for. Is it a way to perhaps advance our understanding of how things work? Yes. I think so. Will it give you 100% certain knowledge? No. The conclusions you make inductively could change given more evidence as the years go by. Many conclusions achieved inductively have changed over the years. You cannot be certain that your current inductive conclusions will not also be shown to be false. In fact, one of the few things we can be certain about, is that some of them most definitely will be.

From my perspective, you may actually become 100% certain of how human anatomy works. But you can never be 100% certain that the external world really exists. But I thought we agreed on this and you are saying that apparently heusdens agrees with this as well.

I don't think that would matter, as the mere occurance of it would have no explanation in a material universe. [/B]

Here it is again. You're assuming the current world is all material (inductively I'm sure). No matter how you try to prove external reality, you have to invoke it in an assumption somewhere.

 

[Iacchus32]

What? The acknowledgment of truth is inborn? And hence the acknowledgment of God as well? You will "never" be able to prove the existence of God, to yourself or anyone else, unless you can get past this.

"Blessed art thou Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven ..."

How do you know 1 + 1 = 2? Wouldn't the obvious answer be because you can see that it's so? Does flesh and blood have to reveal it to you? (i.e., through the external senses). No.

This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is inborn. Knowlegde deals with dead "external facts."

If in fact God exists, then this cancels out everything which has been said so far.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What? The acknowledgment of truth is inborn? And hence the acknowledgment of God as well? You will "never" be able to prove the existence of God, to yourself or anyone else, unless you can get past this.

"Blessed art thou Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven ..."

How do you know 1 + 1 = 2? Wouldn't the obvious answer be because you can see that it's so? Does flesh and blood have to reveal it to you? (i.e., through the external senses). No.

This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is inborn. Knowlegde deals with dead "external facts."

If in fact God exists, then this cancels out everything which has been said so far.

Now why do I somehow sense this is the furthest thing from everyone's mind, to "prove the existence of God?" Could it be that we're all entrenched in our own views, and haven't the slightest inclination to go beyond what we've "formally" (i.e., formal = form = external) been taught?

What's the difference between the "established view" and an economic cash cow? Not much I suppose? There's a nice profit to be made for those who buy into it (or at least maintain a comfortable living), so long as "nobody" changes the way that it's "set up." Hmm... Now why would we want to do that?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Could it be that we're all entrenched in our own views, and haven't the slightest inclination to go beyond what we've "formally" (i.e., formal = form = external) been taught?

I think this is accurate about everybody else. But not me

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Fliption
I think this is accurate about everybody else. But not me

That's fair enough. It's just that everyone seems to want to argue about every single last detail, without giving any consideration to the real issue, Does God exist?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well Tom then it seems you and I are not so far apart. But you would be right that I have missed one fundamental part. This statement you make about Heusdens has not been my observation at all. I've seen nothing but absolute statements about what is true and what is false from him/her. If I have misunderstood, then I'll bow out with Heusdens because this is my only objection.

Since I have been mentioned here, and I seem to be the source of the confusion, let me try and explain the issue.

I think we can know, like materialism claims, the material world. No doubt about this. But our knowledge we have, is not and never will be absolute knowledge. The position of the other side is and always will be to proof then that there are things we do not know, and cannot know, and therefore we dont't have knowledge at all. This would leave us then just with thoughts, impressions, emotions, etc. but no real and profound knowledge.

I also used the analogy of the computer. Let us make the following steps. The brain and nerve system is the whole computer. The center of our awareness and ratio is the CPU. Knowledge translates into a capacity. Has the computer the capacity to open a Word document? Yes it has. But does the CPU have that capacity? No, all it can deal with are 32 bit words (either as data or operarands). What we define then the capacity of the computer to be, is dependend on our point of view. Does our knowledge reside in the total complexity of our whole system, or do we think it is just this center of awareness and ratio?
That is the crucial point.

We can not deny the fact that our whole system is able to know the material world. All our behaviour just shows and proofs that.
The other thing is wether we can know that from our center of awareness and ratio alone. The answer is probably no, at least not directly. There is one exclusion to this, we can bring our thinking and ratio and awareness in such a state in which it is is confronted with the fact that EITHER also the ratio and awaraness itself does not exist, OR it just has to assume that everything in the whole world, of which it does not has direct knowledge must exist.
(see tread 'The Fundamental Issue' and the thread 'Proog against lifegazers mind hypothese' the intermezzo part).

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
I think we can know, like materialism claims, the material world. No doubt about this. But our knowledge we have, is not and never will be absolute knowledge. The position of the other side is and always will be to proof then that there are things we do not know, and cannot know, and therefore we dont't have knowledge at all. This would leave us then just with thoughts, impressions, emotions, etc. but no real and profound knowledge.

Do you believe the acknowledgment of truth is inborn? If not, then you will "never" know anything. Period.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you believe the acknowledgment of truth is inborn? If not, then you will "never" know anything. Period.

We have the reasoning capacity to find the truth, and to acknowledge the truth, although truth is something relative. We are able to make a more comprehensible picture of reality, which becomes more and more like the truth, so every step we take will lead us further to the truth. This doesn't mean we may take sometimes mistakes, which lead us further away from truth, but we will find out that we made a mistake.
All I know is that we are able to find a relative better truth, but do not know about the truth in advance (that's why we have to find and research it). We do not always know what paths to take in advance, we may be on a path that leads to nowhere, but we can catch up for that, and take a road that will take us further.
From our past (in the last thousands of years) investigation, I do certainly have the impression that we are advancing and progressing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
All I know is that we are able to find a relative better truth, but do not know about the truth in advance (that's why we have to find and research it). We do not always know what paths to take in advance, we may be on a path that leads to nowhere, but we can catch up for that, and take a road that will take us further.

Then what is intuition? if not some degree of foresight?

This I would deem comparable to the sun as it begins to rise (better qualify that by saying "appears to rise") and, while it may not have reached the horizon yet, there is evidence--i.e., "pre-knowledge"--that it will, by virtue of the light that precedes it. Perhaps something similar is going on inside our brains? Could that be what they mean by "flash of insight?"

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what is intuition? if not some degree of foresight?

This I would deem comparable to the sun as it begins to rise (better qualify that by saying "appears to rise") and, while it may not have reached the horizon yet, there is evidence--i.e., "pre-knowledge"--that it will, by virtue of the light that precedes it. Perhaps something similar is going on inside our brains? Could that be what they mean by "flash of insight?"

We have partly consciousnessly and partly unconsciously established a model of how reality works. From there one we can in a certain way use that "model" as a way of predicting things. Part of this is done subsconsciously, and therefore we can have in a flash a picture of the immediate or near future.

When I see someone in front of me, which a glas in his hands, and manipulating it in a such a way that I am almost certain it will faal, I can see in a "flash" the glass falling in thousands pieces on the ground, before it actually happens. This information of things about to occur, all happen on know information of how reality works, based on experience. Most of how this is done, is a hidden layer of consciousness. We would really turn mad if we knew how our brain performs all the numerous tasks it has to perform, for instance only walking is an immensely complex task, or speaking.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
When I see someone in front of me, which a glas in his hands, and manipulating it in a such a way that I am almost certain it will faal, I can see in a "flash" the glass falling in thousands pieces on the ground, before it actually happens. This information of things about to occur, all happen on know information of how reality works, based on experience. Most of how this is done, is a hidden layer of consciousness. We would really turn mad if we knew how our brain performs all the numerous tasks it has to perform, for instance only walking is an immensely complex task, or speaking.

Yeah, I've had this happen to me numerous times. For example if I was working on something or trying to get something done, and then out of the blue a thought would occur to me, well what if this (or whatever) happened? Which, I would pretty much ignore as it didn't seem all that much out of the ordinary, so I would keep working. But sure enough, only a moment later, there it was all over the floor.

While I eventually learned to acknowledge this, and whenever it occurred I would just stop, reassess what I was doing, and go back to work. And sure enough it went away or, had become incorporated in my "behavior pattern."

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Since I have been mentioned here, and I seem to be the source of the confusion, let me try and explain the issue.

I think we can know, like materialism claims, the material world. No doubt about this. But our knowledge we have, is not and never will be absolute knowledge.

Well If Tom read this post from Heusdens, I think he can see why there is so much confusion. I am still not clear on exactly what is being said. The first few words say "we can know" and then the sentence goes on to say that we cannot know for certain. I think we need to be real careful with the words know/knowledge. The way it's being used here is what I would call a belief. I will conceed that some beliefs are backed with much more evidence than others but it is a belief nonetheless. I associate the ability to know materialism with the ability to see your own eyeball with your very own eyes in real time. It cannot be done. As soon as you take your eyes out to look at them, you have nothing to see with.

