• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

One ~Thing~ observing two stars simultaneously

Consider this statement:-

The simultaneous observation of 2+ things means that 'whatever' is doing the observing, must be absolutely-singular in itself.

... A multitude cannot be 'whatever' is doing the observing. Why? Because There truly has to be an individual that embraces, as a whole, this vision (experience) of the world... that chooses to focus upon specific localities of that experienced-world and sees it all simultaneously.

Instead of the usual drivel, try arguing against the above statement.
It should be obvious to the sincere and reasonably-intelligent, that the use of tildes around the word 'thing' (thus: ~thing~), was to differentiate the observer from 'things' within experience... for it should be clear to the sincere and those of even below-average intelligence, that 'whatever' the experiencER is, 'it' is not an experience (a thing within experience). I.e., an experience cannot be the experiencER of experience.
Responses such as those here so far, don't do anything for the credibility of this forum as a whole. Not that I care about this - but you bozos should if you want to give any credibility to 'atheism'. Whatever.


And so, if you cannot argue against the statement above, you are forced to accept the rest of my OP:-

So the entity that is You is absolutely singular and embraces the totality of it's experience = the whole world that 'you' experience is within you.

So?
... So... those two stars out there... are not "out there".

So?
... So, the space and time I also perceive between my [apparent] own body and those two [apparently] distant stars, is an illusion, for there can be no space and no time (no division) between an absolutely-singular entity. Regardless, if those two stars are illusions within 'me', then the time & space between them, must also be illusion.

Space & time are not absolute. Just relative concepts regarding unreal objects observed within an absolutely-singular being that is, by logical-default, indivisible in itself.


Open your eyes and have a look around. You embrace the totality of every-thing that you experience... and the laws-of-physics and the concepts associated to them, ONLY relate to that experience.
They do not relate to THE ABSOLUTE entity which embraces that experience - 'You'.
 
lifegazer said:
Consider this statement:-

The simultaneous observation of 2+ things means that 'whatever' is doing the observing, must be absolutely-singular in itself.
Click to expand...
Assuming this, so what?

... A multitude cannot be 'whatever' is doing the observing.
Click to expand...
Wait, huh? How do you go from multiple observed object to multiple observers?

Because There truly has to be an individual that embraces, as a whole, this vision (experience) of the world... that chooses to focus upon specific localities of that experienced-world and sees it all simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Huh? Your not making any sense. If you go outside and look at stars and I stay inside and watch the TV doesn't that mean two observers are observing two different things?
 
RandFan said:
Textbook ad hominem argument.
Click to expand...
Don't lecture me about ad hominems. And stop pretending that this forum is Oxford.
On the whole, I'm talking to insincere atheists with attitude and with average IQ.

Counter the relevant statement in my previous post or else take a hike. I'm not interested in anything else.
 
RandFan said:
Huh? Your not making any sense. If you go outside and look at stars and I stay inside and watch the TV doesn't that mean two observers are observing two different things?
Click to expand...
Don't be silly.
This thread obviously ponders whether some ~thing~ absolutely-singular resides at the heart of experience, or whether a multitude of 'things' (reference to the many parts of the 'brain') does so.
 
lifegazer said:
Don't be silly.
This thread obviously ponders whether some ~thing~ absolutely-singular resides at the heart of experience, or whether a multitude of 'things' (reference to the many parts of the 'brain') does so.
Click to expand...
I'm not being silly. You are not making sense. How does you looking at two stars and me looking at two trees at the same time demonstrate anything?
 
RandFan said:
I'm not being silly. You are not making sense. How does you looking at two stars and me looking at two trees at the same time demonstrate anything?
Click to expand...
As stated:
This thread obviously ponders whether some ~thing~ absolutely-singular resides at the heart of experience, or whether a multitude of 'things' (reference to the many parts of the 'brain') does so.

I am not denying that there is more than one experience of the world, though this doesn't mean that there is more than one experiencER.

Your response is silly on both counts.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Lifegazer, do you mind if I really blow your mind.
Click to expand...
In your fantasies mate.
Those two stars were most likely thousands of light-years apart from one another. One may well be much nearer to the ONE ~thing~ that observes them than the other ~thing~.
Click to expand...
Duh. Read what I write and think about it.
Every 'thing' within experience is embraced by the same experiencER.
How do you suppose that any experienced-star is any nearer to the experiencER than any other experienced-star, when the experiencER embraces the totality of the experienced-universe?
Seriously, are you trying to make an argument supporting solipsism?
Click to expand...
If I was a solipsist, I'd be saying that only lifegazer exists.
 
lifegazer said:
This thread obviously ponders whether some ~thing~ absolutely-singular resides at the heart of experience, or whether a multitude of 'things' (reference to the many parts of the 'brain') does so.

