|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:30 am
 |
|
|
 |
IcarusDream Not really... Quote: The macrocosm is so expansive and complex it is all but probabilistically impossible to exist in a tangible way, let alone support atomic reaction and then support life. Well, how much do you trust your own observations? Quote: Definite proof? There is none. But going by probability is better than "it could happen so it must be that it is!" Well, how do you know that going by probability is better?
My own observations are all that I can know. And even if all is an illusion, then what I derive of the illusion is as true as possible.
And probability has at least some basis. It has some point. Again, if all is an illusion, than at least in the terms of that illusion I have a foothold, rather than just making random, wild claims which could be true. Though neither may be true, one has more likelihood than another because it is based on something which also has at least some small likelihood. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:29 pm
|
|
|
|
divineseraph My own observations are all that I can know. And even if all is an illusion, then what I derive of the illusion is as true as possible.
Well, it is as true as can be said true of an illusion.
Quote: And probability has at least some basis. It has some point.
Practicality? But why be practical? Were you raised that way or something?
Quote: Again, if all is an illusion, than at least in the terms of that illusion I have a foothold, rather than just making random, wild claims which could be true.
What makes something wild? The violation if your preconceived notions of how things should be? Was it how you were raised or something?
Quote: Though neither may be true, one has more likelihood than another because it is based on something which also has at least some small likelihood.
In terms of what we observe, one idea can be more likely than another, but outside of our observations, all ideas become pretty much equal, with no known epistemological method able to ascribe any more likelihood to one event over any other. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:19 pm
|
|
|
|
IcarusDream divineseraph My own observations are all that I can know. And even if all is an illusion, then what I derive of the illusion is as true as possible. Well, it is as true as can be said true of an illusion. Quote: And probability has at least some basis. It has some point. Practicality? But why be practical? Were you raised that way or something? Quote: Again, if all is an illusion, than at least in the terms of that illusion I have a foothold, rather than just making random, wild claims which could be true. What makes something wild? The violation if your preconceived notions of how things should be? Was it how you were raised or something? Quote: Though neither may be true, one has more likelihood than another because it is based on something which also has at least some small likelihood. In terms of what we observe, one idea can be more likely than another, but outside of our observations, all ideas become pretty much equal, with no known epistemological method able to ascribe any more likelihood to one event over any other.
What exactly is practicality? I mean, considering that is probability isn't good enough for the illusion-world, then what good would be practicality that is even more dependent on the potential illusion?
No, it's the fact that it's random and untestable. In fact, it can easily be disproven through Descartesian reasoning. I think, therefore, I am. Simple as that. Again, your claim is similar to that of claiming that the sky must be in reality green, just not when we look at it. Or that there is no such thing as behind, because whenever we turn around, the stuff 180 degrees behind us simply disappears from reality. Not only does it rely on the potential illusion itself, but it's entirely unfounded even there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:50 am
|
|
|
|
divineseraph What exactly is practicality?
"The ability to use something effectively" is one thought..
Quote: I think, therefore, I am.
It doesn't follow that one exists as an individual, only that one has the capacity to think in the mind, be it your mind, a collective mind, or a mind set apart from all others in a collective.
Quote: Again, your claim is similar to that of claiming that the sky must be in reality green, just not when we look at it.
My claim is that we can't absolutely deny that possibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:44 pm
|
|
|
|
IcarusDream divineseraph What exactly is practicality? "The ability to use something effectively" is one thought.. Quote: I think, therefore, I am. It doesn't follow that one exists as an individual, only that one has the capacity to think in the mind, be it your mind, a collective mind, or a mind set apart from all others in a collective. Quote: Again, your claim is similar to that of claiming that the sky must be in reality green, just not when we look at it. My claim is that we can't absolutely deny that possibility.
Mine is alone- Even if it may be connected to another, mine is still unique and individual as is everyone elses. Homogenization can and does occur, but it is always possible to not be homogenized, or to break from it.
No, we cannot deny the possibility, but the claim that it must be so is still unfounded. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:11 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:00 am
|
|
|
|
IcarusDream divineseraph Mine is alone- Even if it may be connected to another, mine is still unique and individual as is everyone elses. As far as we can tell. Quote: No, we cannot deny the possibility, but the claim that it must be so is still unfounded. No more unfounded than a lot of commonly held things.
But that's the point- The mind is the One Thing. If you condense a human being to ONLY the things s/he can be absolutely sure of, it is his or her mind.
It is more unfounded because it is based on nothing provable or probable, and is constantly being disproven by philosophical thought and reasoning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:05 pm
|
|
|
|
divineseraph IcarusDream divineseraph And since you question it, you must admit that you ARE, in fact, able to question it. Which means that you must be. Only assuming that I am the one actually doing the questioning. You are, are you not? If it's not you, who is it?
What I am part of? It hinges on how we actually define "I" and "you."
Quote: If it's not YOU, then you must not be aware of the thought.
I don't see any reason to preclude any thoughts I experience as being someone else's.
Quote: You are aware, correct? Thus, you are.
Again, that doesn't follow except with a conventional definition of the person and the mind. Am I aware? Or is the awareness being fed to me? Is there a way to know either? No.
What exactly does it mean to be aware, too. Does it mean to be conscious of particular experiences, or just to know that something is happening at all? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:46 am
|
|
|
|
IcarusDream divineseraph IcarusDream divineseraph And since you question it, you must admit that you ARE, in fact, able to question it. Which means that you must be. Only assuming that I am the one actually doing the questioning. You are, are you not? If it's not you, who is it? What I am part of? It hinges on how we actually define "I" and "you." Quote: If it's not YOU, then you must not be aware of the thought. I don't see any reason to preclude any thoughts I experience as being someone else's. Quote: You are aware, correct? Thus, you are. Again, that doesn't follow except with a conventional definition of the person and the mind. Am I aware? Or is the awareness being fed to me? Is there a way to know either? No. What exactly does it mean to be aware, too. Does it mean to be conscious of particular experiences, or just to know that something is happening at all?
It's where I stop and you begin. My thoughts are obviously not yours.
They are yours, again, since they are not mine or anyone elses.
If awareness is being fed to you, then it's not really you. But, you would not be aware to question that awareness. Since you can question, it means that you must be.
And no, particular experiences are of the perception, and perception can be false. Consciousness is the ability to think and be aware of your thought. If you hold consciousness, then you are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
