Re: Major Discussion Continued

Subject:

Comments:
: Bart, : : I am not going to respond to the bulk of all this. It's too much, and I tried twice, only to have, the first time, a book accidentally press the escape key, and the second time, a pizza box do the same thing. Let's go straight to the summary. : : ----Understandable--I'm getting tired of repeating myself needlessly anywats. : : : : : : : : Let me summarize our major points of discussion, and some relevant things about them, just so we don't get lost on sidetracks. : ---Good idea. : He suggested that although the content of experience must be discovered through experience itself, the mind imposes form and order on all its experiences, and this form and order can be discovered a priori,—that is, by reflection alone. His claim that causality, substance, space, and time are forms imposed by the mind on its experience : : : : Humans and animals: You say that humans are superior to animals because of their self-consciousness and reason. I say that everyone is equal because without their possessions everyone is nothing. This is the central issue. : : : --Indeed. : : : No, you didn't. : When I asked for it, you stated that you had posted it somewhere earlier, and that I should go look for it. Get REAL! Each single response by either of us has been between 10 and 15 pages long. I am not going to sift through all that, and a word search of each document would do me no good, since we used the words "free will" so many times. Just state it again. : ----BArt, i DID state my def of free will numerous times in different contexts--I was getting sick and tired of it in fact. Howevr, here it is ONE FINAL TIME: : Free will is the ability of self-determination by self-conscious, rational beings like ourselves that help constiture and define reality. Determinsists believe free will doesn't exist becasue a system of casue and effect exists. The existence of casusation, however does not negate free will since we are PART OF THE CAUSATION--PART OF REALITY. causation--like time and space--is something(a form if ya will) that we IMPOSE on our experience. Without self-awre beings, ideas like time, space, and causation are meaningless becasue without an observer evrything collapse in on itself. We are in the process of constantly creating ourselves--an act of free will. At the end of this post, I will post an article on HEGEL's philosophy which--though it has differences--is very similar to mine. : : There was another thing that I remember from the stuff that I deleted by accident twice. : -----:) I hate when that happens! --happened to me 3 or 4 times just last week! :) : You thought that I thought that free will is the ability to control the entire universe. That's not what I meant. In my stuff about physics limiting what we do, I was talking about our NEURONS. Not our external surroundings! Physical laws limit our neurons! : -----SO?!? Yes I meant the universe and all the laws that govern it. Our neurons are a part of the universe. As I stated previously by being a part of the universe--meaning physical laws hel define us--the universe and its lawas simply act as a part of our identity. Still have gfree will : : : : The self: You say the self is the spirit, which you define as self-consciousness and reason. I say the spirit is only a possession of the true self, which is nothing. This may be a crucial point, and it reminds me of the small-mind and the big-mind of Zen (I've been reading Zen stuff lately, I got a few books on it for Christmas). I include nothing in the self, advocating the small-mind. You include the spirit in the self, advocating something between the small-mind and the big-mind. : ------- : : : ----HMMMM--self=identity=will=spirit=me,myself,and I : : Yes, that's just what I said your view was. I was accurate, I see. I disagree, though. Possessions=everything. Self=owner of possessions=nothing=me, myself, and I : : : : Here is my concession: : : : : If the self is defined as its spirit, and a better spirit is defined as more complex and developed, then humans are probably better than, for example, cows. : : : Ah at last--you see my point. :) : : I've seen it for a long time. However, the self is NOT defined as the spirit. It is defined as the owner of all its possessions. Wouldn't you define anyone as the owner of their possessions? : ----: : : Here is my assertion: : : : : If the self is defined as the owner of all its possessions, then all selves are equal, because all selves are nothing. : -------Where exactly did you get that defintion? Certainly not from the dictionary. That is ONE way you cna define self but it's not comprehensice or even fully accurate. If you seiously re-worded the def and said that self was the SUM(not the OWNER) of all the CHARACTERISTICS(not POSSESIONS)that make it up then I'd agree with you. The way you define it doesn't work becasue by using the word's owner and possessions you imply something(the slef) that exists INDEPENENT-and prior-- of those possessions. WHO or WHAT is doing the owning?If it can own something, it can also NOT own something--or anything at all--and it still exists. The self cannot be "nothing"--that is in fact the exact oposite of its very defintion. Self as Is aid before implies BEING and being is the exact opposite of nothingness(the correct word). If you are attempting to say that WITHOUT those characteristics the self does not exist you are correct--becasue thopse characteristics are waht constitute the self. Absence of those characteristics measn absence of self> saying the self is nothing doesn't make any rational sense whatsoever becasue saying that is saying that the self doesn't exist--and yet it does. : : : :All selves arnothing--nothing implies the opposite of being. : : It isn't, though. "Nothing" EXISTS. Nothing is not the opposite of being, it is simply the absence of being. We are nothing. : Yes it is the opposite--you could just as well say that being is the absence of nothingness. Going by your def, if nothing is the absence of being and we are nothing, then we by necessity don't exist becasue we would represnt the absence of being. You