I am not denying that there is more than one experience of the world, though this doesn't mean that there is more than one experiencER.

Your response is silly on both counts.
Click to expand...
Why is it silly? You appear to be making an argument. I don't know what the premises are and I can't follow your argument step by step using inference to arrive at your conclusion.

So stop with the ad hominem. Clean up your argument or simply make it clear that you are only pondering. So, are you trying to make an argument or are you simply pondering?
 
Lifegazer,

You have such a poor grasp of logic and philosophy that it is very difficult to have a discussion with you. There are many people on this forum with whom I have fundamental philosophical disagreements with but we can have a reasonable discussion because they understand what an argument is and they understand philosophical concepts.

It's not that I'm against your philosophy. I'm not. It's actually interesting. The problem is that I detest your arrogant attitude when you can't string much more than two premises together to formulate a logical argument.

If I asked you now to post a cogent overview of your philosophy I'm convinced that not one person would find it coherent.

Have you noticed that your argument about perception is accepted? It is accepted because the argument appeals to the intellect. We understand and accept that at best we only perceive the world around us. We accept that reality might not be what it appears to be. We could reject the concept but we don't because it is logical. Now you were not the first one to suggest this and there are reasons to think that the world is as we see it but we get the basis for your philosophy.

Outside of that you got nothing. Others have tried to help you and all you can do is arrogantly dismiss them. Fine, but don't expect any respect if all you care about are your own arrogant assumptions. The world really isn't out to get you gazer. We are just diverse people with different world views, ideologies and philosophies. Many if not most of us choose to use logic and reason to analyze those beliefs. If you want to convince any of us you are going to need to step up your game, a lot. As it is you are just wasting your time.

RandFan
 
Lifegazer, please read chapter two of the philosophy 101 book from which you seem to get the core of your amorphous argument. Because right now all you're doing is stringing a bunch of words together that only seem to make sense to you. You don't even offer this ~argument~ as an idea for discussion but rather you present it as a lecture that must be accepted as patently obvious. Anyone who expresses any doubt about your assertions is treated to your condescending pronouncement that they are too dense to understand your pearls of wisdom. If you could at least post a cogent overview of your argument as RandFan suggested you would get genuine interest and discussion from the others here. But I honestly don't think that idea exchange is your goal. It seems to me that you have a psychological need to declare yourself to be more intelligent than others in service of your own ego. In short, you're just another internet troll.

Steven
 
lifegazer said:
Consider this statement:-

The simultaneous observation of 2+ things means that 'whatever' is doing the observing, must be absolutely-singular in itself.
Click to expand...
Unsupported assertion.
lifegazer said:
... A multitude cannot be 'whatever' is doing the observing. Why? Because There truly has to be an individual that embraces, as a whole, this vision (experience) of the world... that chooses to focus upon specific localities of that experienced-world and sees it all simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Unsupported assertion.
lifegazer said:
And so, if you cannot argue against the statement above, you are forced to accept the rest of my OP:-
Click to expand...
Lame attempt at shifting the burden of proof. You have presented no evidence or logical argument for your assertion, but we must do the legwork or accept it? I think not.
lifegazer said:
So the entity that is You is absolutely singular and embraces the totality of it's experience = the whole world that 'you' experience is within you.

So?
... So... those two stars out there... are not "out there".

So?
... So, the space and time I also perceive between my [apparent] own body and those two [apparently] distant stars, is an illusion, for there can be no space and no time (no division) between an absolutely-singular entity. Regardless, if those two stars are illusions within 'me', then the time & space between them, must also be illusion.
Click to expand...
Everything after a "so" is a non sequitur.

You argue that everything we experience is filtered by our sense, so what we experience could be different from the "real" world. There might not even be a "real" world. Perfectly fine so far. But the leap you do from that affirm that everything is an absolutely singular entity is unssuported.
 
lifegazer said:
If I was a solipsist, I'd be saying that only lifegazer exists.
Click to expand...
You have repeatedly asserted that you are not a solipsist. Do you believe that there are observers other than you observing the same universe that you observe?
 
I find your solipsism odd
Since I'm always about on the quad.
And that is why we
Shall continue to be
As observed by, yours faithfully, God.
 
I'm pretty sure that what lifegazer is going on about is the following:


Your perceptions of other objects are not seperate entities that are observed. They are in fact a part of the entity that you refer to as self.

Those observed objects exist as things in of themself -- seperate from you. However when any one person observes it, they do not perceive the true object. Instead, the observer's singular state of existence is expanded, or grows, to include a representation of that object within themself.

So, when two observers see something(s), they each experience a perception of it, that is not the absolute thing itself, but is instead a new part of their own expanded self.




I offer that as what I think is a translation of the point being offered and not as any kind of personal agreement or disagreement.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom