Donnadogsoth Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 There is a logical fallacy there. The fact that we can never have a non-conscious perspective implies only that perspective is conscious, not that existence is conscious. Your assertion, does not exclude the fact that rock don't have a perspective, which is actually what the accepted model of reality is all along. It is the leap from perspective to existence that bio-centrists have repeatedly failed to prove and yet they sustain all of their claims on it. I'm not saying you're a biocentrist, I'm only saying that this line of argumentation has been used by them as well. It does seem to me that in this paragraph you are asserting that rocks have some form of consciousness. That would require some significant standard of proof. Do you have any proof of this or is it just based on faulty syllogisms? You presume existence exists apart from consciousness, for which we have no evidence, nor can we ever have. I am saying that there is no existence apart from consciousness, since everything we experience is a datum of our sensoria, intellect, or heart, all of which are irremovably conscious. Cf. Bishop Berkeley.
vahleeb Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 You presume existence exists apart from consciousness, for which we have no evidence, nor can we ever have. I am saying that there is no existence apart from consciousness, since everything we experience is a datum of our sensoria, intellect, or heart, all of which are irremovably conscious. Cf. Bishop Berkeley. This is the logical fallacy again: "there is no existence apart from consciousness, since everything we experience is" It's called a cause/effect reversal. Things that you don't experience still exist (you experience them because they exist, not the other way around). The world didn't become round all of a sudden because Magellan circumnavigated it. There is no relationship between the existence of arbitrary things and one's perception of them or not. To sum it up, from Stephan's Introduction to Philosophy: either reality exists independent of our senses, in which case we can have a discussion and a debate because there is an external standard of correctness, either reality is subordinate to our senses in which case debating is completely pointless. You (or this bishop) cannot attempt to convince me of anything, if reality is moulded by perception, because your/his reality is subjective (dependant on perception) and therefore just as valid as my reality (whatever that may be). There is no external standard of correctness in your/his scenario by which I would be constrained to accept your/his position because your/his position is that my position is just as valid if not more valid for myself regardless of what my position really is.
Donnadogsoth Posted May 16, 2016 Posted May 16, 2016 This is the logical fallacy again: "there is no existence apart from consciousness, since everything we experience is" It's called a cause/effect reversal. Things that you don't experience still exist (you experience them because they exist, not the other way around). The world didn't become round all of a sudden because Magellan circumnavigated it. There is no relationship between the existence of arbitrary things and one's perception of them or not. To sum it up, from Stephan's Introduction to Philosophy: either reality exists independent of our senses, in which case we can have a discussion and a debate because there is an external standard of correctness, either reality is subordinate to our senses in which case debating is completely pointless. You (or this bishop) cannot attempt to convince me of anything, if reality is moulded by perception, because your/his reality is subjective (dependant on perception) and therefore just as valid as my reality (whatever that may be). There is no external standard of correctness in your/his scenario by which I would be constrained to accept your/his position because your/his position is that my position is just as valid if not more valid for myself regardless of what my position really is. Monadic reality exists independent of the senses but perceptual reality does not. Call it the wysiwyg theory, since all perception exists only in the mind of the observer. If you close your eyes and I hand you a banana, you may feel the banana and remember encountering other bananas, and so imagine what the colour of the banana will be when you open your eyes, but until you open them, the banana has no colour. Colour like all other measurements and experiences are internal to you the observer. Similar to this is the case of the numbers. How many numbers are there? You might be tempted to say infinitude. But this is not true. Numbers only exist when we apprehend them, and since there is no way for you to apprehend an infinitude of numbers, there cannot be an infinitude, but only the exact number you have counted. The raw truth is that there is a (1) monadic reality whereby things have perception and appetition (desire, will), but lack extension or physical attributes of any kind, and then there is (2) a wysiwyg reality whereby the latent perceptions in your mind are unfolded through your monadic contact with external monadic reality, and thus the material world springs into existence out of nothing. That the monads interact, and so in that sense a cause-and-effect relationship can be apprehended, and the existence of monads (souls) be intuited at all, is a function of the preëstablished harmony whereby all monads are arranged from the beginning of time to interact with each other as though they were influencing each other. In fact, however, they do not, but merely act as though they do. When your knife descends on the pear, the knife does not cut, but simply moves, and the pear is not cut, but simply divides. Your prayer of will-to-cut has been granted by the obliging action of the harmonious universe.
vahleeb Posted May 16, 2016 Posted May 16, 2016 Monadic reality exists independent of the senses but perceptual reality does not. Call it the wysiwyg theory, since all perception exists only in the mind of the observer. If you close your eyes and I hand you a banana, you may feel the banana and remember encountering other bananas, and so imagine what the colour of the banana will be when you open your eyes, but until you open them, the banana has no colour. Colour like all other measurements and experiences are internal to you the observer. Similar to this is the case of the numbers. How many numbers are there? You might be tempted to say infinitude. But this is not true. Numbers only exist when we apprehend them, and since there is no way for you to apprehend an infinitude of numbers, there cannot be an infinitude, but only the exact number you have counted. The raw truth is that there is a (1) monadic reality whereby things have perception and appetition (desire, will), but lack extension or physical attributes of any kind, and then there is (2) a wysiwyg reality whereby the latent perceptions in your mind are unfolded through your monadic contact with external monadic reality, and thus the material world springs into existence out of nothing. That the monads interact, and so in that sense a cause-and-effect relationship can be apprehended, and the existence of monads (souls) be intuited at all, is a function of the preëstablished harmony whereby all monads are arranged from the beginning of time to interact with each other as though they were influencing each other. In fact, however, they do not, but merely act as though they do. When your knife descends on the pear, the knife does not cut, but simply moves, and the pear is not cut, but simply divides. Your prayer of will-to-cut has been granted by the obliging action of the harmonious universe. Ok, I see you don't respond to reason. Let's see if I can make you respond to your theory, instead. No they do not. All of what you say doesn't exist, because I don't want it to, so my world view is the only one that can exist for me. How can you still be talking and disagreeing with me, when I don't will you to?
Donnadogsoth Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 Ok, I see you don't respond to reason. Let's see if I can make you respond to your theory, instead. No they do not. All of what you say doesn't exist, because I don't want it to, so my world view is the only one that can exist for me. How can you still be talking and disagreeing with me, when I don't will you to? I am not here. Only you are here, making you a solipsistic monad-denier.
youzer Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet. I'd vote you up today if I could!
simonthesinner Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 Short answer, no. Neither has the flying spaghetti monster, which we know is fake. It is a limit of scientiffic reach, not a truth-claim.
Jsbrads Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 As to energy creation or destruction... The energy in your head should remain just fine in a dead body. A different theory on the destruction of information, may be of more use to an afterlife statement. And while a theory denying the destruction of information exists, it is far less established or accepted. No proof of no afterlife exists, but there is no scientific basis for it either. When analyzing the existing scientific data, a theory of perma-death better fits the data than a theory of angels, God, afterlife, etc.
Recommended Posts