Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-30-2013, 06:18 PM   #41 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
Nothing can be proven. Well, almost nothing. You yourself cited Descartes some posts back.
I cited one quote that points out that we exist. Who would argue that we do not?

Quote:
Because it is impossible to prove f.ex that the pencil you hold in your hand really is a pencil (and not f.ex just the illusion of a pencil), we don't actually build up a scientific understanding of the universe by going around and proving things. We may statistically prove something, but that's not the same thing.
A pencil can't be an illusion of a pencil because that implies the pencil exists. It exists in this world the same way a pencil exists to you in one of your dreams. It has all the appearance of being real because, in your dream, it is real. Last night, I dreamed I was driving my car. When I awoke, I realized it wasn't may car. In fact, it was nothing like my car. But in my dream it was my car. So was this car real? In my dream, it was real. Is this reality real? As Morgan Freeman says, "It certainly feels real to me."

Quote:
Instead, our understanding of the universe is built up by collecting evidence. The pencil looks like a pencil. We can analyze the materials like wood and graphite or how you are able to write with it and the intent by which it was made. The answers to all this should provide evidence that what you are holding is a pencil, but at some point, you're just going to have to believe in that evidence - or not.
Why wouldn't I believe in that evidence? Reality is a dream but when you're in that dream, it's real.

Quote:
That is what logical thinking is. What you have constructed is something entirely different. Instead of building on evidence, which f.ex points to the mechanics of the quantum world giving rise to a macro material world which behaves relatively predictably and which would exist even if there is no consciousness in it,
I think that is likely true. What is your point?

Quote:
you've made a hypothesis that flies in the face of evidence and which needs a wealth of new assumptions about the universe in order to be valid.
The only assumptions that have been made are by you second guessing seemingly every single thing I said, which you CLEARLY do not understand. I told you to take some time off from this thread a familiarize yourself with other philosophies other than the ones you only want to be true. Your quick response demonstrates you have no interest or intention in doing so. Consequently, you are swinging at me wildly and breaking your own nose.

Quote:
You run a great risk of deceiving yourself by failing to take the pencil at face value.
False assumption on your part.

Quote:
In other words, I don't think your argument is very logical at all because logic to me also implies critical thinking and I think you've failed to apply that. You already stated that your research has been done not to uncover truth, but specifically to support the idea of reincarnation. Seek and you shall find, whatever it is you find.
Bingo. My philosophy is NOT a philosophy of nature. You have erroneously criticized on those grounds and then in the end accuse me of not presenting a philosophy of nature. Then why are you posting ALL this stuff. You could have much more easily said, "This is not a natural philosophy." And I would have replied, "You are absolutely correct, it's not."

And STILL, you're going to keep arguing...

Quote:
Your use of quantum theory is stereotypical. I'm not sure if you have any idea how many hogwash ideas people try to validate by applying "quantum" to it, even on this forum. Quantum theory's scientific history and its difficulty to understand which makes it both brainy and relatively incomprehensible to most and that makes it a favorite go-to explanation for almost anything conceivable. If you say that you understand quantum theory, then I will say you are bluffing. None of us really understand what happens when things are so small that an atom seems the size of a solar system just like noone truly knows what takes place in the center of a massive black hole. These are fringe sciences which are complicated and our understanding of them is still incomplete. To base your world view on assumptions you've made from your attempt to understand them .. Seems like folly to me. Especially when your interpretation counters evidence. But then again, you set out to find arguments to support reincarnation and not necessarily the truth.

In my time in academia, I've met quite a few physicists, but none of them have expressed your world view. They've seemed willing to accept that however mysterious things may seem at the quantum level, they give rise to a world with predictable rules that we can attempt to understand.



As touched upon earlier, if you strive to be at all scientific in this, you should follow the evidence.



What goes on in the head of a dog or a vampire bat is something great thinkers have studied for a long time and parts of the puzzle which makes up our understanding of the universe. The consistent validity of that knowledge adds credibility to the general scientific understanding of our universe, a credibility that your version of it does not have. There are many such sources of credibility that your version of the universe has no claim to. That you think of various facets of the universe as entirely dismissable (waste of time) is telling.



I don't think so. Now it seems you don't understand, but I can roughly explain why it makes sense to me.

If the universe contains matter and some of that matter orders, over time, into me, then you could say I am a consequence of the universe. My consciousness exists at the duration in time when my physical body makes it possible, but not before or after. Why should I know everything? I simply couldn't. Your own posts seem to say so.

But if my consciousness is what shapes the universe, then that makes me the creator of the universe. The universe only exists during the time that I do and is dependent on my very existance. So if I create the universe I exist in along with everything in it, then why is it stupid to ask why I created dinosaurs? Or if the universe is a consequence of a collective consciousness, why is it stupid to ask why we created dinosaurs?



You know, a good theory holds up in the light of scrutiny. Certainly if it's air-tight, right?
JEEZUSS! You about through???
Lord Larehip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 03:25 AM   #42 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Larehip View Post
I cited one quote that points out that we exist. Who would argue that we do not?

A pencil can't be an illusion of a pencil because that implies the pencil exists. It exists in this world the same way a pencil exists to you in one of your dreams. It has all the appearance of being real because, in your dream, it is real. Last night, I dreamed I was driving my car. When I awoke, I realized it wasn't may car. In fact, it was nothing like my car. But in my dream it was my car. So was this car real? In my dream, it was real. Is this reality real? As Morgan Freeman says, "It certainly feels real to me."
When I wrote that you can't know if the pencil is real, what I meant is that it will be as real as you are with an existence independent of yours. If you die, the pencil will still be there. You can't ever know that for sure and so it was a quick example by me to illustrate how material things can't be proven. It seems you've somehow managed to miss that point entirely.

But as a quick comment on your dream pencil, I think of a pencil or a car in a dream as a rough copy of the real thing. What gives rise to the dream pencil is not the materials which make up the real pencil, but chemical and otherwise interactions in my brain which attempt to recreate the sensations of a pencil as a part of a narrative. The dream pencil's shape does not have the complexity of the real thing and its shape is variable. Also, I don't have the full range of senses in my dreams as I do in real life and so my ability to experience the pencil will be somewhat muffled. In my dreams, I am not subject to the laws of physics like I am when I am awake (insert off-topic comment about whether or not we are truly awake if you want) and sometimes, I am aware that I am dreaming, if only vaguely. Once aware, I gain more control over the pencil or indeed the whole dream world and I usually try to fly.

So different rules apply to the different pencils. The "real" pencil abide by the same rules I do and that makes it more real to me. The dream pencil abides by my rules, even consciously so when I am aware that I am dreaming. In a sense, when I dream, I suspect I am always at least vaguely aware that I am dreaming. My dreams often feel unreal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Larehip View Post
Why wouldn't I believe in that evidence? Reality is a dream but when you're in that dream, it's real.
Yes, if your whole life and experience of reality has been a dream, it follows that you wouldn't know what it's like to not dream.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Larehip View Post
The only assumptions that have been made are by you second guessing seemingly every single thing I said, which you CLEARLY do not understand. I told you to take some time off from this thread a familiarize yourself with other philosophies other than the ones you only want to be true. Your quick response demonstrates you have no interest or intention in doing so. Consequently, you are swinging at me wildly and breaking your own nose.
When you fail to understand human evolution, I make an attempt to explain it to you. I don't mind it if you want to provide suggestions for reading material, but I do think that if you feel I misunderstand things that you understand, you should try to explain, like I have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Larehip View Post
Bingo. My philosophy is NOT a philosophy of nature. You have erroneously criticized on those grounds and then in the end accuse me of not presenting a philosophy of nature. Then why are you posting ALL this stuff. You could have much more easily said, "This is not a natural philosophy." And I would have replied, "You are absolutely correct, it's not."
Well, if you involve quantum physics in order to explain it and validate it, clearly the validity of your hypothesis depends on the validity of your quantum explanation which is natural philosophy.

Had you detached your philosophy from natural sciences, I would agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Larehip View Post
And STILL, you're going to keep arguing...

JEEZUSS! You about through???
Those are replies to things you brought up in your last post. As I see it, valid criticisms to your logical argument for reincarnation which you fail to address.

And of course I am going to argue. It's why I come to MB in the first place. Up until now, I have been treating this as a serious discussion and trying not to derail it by resorting to insults, etc. which often result from a defensive attitude. From your defensive behaviour, I think you feel that you are under attack. If your personal agenda is simply to validate your own ideas and gain satisfaction from telling others about it, that is a completely natural reaction. Your long posts outlining your personal philosophy do come across as rather preachy. But had you been in search of the truth, you should see that my arguments are an outside opinion that you yourself could learn from.

So which is it? Did you make this thread in order to seriously discuss your ideas and the validity of them or are you here simply to preach?
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.

