(July 12, 2010 at 9:53 am)Godhead Wrote: EvF -Yes.
You can't see anything other than the physical, but that says more about what you can see than about what there is.
Quote: By saying : everything I see = everything there is, you're making a positive statement about your capability to see what there is.I never made such a statement.
Quote: You're saying that you can see all there is.No.
Quote: You're using the fact that you can see certain things to justify a belief that you can see all.No.
Quote: Now, if you don't really believe that you can see all, then that immediately opens the door to speculation about other things.I'm fine to speculate about anything. I just don't believe without evidence.
Quote:Since you can only see certain things, you can't use those things as evidence of other things.Induction at best can be used.
Quote: So you need to use logic and thought experiments to at least establish a possibility that what you see isn't all you get.Never made such a claim.
Quote: Being limited in what you see means that there's a limit to what you can see, which means that there's more.That's not evidence that everything "out there" is consciousness. That's merely evidence that there's other things out there.
Quote: If you admit to being limited, you admit to there being something beyond your limits.Yes.
Quote: Limit doesn't mean absolute end, it means a point where something stops, in this case, your ability to see.Yes.
Quote: When you put an end to something, you don't say "I limitted it", you say "I finished it, I ended it, it is no more".Yes.
Quote: Limit means boundary, restriction, extent. If you're limited, then by definition there is more.I think you already made that point.
Quote: That's why it's perfectly reasonable to assume (very safely) that the physical is not all there is.No because there's no evidence for anything non-physical.
Quote: As for evidence that everything is consciousness, I have none.
I thought as much.
EvF