Full circle

[bennyboy]

"We dunno therefore (idea I pulled out of my ass)," is not, contrary to popular belief, a philosophical argument. That you think it is represents an insult to organized thought.

I disagree and believe you to be wrong.

What would you consider a 'philosophical argument' that is not an "idea I pulled out of my ass".

Oh I dunno. . . all the ideas that led to the system of observation we call "science," maybe? How about the rules of logic?

See, if you wanted to speculate about the Godhood of humanity, that's fine; it's fun to smoke a joint, stare at the sky, and wonder about things like that.

But you haven't come here with metaphor or with a "hmmm, what if?" attitude. You've come in here stating, in the grammatic forms used for confident statement of fact, that the "reality" is that we are gods who have forgotten we are gods. You've spent 3 pages unraveling what we "know," making your Gap bigger and bigger; but this is easy to do, because there are so many mysteries to our existence that almost ANYTHING could live in that Gap. What you haven't done is explain why the particular idea you pulled out of your ass necessarily fills it.

[IATIA]

Not an answer.

[bennyboy]

Not an answer.

Bullshit.

You asked what I would consider philosophy which is not pulled out of one's ass, and I clearly answered.

But why do I need to answer you? You've come in here with an LSD vision of reality, and neither logic nor evidence to back it up. If you are engaged in philosophy, then please provide a series of arguments which makes arriving at your conclusions about reality necessary, or at least sensible. If not, you are engaged in woo, and you should move your woo thread to the woo section.

[IATIA]

No, you did not answer the question.

"What would you consider a 'philosophical argument' that is not an "idea I pulled out of my ass".

You generalized, but did not pose any single example.

As to proof or evidence: Proof of what? Evidence of what?

Proof and evidence in a philosophical environment are fleeting at best.

Do you have any proof that my assumptions are not correct?

Do you have any proof that reality even exists?

Do you have any proof that we are not 'Brains-in-a-vat"?

Do you have any proof that god exists?

Do you have any proof that god does not exist?

Can you even prove to me that you are nothing more than a figment of my imagination?

I know that I cannot prove to anyone but myself that I exist and I have no idea what exactly that existence is, ergo these discussions.

"I think, therefore I am" or any semblance thereof is proof of nothing.

[bennyboy]

You've just made a very long list of gap arguments.

Let's start with solipsism. In an absolute sense, I have no real proof of anything. However, I have experiences, and those experiences come in patterns from which I can draw inferences. That doesn't mean there's any truth underlying the patterns-- only that the patterns themselves exist. I do not know why I see shapes and color-- but I do know that when I have the experience of looking in a mirror, the face looking back is (fairly) consistently organized. I know that when I have the experience of looking at people, their faces are (fairly) consistent as well-- so consistent that I can meaningfully refer to a face as "Joe's face" or "Suzy's face."

It makes sense for me, therefore, to talk about people as real. Whether or not I'm in a BIJ and imagining everything, at least those experiences are consistent. So are my experiences with reading about things. Every time I open a book, it has the same content. Is it a projection of data from the Matrix? I cannot know.

But NONE of this leads to a factual statement about me, or anyone else, being a "fallen angel." That idea is not connected to any of the consistent experiences that I, or anyone here but you, has had.

[JuliaL]

Do you have any proof

---

that my assumptions are not correct?

Do you have any proof that reality even exists?

Do you have any proof that we are not 'Brains-in-a-vat"?

Do you have any proof that god exists?

Do you have any proof that god does not exist?

Can you even prove to me that you are nothing more than a figment of my imagination?

I know that I cannot prove to anyone but myself that I exist and I have no idea what exactly that existence is, ergo these discussions.

---

"I think, therefore I am" or any semblance thereof is proof of nothing.

The hard problem of solipsism has had no human solution nor have I seen any convincing argument that it does not apply to God. Hence my sig.
We generally choose to ignore it and carry on with our lives as if it doesn't exist. This is pragmatism and appears to be without penalty.
But ignoring it does not give license to make alternative claims (I am god but forgot to make the payments) without evidence thereof.

"GAME OVER, TO CONTINUE, INSERT ANOTHER QUARTER IN 10....9....8"

god: "hey Peter, check this shit out! Whoosh! Flooded all them critters."

Peter: "Cool. How about this ..."

Why bring in iron age fictional characters (e.g. Peter, god)?
Be aware, "revealed truth" is synonymous with "made up stuff."
It's more likely to be, "Hey! Mario! Look at all the gorillas throwing flaming barrels!"


.

[IATIA]

"I am still evaluating my new world outlook and just thought I would present this to the forum in the hopes of discussion rather than flames."

The above is my qualifying statement at the end of my original post. I cannot state any of it as fact anymore than I can state that it is completely false.

This evolved from my attempt to qualify and resolve free will, time, reality and the ambiguity of it all.

Crazy people have crazy experiences that are as consistent as any.

Dreams seem real at the time.

And yes, I have done drugs in the past and the hallucinations seem just as real as anything else at the time.

I have experienced 'glitches in the matrix' that have brought credence to my ideas.

I am not satisfied with 'normal' reality. I never have been and I have gone through various phases in an attempt to discover the truth.

That idea is not connected to any of the consistent experiences that I, or anyone here but you, has had.

IYHO

There have been a few comments and statement from other posters over the years that, IMHO, have suggested similar thoughts along this line, but I do not recall any that have come out and stated as such.


Just because 'everyone' says so, does not make it so.

---

In case there is a true freethinker here, unbound by 'acceptable' thought patterns, this might be of interest.

wiki linky

[Thumpalumpacus]

As much as any theistic or atheistic theory.

Are you using "theory" in the colloquial sense?

---

Of course it does.

Either we have no free will and are simply a product of biochemical reactions, which makes this all moot or we have free will that must fall outside these reactions.

If we have free will, where does it come from. What physiological process could possibly invoke free will?

Quantum states, maybe?

I can't say exactly why, but I think this is an oversimplification. Perhaps it's because I see the human brain as a chaotic system, much like planetary weather.

---

How can a thought initiate a chemical reaction? What initiated the thought?

We reprogram -- i.e. reinitiate chemical reactions -- on a daily basis in our brains; we do that of our own volition. It's called learning. I decide to learn a song from Rush. Based on what? Determinism? Maybe I happened to be driving by the 7-Eleven and some guy in the next car had "Tom Sawyer" cranked.

Did the arrangement of atoms in my head force me to choose that? How so?

It seems as comprehensible, and as apparent, to say that I decided to because the song reminded me of a time in junior high school when (coincidentally) it happened to be playing just as I was taking my first tongue-kiss.

Tell me, why do you assume that randomness and materialism cannot coexist?

---

No, you did not answer the question.

"What would you consider a 'philosophical argument' that is not an "idea I pulled out of my ass".

You generalized, but did not pose any single example.

As to proof or evidence: Proof of what? Evidence of what?

Proof and evidence in a philosophical environment are fleeting at best.

Do you have any proof that my assumptions are not correct?

Do you have any proof that reality even exists?

Do you have any proof that we are not 'Brains-in-a-vat"?

Do you have any proof that god exists?

Do you have any proof that god does not exist?

Can you even prove to me that you are nothing more than a figment of my imagination?

I know that I cannot prove to anyone but myself that I exist and I have no idea what exactly that existence is, ergo these discussions.

"I think, therefore I am" or any semblance thereof is proof of nothing.

These questions render discussion meaningless.

[bennyboy]

Just because 'everyone' says so, does not make it so.

Nope. But if I'm going to talk to the figments of my imagination, I'm going to selectively choose the one that are coherent with each other.

[Cato]

Maybe I should have used secular or scientific etc.. I was trying to be brief.

Always a mistake. Accuracy is more important than brevity.

In this case when asked if there was any evidence, the answer 'no' would have been accurate and succinct.