my philosophy - pyramid-down

[lifegazer]

Oh, here we go....

You yourself noted in one of the other threads that tampering with the brain alters emotions and feelings - 'experiences' (do I really have to look it up and link to it?).

Please do. In the very same post, you'll also see I say that altering thoughts/feelings consequently alters the state of the brain & body.

I propose that there is an orderly relationship between sensations, thought & feeling... and since the sensations are, in effect, the [experienced] world itself (including the experienced-brain), my philosophy perfectly embraces a system whereby 'the brain' (sensations) can affect thought & emotion... and vice versa.
... Please remember that sensations (the essential ingredients of the world) are an experience too.

Also, please contemplate - if thought & emotion are effects of the physical-brain - why thought and emotion would (as they do) have the ability to effect brain/body states.
You cannot advocate that the brain is the essential cause of thought & emotion if thought & emotion alone have the ability to alter brain/body states.

In fact, this is so important an observation that I will probably start a thread contemplating this at some future date.

Regardless, scientists continue to contemplate how the brain causes human experience - which is evidence of their regard of the brain being a real-in-itself entity... which is also evidence supporting my claim for scientific-reform.

But you will never acknowledge this because science is your life, as well as your attitude to life.

Oi Vey!! Now you really are showing how completely pig-ignorant you are about science. The supernatural is by definition beyond the realm of science. Science can only use 'natural' explanations. Use of supernatural explanations is utterly unscientific. (Okay, I think I've said that enough different ways )

It's not my fault that science limits itself.
The problem persists:- experiences are not caused by experiences.

If science won't acknowledge this FACT, then theories and research will continue around the idea that observed/experienced entities (such as the brain), can be the cause of human experience - which includes thought; feeling; and the experienced-universe itself.

No, science requires observational proof of existence before confirming the existence of any entity. Causality don't enter into it (or was that plummage?).

The experience of an entity does NOT confirm the existence/reality of that entity. It just confirms the experience.

How many times do I have to go through the same material to get my point across?

Wow, you must be really busy!!

Actually, I am.
Furthermore, I have no idea why I came back. I think I was falling into the world again...

 

[nescafe]

Either existence is singular, or it is not. Why you add "in some sense", makes no sense - is confusing.

Well, that I said "the totality of existence" and not just "existence" makes a bit of difference. When I say "the totality of existence", I mean all things that I experience and all the things that must logically exist to explain my experiences. I have told you why I do not accept your "one experiencer" theorem, and you have not given me an answer even after I explained what I meant in a different fashion.

Not recently I haven't. I've been concentrating on other issues.

You should. It might help people understand what exactly you are trying to say.

 

[Ryokan]

Well I wish that this was the case, but:-

Why do scientists seek to explain experience itself via the experienced brain?

Why are there so many theories seeking to explain the experienced
universe using nought but 'natural' (as opposed to supernatural) explanation?

Because it sure has paid of!

Look how far we've come the last two millenia, not to mention the last century alone, using science!

 

[RandFan]

How many times do you have to be told, science has no position on whether or not the world we observe exists. It is simply the description and modelling of the observed, or 'experienced' world. It does not seek ultimate cause either, since we know that such things are not measurable, and thus beyond the reach of science.

...

At the top you said that you were going to explain your philosophy, but all you've done is repeat the assertions that you've made a thousand times before. There's no philosophy here, just a bunch of apparently random thoughts, assertions and demands for changes that are unnecessary, not to mention impossible.

He's tireless. I'll give him that.

My hypothesis of lifegazer: Hey, there is a lot that I simply don't comprehend. I get that I don't understand or have difficulty understanding many concepts. Lifegazer doesn't get that he doesn't understand or that he has difficulty understanding some concepts. So he ignores that which he doesn't understand. Premises, inference, deduction, induction, formal logic, etc. These are all above him. They must be. Surely if he understood them he would have by now started to respond in a more coherent fashion. In short, lifegazer isn't learning. He has reached the level of his competence and is unable to advance and so he is stuck making the same nonsensical non-arguments. He's not stupid he just is unable (perhaps unwilling) to grasp logic beyond the most rudimentary of degree.

If someone has a better argument I'm open to it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

If someone has a better argument I'm open to it.

I already gave my argument: tihsllub rettu.

 

[RandFan]

I already gave my argument: tihsllub rettu.

You may have a point.

 

[wollery]

My opinion - psychopathic God complex. He just hides it behind "we are all God". Interestingly I'm currently reading Stranger in a Strange Land, and I'm reminded of Valentine Michael Smiths' assertions!

 

[RandFan]

My opinion - psychopathic God complex.

I have been saying this for some time, we'll, actually a mesiah complex. He seems to have a need to save all of us but I'm happy to go with God Complex.

He just hides it behind "we are all God". Interestingly I'm currently reading Stranger in a Strange Land, and I'm reminded of Valentine Michael Smiths' assertions!

I've not read it. It looks like I'm going to have to. Along with The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

 

[Ryokan]

I've not read it. It looks like I'm going to have to.

You should. It's one of the most important books Heinlein wrote.

 

[RandFan]

You should. It's one of the most important books Heinlein wrote.

For some odd reason I never read any Heinlein. Herbert, Asimov, Bradbury and others but no Heinlein. I've likely read almost everything Bradbury wrote.