The analogy with the computer/cpu and brain/awareness just loses me completely. It's just not this complicated. All knowledge must pass through awareness.

I'm beginning to think this is just a combination of semantics and personal taste on how views are presented with "spin". I'm not so sure I think any of it is relevant to the topic. We can critique LG's proof without having to "know" that materialism is correct.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well If Tom read this post from Heusdens, I think he can see why there is so much confusion. I am still not clear on exactly what is being said. The first few words say "we can know" and then the sentence goes on to say that we cannot know for certain. I think we need to be real careful with the words know/knowledge. The way it's being used here is what I would call a belief. I will conceed that some beliefs are backed with much more evidence than others but it is a belief nonetheless. I associate the ability to know materialism with the ability to see your own eyeball with your very own eyes in real time. It cannot be done. As soon as you take your eyes out to look at them, you have nothing to see with.

The analogy with the computer/cpu and brain/awareness just loses me completely. It's just not this complicated. All knowledge must pass through awareness.

I'm beginning to think this is just a combination of semantics and personal taste on how views are presented with "spin". I'm not so sure I think any of it is relevant to the topic. We can critique LG's proof without having to "know" that materialism is correct.

Well the most rigorous statement is that it's either Idealism or Materialism, either belief/religion or science. There is nothing into choose. Do you really think there is a material reality outside of your brain and independend of it, or not?

The other thing is if our knowledge ever can be or will be complete. Knowledge is proceeding through history.

 

[CJames]

I don't even know why I'm saying this, but could you respond to my posts on page 18?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well the most rigorous statement is that it's either Idealism or Materialism, either belief/religion or science[/color].

I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists.
Indeed, anybody who wants to formulate an argument for the existence of external reality, actually has to do it via the method I have used (page-8 I think, in my argument against the sense of an external reality), whereby the logic of motion and real-space is addressed. If it makes sense, then so would an external-reality. But as an external reality does not make sense (see the argument for details), I can actually conclude (myself) that there is no sense in an external reality.
Hence, I have reason for my own stance... and reason which destroys yours. Whereas you have no reason to destroy the Mind-reality. And you only have beliefs to defend materialism. That's right: beliefs.
My point is that there is nothing which you have said which constitutes a logical argument to support materialism. You either have to do that by the aforementioned method, above. Or you have to build an argument which starts exactly like mine. For, let's be clear about this:- a philosopher who doesn't realize that sensory-experience is the only means of confirming existence (apart from the mind-attributes of reason; will; emotion), can easily start to convince his audience that existence is so-much-more than "sensory-experience".
They'll tell us things like existence is external, because things are interacting independently of 'my' mind. But they're not acting independently to the mind - because they're happening directly within your awareness!
I absolutely-declare that there's not one single statement that can be made for the defense of materialism, which cannot be shown to be a mistake. Tom made the same mistake too, when he said that science takes us outside of our heads. You thought that getting killed by a bus was some sort of proof. Somebody mentioned that "sceince works".
But so what? Science works upon data obtained from the senses. Science is the reason of sensation. Science is an inner-practise. A practise of the mind. Or rather, a practise of reason upon the sensations we are having.
Everything which you have said is meaningless. Simply because everything you have said is a mistake. It doesn't validate material-reality; no more than the three examples I gave, above, did either.
I an not BSing anyone here. We only have an inner-reality. It's the only thing which can be confirmed by reason.
And from this fact, my argument did proceed. Please address it. Let's forget this defending of materialism nonsense. Because there is no justification for an external reality. None whatsoever.

 

[FZ+]

Indeed, anybody who wants to formulate an argument for the existence of external reality, actually has to do it via the method I have used (page-8 I think, in my argument against the sense of an external reality), whereby the logic of motion and real-space is addressed.

Also notice the pages after that post which fully refute it. I don't see anything more in this than beliefs. No proof. Your accusations are getting off topic...

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
The mind does not require prior knowledge of the universe to be capable of learning how to represent it. It must only have the ability to learn how to represent it.

What? How does the Mind *learn* ~how to paint portraits~? There is nothing in the universe which can tell the Mind how to create 'pain', for example. The Mind cannot be 'taught' how to create sensations. It just knows these things. No thing has taught It these things.
It's impossible to 'learn' how to create sensation when there's nothing in the world (except the Mind) which can do such things. Think about it carefully please, this time.
Creating sensation is a 'function' which cannot be learned. This is a fact, since there's nothing to learn these things from.

Now, please read the argument again.