Do brains really exist?

[Piscivore]

Well somebody forgot to tell Einstein and the rest of the clueless scientific-establishment then. Not to mention the materialists/atheists that hung onto their coat-tails.

Sensed-brains are the cause of NOTHING.
Sensed-Suns are the cause of NOTHING.

Pick up your phone and tell the scientists that are wasting $£$£ and their time trying to prove that sensed-brains & sensed-Suns are the cause of many things to read my posts tonight.

That's because- as has been explained to you over and over and over, once more by ZG above, no-one else thinks Solipsism is of any merit. It's useless, meaningless woolgathering.

Answer the question, you illiterate chump: what is the difference between "sensed-things" and "real things", and how do you tell the difference?

Answer it, you ignorant intellectual coward!

 

[Atlas]

I am looking forward to your revealing the implications. You have made it sound compelling. I have made some inferences from what you've revealed so far about causality and it seem to point to a pointless existence as puppets unable to even cause our own emotional states. We are nothing, can do nothing and have no responsibility.

Causality is determined by what comes after not before. There is nothing that can be predicted.

Even if you could prove it, which you cannot, who'd buy it.

Well, maybe you will have some uplifting implications so I'll wait to pass judgement. I hope you weren't just trying to sell us on the great ideas you have by telling us that there are tremendous implications. We want to know what you have found out. Don't let us down.

 

[Atlas]

No 'thing' (sensed object) within awareness is the cause of anything else within awareness.

The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' that we see!!!!!

These statements seem at odds with one another. It seems to suggest that babies are the cause of their parents.

 

[Z]

Actually, it's very simple.

Imagine, for a moment, that awareness is a canvas.

Now, upon that canvas, we see a sun appear. The 'light' is the paint which placed the sun there - actually, even this is untrue.

What science assumes that 'light' - another painting on the canvas - came from the sun, creating a reaction causing paint to spill across our canvas and create the sun. Then we see more light - well, more paint that they think causes paint to spill across our canvas creating a painting of light coming from the sun.

So under this analogy, let's re-state his 'profound' statement, and see if we can better grasp what he's actually saying:

No 'thing' (painted object) upon the canvas is the cause of anything else upon the canvas.
I stand by this statement and will present a short analysis of 'The Sun' (as I've done before), for your contemplation:

'The Sun' is an object that we see because of the painting of yellow [light], within/upon the canvas..
In other words, the painting of [a ball of] 'yellow' [light], is what we call 'The Sun'.
The interesting thing about this is that we've always thought that 'The Sun' (the painting) was the cause of the light upon the canvas. But we were wrong!!!!!!!!!
The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' upon the canvas!!!!!

So there we have it. He's not arguing about the sun. He's arguing about the mental representation of the sun.

And as far as I know, very few people actually think that the representation of the sun within our minds caused light.

No, squire Darren, this is the actual chain we believe occurs:

The Sun causes Light. This Light causes a series of signals in our brains, creating a representation of light which, in turn, becomes a representation of the sun. Since the entirity of our awareness is of these representations, our only means of understanding Reality is by looking at the relationships between these representations, and comparing our observations with the observations of other people.

Look at this set of lines, in the new analogy:

Painted-brains are the cause of NOTHING.
Painted-Suns are the cause of NOTHING.

A-ha! So, actually, Darren is right - but does this have anything to do with anything? Only if what causes the paint to appear is NOT what the painting represents.

There it is - his whole system of thought requires the reader to continually confuse real things with mental representations of things.

It is true - we don't know for certain what causes the mental representations we observe. That's why it becomes necessary to make at least one assumption - that the representations of things which we observe are fairly accurate representations of real things.

Simple, really.

edited to fix something I missed.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You dont know this Lifegazer, because you are never interested in what happens in the -perceived- world. After all, why be interested? it is just an illusion.

Anyway, you say that your view is "profound", yet you ignore that, in the past, your "profound" and presumable "new" view regarding perception was exactly how it was supposed to be. "Light" was consider to be a projection from the eye to the object.

Of course, intuitively it sounds as "correct" as the opposite view. Doesnt it?

I do not feel quite right, I have a cold, otherwise I would argue more about this, explaining you how they arrived to the conclusion is that the light "emanates" from objects, and not the other way around.