 

[Ryokan]

For some odd reason I never read any Heinlein.

I envy you.

I wish I could read Heinlein's books for the first time again.

My favorite science fiction author is Asimov, though. Love his non-fiction as well.

Never read any Bradbury, though. Maybe I should. Any recommendations?

 

[RandFan]

I envy you.

I wish I could read Heinlein's books for the first time again.

My favorite science fiction author is Asimov, though. Love his non-fiction as well.

Never read any Bradbury, though. Maybe I should. Any recommendations?

Oh man. I just took a long journey down amnesia lane. Thanks for that. Yes, though I suspect my recommendations are purely for subjective reasons. Without respect to sci fi, Fahrenheit 451 and Something Wicked This way Comes are two of my very favorites. Illustrated Man and Martian Chronicles are simply must reads and I loved both of them. I suspect that I would not be as enthralled of Something Wicked as an adult so perhaps that shouldn't be first on your list. Stick with the last two and you will get a great introduction to Sci Fi ala Bradbury.

 

[.13.]

I propose that there is an orderly relationship between sensations, thought & feeling... and since the sensations are, in effect, the [experienced] world itself (including the experienced-brain), my philosophy perfectly embraces a system whereby 'the brain' (sensations) can affect thought & emotion... and vice versa.
... Please remember that sensations (the essential ingredients of the world) are an experience too.

Doesn't this contradict your idea that "experienced-things cannot be the actual cause of experienced-things"?

By manipulating the brain (experienced-thing) you can induce hallucinations (experienced-thing).

Also, please contemplate - if thought & emotion are effects of the physical-brain - why thought and emotion would (as they do) have the ability to effect brain/body states.
You cannot advocate that the brain is the essential cause of thought & emotion if thought & emotion alone have the ability to alter brain/body states.

But isn't this essentialy asking: How can the brain have the ability to effect brain/body states?

If you agree: Then what's the problem?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

In short, lifegazer isn't learning. He has reached the level of his competence and is unable to advance and so he is stuck making the same nonsensical non-arguments. He's not stupid he just is unable (perhaps unwilling) to grasp logic beyond the most rudimentary of degree.

If someone has a better argument I'm open to it.

He's not learning, that's for sure. But I don't think it is because he is inherently incapable of doing so. Instead, it is because he is rather attached to the idea that he has come up with something completely new. He has no interest in finding out how philosophy really works or where we currently stand on the important debates. He already knows that his "philosophy" is better than anything that came before it. He is also emotionally attached to certain parts of his belief system in exactly the same way that many other religious people are. In his case, it is not life after death (in any individual sense) but the need to cling on to the belief that supernatural intervention by God can rescue the human race from its current predicament. He thinks that if only everybody believed what he believes, all of the worlds problems would disappear. He needs to go on believing this is the case because the alternative is an acceptance that the world as we know it is in very serious trouble and that nothing can save it. This is fairly bleak, but there is no shortage of philosophers who have already been there: Malthus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Huxley, Orwell. In the end, its about lifegazer not being able to face up to the existential reality he finds himself in - which could scarcely be more ironic. He needs to go on believing that God can save us, with a little bit of help from lifegazer.

If you take away the nonsensical beliefs about what happens "after the revolution", lifegazers argument becomes utterly pointless as well as incoherent and uninformed.

 

[RandFan]

He's not learning, that's for sure. But I don't think it is because he is inherently incapable of doing so. Instead, it is because he is rather attached to the idea that he has come up with something completely new. He has no interest in finding out how philosophy really works or where we currently stand on the important debates. He already knows that his "philosophy" is better than anything that came before it. He is also emotionally attached to certain parts of his belief system in exactly the same way that many other religious people are. In his case, it is not life after death (in any individual sense) but the need to cling on to the belief that supernatural intervention by God can rescue the human race from its current predicament. He thinks that if only everybody believed what he believes, all of the worlds problems would disappear. He needs to go on believing this is the case because the alternative is an acceptance that the world as we know it is in very serious trouble and that nothing can save it. This is fairly bleak, but there is no shortage of philosophers who have already been there: Malthus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Huxley, Orwell. In the end, its about lifegazer not being able to face up to the existential reality he finds himself in - which could scarcely be more ironic. He needs to go on believing that God can save us, with a little bit of help from lifegazer.

If you take away the nonsensical beliefs about what happens "after the revolution", lifegazers argument becomes utterly pointless as well as incoherent and uninformed.

I understand your point, however it is entirely possible to cling to one's world view and still advance in one's level of understanding. I'm not certain that he fully grasps the concepts of inference and deduction. It seems to me that he intuitively understands the concepts at a rudimentary level but not sufficiently to formulate an argument. You could be right Geoff, the problem however is that I've been reading his responses for years now and there just is no improvement. If he were competent enough to grasp the concepts then surely he has had sufficient examples from others to pick up something. And let's face it. Nothing, nada, zip. At least as far as I can tell. Though I will give him this, he has sufficient imagination to repackage his theory. This way retailing the same notion over and over never gets stale...TO HIM!

 

[wollery]

My opinion - psychopathic God complex.

I must apologise to Lifegazer, it was wrong of me to say that.







What I should have said was "psychotic God complex"!