Atheism

[DarkAngel_]

You say what is known to be? Are you certain? WIP claims it all may be a delusion.

yes, that which i am certain is clear, the air i breath is air... that's basic logic. and as what can be found is found and that which is not is believed, which can be used for overcoming what is human? becoming more. even if you say these things are not true i ask you to try to find them, then to disprove them... only a scientist can disprove a scientist not class or job wise but from the very heart! and these truths will make people who do not ask and quest learn that when one holds there breath... you will soon learn you must breath.

Then you agree, knowledge is indeed just information.

of course but i do not agree with the word 'just.' do you know how much power and ability information holds? it's the needle to the fabric!

The psychiatrist will lead you. He will tell you what's what. Never fear. He has knowledge. He has certainty. Who are you to him?

none of that is true, he is a tool, he has his intelligence, his being his individuality! why would he lead me? there is no point... there is only things he knows and a friendship as well. i suppose you may see that as holding onto the skirt of another so to speak... i can see that. but it is not true, please take my word on that.

Is that how many naps you have or is that after your meds?

kind of a stigmatic statement... lol. i'll be kind it is funny... but i know the process of my meds and it is something i need for some sanity. i'd like it if such puns where kept to ones self but i dont care, it is a question i am too sarcastic not to answer!

my answer: i sleep speratically, 4 hours, 12 hours, or none most nights... my meds do not cause sleepiness, they stabilize, balance, but i know not to what degree is the meds and which is me... (be sure no insults are under that thought of simple understatement's.) my mind is very level most days but i know when my tone changes, at least i can change it. and i do not nap for good sleep does not hint... a passionate mind... but a sublime one that always sloths and dares not change or go and get burnt to experiance what is hot if you get the metaphor. this is one way i am godless! god is a human shade... with no extremes.

i start from no knowledge to knowledge... mostly theories, most is not certain. what is? i do not need a god.

[DarkAngel_]

I can travel in time. I will prove it to you. You must close your eyes and count to ten upon which time you must open your eyes. You will find yourself approximately ten seconds in the future.

i've made the same point! you see, i'm not single minded i take things into account and use what is obvious as reference for finding... opening in disprovable fact and backgrounds where you would see a shadow of something you may not have see. i like the unknown but i tell people often, it is unknown! so stop claiming war on what is different because they claim it... others i just disagree with, they debate with me here in this forum, and the disciples of christ church, the college, and the MHC.

but your answers are not devoid, let me put light on it:

A)why does the universe bother existing?

So that there is something to do and a place to do it.

this is called the presence of now... that all of nothing has to come to something. it is a canceling term in mathematics that means any set of zero has a value that still exists... eliminate time and look at randomization in chaos; 1. it must be sensitive to initial conditions,

2. it must be topologically mixing, and

3. its periodic orbits must be dense.

separate that from all 3, you still have a state of condition's

too science like? then i will translate into this:

nothing cannot exist because it is to susceptible to becoming something... so the collision of nothing and everything that can ever be, not be, happen, not happen, and that which is beyond it causes that 'now.'

none of this is proven but is studied. let me say instead that even if there was nothing something must be... it's something beyond our current chemical process.

B)what mechanism is controlling these universal constants and laws?

You.

i can't control them believe me i've tried.

C)what is the soul? what can have a soul? why are they needed and where do they come from?

This is actually three questions and I don't know why you didn't itemize each one, unless you think it is a category?

the soul is a question right? well to me it is.

What is the soul?

Nothing. Think of it like a parallel universe of entirely different matter and energy and time than you are used to studying. It is so foreign to the physical universe that we know nothing of it. So it is nothing.

inter-dimensional... interesting... though this cannot be know i will count is as possible.

What can have a soul?

You mean, what can a soul be. Nothing has a soul. The soul can be whatever it considers it can be. Lao-tze once awoke from a sleep in which he was dreaming he was a butterfly. Upon awakening he did not know if he was the butterfly or his human form. He could consider himself both and did. Can you consider yourself an elctro-chemical process - already accomplished. Unfortunately, you don't wake up from that dream - Sorry.

that then means, the soul is the tie of all that exists, has existed and will exist, as well as everything that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist... uni-verse? Johannes Scotus Eriugena? ok i accept that. and lao-tze? i do not know his works well but he is said to be a grand philosopher of ancient china! i agree that one does not know ones form until they move and notice they are animated... but what does this mean for the soul? it is not known... but being one with a soul i know what i can be, i am a dreamer and i awake as i wish.

Why are they needed and where do they come from.

They are not needed. They just are. They have no origin, they are, they always have been and they always will be. Origin suggests time which is of this universe.

it needs no time, not everything exists in the 4 dimensions but a soul is mobile here... i ask why are we that soul. i say which part is it. your being a bit condescended in speaking like what cannot be seen... is. (though it can be.)

D)what are these 'immortals' in truth.

They are truth.

that is not an answer, tell me what they are, truth is too subjective and is only taken form me saying the word.

E)what is god?

Dog spelled backwards. I'll leave this one up to you.

i ask in earnest. what is god to you.

F)what after death?

Death is of this universe. You define immortality in terms of forever which suggests you are not able to abandon the concept of time. You are, you always have been, and you always will be. There is only now. You cannot prove a future or a past. You can only say there is one. Most will agree with you but it exists only subjectively in all our minds from all our perspectives. Try and prove it to one who claims there is no future or there is no past - the denyer. You would be hard pressed to present that evidence since all you could present was now. Bring me a rock from the past or the future. I don't believe you will find a person who will deny a past or a future but if you understand the point you will then understand the task the Atheist asks of the immortal. How can a rock have been in the past when there is only now. Can you please take me back in time to the rock. You say you can't then there is no past. Because we all subjectively agree to the concept of time the point seems moot. But I think it illustrates that matter cannot be proven to exist or to have existed at any other time than now or any other way than subjectively.

you misunderstand me, my point of view is useless but my questions grant insight and helps even you ask yourself by way of repetition of the statement.

evidence is not needed as proof but what is, must be understandable. facts cannot be plucked like an apple from a tree... they are high up and hard to reach... in metaphor all i can say is no ones legs are very long as to get the final word of everything and compare it to the beginning... this is a delusion.