Maybe, for a change, you can do your own homework? Please do so, hopefully, avoiding us to waste our time in trying to educate you.

 

[Z]

I hope you get better soon, Bodhi.

I do wonder what his thoughts are about the 'painting' analogy above... I'm sure he will have some 'profound' insight as to why that analogy is fatally flawed, as well.

Just remember, Gentle Reader, that this is the same person who would have us believe that a paradox is not really a paradox, due to the fact that a contradictory conclusion is reached via LG-logic; that infinite space requires infinite distances between fixed points; and that comprehension of God and reality can be had without any assumptions whatsoever.

What's really sad, is that I feel, intuitively, that Darren is close to realizing a very profound concept - but he's unwilling to change one of his key premises to reach that concept, and would be unhappy if he did realize it. After all - it would reduce him to another speck in the universe, and make him realize how much valuable time he's been wasting pursuing this chimera.

 

[lifegazer]

I have made some inferences from what you've revealed so far about causality and it seem to point to a pointless existence as puppets unable to even cause our own emotional states. We are nothing, can do nothing and have no responsibility.

I've told you several times that you are the sovereign of all that you perceive. You do exist. You are not a puppet. Atlas is the puppet - but 'you' are not 'Atlas'. The expressions of your life are not meaningless.
In a dream, everything/everyone perceived is a different expression of your potential self (since nothing/nobody in a dream is real). Thus, your relationships with other characters within your dreams are relationships with yourself.
Whatever you do unto others, you do unto yourself. Heard that before? You bet. Heard anyone try to explain it before to the same depth as myself? I doubt it, since you wouldn't be asking me these questions if you already comprehended the philosophy behind it.
Love your neighbour as yourself... was not a command. It was a goal for you to understand and then shoot for.

Causality is determined by what comes after not before. There is nothing that can be predicted.

Nonsense. Causality is determined by comprehending the events prior to everything that you presently know.

Even if you could prove it, which you cannot, who'd buy it.

I have nothing to sell you. I don't want your money or your worship. I'm here for the sake of God - since my philosophy states that only God exists.
I think that you are God. I'm trying to save you from further hellish experience of believing in death.
Only those that understand my philosophy, can "buy it". But they don't have to pay. Not £$£$, anyway.

Well, maybe you will have some uplifting implications so I'll wait to pass judgement. I hope you weren't just trying to sell us on the great ideas you have by telling us that there are tremendous implications. We want to know what you have found out. Don't let us down.

Okay. But stop changing the subject. I've had 6 pages of that already.
My next post shall deal with the implications of the posts I made last night.

 

[RandFan]

What's really sad, is that I feel, intuitively, that Darren is close to realizing a very profound concept - but he's unwilling to change one of his key premises to reach that concept, and would be unhappy if he did realize it.

It's funny but I have had the same suspicion. Of course such a view is a presumptuous but I've been in this situation before, on both sides, and I base that assumption on that experience. The likelyhood of grasping that concept depends on how invested one is to one's world view. Considering the sheer number of posts and all of the different forums and an attention to pretty much only this subject it seems reasonable to assume he is pretty invested.

 

[Atlas]

I've told you several times that you are the sovereign of all that you perceive. You do exist. You are not a puppet. Atlas is the puppet - but 'you' are not 'Atlas'. The expressions of your life are not meaningless.

I am not a puppet. I agree with that. But clarify the terms you use here please: Atlas, 'you', and 'Atlas' - The first and last seem similar.

... Love your neighbour as yourself... was not a command. It was a goal for you to understand and then shoot for.

I believe it was the second part of Jesus' answer to the question: "What is the greatest commandment?"

Nonsense. Causality is determined by comprehending the events prior to everything that you presently know.

Yah, Yah, Goddidit. We know that.

My next post shall deal with the implications of the posts I made last night.

I'm looking forward to it. I've thought about it myself. I'm sure you'll take me in another direction.

 

[Z]

OK, so let's recap:

All that exist are perceptions - paintings on canvas.

Individual sets of perceptions - human beings - believe that they are individual sets of perceptions who are perceiving a representation of things painted across the canvas. Most believe there are real things that these paintings represent.