Last edited by tore; 07-31-2013 at 03:39 AM.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2013, 09:59 AM   #43 (permalink)
Shoo Thoughts
 
Mr. Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: These Mountains
Posts: 2,293
Default

I don't believe in reincarnation or karma. I think that doing good, doing the right thing, is it's own reward, and that if you do good based solely on the belief that it's positive karma in the bank or guarantees a place in heaven, then that's selfishness. Similarly, if you go around being an arsehole, I think it's your own consciousness that makes you suffer, not some all-seeing force in the universe judging our every action and handing out rewards and punishments. Every man is his own hangman.
Mr. Charlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2013, 11:17 AM   #44 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Charlie View Post
I don't believe in reincarnation or karma. I think that doing good, doing the right thing, is it's own reward, and that if you do good based solely on the belief that it's positive karma in the bank or guarantees a place in heaven, then that's selfishness. Similarly, if you go around being an arsehole, I think it's your own consciousness that makes you suffer, not some all-seeing force in the universe judging our every action and handing out rewards and punishments. Every man is his own hangman.
It doesn't matter whether you do good or not. You still live a succession of lives as well as living your current one over and over without the slightest bit of change. The other lives you have and will live, you are also living over and over again without change or variation. Doing good is an evolutionary advantage that makes your life better but it will have no bearing on any other life you live.
Lord Larehip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2013, 11:21 AM   #45 (permalink)
Shoo Thoughts
 
Mr. Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: These Mountains
Posts: 2,293
Default

You sound unnervingly certain that we will live out multiple lives. Might I ask what you base this belief on? Do you remember a past life?
Mr. Charlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2013, 11:39 AM   #46 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Charlie View Post
You sound unnervingly certain that we will live out multiple lives. Might I ask what you base this belief on? Do you remember a past life?
Go back and read the first few posts. Everything is explained there.
Lord Larehip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2013, 12:01 PM   #47 (permalink)
Shoo Thoughts
 
Mr. Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: These Mountains
Posts: 2,293
Default

Okay, I read your opening post and a couple of your proceeding posts (geez, you have a lot to say on the matter) buy I saw nothing that hinted at why reincarnation is likely. I mean you gave some reasons, but they wern't what I would call imperial and were based on your own personal feelings rather than any evidence.

But I'm not belittling your opinion or the method that led to it. I tend to trust my feelings above my senses or 'logical' mind too. I just don't believe that my or anybody elses thoughts or feelings and necessarily a reflection of the ultimate reality. I think we all live in our own little reality tunnels and the world we perceive and experience is largely the world we create in our tiny little heads. Indeed I sometimes think it's a wonder we can communicate with each other at all.
Mr. Charlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2013, 12:46 PM   #48 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Charlie View Post
Okay, I read your opening post and a couple of your proceeding posts (geez, you have a lot to say on the matter) buy I saw nothing that hinted at why reincarnation is likely. I mean you gave some reasons, but they wern't what I would call imperial and were based on your own personal feelings rather than any evidence.
Imperial? You mean empirical? No, this is NOT an empirical argument. It is a conservative argument. The reason I reject empiricism is because, strictly speaking, nothing is objective. Every event you witness has to pass through your sense-processing mental equipment. By the time you are able to reflect on it, it is a subjective experience. It has been shown that memories are largely fiction the older and more detailed they are. So empiricism a good measuring stick for ontological and epistemological arguments? I say no.

Quote:
But I'm not belittling your opinion or the method that led to it. I tend to trust my feelings above my senses or 'logical' mind too. I just don't believe that my or anybody elses thoughts or feelings and necessarily a reflection of the ultimate reality. I think we all live in our own little reality tunnels and the world we perceive and experience is largely the world we create in our tiny little heads. Indeed I sometimes think it's a wonder we can communicate with each other at all.
I'm inclined to agree. My argument is constructed not to rely on crystal clear recollections because I don't believe these exist for the most part--only that we have memories, maybe not very clear or accurate, but we have them.
Lord Larehip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2013, 01:12 PM   #49 (permalink)
Shoo Thoughts
 
Mr. Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: These Mountains
Posts: 2,293
Default

Sorry, yeah, empirical. I agree with you that nothing is objective as all information has to pass through our nervous system before we can reach a conclusion.

So you believe we have lived past lives because we have memories? Reminds me of something Socrates said, he thought we never really learn anything, we merely remember, that the soul is eternal and goes on to inhabit new bodies.
Mr. Charlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.