Simply put - Life loses it's value. Under your concept it is only a process of electro-chemical activities. Nothing more. What are you harming if the necessity arises that some should need to die? It would be the concept that atheistic leaders would hold. You may not agree they would ever consider that, and only Religion would create that type of scenario, but necessity may make it an all too easy solution to divest society of those who oppose authority such as when the science of psychiatry was enlisted by Stalin the Atheist. Or the atheistic Scientist Rubin who sold Hitler on Eugenics and genetic purity - suggesting divesting society of all useless eaters and demented races such as the Jews. This is sciences contribution. It is the 20th century religion. The Priests of old religions only had their ancient writings and the King to grant them authority. It seems Science has become what it detested - the diviners of truth. Are they?

yes but humans do these things anyway... get it? it is not atheists but 'people' with an evil agenda for power.

therefor is false.

and any 'one' put under conditions can make a bad choose... it matters on morals... that is all.

By the way, I mentioned Mark McCutcheon and his theory of everything in his book the "The Final Theory" but you never acknowledged it. I am sure you have heard of it? Any comment on it?

i have not... a summary would help i love new things! which is why i am asking these questions.

[WIP]

You say what is known to be? Are you certain? WIP claims it all may be a delusion.

And so far, all I hear you doing is expressing your dislike for the concept of not being able to determine absolute certainty, even to others! I'm still waiting for your example of how you have determined absolute certainty.

[WIP]

nothing cannot exist because it is to susceptible to becoming something... so the collision of nothing and everything that can ever be, not be, happen, not happen, and that which is beyond it causes that 'now.'

none of this is proven but is studied. let me say instead that even if there was nothing something must be... it's something beyond our current chemical process.

How much of the presumption that "everything must have a cause" comes from our perspective on the world we deal with, where cause and effect relationships are simple and straightforward. We don't see things being created, but what are virtual particles, if not things that come from nothing, popping out of the fabric of space-time, annihilating each other, returning back to where they came from.

Do first cause arguments have any relevance with the way the universe really works when there are no cause and effect relationships in the interactions of subatomic particles? Every change of state comes with a list of probabilities, and whether it is the collapse of a wave function or all possible paths have been followed in alternate dimension, as in the Many Worlds interpretation, there still is no room for applying cause and effect rules, and if that can't be done, where do we find first causes?

[Pliny]

So that there is something to do and a place to do it.

this is called the presence of now... that all of nothing has to come to something. it is a canceling term in mathematics that means any set of zero has a value that still exists... eliminate time and look at randomization in chaos; 1. it must be sensitive to initial conditions,

2. it must be topologically mixing, and

3. its periodic orbits must be dense.

separate that from all 3, you still have a state of condition's

too science like? then i will translate into this:

nothing cannot exist because it is to susceptible to becoming something... so the collision of nothing and everything that can ever be, not be, happen, not happen, and that which is beyond it causes that 'now.'

I say it is nothing because it is not of this universe. That does not mean it is nothing. It must have properties.

"Eliminate time and look at randomization in chaos"

Time is defined as the measure of movement of objects. I believe the above statement you made means that if there is no time there is randomization in chaos. So if there is no movement of objects would there be no time?

There would be because time has one more property not contained in that definition.

i can't control them believe me i've tried.

Of course not. You are only an electro-chemical process.

Nothing. Think of it like a parallel universe of entirely different matter and energy and time than you are used to studying. It is so foreign to the physical universe that we know nothing of it. So it is nothing.

inter-dimensional... interesting... though this cannot be know i will count is as possible.

This appeals to you? I suppose as "The Matrix" would. The Matrix is I think accurate to a degree as a description of life but there is no way to portray the nothing so they are inclined to invent a metaphor, a something, as you state, since you cannot portray a nothing you must invent a something. A life pod was necessary to invent to portray a "nothing". The life pod contains a body where you are fed your perceptions and your reality is manufactured. Partly true, the lie in that concept is who manufactures your reality. Whatever it is from the viewpoint of the physical universe it has to be a something - perhaps an electro-chemical process. Unfortunately, you don't wake up from that dream.

that then means, the soul is the tie of all that exists, has existed and will exist, as well as everything that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist... uni-verse? Johannes Scotus Eriugena? ok i accept that. i agree that one does not know ones form until they move and notice they are animated... but what does this mean for the soul? it is not known... but being one with a soul i know what i can be, i am a dreamer and i awake as i wish.

You are a dreamer and you wake as you wish until the electro-chemical process discharges. It is a dream you never wake up from.

They are not needed. They just are. They have no origin, they are, they always have been and they always will be. Origin suggests time which is of this universe.

it needs no time, not everything exists in the 4 dimensions but a soul is mobile here... i ask why are we that soul. i say which part is it. your being a bit condescended in speaking like what cannot be seen... is. (though it can be.)

They are truth.

that is not an answer, tell me what they are, truth is too subjective and is only taken form me saying the word.

If the Universe is an illusion and perishable it is all a lie. The only thing that always is then, is truth.

i ask in earnest. what is god to you.

See above. When I am an electro-chemical process I stray from truth.

you misunderstand me, my point of view is useless but my questions grant insight and helps even you ask yourself by way of repetition of the statement.

evidence is not needed as proof but what is, must be understandable. facts cannot be plucked like an apple from a tree... they are high up and hard to reach... in metaphor all i can say is no ones legs are very long as to get the final word of everything and compare it to the beginning... this is a delusion.

Yes, it is a delusion.

yes but humans do these things anyway... get it? it is not atheists but 'people' with an evil agenda for power.

therefor is false.

and any 'one' put under conditions can make a bad choose... it matters on morals... that is all.

Organized religion as authority, government as authority, the centralization of power give people the opportunity to do evil. Therefore power must remain with each individual and never be arrogated to a collective.

Which is why I consider socialism so bad.

i have not... a summary would help i love new things! which is why i am asking these questions.

Google Mark McCutcheon. The Final Theory. It's interesting. Physicist's don't like it of course - Puts them off their game.

[Pliny]

And so far, all I hear you doing is expressing your dislike for the concept of not being able to determine absolute certainty, even to others! I'm still waiting for your example of how you have determined absolute certainty.

Simple. All the universe is a delusion, is it not? Determining that as true is above it and separate from it. The only thing separate from the physical universe is consciousness or awareness. Since you are an electro-chemical process though - you are perishable - a certain way to eliminate consciousness is to consider it a part of the delusion, i.e. a part of the physical universe. You are a part of the birth, life, death cycle if you consider you are something which is, by your understanding a delusion, you are then nothing but a delusion yourself. Say Goodbye to you.

And what if the physical universe were all there is and is not a delusion. Then you too would be real and would have to be a thing, something, anything. But you cannot find you so you consider yourself an electro-chemical process or a biological body without being able to prove how you are aware of this; or that anything exists that could have awareness- but if you are real under such circumstance then you are perishable. Say good bye to you.

Basically you have painted yourself into a corner where you must perish as reality dictates or when the delusion is considered to end. How you can be aware of this I don't know? What you will be aware of in the end is that you perished and are no more and you can even prove it to yourself by blowing in the wind or becoming part of the soil. You could be very aware of this but your properties would dictate you wouldn't be able to tell anyone. Ash/soil does not communicate.

You are not a part of the delusion or the reality whatever you may choose existence to be. It must be one or the other. You are aware of something and that is all you are - awareness. If you decide you are something else so be it - of that you shall be aware and certain.

The only thing I am entirely certain of is that I am aware of something and because I am aware of it I am not that something - be it a delusion or be it real.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Pliny

[DarkAngel_]

let me get this strait... nothing is real... nothing matters but to you! what is the point?

yes nihlistic... i think what a tree is, what dirt is, stars, space, and thus the romantics of worldliness... gifts a solitary meaning. why claim an illusion? why claim a truth? questions you must ask yourselves...

Pliny, your theory is intricate, it is very mind shaking... An illusion is a distortion... you in effect are then calling what is observable; the field of everything, distorted.

you are claiming then that what is underneath the observable is real but we are not due to our only known form of chemical interactions, balances, and processes. though a variably possible theory i would not validate it so readily...

these processes are not oriented to any misleading thing, they are states of which something is in... i see these as real tangible things and that beyond them are even more intricacies not the answer of 'the grand illusion.'

any depth to your theory still dampens christian, Buddhist, and atheist belief.

[Oleg Bach]

It is about law...there is nothing more irksome than some person using the line - "that is YOUR truth" - this is dellusionism...in law - IF I take a rock and drop it - it falls to the ground every time - that is a law..that is THE law..those that can not agree on this simplistic reality - are hopeless..if we as the human race can not decide in unison on the law than we are screwed - for instance - death is bad and life is good - that is the law...and those that say death is a natural and lawful occurance want us to be relegated to the importance of plants - we are more than mere grass. Politics is dellusional - Law is truth - and truth is reality - most are terrified of being cut from the delluded herd and will except dellusion because they are programmed to submit to man's political and religious deceptions. One must be able to stand and state - that something is good or some thing is not good...somethings are of goodness (God) and somethings are of nature - super nature or supernatural is the controling force over nature and human nature.

[Pliny]

let me get this strait... nothing is real... nothing matters but to you! what is the point?

Aren't you having fun?

yes nihlistic... i think what a tree is, what dirt is, stars, space, and thus the romantics of worldliness... gifts a solitary meaning. why claim an illusion? why claim a truth? questions you must ask yourselves...

Trees, dirt, stars, space, the romantics of worldliness...neat. Fun!

these processes are not oriented to any misleading thing, they are states of which something is in... i see these as real tangible things and that beyond them are even more intricacies not the answer of 'the grand illusion.'

See you are having fun. Me nihilistic.....yes...to you. Atheism is to me nihilistic

any depth to your theory still dampens christian, Buddhist, and atheist belief.

They all deal with life. Atheism makes life "matter". I suppose I could convince myself of that and become a true believer. But what purpose a rock?

[Oleg Bach]

Believe ! What does it cost you? The power of the mind and spirit is so strong that it maybe a good possiblity that you can gain immortality though belief - but some don't want salvation or eternal life - they hate life and are just doing their time - the idea that a God might prolong their hate and suffering might be disturbing to atheists...plus atheists get a sense of being better than believers - cos ' they don't need a God - some just don't and some don't mind oblivion...and some like to be unhappy..and insecure - If an atheist was secure he would not attempt to recruit - and if a religious person was happy - they would not be so pushy about saving the world....like I said - some don't want to be saved - so leave them alone.

[Pliny]

It is about law...there is nothing more irksome than some person using the line - "that is YOUR truth" - this is dellusionism...in law - IF I take a rock and drop it - it falls to the ground every time - that is a law..that is THE law..those that can not agree on this simplistic reality - are hopeless..if we as the human race can not decide in unison on the law than we are screwed - for instance - death is bad and life is good - that is the law...and those that say death is a natural and lawful occurance want us to be relegated to the importance of plants - we are more than mere grass. Politics is dellusional - Law is truth - and truth is reality - most are terrified of being cut from the delluded herd and will except dellusion because they are programmed to submit to man's political and religious deceptions. One must be able to stand and state - that something is good or some thing is not good...somethings are of goodness (God) and somethings are of nature - super nature or supernatural is the controling force over nature and human nature.

I don't remember if I mentioned to you the famous speech of Dr. Brock Chisholm, first president of the World Federation of Mental Health, in his address to the UN in 1948. Basically, behavioral scientists must determine what is right and wrong for the populace. They must tell people what the laws shall be.

It is true that most are terrified from being cut from the deluded herd. Politics and religion do not start out as deceptions but initially serve a good purpose - to unite and bind for collective strength and direction. This works fine until the individual is overwhelmed by the collective and unable to think or question, and instead of binding himself to the collective for strength and community on his own determinism, the collective binds him to it's laws and exalts it's power.

[Pliny]

Delete - double post.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Pliny

[DarkAngel_]

Aren't you having fun?

lots!

Trees, dirt, stars, space, the romantics of worldliness...neat. Fun!

yeppers!

See you are having fun. Me nihilistic.....yes...to you. Atheism is to me nihilistic

ok, i can get that, its like wine or coffee; an acquired taste.

They all deal with life. Atheism makes life "matter". I suppose I could convince myself of that and become a true believer. But what purpose a rock?

please don't, i stress a believable point, not an advertisement for those 'looking around.' lol

i think every option should be explored, i think science should be questioned not disregarded... i see those who don't love the meaning of the earth and all the things we can see and feel... as false romantics.

these things are made of something, it is all we feel and see. take it away and we are gone, it must be seen that we are dependent of this world and same the other way around.

[DarkAngel_]

Believe ! What does it cost you? The power of the mind and spirit is so strong that it maybe a good possiblity that you can gain immortality though belief - but some don't want salvation or eternal life - they hate life and are just doing their time - the idea that a God might prolong their hate and suffering might be disturbing to atheists...plus atheists get a sense of being better than believers - cos ' they don't need a God - some just don't and some don't mind oblivion...and some like to be unhappy..and insecure - If an atheist was secure he would not attempt to recruit - and if a religious person was happy - they would not be so pushy about saving the world....like I said - some don't want to be saved - so leave them alone.

huh? im not a recruiter, we are having a debate...

and ummmm, im sorry but i have to say it. you have no script, no momentary production of airing actress or actor... there is no prize, no judges, no grand supreme audience to laugh at you or bolden out tears of worship... you would die for your god; because you believe in this otherworldiness.

do you get my point? if there is a god that gifts you immortality... fine.

if not then still... acceptable.

if i an atheist am granted immortality i refuse, no one thing should stay the same for long.

does that disregard the soul? no.

i love life and the time i have in it, it is longer then just my lifetime I'll grant you that. i know what you say is not salvation, it may be yours but it is still just a modification of another belief... i am not insecure, i am a happy man! but not when i do not wish to be, it is a guest that should leave and come back an esteemed friend from time to time. if i hate something then there is pride in it also! i am proud of a god because in me it must find its own downfall... i would rather dance on the head of a pin then be the feather of a wing and not the bird itself, but i still then would rather dance then be in the grave i dance on.

lastly: im not better then you, i've never said that! but if i do not need a god what would you have me do? to me there is no god BUT the herd... this to you is hearsay. but the worst hearsay is to call the earth, the only known, a lesser hell-place. your 'old-mindedness' is an ill informed generation of supposed untouchable ideals! well ok then, i accept that. to me it is a bruise, to you a healing thing.

but there is an area you will not address... an area i am not afraid to.

Edited May 5, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[WIP]

Simple. All the universe is a delusion, is it not?

So, now you are literally begging the question!

No, you have no basis to declare that the universe or everything outside of yourself in the objective world is an illusion. Objective reality can exist whether or not we are observing it, and our experiences in dealing with the world give us some confidence in the regularity and dependability of our surroundings. For example, if you throw a ball up in the air, you instinctively expect it to come back down, and you will start tracking the angle and velocity of its ascent to try to guess where it will land. If basic forces such as gravity were unreliable, then you would have justification in being an idealist, or in this case an anti-realist, since you seem to be denying an objectively real world.

And what if the physical universe were all there is and is not a delusion. Then you too would be real and would have to be a thing, something, anything. But you cannot find you so you consider yourself an electro-chemical process or a biological body without being able to prove how you are aware of this; or that anything exists that could have awareness- but if you are real under such circumstance then you are perishable. Say good bye to you.

Surprisingly enough, you are finally getting to method of determining the degree of accuracy and reliability of your beliefs and experiences! Yes, we are real and we can learn about the physical processes going on within us. What we don't have any evidence for is the time-honoured notion of extended mind that is separate from our physical bodies and consists of some substance that we cannot define or examine. It used to be believed that air and wind were equivalent to spirit; but when accumulated knowledge revealed that air was indeed a physical substance, even though it is invisible, and wind is just the movement of air, spirit moved on to the supernatural realm where is was declared beyond the capacity for physical examination.

Since we are finding more and more properties of mind having physical connections to brain function, it appears to be a concoction that will eventually serve no purpose, much like the eather - which was proposed when it was assumed that electromagnetic waves had to be caused by the rippling of some sort of substance and a vacuum could not allow transmission of energy. Modern physics discovered that the waves were a property of matter particles and there was no need for an eather to exist. In like manner, as mysteries of the mind are uncovered, there will be no room left for other-worldly spirits to operate our physical bodies.

