lifegazer said:
It is stupidity to suggest that the external environment forces abstract sensations upon an entity.
More classical lifegazer, you don't know how to argue a point, so instead you resort to using phrases like "it is stupidity". We can call eachother's viewpoint "stupidity" all day long, but it won't get us anywhere, so oh yea, you're stupid...no, you're stupid.....no you are, no you are....etc, etc, etc.
You are living in denial if you think that sensations such as 'pain' are not self-chosen nor self-created.
Ah yes, lets continue that, and insult me by claiming that I'm living in denail, a lot easier than actually confronting my arguments, eh?
This argument applies to any sensation and for any entity which has them.
This argument? All you did was call my viewpoint stupid and claim that I am in denial. The argument applies to school children trying to figure out who is better, the red megator, or the green megator.
There is a creative entity who chooses to will abstract sensations upon its own intangible awareness. It's obvious.
This isn't reason or deduction lifegazer, its assumtion. Note how you just state it as if its fact rather than try to use reason. Classic lifegazer, insult, and restate your assumptions. Yawn, I think I could make a machine that would do your posting for you, or just hire a neighborhood kid.
External stimulae - even if there were such things - do not impose sensations such as pain or cold or itchy or redness upon an entity.
I'm sorry, even if you think that the external world is a vast illusion, refering to stimuli coming from that world you would use the phase "external stimuli" to differentiate from "internal stimuli" such as memories. How would you rather I defferentiate?
If an entity has a sensation, then that entity has chosen to have it and has created it itself, for its own purposes.
Again, you just repeat your assumption rather than attempt to argue against my point. I've already pointed out to you how evolution will favor a neural network with a pain response. You assuming that an entity choses to have that is awfully silly, can a cricket suddenly choose not to feel pain? Unless you can not only disprove my viewpoint, but prove your own, you are assuming.
A deduction is not an assumption. Clearly, I have given reasons for stating what I am stating.
A deduction does not go like "If an entity has a sensation, then that entity has chosen to have it and has created it itself, for its own purposes.". That is not a deduction, a deduction follows from already known fact, and uses sound reasoning to deduce further information about that fact. If your foundation is not firm, your deduction is irrelavant. If flaws can be found in your reasoning, your deduction is irrelavant. And if you don't even start with known fact, but simply state your conclusion, you don't even know what a deduction is.
I'm going to shortly-start calling you a liar if you persist to ignore the fact that I have deduced my conclusions.
Really? more name calling? Ok, only if you *promise* to restate your assumptions afterwards, like you always do, otherwise, I'd feel like my world wasn't complete.
Again, I gave reasons for what I said, but you ignore those reasons and just assert - again - that I am assuming what I have said.
Really? What reasons have I ignored? I think I've confronted every point of every argument. If you think I've missed something, let me know.
As The Mind creates an awareness of being, for itself, then that Mind is the one making the choices it makes, as it perceives itself as us. Only one entity exists... with countless perceptions of being.
I told you what other philosophies assume, you respond by telling me what your philosophy assumes...Thats helpfull. Why don't you prove it instead (along with all your other assumptions)
God's desire will manifest through 'us'. And it is impossible to embrace this philosophy as the truth and still desire to have division and inequality amongst man.
Really? What about cancer, AIDS, people's houses burning down, what about those with mental illness that rape, murder and torture? What about people with subconcious racism? What about natural disasters. Suffering would not end simply because people believe in your philosophy. And why would not inequality continue, would communism suddenly work if everyone believed your philosophy? It seems to me, that many people would still be unmotivated to work.
But particles are waves until measured or observed. How and where and when do waves meet if they do not collapse until observed?
Particles are ALWAYS waves. They do not suddenly become definate non wavelike particles when measured or observed (aka, interact with other particles). Its pretty easy for waves to meet, but you have to remember, these aren't waves like water waves, they are probability waves. So if portions of these waves cross paths, the particles don't necessarily interact, there is a probability that they interact. Perhaps Schrodinger's might interest you if you want to know more.
You need to note the distinction between deduction and assumption.
Ok, I have an idea, lets insult Russ somemore, this'll be fun, a lot easier than confronting his arguments after all.
And then you need to counter the reason of deduction, rather than just labelling it "an assumption", thus facilitating an escape route giving you no need to address it.
If I point to something that you think is a deduction, but I claim is an assumption, and point out why, then strengthen your deduction, fill the gaps that I point out. It shouldn't be a problem if its truly a deduction. If it is truly a deduction, then it isn't truly an escape route for me, because you would just need to cement it a little more. And I do not simply claim assumption, I do address why I think it is an assumption.
This is what I mean by raising the quality.
Hmm...I'm disapointed, these last couple insults haven't been followed by a repeated assumption.
