Self-evidence (main q)

Regina · **#221** by **Regina** » Apr 14, 2012 2:15 pm

Little Idiot wrote:
Another couple of decades of refinement of the primary concepts, and here I am, master of my own little universe.

Hang on there, for a sec!
Are you planning on becoming World Mind? Are you currently undergoing some sort of apprenticeship? :think:

SpeedOfSound · **#222** by **SpeedOfSound** » Apr 14, 2012 2:16 pm

Regina wrote:No, SoS, he implies that you are naive. Just as jamest considers some of my contributions in this thread silly.
Apparently, an idealist position requires some deep thinking, and understandably so, because it needs a lot of effort to bend reality into the shape that appeals to the idealist.

Yes. They do seem to fancy themselves the greatest thinkers in the world, having figured it all out as they have. Odd that they disagree with each other on what they figured out. :scratch:

Cito di Pense · **#223** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 2:20 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:Not likely that reason came first.

Damn. I thought that was going to get us talking about the origin of everything. How do mentalists account for the beginning of existence? Do they just say, "Oh, it's been around just forever...."? Turtles all the way down? How?

SpeedOfSound wrote:They do seem to fancy themselves the greatest thinkers in the world, having figured it all out as they have.

Nothing ventured, nothing bent. These guys have their World Mind organising and running everything, but they can't tell you where the World Mind came from. The same way theists can't tell you where God came from. What you're getting is obfuscated theology. All theology tries to do is to get you to think about some other question than the one about where God came from.

As we can see from the last few posts, they're trying to get you to think about how idealists get their marvelous powers of discernment. Oh, those spoons!

Regina · **#224** by **Regina** » Apr 14, 2012 2:43 pm

Cito wrote:

Nothing ventured, nothing bent.

Just out of curiosity, has any of these here thinkers come up with why X, World Mind, The Great Wanker in the Sky et al are necessary at all? Because they don't have an obvious purpose, from what I can see.
Sorry, I don't have the time to trawl through assorted threads. So if anyone could point me to a relevant post, I'd be indebted to you.

Cito di Pense · **#225** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 3:03 pm

Regina wrote:
Cito wrote:

Nothing ventured, nothing bent.

Just out of curiosity, has any of these here thinkers come up with why X, World Mind, The Great Wanker in the Sky et al are necessary at all? Because they don't have an obvious purpose, from what I can see.
Sorry, I don't have the time to trawl to assorted threads. So if anyone could point me to a relevant post, I'd be indebted to you.

They're trying to make up a story about where consciousnessness comes from, which they hope will make up for the fact that they can't do physics properly. Along the way, they invent existent entities that serve as a replacement for God. The reason I say this is because they give their existent entities responsibility for running everything. It doesn't matter whether reality is material or immaterial: Theology is theology.

If you don't ask them where they get their existent entities from (pulled out of their arses, is my guess) then they're just taking you on a merry chase on which you only ask them how they know what they know, and they have played you for fools. If they invent ontologies in the process of developing epistemology, you have to call them on it.

When they start talking about necessary entities, they might as well be talking about god. A necessary entity is one for which you don't have to say where it came from. It's necessary in the sense that it is necessary to any theology. God is the only entity I've ever heard of whose origins no one ever wants to talk about. God is used to explain the origin of everything else, but no one ever inquires into the origin of God.

These people hang about in the philosophy forum to disguise their theological narratives, and we mainly play along.

Regina · **#226** by **Regina** » Apr 14, 2012 3:13 pm

Well, in my naivete ( I'm not a philosopher :lol:

) I can only conclude that X is not necessary, because it's not necessary to explain consciousness. So I guess it's where the more philosophically inclined tend to think that a shave might be in order, right?

Cito di Pense · **#227** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 3:17 pm

Regina wrote:Well, in my naivete ( I'm not a philosopher ) I can only conclude that X is not necessary, because it's not necessary to explain consciousness. So I guess it's where the more philosophically inclined tend to think that a shave might be in order, right?

You want to explain 'consciousnessness' without defining it? Then don't say you're not a philosopher. Naiveté does not rescue you from being a philosopher. It might rescue you from being philosophisticated, whatever that is.

Cito di Pense wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:Not likely that reason came first.

Damn. I thought that was going to get us talking about the origin of everything. How do mentalists account for the beginning of existence? Do they just say, "Oh, it's been around just forever...."? Turtles all the way down? How?

Little Idiot wrote:Also, for me the non-dual source is unlimited (self)awareness, World Mind is a limited part of this (limited in awareness to 'only' every-where and every-when in one cosmos) and the individual is a more limited part of this awareness.

But this means Source and World Mind are aware, not non-conscious. An individual can have a non-conscious component of itself. World mind is conscious of its cosmos (thats what the cosmos is) non-conscious of non-cosmos. Source is aware of all.

And the source of the Source?

You see how, at the end, he slips in "the source is aware of all". WTF. LI isn't doing philosophy; he's tweeting somewhere other than on Twitter, because someone will pay attention to him here.

Regina · **#228** by **Regina** » Apr 14, 2012 3:24 pm

Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.

Cito di Pense · **#229** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 3:36 pm

Regina wrote:Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.

That more or less means that you are leaning towards eliminativism. The way you're using it, consciousness is a pretty useless word for something that picks up slowly or quickly in the AM, depending on whether you use an alarm clock, and then goes away slowly or quickly at bedtime, depending on whether you fall asleep watching the telly or hit yourself on the head with a plank.

GrahamH · **#230** by **GrahamH** » Apr 14, 2012 3:41 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Regina wrote:Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.

That more or less means that you are leaning towards eliminativism. The way you're using it, consciousness is a pretty useless word for something that picks up slowly or quickly in the AM, depending on whether you use an alarm clock, and then goes away slowly or quickly at bedtime, depending on whether you fall asleep watching the telly or hit yourself on the head with a hammer.

'Explaining consciousness' isn't something that features in Idealism or theism. It is taken as an inexplicable given.

Cito di Pense · **#231** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 4:11 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Regina wrote:Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.

That more or less means that you are leaning towards eliminativism. The way you're using it, consciousness is a pretty useless word for something that picks up slowly or quickly in the AM, depending on whether you use an alarm clock, and then goes away slowly or quickly at bedtime, depending on whether you fall asleep watching the telly or hit yourself on the head with a hammer.

'Explaining consciousness' isn't something that features in Idealism or theism. It is taken as an inexplicable given.

'Experience', then. The 'source' of 'experience', or, "Why is there something (to experience) rather than nothing?" It's full of metaphysics. These guys don't really have a very good idea of what it is they want to 'explain'.

Can't have 'experience' without 'consciousness'. It's circular, if you don't think about it too little or too much. If you think about it just right. Goldilocks philosophy.

GrahamH · **#232** by **GrahamH** » Apr 14, 2012 4:25 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Regina wrote:Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.

That more or less means that you are leaning towards eliminativism. The way you're using it, consciousness is a pretty useless word for something that picks up slowly or quickly in the AM, depending on whether you use an alarm clock, and then goes away slowly or quickly at bedtime, depending on whether you fall asleep watching the telly or hit yourself on the head with a hammer.

'Explaining consciousness' isn't something that features in Idealism or theism. It is taken as an inexplicable given.

'Experience', then. The 'source' of 'experience', or, "Why is there something (to experience) rather than nothing?" It's full of metaphysics. These guys don't really have a very good idea of what it is they want to 'explain'.

Can't have 'experience' without 'consciousness'. It's circular, if you don't think about it too little or too much. If you think about it just right. Goldilocks philosophy.

They can't touch 'why is there something...' either. All they have is 'just because that happens to be god's nature, which is inexplicable'.

Why is there god? - no answer.
Why does an immaterial mind create a material world - no answer (unspecified great purpose assumed)
Why are we conscious? - because god just happens to be inexplicably conscious and gifts it to us.
'God' answers no question.
All answers are deferred for god to answer directly, which she can't do, obviously.

Cito di Pense · **#233** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 4:30 pm

GrahamH wrote:(unspecified great purpose assumed)

Don't forget, these are people who are trying to disguise theology as philosophy. The problems they give themselves are all related to constructing the disguise, so that we end up talking about the features of the disguise, rather than about theology. I think they know that all the arguments for the existence of god can be collected and debunked in a rather smallish book.

One can avoid talking theology if one avoids talking about purpose or intention. Jamest failed to do this in his epic fail on agency.

DrWho focuses on the state of objects when we are not 'perceiving' them. If we can 'establish' real objects, that 'exist' independently, then believing in the notion that we can 'establish' things means that we don't have to believe in notions and entities we cannot 'establish', like 'god'. For people like this, 'absense of belief' is not an option, and they will try to get you to admit what it is you 'believe'.

Little Idiot · **#234** by **Little Idiot** » Apr 14, 2012 4:40 pm

Regina wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:
Another couple of decades of refinement of the primary concepts, and here I am, master of my own little universe.

Hang on there, for a sec!
Are you planning on becoming World Mind? Are you currently undergoing some sort of apprenticeship?

I dont plan on becoming the world mind and running the cosmos or anything! That kind of a plan would make me some kind of crazy.
The couple of decades I referred to are past decades, sorry if I didnt make that clear enough. I meant pre-20 naive realist, 20 idealist, 20 - 40(ish) developing idealism.

The phrase 'master of my own little universe' was not meant to mean literally that I am/will be master of this universe.

GrahamH · **#235** by **GrahamH** » Apr 14, 2012 4:46 pm

Little Idiot wrote:The phrase 'master of my own little universe' was not meant to mean literally that I am/will be master of this universe.

Not even master of the curvature of a small spooniverse.

Destroyer · **#236** by **Destroyer** » Apr 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Regina wrote:Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.

You already know its origin?; that's news to me. Please enlighten me.

Cito di Pense · **#237** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 4:54 pm

Little Idiot wrote:
Regina wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:
Another couple of decades of refinement of the primary concepts, and here I am, master of my own little universe.

Hang on there, for a sec!
Are you planning on becoming World Mind? Are you currently undergoing some sort of apprenticeship?

I dont plan on becoming the world mind and running the cosmos or anything! That kind of a plan would make me some kind of crazy.
The couple of decades I referred to are past decades, sorry if I didnt make that clear enough. I meant pre-20 naive realist, 20 idealist, 20 - 40(ish) developing idealism.

The phrase 'master of my own little universe' was not meant to mean literally that I am/will be master of this universe.

LI, there are topics about which we can discourse expertly but unintelligently (common sense) and there are topics about which we can discourse intelligently but inexpertly (art and literature and philosophy). The experts in art and literature and philosophy discourse expertly at academic conferences. About what sorts of topics can anyone discourse both intelligently and expertly? Yep, that would be science, and the experts are still at the conferences. Having academic conferences to discuss common sense topics destroys the whole concept of academia.

When you say you 'developed' idealism, you're using the lingo of academic conferences in an internet forum. It's pretentious.

Little Idiot · **#238** by **Little Idiot** » Apr 14, 2012 4:54 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Regina wrote:Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.

You already know its origin?; that's news to me. Please enlighten me.

Cito di Pense · **#239** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 4:55 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:The phrase 'master of my own little universe' was not meant to mean literally that I am/will be master of this universe.

Not even master of the curvature of a small spooniverse.

The 'spooniverse'? You vex me, GrahamH, because I did not think up that word. :rofl:

Destroyer · **#240** by **Destroyer** » Apr 14, 2012 4:56 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

That more or less means that you are leaning towards eliminativism. The way you're using it, consciousness is a pretty useless word for something that picks up slowly or quickly in the AM, depending on whether you use an alarm clock, and then goes away slowly or quickly at bedtime, depending on whether you fall asleep watching the telly or hit yourself on the head with a hammer.

'Explaining consciousness' isn't something that features in Idealism or theism. It is taken as an inexplicable given.

'Experience', then. The 'source' of 'experience', or, "Why is there something (to experience) rather than nothing?" It's full of metaphysics. These guys don't really have a very good idea of what it is they want to 'explain'.

Can't have 'experience' without 'consciousness'. It's circular, if you don't think about it too little or too much. If you think about it just right. Goldilocks philosophy.

They can't touch 'why is there something...' either. All they have is 'just because that happens to be god's nature, which is inexplicable'.

Why is there god? - no answer.
Why does an immaterial mind create a material world - no answer (unspecified great purpose assumed)
Why are we conscious? - because god just happens to be inexplicably conscious and gifts it to us.
'God' answers no question.
All answers are deferred for god to answer directly, which she can't do, obviously.

So; you have never heard any answer to these questions?

Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Ads by Google

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Ads by Google

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Ads by Google

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Who is online