Basically you have painted yourself into a corner where you must perish as reality dictates or when the delusion is considered to end. How you can be aware of this I don't know? What you will be aware of in the end is that you perished and are no more and you can even prove it to yourself by blowing in the wind or becoming part of the soil. You could be very aware of this but your properties would dictate you wouldn't be able to tell anyone. Ash/soil does not communicate.

And all of this condescending crap is based on the faulty assumption that you have perfect understanding of your mind, and that it is exactly as it appears to you: being the source of your actions and decision-making, a unitary whole and undivided, and continuous, even going on after your physical existence is no more.

Needless to say these are all baseless assumptions. Nobody accepts that mentally ill and delusional people understand their mental states. There are some interesting and extremely bizarre disorders that call these basic assumptions into question; one that I find fascinating, is the rare disorder called Cotard's Syndrome - where the patient believes they are dead, and doctors can't convince them that their breathing, feelings of hunger, heartbeat etc. are signs that they are physically alive. Neurologists believe that some misinterpretation of body-mapping information from the senses leads to this feeling of being dead, and there are no logical ways to convince the patient otherwise.

Can we even assume that we have one mind? Studies of split-brain patients would tell us we have at least two; the inner conflicts we feel when our emotions override our better judgement appear as a real struggle between the pre-frontal lobes of the cortex - where our higher cognitve thinking is done, and the lower brain-stem areas like the amygdala, which produces most of the neurochemicals associated with our emotions. Because of all of the components acting to create a sense of mind, many neuroscientists and philosophers of mind, are coming to the conclusion that mind is not continuous, and our sense that it is, is taken from connecting together short-term memory.

The intention and volition experiments consistently demonstrate that clear patterns of brain activity are going on before we are aware of making conscious decisions - is free will a contra-causal action of a non-physical mind acting on the brain, or is it as it appears to be, the other way around - our feelings of free will decision-making occur as soon as the physical components of the brain have plotted out a course of action to take.

All of this leads to the conclusion that we have to be as skeptical about the inner mind as we are about the outer world, and not take our assumptions provided by having a sense of unitary self as being the real picture of our inner reality. The concept of death or non-existence that you continually obsess about, may be another product of outside physical motivation - since like every animal, one of our strongest instincts is survival. The physical components that make us up want to exist forever, or at least they strongly avoid dying, and that drive for survival is at the core of all of our concerns about death and non-existence. Our physical bodies have created a sense of separate mind actually existing, and they impute this mind with a survival instinct to maintain the body for as long as possible. It's like they say, "everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one's in a hurry to get there."

[Pliny]

So, now you are literally begging the question!

No, you have no basis to declare that the universe or everything outside of yourself in the objective world is an illusion.

I declare nothing. It is you that is uncertain of illusion or a solid objective reality. I offer you the obvious conclusion in either case. You seem to insist you must be what you consider you are aware of and observing. If the universe is an illusion you must be an illusion. If the universe is a solid objective reality you must be a solid objective reality. These are the only possible conclusions.

In either case all that can be certain is that you are aware you are an illusion or you are aware you are a solid objective composition of energy and matter. In both cases all that is common is that there is an awareness.

Surprisingly enough, you are finally getting to method of determining the degree of accuracy and reliability of your beliefs and experiences! Yes, we are real and we can learn about the physical processes going on within us. What we don't have any evidence for is the time-honoured notion of extended mind that is separate from our physical bodies and consists of some substance that we cannot define or examine. It used to be believed that air and wind were equivalent to spirit; but when accumulated knowledge revealed that air was indeed a physical substance, even though it is invisible, and wind is just the movement of air, spirit moved on to the supernatural realm where is was declared beyond the capacity for physical examination.

All you are saying is that whatever theory gets us through the day is what is prevalent. The electro-chemical theory seems to be coming into vogue. Your claim is that it is our final theory. In one respect I can agree with you. Matter is generally not aware of itself and if what we are is matter we have reached the graveyard.

Since we are finding more and more properties of mind having physical connections to brain function, it appears to be a concoction that will eventually serve no purpose, much like the eather - which was proposed when it was assumed that electromagnetic waves had to be caused by the rippling of some sort of substance and a vacuum could not allow transmission of energy. Modern physics discovered that the waves were a property of matter particles and there was no need for an eather to exist. In like manner, as mysteries of the mind are uncovered, there will be no room left for other-worldly spirits to operate our physical bodies.

Simply the latest theoretical fad.

And all of this condescending crap is based...

You asked for an explanation and proof. I am giving you the opportunity since you are the only judge of your existence to prove it to yourself. You may dismiss it as condescending crap. It is your decision.

on the faulty assumption that you have perfect understanding of your mind, and that it is exactly as it appears to you:

I have not made that claim and this is a perfect example of being condescending.

Needless to say these are all baseless assumptions. Nobody accepts that mentally ill and delusional people understand their mental states. There are some interesting and extremely bizarre disorders that call these basic assumptions into question; one that I find fascinating, is the rare disorder called Cotard's Syndrome - where the patient believes they are dead, and doctors can't convince them that their breathing, feelings of hunger, heartbeat etc. are signs that they are physically alive. Neurologists believe that some misinterpretation of body-mapping information from the senses leads to this feeling of being dead, and there are no logical ways to convince the patient otherwise.

Neurologists believe this do they? Is their belief more logical to you and an acceptable proof of a perfect understanding of the mind? How does a hypnotized individual mistake an onion for an apple? Could there be some "command" in the subconscious that could bring about this rare disorder?

Can we even assume that we have one mind? Studies of split-brain patients would tell us we have at least two; the inner conflicts we feel when our emotions override our better judgement appear as a real struggle between the pre-frontal lobes of the cortex - where our higher cognitve thinking is done, and the lower brain-stem areas like the amygdala, which produces most of the neurochemicals associated with our emotions. Because of all of the components acting to create a sense of mind, many neuroscientists and philosophers of mind, are coming to the conclusion that mind is not continuous, and our sense that it is, is taken from connecting together short-term memory.

ns of brain activity are going on before we are aware of making conscious decisions - is free will a contra-causal action of a non-physical mind acting on the brain, or is it as it appears to be, the other way around - our feelings of free will decision-making occur as soon as the physical components of the brain have plotted out a course of action to take.

All of this leads to the conclusion that we have to be as skeptical about the inner mind as we are about the outer world, and not take our assumptions provided by having a sense of unitary self as being the real picture of our inner reality. The concept of death or non-existence that you continually obsess about, may be another product of outside physical motivation - since like every animal, one of our strongest instincts is survival. The physical components that make us up want to exist forever, or at least they strongly avoid dying, and that drive for survival is at the core of all of our concerns about death and non-existence. Our physical bodies have created a sense of separate mind actually existing, and they impute this mind with a survival instinct to maintain the body for as long as possible. It's like they say, "everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one's in a hurry to get there."

All well and good if the solid objective reality theory is correct.

All I am saying is that whatever reality is, be it an illusion or a solid fact, "you" are not the thing you are observing and even if you believe matter can observe itself, as you suggest, you have to admit to an awareness of that reality and the awareness is never the thing of which it is aware, real or imagined.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[WIP]

I declare nothing. It is you that is uncertain of illusion or a solid objective reality.

I have stated numerous times that there are degrees of certainty, but none of which reach the level of 100% absolute proof; and you call anything less than that uncertainty. The best available evidence shows that we make maps of our external reality and in the other direction, of our inner nature and sense of self. Judgements made on both the external and internal world can be faulty, but you are not willing to accept something less than absolute conviction. The problem is you have nothing to base your certainty on except for self-assuredness that you are right.

I offer you the obvious conclusion in either case. You seem to insist you must be what you consider you are aware of and observing. If the universe is an illusion you must be an illusion. If the universe is a solid objective reality you must be a solid objective reality. These are the only possible conclusions.

In either case all that can be certain is that you are aware you are an illusion or you are aware you are a solid objective composition of energy and matter. In both cases all that is common is that there is an awareness.

More metaphysical drivel. The universe seems real based on my life experience, so i'll continue to presume that it is real. On the other hand, the modern understanding of subatomic physics shows us that there is no such a thing as a solid object, and instead, tiny particles that have combined wave/particle properties are whirling around at high velocity in empty space. Their speed, and the forces they carry, such as electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force, are pictured as solid objects by the components in our brains that take in information and process it in a way that will enable us to function better. So, solid objects are an illusion, and demonstrate that perception is not reality.

Simply the latest theoretical fad.

Do you have an alternative "fad" to prove that souls and spirits exist?

Neurologists believe this do they? Is their belief more logical to you and an acceptable proof of a perfect understanding of the mind? How does a hypnotized individual mistake an onion for an apple? Could there be some "command" in the subconscious that could bring about this rare disorder?

Likely not, but even if the experience could be induced, it would not change the fact that the disorder is caused by a problem with interpreting sensory information in a specific area of the brain. These people are not otherwise mentally delusional, and can act rationally in other areas. It's similar to Capgras Syndrome, where people who have a breakdown in their ability to recognize faces, start declaring that friends and family members are imposters. They are usually able to function normally except for this problem with pattern recognition.

All I am saying is that whatever reality is, be it an illusion or a solid fact, "you" are not the thing you are observing and even if you believe matter can observe itself, as you suggest, you have to admit to an awareness of that reality and the awareness is never the thing of which it is aware, real or imagined.

Thank you for this opportunity.

We have no option to step outside of our physical limitations and have a separate perspective as an independent observer of the physical world. And I have been trying to make that point that there is no means to trust or even to test "revealed knowledge." All information about the world and about our selves is subject to our own physical limitations to determine truth and reality.

[DarkAngel_]

can't all these things called truth by you, plinly, be illusion as well? if so the all is illusion meaning still, all is real! and what is more unreal still... is still something no? on this i agree with WIP. but you mindset is also greatly liked... points of view rather then reference?

do i geuss right?

Edited May 9, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[Oleg Bach]

You to are just doing the dance. Real unreal - true false - half true - half real..get a grip guys - wack your toe with a hammer - that's real - think of a dead movie starlet rising from the grave and kissing your lips - that's not going to happen - that is unreal - thinking thinks does not make it so - law is law and the ground is hard..the air is thin...Philosophy has never saved the world - In order to save the world - two must agree that there is gravity...law...all the dancing does is create contention.

[DarkAngel_]

You to are just doing the dance. Real unreal - true false - half true - half real..get a grip guys - wack your toe with a hammer - that's real - think of a dead movie starlet rising from the grave and kissing your lips - that's not going to happen - that is unreal - thinking thinks does not make it so - law is law and the ground is hard..the air is thin...Philosophy has never saved the world - In order to save the world - two must agree that there is gravity...law...all the dancing does is create contention.

for one who once wrote darkly before, you've sang a truth... but the thought of it is still fasinating. is it not why we waste our time?

[Pliny]

We have no option to step outside of our physical limitations and have a separate perspective as an independent observer of the physical world.

You mean, "you" have no option...your concept of self does not allow it. And if you became "disassociated" you would attribute it to a chemical imbalance needing intervention. Disassociation would be something you would not be willing to observe or experience as you would associate it with madness. I understand completely.

You would meet a disassociation by denying perception. It is, after all, quite impossible to "have a separate perspective as an independent observer of the physical world" - that is craziness and you are not crazy or at least you don't want to be crazy. Disassociation is something to be avoided and denied. Anyone experiencing this is experiencing a form of mental illness, a malfunction of the brain. OR - does he "have a separate perspective as an independent observer of the physical world"?

The person who has never experienced this or finds the experience unnerving, fearful, odd and thus something to be avoided or nullified would tell you it is a mental illness - especially since one doesn't seem to be in control of it and can't perform parlour tricks.

If you have ever been on a ship at sea for awhile when you get off the ship you have the sensation that the dock is floating and you can even lose your balance. It's what you have become used to in order to operate. If you become "disassociated" it is not something you will be used to and you may, figuratively speaking, fall down.

And I have been trying to make that point that there is no means to trust or even to test "revealed knowledge." All information about the world and about our selves is subject to our own physical limitations to determine truth and reality.

Truth and reality are subject to our interpretation and determination. You will for instance not wish to experience being crazy and attempt to keep everything "normal" trying to make sure the correct electro-chemical processes are occurring and things feel and look normal and nothing "metaphysical" or weird is happening. If it is you will seek intervention. Normalcy falls within the parameters you are comfortable with and are necessary in order to function in life. They have been somewhat defined for us by the behavioral sciences who claim the lofty authority of "science". I am not so willing to accept their "theory". They would too easily label me mad, you understand.

[Oleg Bach]

Common sense dictates, that God would not give a shit if you believe or not..nor would this superme force expect you to bow to it...God probably really does not think of us much - he is a distant and cold companion...the nice part about talking to God is that he never talks back..

[DarkAngel_]

You mean, "you" have no option...your concept of self does not allow it. And if you became "disassociated" you would attribute it to a chemical imbalance needing intervention. Disassociation would be something you would not be willing to observe or experience as you would associate it with madness. I understand completely.

You would meet a disassociation by denying perception. It is, after all, quite impossible to "have a separate perspective as an independent observer of the physical world" - that is craziness and you are not crazy or at least you don't want to be crazy. Disassociation is something to be avoided and denied. Anyone experiencing this is experiencing a form of mental illness, a malfunction of the brain. OR - does he "have a separate perspective as an independent observer of the physical world"?

i am disassociated, i see a benefit to the state i am in... but i also wish to find my reality... get the intensity of it back because this unreal veil... has no vividness, no passion. madness is a way of expressing that passion. i am only thus because i wish for it so much, i lust for it.

none the less... the power to be overcome in this dissociation is indeed great but it is not 'real' in all romantic respects as well as logical, and though easily explained we are no 'David Hume' and i would put money on the fact it is in opposite; our senses are being nullified by anxiety and stress so we loose our sense of self and the outside world... give it pause and just refresh your mind with a clean thought, make it new and it is seen. as individuals we are more when we are us. there is a hell to not feeling the world, but it is worse to some to feel it. as said in the past; 'god is dead' and by Nietzsche's affliction i think being human means more to us then gods or damning ourselves, sacrificing our future for the present. metaphysics is a dead science, it just has not hit yet... to me this sets free so many things the human mind has been held back on, like the declaration of the soul being free and not burdened or chained by law, or in need of moral underpinnings... but instead is capable of having them alone, made the way human, or more so more then human, nature sits... this is truly an epic and romantic thought, and it is the only one that is still new and hearsay to this day.

Edited May 13, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[WIP]

You mean, "you" have no option...your concept of self does not allow it. And if you became "disassociated" you would attribute it to a chemical imbalance needing intervention.

Oh! And what supernatural agency do you attribute dissociative states to? In case you weren't aware of this, there are psychoactive drugs which can induce sensory deprivation and cause hallucinations, and lead to feelings of depersonalization and derealization. If such mental states can be caused by a drug, that indicates a mind/body connection to these psychological states. That sounds like a chemical imbalance to me! Do you have a non-physical explanation, since you attack the straightforward explanation that our brains create our mental states. Do you have evidence for an outside source?

Disassociation would be something you would not be willing to observe or experience as you would associate it with madness. I understand completely.

You would meet a disassociation by denying perception. It is, after all, quite impossible to "have a separate perspective as an independent observer of the physical world" - that is craziness and you are not crazy or at least you don't want to be crazy. Disassociation is something to be avoided and denied. Anyone experiencing this is experiencing a form of mental illness, a malfunction of the brain. OR - does he "have a separate perspective as an independent observer of the physical world"?

The person who has never experienced this or finds the experience unnerving, fearful, odd and thus something to be avoided or nullified would tell you it is a mental illness - especially since one doesn't seem to be in control of it and can't perform parlour tricks.

If you have ever been on a ship at sea for awhile when you get off the ship you have the sensation that the dock is floating and you can even lose your balance. It's what you have become used to in order to operate. If you become "disassociated" it is not something you will be used to and you may, figuratively speaking, fall down.

I would respond, but there is no actual point being made here.

Truth and reality are subject to our interpretation and determination. You will for instance not wish to experience being crazy and attempt to keep everything "normal" trying to make sure the correct electro-chemical processes are occurring and things feel and look normal and nothing "metaphysical" or weird is happening.

You keep gnashing at the prospect of a physical causal chain to the mind and our mental states, but once again, you offer no alternatives or rebuttals! Have you ever considered the possibility that your feelings of possessing a mind that is independent of the physical world (brain function in particular) are a delusion, and not a true representation of the mind? The mind only knows as much as it is told by the brain.

A good part of the dualistic sensation that believes mind is separate from the brain, comes from the fact that 90% of brain activity does not reach a level of conscious realization -- so, we are totally unaware of the majority of the work being done to present our perceptions of the world, and create a sense of self. We have a sense that we are seeing the physical world as it actually exists and have direct contact with the world, when what is really going on is that the brain takes in sensory information and combines it with prior knowledge to create its best estimate of what is out there. It may be a good estimate; but it is still an apporximation of the real world.

In the same way, the brain generates our sense of self being separate from the physical world. In reality, the mind is provided information on a need-to-know basis from brain activity. An experiment conducted a few years ago, showed test subjects pictures of faces for very short periods of time (less than would be needed to consciously register seeing a face among pictures of other things). When the subjects were shown happy faces, sad faces, fearful faces, they were unable to recall seeing them -- and yet when the brief display of a fearful face was presented, the amygdala region of the brain responded by generating a fear response. The subject may have felt a twinge of anxiety at that moment, but would have been unable to ascertain the source. So, how can the mind know itself when it is given a limited amount of information through brain function?

If it is you will seek intervention. Normalcy falls within the parameters you are comfortable with and are necessary in order to function in life. They have been somewhat defined for us by the behavioral sciences who claim the lofty authority of "science". I am not so willing to accept their "theory". They would too easily label me mad, you understand.

And what theory do you accept? You don't provide any reasoning to reject a physicalist interpretation of consciousness, other than for reasons of esthetics. Where is the alternative theory of mind?

[Pliny]

Oh! And what supernatural agency do you attribute dissociative states to?

The creation of them or the experience of them?

In case you weren't aware of this, there are psychoactive drugs which can induce sensory deprivation and cause hallucinations, and lead to feelings of depersonalization and derealization. If such mental states can be caused by a drug, that indicates a mind/body connection to these psychological states. That sounds like a chemical imbalance to me! Do you have a non-physical explanation, since you attack the straightforward explanation that our brains create our mental states. Do you have evidence for an outside source?

I repeat that you are not the experience. If you ingest a poison the body will start to die, this is a chemical reaction. That is the experience. All you are is the awareness of the experience.

One's interpretation of the experience is dependent upon one's previous experience and education. With you it is your education and not your experience that tells you how to evaluate your experiences. Your education overrides your own perceptions and from that education you derive what your experiences are instead of deriving your experiences from your perceptions. You hold the opinion, and have stated such, that your perceptions are not valid enough to be trusted. Me, my perceptions are what I am experiencing, it matters not if they are illusory or real. My object, and probably everybody's, is to be able to continue the body experience and I am as successful as I can continue to do so. Your theory is that all experiences are entirely explainable as electrochemical processes. If that helps you understand life and keeps you alive then you are being successful as a body. The question then becomes if that theory is conducive to the continuance of the species. I think to most that theory rings hollow and empty. It is void of purpose, origin, destination, personality, and character, these things being either not understandable nor necessary.

You keep gnashing at the prospect of a physical causal chain to the mind and our mental states, but once again, you offer no alternatives or rebuttals! Have you ever considered the possibility that your feelings of possessing a mind that is independent of the physical world (brain function in particular) are a delusion, and not a true representation of the mind? The mind only knows as much as it is told by the brain.

A good part of the dualistic sensation that believes mind is separate from the brain, comes from the fact that 90% of brain activity does not reach a level of conscious realization -- so, we are totally unaware of the majority of the work being done to present our perceptions of the world, and create a sense of self. We have a sense that we are seeing the physical world as it actually exists and have direct contact with the world, when what is really going on is that the brain takes in sensory information and combines it with prior knowledge to create its best estimate of what is out there. It may be a good estimate; but it is still an apporximation of the real world.

In the same way, the brain generates our sense of self being separate from the physical world. In reality, the mind is provided information on a need-to-know basis from brain activity. An experiment conducted a few years ago, showed test subjects pictures of faces for very short periods of time (less than would be needed to consciously register seeing a face among pictures of other things). When the subjects were shown happy faces, sad faces, fearful faces, they were unable to recall seeing them -- and yet when the brief display of a fearful face was presented, the amygdala region of the brain responded by generating a fear response. The subject may have felt a twinge of anxiety at that moment, but would have been unable to ascertain the source. So, how can the mind know itself when it is given a limited amount of information through brain function?

And what theory do you accept? You don't provide any reasoning to reject a physicalist interpretation of consciousness, other than for reasons of esthetics. Where is the alternative theory of mind?

That reactions occur in the body without thinking or conscious effort is quite obvious. I do not consciously decide to move my foot when I need to brake. Could it be the mind is quicker than the brain? That the brain only does as much as it is told by the mind? And even seemingly "reactionary" responses must come from the mind being somehow predetermined by the mind as necessary to survival? It would make more sense that perceptions are interpreted by the mind and the necessary voluntary and involuntary physical reactions occur depending upon those interpretations. If a fearful face was a piece of information that had any significance, that information would have to have been in the mind otherwise no reaction in the amygdala region of the brain would have occurred. Is it the unknown stimulus (the fearful face) that caused the reaction in the amygdala or is it the perception that the mind determined there was a need for anxiety that caused the reaction in the amygdala because it perceived a threat in the environment and should perhaps ensure the threat is not a danger or there is indeed nothing dangerous?

So the mind did perceive it and interpret it as a reason for anxiety. "Your" job is to basically ensure survival, and focus on the source of the anxiety by determining any threat. Not finding it means it is not currently present. Show the picture again and it may be recognized as the source of what the mind has determined is a threat it may not but more than likely will. Since the mind is looking for something causing anxiety it may upon inspection decide the picture should not be a source of anxiety but if he relies upon perception and trusts them he will recognize it as the source of his feeling. If he analyzes it he may reject that a mere picture or that particular one could make him feel anxiety - it all depends upon his education and experience and whether or not he trusts his perceptions.

The mind in effect then, determines all body activity both voluntary and involuntary based upon education and experience. There may be more than one mind explaining that one is a function of biology and another a function of the individual. It's a theory. I gotta go.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Pliny