According to lifegazer, the individual sets of perceptions are all unified - how, he refuses to consider - by being a singular entity, who is also the canvas, AND the paint. But no things exist which the paintings portray, and the individual sets of perceptions are not individuals at all.

So... does that mean that the individual sets of perceptions gain anything from this awareness? Apparently not - the paintings remain unchanged. The individual sets of perceptions suffer and die, and nothing appears to change, not even for that set of perceptions that calls itself 'lifegazer'.

Irrelevant, then.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thanks Zaayr, a lot better now.

Oh, LG, have fun while you think about the implications of your babbles. You can also answer this, maybe?

If light goes from "someone" to the sun... how is that that "someone" will go blind if he stares directly the light that doesnt exists?

Oh, yes. Because he chooses to.

 

[Atlas]

From what he saud last night, and what he seems to be stuck on tonight, I'm expecting Lg to reiterate that God is all-experience. We are experiences of God like His sense of smell.

When we act as God's experience we have the perceptions God created like the smell of bacon and eggs. Having that experience of the smell of bacon and eggs calls into being God's extended creation. Poof, a plate of bacon and eggs appears. In addition, all the prior causes are called into being down through the past.

There is the butcher shop and the butcher, the chicken and the pig, the livestock truck, the farm and the farmer...

For every experience of light God relives the idea of the sun back to it's initial creation. Perception then prior cause, and since He IS causality, all related prior caused effect relived within His Awareness.

 

[Z]

From what he saud last night, and what he seems to be stuck on tonight, I'm expecting Lg to reiterate that God is all-experience. We are experiences of God like His sense of smell.

When we act as God's experience we have the perceptions God created like the smell of bacon and eggs. Having that experience of the smell of bacon and eggs calls into being God's extended creation. Poof, a plate of bacon and eggs appears. In addition, all the prior causes are called into being down through the past.

There is the butcher shop and the butcher, the chicken and the pig, the livestock truck, the farm and the farmer...

For every experience of light God relives the idea of the sun back to it's initial creation. Perception then prior cause, and since He IS causality, all related prior caused effect relived within His Awareness.

Pardon me, Atlas... I must now go pry my eyes out of my scull and stomp upon them.

 

[Atlas]

Pardon me, Atlas... I must now go pry my eyes out of my scull and stomp upon them.

It won't be enough unless your ears, tongue, nose and skin are already gone. But just to be safe, crush your genitals too. Then buy a new pair of tennis shoes and tell people you're just waiting for a comet - otherwise they'll think you're crazy or something.

 

[Z]

Well, I wouldn't want to be accused of being half-hearted. So the eyes stay put for now.

I will, however, have to take several largish pills as a result of reading your post r.e. causality. And I may still crush my tennis shoe's genitals, for good measure...

OK somethingis wrong wth me to night. I feel drunk but am sober. Someone prey for me?

 

[RandFan]

I feel drunk but am sober. Someone prey for me?

Ooohhhh.... sounds exciting. I'll be the antelope and you be the big strong leoperd... that is to be prey right? Or do you want me to be the predator and you be the prey? Grrrrrr....

 

[Z]

YOu take your pick. But you'll not find me easy prey! :growl:

 

[lifegazer]

Implications for science of recent posts

First, reconsider this:

'The Sun' is an object that we see because of the sensation of yellow [light], within/upon awareness.
In other words, the sensation of [a ball-shape of] 'yellow' [light], is what we call 'The Sun'.
The interesting thing about this is that we've always thought that 'The Sun' (that we experience) was the cause of the light that we actually sense. But we were wrong!!!!!!!!!
The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' that we see!!!!!
... 'The Sun' that we sense and which scientists observe (since they can observe no other) is not the cause of our sensation of it (which means that it is not the cause of the light within/upon our awareness). Neither is it the cause of anything else within/upon awareness.

... And of course, the same logic applies to the sense-of-a-brain. No sensed-brain (which is what scientists study!!) is the cause of any thoughts/feelings (or of anything else within/upon awareness).


... This is of immense significance for science (and philosophy). Why? Well...

No [sense of a] 'thing' (an object deduced from the experience of sensations) within/upon awareness is the cause of anything else within/upon awareness... and yet scientists can only observe the sense of a thing.
Conclusion: All 'things' seen within/upon awareness are devoid of causal power.
Consequence: Scientific paradigm-shift is required that eliminates theories that give causal power to things observed within awareness.
Science, being (amongst other things) the pursuit of the understanding of the cause of the things that we experience, needs to acknowledge that no 'thing' within/upon awareness is the cause of anything else therein.
So, for example, a scientist who devotes his/her life to studying a sensed-brain (can't study any other!!!) to observe how 'it' causes sensations/thoughts/feelings within/upon awareness, is foolishly wasting his/her time and someone's £$£$.

The most a scientist can establish is the link/order that exists between sensations (of brains) and thoughts/feelings. But sensed-brains cause NOTHING that also appears within/upon awareness.

Now, anybody with a brain (boom boom) must surely see why science (the establishment of scientists and it's habitual methods and bias towards the reality of things) has hit a brick wall.
Science cannot prove that anything within/upon awareness is the cause of anything else because all things within/upon awareness are devoid of causal power. So science MUST change or die.

For centuries, science has worked upon the basis that the objects observed had causal power. Now, at this critical point, scientists (and philosophers) must acknowledge that the cause of the world that we sense is Whatever it is that is causing sensations within/upon awareness.

What caused the universe that exists within our minds? A "big bang"? *laugh*
The laugh is justified. Scientists have studied the world in our minds and - having attributed causal-power to the things seen therein - have come-up with this theory.
The world in our minds (the only world we can study) was caused by the imposition of sensations by Whatever it is that is causing sensations.
That is the absolute truth. The game is coming to an end. Maybe not today, but in the coming years these facts will infest the cracks of science and will eventually force the shell to split.

 

[Z]

Re: Implications for science of recent posts

*sigh*

Wrong again, Darren.

Boy, this is getting predictable.

Corrected by zaayrdragon
First, reconsider this:

'The Sun' is an object that we see because of the painting of yellow [light], within/upon the canvas of awareness.
In other words, the painting of [a ball-shape of] 'yellow' [light], is what we call 'The Sun'.

Except that it's not. We don't call our sensation of the Sun the Sun; we accept that it is the perception of a Sun.

Strawman noted.

The interesting thing about this is that we've always thought that 'The Sun' (the painting) was the cause of the light that is also painted on the canvas. But we were wrong!!!!!!!!!

Again, wrong. We have always thought that the Sun - which we induce to exist from comparing our observations to those of other beings - was the cause of light, which allows us to induce the existence of a sun.

No one believes that our perception of the sun IS the sun; no one believes that our perception of the sun generates light; certainly, most of us can fully grasp that a perception doesn't generate light. Only you, Darren, seem to have a problem with this concept.

The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' in the painting!!!!!

Is this the yellow light we sense, or actual yellow light? Which, by the way, would be contradicting what you are trying to say.

After all, we don't see 'light' either, but the painting of light upon the canvas of our awareness. So light cannot cause the Sun either, by this understanding.

... 'The Sun' in the painting and which scientists observe (since they can observe no other) is not the cause of the painting of it (which means that it is not the cause of the light painted upon the canvas). Neither is it the cause of any other painting else within/upon the canvas.

See how meaningless this becomes when you clarify it? Of course, our perception of the sun is not the cause of our perception of the sun. That is moronic.

However, by comparing our perceptions of the sun with the perceptions being experienced by others, we can come to objective conclusions about what this sun must be like, by collating our shared perceptions.

This is really breaking down fast, Darren. Got those knee-pads ready?

... And of course, the same logic applies to the painting-of-a-brain. No painted-brain (which is what scientists study!!) is the cause of any thoughts/feelings (or of anything else within/upon the canvas).

Of course not. And no one says it is.

... This is of immense significance for science (and philosophy). Why? Well...

No [painting of a] 'thing' (an object deduced from the experience of paintings) within/upon the canvas is the cause of anything else within/upon the canvas... and yet scientists can only observe the painting of a thing.

See, here again, you're making a huge mistake. The object deduced from the experience of our shared perceptions is not the sense of an object. The very fact that it must be deduced from shared perceptions proves that it is not, in fact, the sensed-object itself, but an objectively existing object of some sort. If we remove the poorly constructed language and replace it with the painting/canvas analogy, we quickly see where your logic is all fluttery.

Conclusion: All 'things' seen within/upon the canvas are devoid of causal power.

Duh.

Consequence: Scientific paradigm-shift is required that eliminates theories that give causal power to things observed within the canvas.

Oh, well, that's easy - there are no theories that give causal powers to our perceptions.

Science, being (amongst other things) the pursuit of the understanding of the cause of the things painted upon the canvas, needs to acknowledge that no 'thing' within/upon the canvas is the cause of anything else therein.

They do.

So, for example, a scientist who devotes his/her life to studying a painted-brain (can't study any other!!!) to observe how 'it' causes sensations/thoughts/feelings within/upon the painting, is foolishly wasting his/her time and someone's £$£$.

Ah, see, but scientists aren't studying the painting - er, I mean, the perceived-brain. They are studying the relationships between their perceptions and the perceptions of others to come to an understanding of how a real brain might cause sensations/thoughts/feelings within awareness. This is where the sensations = real world assumption comes into play. If we make the base assumption that perceptions of a real world are fairly accurate, then we can progress scientifically; otherwise, we can know or do nothing.

The most a scientist can establish is the link/order that exists between paintings (of brains) and thoughts/feelings. But painted-brains cause NOTHING that also appears within/upon the canvas.

Now, anybody with a brain (boom boom) must surely see why science (the establishment of scientists and it's habitual methods and bias towards the reality of things) has hit a brick wall.
Science cannot prove that anything within/upon the canvas is the cause of anything else because all things within/upon the canvas are devoid of causal power. So science MUST change or die.

The rest of your post, founded as it is upon a tremendous misundrestanding, is meaningless and irrelevant.

No, science is doing just fine. Only you, Darren, are too ignorant and moronic to understand what it is that scientists do.

So - no points here, either.

Zero for zero so far, Darren. Keep up the good work.

 

[lifegazer]

Again, wrong. We have always thought that the Sun - which we induce to exist from comparing our observations to those of other beings

What other beings? How have you deduced that beings exist separate and apart from each other?
The only fact reason can establish is that there are different experiences of being - not different beings!!

Of course, if you ASSUME that there are different beings, you can then go on to ASSUME that there is a real Sun. But this is higher-level philosophy squire and you must stop ASSUMING things to declare conclusions of your preference!!

No one believes that our perception of the sun IS the sun

Scientists do, apparently. Here's a link I found:

http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html

Here's some "facts" from that link:

... Sunspots are caused by complicated and not very well understood interactions with the Sun's magnetic field.
... In addition to heat and light, the Sun also emits a low density stream of charged particles...
... The Sun is about 4.5 billion years old.
... It will continue to radiate "peacefully" for another 5 billion years or so.
... It will then be forced into radical changes which, though commonplace by stellar standards, will result in the total destruction of the Earth.

Now since science can only study the sensation-of-Sun, where do facts like these come from?
I've already explained why a 'thing' within/upon awareness is devoid of causal power. It's simple logic and indisputable. Yet we can find a whole host of "facts" about the sensation-of-Sun which attribute causality to that 'thing' sensed (The Sun).

Sunspots are actually caused by Whatever it is that imposes the sensation of [ball-shaped] yellow within/upon awareness, also imposing the sensation of black-dots-upon-yellow within/upon awareness.
The Sun we can study is the Sun within/upon awareness. And as I've explained, that 'thing' is the cause of NOTHING.
Please address my posts in future and stop telling porkies. Science MUST think that the Sun it can study is real since science attributes causal power to that entity.

So science is either ignorant of what I'm telling you here, or science ASSUMES the reality of a world beyond awareness.
In either case, science MUST change. Science has a responsibility to the truth and to people. It cannot go around making-up realities and teaching people "facts" about these realities... thus having radical effects upon the culture and history of our planet.
The movement towards atheism and indifference has been fueled by science. Science has had an enormous effect upon the attitudes of people. And the attitudes of people are what shape our history.

TRUE science - being the study of what we observe - should have acknowledged that 'things' observed are devoid of causal power.
That is a FACT. And it is the basis for our future progression.

You're aren't going to progress Z until you cease clinging to your assumptions. But whether you continue to do so is not really significant for experience as a whole. Whether science does, is.
That is why I will continue to press for scientific revolution as part of my philosophy.