said: "'Nothing' EXISTS. Actually, what you mean is that the STATE OR IDEA of nothingness exists for us to perceive--and that state, or idea or category exists as SOMETINGWe perceive STATSE of nothingness--a bottle lacking all air contains a stae of nothingness, but that state itslef is a SOMETING we call a vacuum. Being=existing, BArt.Nothingness means non-existence. The self cannot represent nothingness precisely becasue the self is defined in part by being. If the self was nothingness then we would use self as another word for nothingness. We don't. Case closed. : : : Self-awareness is the defnitive being and thus the self cannot be nothing : : You are including your conclusion in your precepts. Self-awareness is not a part of being. I can see without knowing about myself seeing. : ---LOL!!!!Self-awreness is the very epitamy of being, BART! That's one thing virtually all philosphers and any othe rthinking men have managed to agree on throughout Human history! "I think therefore I AM. Without self-awrness there really is no existence becasue there would be nothing around to register than anything exists(there owuld be no concepts or words for things like existence!). You may be able to see without knowing about it, but that's emaningless. Without awreness there is no CONCEPT of things like seeing or hearing etc. Egffectively it doesn't exist. : : : Makes no logical sense whatsoever. BTW< if you are somewhat Bhuddist in your thinking then we have yet another huge parting---love some of the ideas but the central tenet--that true understanding comes from release of self--is purwely ignorant. : : I am not Buddhist in my philosophical thinking. I was exposed to Zen AFTER I had most of my philosophy. Zen isn't philosophical in nature, anyway. It doesn't have to do with the nature of reality. It has to do with self-improvement. However, I don't think you have the central tenet right. What do you mean by, "release of self"? : ------The abandonment of ego for the purpose of becoming one with the universe. Ignorant. Can't be a aprt of things if your ego your self isn't intact. : Even if you do have it right, never criticize anyone else's beliefs. Religious beliefs are not subject to reason. They cannot be proved or disproved, and I can logically prove it. Step lightly while dealing with them. But don't respond to this- just keep your thoughts to yourself and keep on topic. : -----Bart, don't ever give me a command--especially a hypocritical one. You have no place going off-topic to berate me then tell me not to respond. Ifn there's one thing that really stretches the limit of my temper-control, its a bossy hypocrite. I WILL respond:I''ll criticise the beliefs of whomever I choose whenevr I choose. What the hell do you think we are doing here BArt? It is PRECISLEY becasue religious beleifs can't be proven or disproven(actually some can)-on a BROAD basis--that I am OBLIGATED, as a scientist and a seeker of the TRUTH, to criticze them. The reason the scientific method is so adherred to is becasue it doesn't just seek to prove its claim(in form of hpothesises)but it seeks to DISPROVE them--al in the name of truth. Religion only seeks to prove when it thinks it has a glimmer of chance and it NEVER seeks to disprove--precisely becasue religion isn't concerned with truth so much as it is with Human comfort. The hilarious thing here is that people like me--scientists--only tend to criticize relgions and the like when they interferre with or are hrmful in some way to progress andf Humanity's condition. Joe, Bob, Cain and abel can worship Christ all they want as long as it doesn't effect the things mentioned previously. In fact in such cases I think relgion is a good thing. But if Joe Bob Cain and Abel go about trying to spread their beliefs into the mainstream as being THE truth and a correct way of seeing reality I am going to raise hell about it becasue that is detrimental to the Human condition and progress. Unlike scientists howver, the relgious attempt to impose thier beilfs on others through government and education etc--you speak of tolerance, but they have none themselves(Scientists have never had a ASPanish Inquistion equivalent or Witch trials). You never see scientists interfering with the church, but you see plenty of relgious folks interfering with scholl, governemnt, etc--things they have no place to interfere with.omments preach tolerance yet what you expressed and how you expressed it was the epitamy of intolerance. There is no place for hypocrisy--especially arrogant hypocrisy. : : : : Here is an interesting possible new point of view: : : : : If the self is defined as all of its possessions, then depending on each individual's definition of good and bad, any individual can be better or worse than any other. : : : : : : ---Harldy original--again there is an objectiver good and bad indepednedt of each individual. : : There is NOT. Subjective reality is the only possible reality to have knowledge of. However, this is not about good and bad. It is about better and worse. The best thing is what someone calls as the best thing, and then the more something deviates from that best thing, the worse it is, from that person's point of view. : ----Yes there is BArt! Our fundamental disagreement seems to be here> If good and bad were upop to the indivudal then there would be no such concepts as good and bad--or words for them--becasue evrything would be chaotic, without distiction. There are UNIVERSAL defintions of good and bad as the very existence of those words shoes and as Human society shows. MUrder is UNIVERSALLYnseen as BAD. Self-sacrifce is UNIVERSALLY sen as good. We wouldn;t have laws or even soceity at all if good and bad depended on the individual. SUbjective reality is NOT the onlyreality to have knowledge of. Where the hell did you gert that innane idea? We have knowlege of physical laws which are a part of OBJECTIVE reLity, for isntance. Aside from that WE are a part of objective reality and having knowledge of ourselves means having knowledge of how OBJECTIVE REALITY MANIFESTS ITSELF. Maverick

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: