A line from Berkeley...

[RussDill]

Lifegazer, given up on attempting to defind your arguments from my posts I see. Well, suppose once you get to the point where your philosophy predicts that the speed of sound is a constant, there really isn't any point in making a decent effort defending it.

Your philosophy is dead lifegazer, it has clearly predicted what is clearly not true. (amoung other things, but this is by far the most odvious)

 

[evildave]

Actually light propagates through different media at different rates, as well.

 

[uruk]

?

It has been established that the actual experience of existence is internal to awareness and that all "things" therein are not real in themselves, but are seen amongst our inner-sensations. The universe we actually perceive of is not really there. It's an intangible illusion of "things".

Again, all this says is that our perception of existance is internal to our mind, the "things" within our mind are not real. This says NOTHING of the existance or non-existance of an external reality, just about the nature of our perceptions.

Remember, our internal perception is a representation of a reality.
We can not know if that reality is a real external reality or information being fed to us from some outside entity. We have no way of making that determination. Everything our senses tells us is that this reality exists. It operates with a set of self-consistant rules. We are incapable of dealing with it otherwise.

I responded that it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established]intangible realm.

Here you have it folks. A textbook example of circular reasoning.

rephrased: It is ludicrous to discuss a external reality because it is completely nonsensical to enquire of and external reality.

Don't accuse me of circular reasoning just because you lack the brains to understand my point of view

Here is an example of ad hominem.

that science knows jack all about the nature of reality. Science only knows about the order within perceived existence.

That percieved existance is fundamentaly no different from an actual external reality. Because our percieved reality behaves exactly as if it is an external reality, and we can not percieve any other reality. And I have said before that I agree with you that science only applies to the workings of our percieved reality. That's why we know it is consistant. We can use science to make testable predictions within this percieved reality as well as manipulate the "things" within that percieved reality. Your philosophy provides us with zip because it can not give us any practical information about our existance. It will always remain academic.

I mentioned that you cannot be 6 feet from the tooth fairy to drive home my point. The tooth fairy does not occupy real space since she isn't really there. Thus, you cannot find her, let alone be 6 feet from her.

This is a red herring. I know that you are saying that I can not be 6 feet away from an imaginary creature because it does not exist. The problem with this analogy is that we are talking about what is going on within relation to this percieved reality. you yourself have said that this percieved reality has a set order (i.e. TLOP) If within that percieved reality I am standing next to an object, to me that object is real. I cannot percieve it otherwise. That perception of reality behaves as if it is real. I have no choice but to accept it as real. I CAN NOT DO OTHERWISE. Therefore it means didly-squat to me if this reality does not exist. I can not deal with it as if it is not real. We are incapable of dealing with it as unreal.

This forum is full of fools who think science lends philosophical weight towards an external (to awareness) reality.

Wouldn't that also make you a fool to think that science lends philosophical weight towards proving that an external reality does not exist?

Got that?

 

[uruk]

Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light since the object is not the source of that light.

Apparently you have never heard or read about Doppler shift.
If you are accelerating toward or away from and object, or vice-versa, the wavelength (not the speed) of light reflecting or eminating from that object will shift either towards the red or blue end of the spectrum depending on if it was moving away from or towards you. This is an observed fact. Thats how Hubble (I think) discovered that the universe is expanding.
This is counter your "mind is the source of light" hypothesis. Light is just another one of the ways "reality" interacts with our senses.

 

[lifegazer]

Again, all this says is that our perception of existance is internal to our mind, the "things" within our mind are not real.

That's the whole bleedin' point!

Sigh. Are you just winding me up or what?
My philosophy is founded upon this established truth - that we have our existence amongst an intangible realm. We only know of sensations, thoughts and feelings. Our existence is comprised of abstract concepts/functions/attributes. An intangible realm does exist!!! (this is true even if an external reality also exists)

This says NOTHING of the existance or non-existance of an external reality, just about the nature of our perceptions.

Read my last post again. After confirming the existence of an intangible realm, to which you have agreed twice now, the question is asked how we can know if there is a reality external to this established realm of existence, also. I.e., I then proceed to confront your question.

Remember, our internal perception is a representation of a reality.
We can not know if that reality is a real external reality or information being fed to us from some outside entity.

Our internal awareness is real. I.e., there is really an intangible awareness full of intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings. It's also distinct from any supposed external reality comprised of real objects in real spacetime, as opposed to the perception of illusory objects in illusory spacetime. Remember that all actual "things" seen within awareness are illusions and are not real. Nothing perceived is real. We do not perceive actual reality, but rather a subjective reality. Understand? It's important that you do. Yes, it's essentially important that you should realise that you have never sensed anything real in your whole life. The things you see are ghosts of things.

Everything our senses tells us is that this reality exists.

Nonsense. Everything our senses tells us is about things existing internally to our awareness. Why is it that you cannot grasp this?
How many times do I have to make the same point to you? How many times do I have to show you that you have personally never experienced a single thing beyond your own internal awareness?

It operates with a set of self-consistant rules.

The presence of order within our perceptions doesn't prove that there is an external reality. Not at all.

We are incapable of dealing with it otherwise.

Garbage. You deal with it regardless.

"I responded that it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established]intangible realm."

Here you have it folks. A textbook example of circular reasoning.

I cannot believe that you have said this again after I painstakingly explained why it wasn't circular reasoning.
(1) An intangible realm is established.
(2) The question is asked whether there is a reality external to this intangible realm.
(3) I say "it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established] intangible realm.".

I then used the example of a tooth fairy to drive my point home. Intangible entities possess no form. Nothing can be next to or external to an intangible entity or realm of intangibles.

That's a perfectly sound response to your question. It is not circular reasoning. There is nothing external to this intangible realm of ours because nothing can be external to an intangible realm, by rational default.

rephrased: It is ludicrous to discuss a external reality because it is completely nonsensical to enquire of and external reality.

You come out with crap like this and expect me not to call you a bozo?

Here is an example of ad hominem.

I don't care. If you talk to me like a moron and glibly brush aside all of my considerable efforts without engaging your brain, I'll make sure you know that you've annoyed me.

Because our percieved reality behaves exactly as if it is an external reality

My dreams behave exactly as though they were an external reality! Can we have some rationality here please, or there's no point to the discussion.

, and we can not percieve any other reality.

That reality being internal!

And I have said before that I agree with you that science only applies to the workings of our percieved reality. That's why we know it is consistant. We can use science to make testable predictions within this percieved reality as well as manipulate the "things" within that percieved reality.

Nothing in this statement lends weight to science having anything to say about the nature of reality. That squire is a purely philosophical pursuit.
Understanding that t follows s follows r follows q, does not tell you from whence time/change emanates. Nor does it tell you whether reality is internal or external.

Your philosophy provides us with zip because it can not give us any practical information about our existance. It will always remain academic.

Utter tripe. I might not be offering a new improved technology. But I am offering everybody the insight that they are God and that they, therefore, should be striving for unity on Earth. Thus, I am offering peace, justice and equality for everyone. If they want it.

This is a red herring. I know that you are saying that I can not be 6 feet away from an imaginary creature because it does not exist. The problem with this analogy is that we are talking about what is going on within relation to this percieved reality.

Nothing you see within/amongst your senses is real in itself. I've explained this so many times now that I'm gobsmacked you still don't gettit.

Wouldn't that also make you a fool to think that science lends philosophical weight towards proving that an external reality does not exist?

Got that?

Actually no, since science is the study of perceived order. Whatever laws or forces we see is applicable to an internal reality. What I tried to show you is how relativity and qm fits in with this realisation. But you cannot grasp it, I fear.

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer, given up on attempting to defind your arguments from my posts I see. Well, suppose once you get to the point where your philosophy predicts that the speed of sound is a constant, there really isn't any point in making a decent effort defending it.

Your philosophy is dead lifegazer, it has clearly predicted what is clearly not true. (amoung other things, but this is by far the most odvious)

Before I attempt to answer this question, please explain precisely what you mean. In what sense do you say that the speed of sound is not a constant?

 

[evildave]

I'll take that really quickly:

Anyone who didn't sleep through even a small part of an introductory physics lesson should know that sound AND LIGHT travel at different speed through different media, though for different reasons.

The speed of sound varies according to the gas and temperature of that gas that it's travelling through.
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/events/regimes/speed.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe3.html

So, at different altitudes and pressures, and temperatures, sound travels at different rates. Simple.

Similar information for light, though the reason for the speed difference is different. More about how it's absorbed and re-emitted by atomic state than "waved" through elasticity.
http://lecture.mfu.ac.th/~chuleeporn/quantum.htm
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~skim/SpeedOfLight/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/light2.htm

So, light travels a little more slowly through air than it does through a vacuum, and about 3/4 speed of air through water. Simple.

 

[lifegazer]

Dave, the differing speeds of light through various mediums is not a consideration.

 

[Acrimonious]

The speed of sound varies according to the gas and temperature of that gas that it's travelling through.

Sound propogates through liquids and solids much the same as gases, although much faster and farther, due to the closer proximity of the molecules and the higher likelihood of collisions.

Speed of Sound in various Media

An easy demonstration of this can be made if you have access to unused or abandoned rail lines.

Have a friend hit the rail with a hammer while you stand 200 yards away. Note how long it takes for the sound to reach you.

Then: Hold your ear against the rail and have him hit it again.

 

[scribble]

Dave, the differing speeds of light through various mediums is not a consideration.

Why does it take us longer to see things that are far away if there is no such thing as distance or seperation?

If there are such things as distance or seperation, then why can't we refer to the two objects that are distant or seperated as two seperate objects? How can something be distant or seperated from itself? How can A not equal A?

 

[RandFan]

lifegazer
(1) An intangible realm is established.

Agreed.

(2) The question is asked whether there is a reality external to this intangible realm.

Yes, this is a good question to ask.

(3) I say "it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities.

Ok, this is your proposition. Now all we need are the premises to support this proposition

The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less.

Redundant but ok, this is fine, we can live with it.

It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established] intangible realm.".

Whooooa. Hold on there. You just stated a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.

By this logic the people on TV don't exist because they are just images. They are intangible.

I then used the example of a tooth fairy to drive my point home. Intangible entities possess no form. Nothing can be next to or external to an intangible entity or realm of intangibles.

The tooth fairy possesses no predictable qualities. I have never seen her, touched her, smelled her, heard her. My wife on the other hand is quite different from the Tooth Fairy. Through my senses I can see her, touch her, hear her, etc. My perception tells me that she is physical and that I can make prediction of any number of things based on the physical properties of my wife. On the other hand, I can make no predictions based on the tooth fairy.

Do you see the difference?

There is nothing external to this intangible realm of ours because nothing can be external to an intangible realm, by rational default.

Non Sequitur, circular.

Just because our perceptions are internal does not disprove that there is an external.

Let me count the ways.

1. Your philosophy violates the law of parsimony.
   
2. Your philosophy assumes that which it tries to prove. (The fact that our perceptions are internal proves that there is no external.) When this fact only proves that they are internal.
   
3. Your philosophy is a non sequitur because you state that nothing can be external to an intangible realm. This doesn't follow.
   
4. You accept that our perceptive world contains both order and predictability but you then use the tooth fairy as an argument when the tooth fairy has neither order nor predictability.
   
5. You claim "fundamentally, the constituent energy of the forms we see is essentially unpredictable." When in reality we can know the position and not the state, or the state, and not the position.
   
6. You use ad hominem.[/list=1] Let's see how long you can make the list.

 

[Atlas]

An easy demonstration of this can be made if you have access to unused or abandoned rail lines...

Hold your ear against the rail and have him hit it again.

Lifegazer,

You can try this one even if the rail line is not abandoned.

 

[lifegazer]

Why does it take us longer to see things that are far away if there is no such thing as distance or seperation?

I contend that there is distance and separation - within awareness - between "things" that don't really exist. Hence, because it's within awareness, it's not real or true distance (just as the "things" we perceive of aren't actually real things).
The appearance of space between objects also occurs within your dreams. Creating the awareness of space where there isn't any space and creating the awareness of things where there are no things, is a piece of cake for the Mind. Your dreams should tell you this, if nothing else. But as I have explained, even in consciousness our perceptions are internal and Mind-generated. I.e., the things and spaces we see are illusions, but we still perceive of things and spaces, nevertheless.
Thus, the Mind has the ability to make some things appear further away than others.

If there are such things as distance or seperation,

Only within perception/awareness - within the self.

then why can't we refer to the two objects that are distant or seperated as two seperate objects?

You can say that the perception of two objects within the mind are perceived as separated. Yet, one must also acknowledge the illusory nature of both the objects and the distance between them, since they are perceived subjectively and inwardly to the self.
I often like to mention the nightsky to drive home my point. How often have you, like me, stared in awe at the nightsky as you've contemplated the unimaginable distances that appear to exist between ourselves and those numerous spots of light in the sky?
Well, amazingly, every single one of those spots of light (and the apparent distances between you and they), exists within your awareness... which means that you actually embrace everything you see. There is no real distance between yourself and what is seen since everything is within you. The universe is in you. You encompass everything.
Of course, when I say 'you' I am refering to your essential identity (not your perceived identity). By now, you should know that I am addressing you as the God that you are.

 

[scribble]

I contend that there is distance and separation - within awareness - between "things" that don't really exist. Hence, because it's within awareness, it's not real or true distance (just as the "things" we perceive of aren't actually real things).
The appearance of space between objects also occurs within your dreams. Creating the awareness of space where there isn't any space and creating the awareness of things where there are no things, is a piece of cake for the Mind. Your dreams should tell you this, if nothing else. But as I have explained, even in consciousness our perceptions are internal and Mind-generated. I.e., the things and spaces we see are illusions, but we still perceive of things and spaces, nevertheless.

But if thing A and thing B can both exist inside an imagined space C, and thing A and thing B are both also imaginary, then doesn't discussing this contradict your statement that it's meaningless to discuss what's external (thing B and space C) to an intangible thing (thing A?)

 

[lifegazer]

But if thing A and thing B can both exist inside an imagined space C, and thing A and thing B are both also imaginary, then doesn't discussing this contradict your statement that it's meaningless to discuss what's external (thing B and space C) to an intangible thing (thing A?)

Why?
You lost me there.

 

[scribble]

Okay -

You say there is distance and seperation between the things in our mind. That is, we can tell an imaginary rock from an imaginary television set. When I look around my room, even though it's all in my head, I see different, distinct objects. And I asked you, can we refer to them as distinct objects, being seperate and distant from each other?

And you said yes - even though it's all in my head, I can still represent different objects. Okay. But before you said if something is intangible, like my television set or my pet rock, then it makes no sense to speak of anything being distant or external to it - so if I want to speak of my pet rock, can I never again refer to anything else? Being as it's intangible?

Sorry if that comes across as confused. I am.

 

[evildave]

Dave, the differing speeds of light through various mediums is not a consideration.

Why not? It's obviously not constant.

Air is media, but the only place you're likely to try to go fast enough to see doppler effects in light would be in deep space, where there is lots of room, and relatively little matter to collide with.

That light will be traveling faster than light through air that you've been used to seeing to start with. It will phase-shift and do the whole range of things that sound does as you observe things.

You said it was "constant".

Just pointing out that it isn't.

(3). "I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity."
I contend that light is imposed upon awareness by the Mind itself.
This is a fact since whatever we perceive is just the abstract sensation itself, imposed upon awareness by that Mind. Hence, the Mind is the true source of the light we perceive and not the "thing" we actually see as a result of this light. For example, I contend that the Mind is the source of the Sun's light... not that the Sun is the source of that light. Remember that my philosophy contends that "things" are seen from the sensations. First the sensation, then the "thing". So, the Sun in itself is the source of nothing. The light we see gives the awareness/appearance of a "thing" we label 'the Sun'.
Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light since the object is not the source of that light. The Mind itself is... and one truly cannot accelerate from or towards the Mind itself. Thus, the constancy of lightspeed 'c'.

And what you THINK light is doesn't seem to have any effect on what it does when photographic plates, sensors, detectors and other such things interact with it. One man's ignorance of physics and the nature of light does not prevent a laser speed or distance detecting device, or a RADAR device he is using from working, provided it has a simple user interface and a battery that only goes in one way.

That whole "light is a tiny subset of the radio spectrum" thing seems to have been left out.

Is it the mind's model of color that makes a radio play sound? And not just for that mind. Lots of people react to a radio announcement about impending disasters, or disasters currently in progress. Of course, those that do not have a radio do not react, unless someone shows up and tells them about it.

Finally, there are some papers that indicate that certain forms of signal propagation can take place FASTER than light.
http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html

Thank you, Acrimonious, for finding a better table of speeds than my trivial search did.

 

[lifegazer]

Whooooa. Hold on there. You just stated a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.

By this logic the people on TV don't exist because they are just images. They are intangible.

You need to prove that the people you perceive of really do exist before raising this objection.
But since everything within perception has already been established as subjective/intangible/abstract (lifegazer:
(1) An intangible realm is established.
----------
Rand: "Agreed."), you won't be able to do this.
Both the people we see and the images on the TV are intangible.
There's nothing wrong with my logic Rand. It stands solid. All I have said is that nothing can exist externally to an intangible realm and nothing you have said above is even relevant.

I have never seen her, touched her, smelled her, heard her.

Irrelevant. An intangible realm is an intangible realm whether perceived as orderly (as in consciousness) or disorderly (as in dreams).

My wife on the other hand is quite different from the Tooth Fairy. Through my senses I can see her, touch her, hear her, etc. My perception tells me that she is physical and that I can make prediction of any number of things based on the physical properties of my wife. On the other hand, I can make no predictions based on the tooth fairy.

Absolutely irrelevant. 'Your wife' exists within awareness. And that's that.

Do you see the difference?

I'm aware that intangible realms can be ordered or disordered. That's the difference.

Let me count the ways.

1. Your philosophy violates the law of parsimony.

1. 
   Positing existence as just One entity glorifies the law of parsimony.
   

   [*]Your philosophy assumes that which it tries to prove. (The fact that our perceptions are internal proves that there is no external.) When this fact only proves that they are internal.

   My philosophy assumes no such thing. I have reasoned that nothing can be external an intangible entity. It's not my fault that you don't comprehend why.
   

   [*]Your philosophy is a non sequitur because you state that nothing can be external to an intangible realm. This doesn't follow.

   Don't be silly. An intangible realm occupies no space or form. By default, nothing can exist next to or around (external to) such a realm.
   

   [*]You accept that our perceptive world contains both order and predictability but you then use the tooth fairy as an argument when the tooth fairy has neither order nor predictability.

   Irrelevant.
   

   [*] You claim "fundamentally, the constituent energy of the forms we see is essentially unpredictable." When in reality we can know the position and not the state, or the state, and not the position.

   Everyone is aware of the base indeterminism of quanta (fundamental energy/matter). Enough said.
   

   [*] You use ad hominem.[/list=1] Let's see how long you can make the list.

   So calling you a bozo means that I'm wrong? Don't be a plonker Rand.

 

[uruk]

That's the whole bleedin' point

The point I am trying to make is that just because our perception of reality is internal does mean that an external reality does not exist. You are making the assumption that an external reality does not exist based on this observation. All I am saying is that you can't make that assumption without proof. the fact that our perception of reality is internal IS NOT PROOF of the non-existance or existance of an external reality.

My philosophy is founded upon this established truth - that we have our existence amongst an intangible realm. We only know of sensations, thoughts and feelings. Our existence is comprised of abstract concepts/functions/attributes. An intangible realm does exist!!! (this is true even if an external reality also exists)

our experiance and perceptions are that intangible realm. But remember that intangeble realm is a representation of some "thing" which is feeding us information. Be it a "god" or an "external realm" we can not know. We only create that realm in so much that it is a representation.
You again make the assumption that we are creating that "information". It is not the same as a dream because the source of that "information" is self consistant. It follows a set of rules in which we have no control over. We can only observe those rules. Our dreams do not follow any internal rules. That is why we can tell the difference between a dream and wakeing "reality".

Read my last post again. After confirming the existence of an intangible realm, to which you have agreed twice now, the question is asked how we can know if there is a reality external to this established realm of existence, also. I.e., I then proceed to confront your question.

That was not my question. My question was How does the fact that our perceptions are internal mean (or prove) that an external reality does not exist as you assert. Not wether one actually exists or not. I've already admitted to that there is no way to make the determination.

Our internal awareness is real. I.e., there is really an intangible awareness full of intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings. It's also distinct from any supposed external reality comprised of real objects in real spacetime, as opposed to the perception of illusory objects in illusory spacetime. Remember that all actual "things" seen within awareness are illusions and are not real. Nothing perceived is real. We do not perceive actual reality, but rather a subjective reality. Understand? It's important that you do. Yes, it's essentially important that you should realise that you have never sensed anything real in your whole life. The things you see are ghosts of things.

This ultimately useless and meaningless. As I have said, If this formless, intangible, subjective realm is all that we can percieve, then it makes no different to us whether it is actualy real or not. For all practical purposes it IS REAL. It behaves EXACTLY as a "real" world would. We have no control over the rules which govern this "realm". If in my subjective, illusory, intangible realm a car is heading straight towards me from behind (so that it is not within my line of sight or awareness within that realm) I am going to be hit and probably killed. I have no control over that. I can not make the car majicaly dissapear as I could in a dream. How is this any different from a reality that "us fools" belive in lock stock and barrel.

Nonsense. Everything our senses tells us is about things existing internally to our awareness. Why is it that you cannot grasp this?
How many times do I have to make the same point to you? How many times do I have to show you that you have personally never experienced a single thing beyond your own internal awareness?

Our senses tells us we live in this world. the same world you are experiance for yourself sitting in front of monitor and typing on a keyboard. Wether that world actually exists, I do not know or care for that matter. I can not percieve any other existance.
What do I gain by denying what my senses are telling me?
What do I gain by believing this world is not real?

The presence of order within our perceptions doesn't prove that there is an external reality. Not at all

I never said it did. Just that it suggested the possibility.

cannot believe that you have said this again after I painstakingly explained why it wasn't circular reasoning.
(1) An intangible realm is established.
(2) The question is asked whether there is a reality external to this intangible realm.
(3) I say "it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to an intangible entity or entities. The reason I say this is because intangible entities are form-less. It is completely nonsensical to enquire of a reality external to an [established] intangible realm."..

1.) agreed (with reservations)
2.) that was not my question. read above. please be more ethical in your arguments
3.) This has no meaning. Our internal perception is a representation of something. Information. By your own philosophy, this information is being fed to us by god, therefore external to our minds.

I then used the example of a tooth fairy to drive my point home. Intangible entities possess no form. Nothing can be next to or external to an intangible entity or realm of intangibles. .

I keep telling you that that intangable realm IS our reality. And that reality is a representation of information coming to us from outside our minds. The TLOP and all the thing that happen beynd our awareness suggest that. It does matter if the things do not have "actual" existance (if not to us, then what?) To us they are real. everthing behaves accordingly. It makes no difference. That's all that matters. Your god is external to that reality.
there are things that are external to our awareness. My parents life before I was born. All the events in history that has happen before I was born. All the things and events that are going right now in places around the world and behind my back that I can't see. All the subatomic processes that are taking place beyond my perception. All the things that are going on in galaxies out there in space. These things exist outside my awareness.

That's a perfectly sound response to your question. It is not circular reasoning. There is nothing external to this intangible realm of ours because nothing can be external to an intangible realm, by rational default.
.

Now THAT is a circular statement!

 

[RandFan]

All I have said is that nothing can exist externally to an intangible realm...

And it is a fallacious statement. Prove it.