It's the "chicken or the egg" all over again.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

So what if it's a time waster? I'm at work, and it's occupying my mind so that I don't have to concentrate on the assholes I deal with as part of my job in customer service.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

I thought it was from the inside out.

[Godslayer Jillian]

You can continue with (so far) arbitrary statements, or you can explain me how can Occam's and Descartes' opinions coexist.

[BlackButterfly]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

So you're telling me they didn't set in the bedrock first? Crap, fuck metaphors. The point is the ultimate knowledge is up there, you can't make the leap with insufficient material.

At this point, we haven't even drilled down to the bedrock.

But in the interim, what harm is there in passing the time by postulating what's "up there"?

Many guesses and ideas made by those simply lying on the grass and wondering at the stars have turned out to be true, or have inspired others to go out and disprove. It may be of little benefit to anyone, but it's all in fun.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

If everything we did was for the sake of practicality, who would write poetry?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Because you can believe whatever you want to exist.

That again takes away the simplicity of reality you were previously advocating. Besides, believing something is real does not make it real; you should know better than that.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That again takes away the simplicity of reality you were previously advocating. Besides, believing something is real does not make it real; you should know better than that.

No, but perceiving somethings real could make it real, right?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Don't waste your time debating philosophy, Spright. You'll just talk in circles and repeat yourself.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

It doesn't? Define reality then. You do realize that you cannot percieve reality right? We're subjective creatures, and objective reality eludes us.

Well, your question doesn't have to apply as an absolute, as a very accurate definition of reality is "everything we perceive".
In this definition, we still are limited and cannot "perceive" what we want to perceive. We can assign it a value; we can interpret it; but we cannot perceive at will.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Bye-bye, sweetheart.

XD

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

There is no absolute for reality

Well, that's an absolute in itself.
When you distrust the physical, trust the ontological.
Just as well, that's how not everything one believes can be true.

Picture anything can be true indeed (an absolute in itself, by the way)
Then I say nothing can be true.
If anything can be true, my argument can be true indeed.
If my argument is true, then it negates the absolute that allowed it to be true.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

"Trust me, I'm a liar."

I'm going to go back to whether or not various conscousnesses exist. If a person with schizophrenia has an "imaginary friend" (for lack of a better term), would that imaginary person be considered a separate consciousness that only the schizophrenic person could perceive? or would it simply be a part of the schizophrenic person's consciousness?

Cuz to the schizophrenic person, that imaginary friend can be very real (is very real? I don't know, I've never had schizophrenia), and seems to do things independently of the person with schizophrenia.

On the other hand, the imaginary person is dependent on the existence of the person with schizophrenia for its existence.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Well, that's an absolute in itself.
When you distrust the physical, trust the ontological.
Just as well, that's how not everything one believes can be true.

Picture anything can be true indeed (an absolute in itself, by the way)
Then I say nothing can be true.
If anything can be true, my argument can be true indeed.
If my argument is true, then it negates the absolute that allowed it to be true.

Then how does one exit such a loop? One cannot, because it is a paradox.
A paradox is the product of philosophy. One does not find paradoxes in the natural world. Close, but not complete paradoxes. For example:

An usurping lion kills the preexisting male and takes over the pride. (A lion is killed)
The new leading lion then kills the former leader's cub lions. (more lions are killed, in fact, what will be future lions, are now erased from the future).
Yet all of the preceding is done so that lions may survive.
A paradox except for the fact of natural selection, which allows for competition between dominant genes.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Oh suck a nut, this stuff is just a time waster. You know you're not going to find divine enlightenment on some fucking fora. Don't kid yourself with this intellectual autofellatio, it's a worthless and gaudy display of esotericism.

Who gives a shit? Really? I love philosophy too, but it's nonsense and runs around itself.

Then why the hell are you posting here?

Stop being so goddamn arrogant - if you know exactly what's true, then why do you care to read others opinions, and even reply to them?

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Suck my nut, pissant. I replied because this is PURE arrogance in here, it's full of pretention, do you really think anyone here has any REAL ideas? NO! They are just repeating shit they've heard before, nigh verbatim. They might as well paraphrase; because I can see right through this bullshit.

No one here has had an original idea yet, just evokation of other's ideas and arguments. This will go nowhere, and this will accomplish nothing but an intellectual autofellatio. It's sickening to watch people discuss these things as if they have a grasp of them, and it's even worse when they act like these are their own ideas. I don't know why I'm replying to a little twerp like you anyways, but you asked the question, and I have responded. Now you know.

That made me laugh. You're pathetic. I mean, how low self-esteem must one have to get to a level where you flame everyone you can on a public board? You are not at all contributing to the thread, you are just rejecting everything everyone says. Oh, what an accomplishment!

You say you don't care, you say everything anyone says is bullshit, yet you are one of the ones with the highest post count in this thread. Your ignorance is a shame to the fucking human race! Now go slit your wrists.

[Delicate_Torture]

Originally Posted by Cyntrox

That made me laugh. You're pathetic. I mean, how low self-esteem must one have to get to a level where you flame everyone you can on a public board? You are not at all contributing to the thread, you are just rejecting everything everyone says. Oh, what an accomplishment!

You say you don't care, you say everything anyone says is bullshit, yet you are one of the ones with the highest post count in this thread. Your ignorance is a shame to the fucking human race! Now go slit your wrists.

And yet you are arguing with him...

[Cyntrox]

Yes I am. I'm just sick of seing him being an asshole all over the board. Also, I find this thread rewarding, and I need not see more of his ignorance.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

Ok. if we need building blocks, why not try to set it up like math? The bedrock of a mathematical system is not postulates and theorems, it is definitions. We define what a number is, (symbol representative of none, one, some, many, etc.) what counting is, ( how many) etc. We do not simply conceive of long division and then make the numbers whatever we want in order to fit.

We define the undefinable in order to form the platform from which to begin.

So what definitions do we need for this debate?

Reality. Is this the sum of your percieved experience? Is it that plus the experience of several others who you choose to believe? Or is it an unknowable (in its entirety) "what is" of which you have experienced only a part?

Next, you have to figure out whether you think there is more than one answer to this question. I don't mean the ability to follow a line of reason based on more than one, I mean can there really be more than one? If yes, then then the answer to the chicken or egg question could be both were first, or neither, or either one. If no, then which definition fits?

If it is your own perception which defines reality, do you perceive that you were cognizant (sp?) before taking physical form? Your yes or no here answers the original question, or at least gives you data from which to draw.

If it is your perception plus that of others, then you have to find out and accept what they think in addition to your own thought. Incorporate that into your belief.

If it is a sum total of "what is" , regardless of your perception, it has to come down to an "I don't know and can't know" because you cannot take into account the rest of the "what is" that you don't know.


Philosophy is as personal as it is universal. But, if we are going to debate much of anything, we need to agree on what some basic concepts mean before any meaningful debate can be had.


My two cents is bet on the third option. There is more out there affecting things than ANYONE can really know.

However, some ideas I've had for a while tie in here, being that the physical world and the non-physical world are intermingled and dependent on one another. They are humanly classified parts of a whole that in truth have no dividing distinction.the physcial world would be dead in the water, unable to function, or move, or really, especially when you look at an atomic level, even exist, because you have to have energy there on some level. If you look at or accept a non-physical world, as in supernatural, metaphysical, spiritual, or whatever, none of it really has any genuine meaning unless it has something to affect. Spirits swishing about in a void randomly thinking shit up without it having any effect or outcome on anything doesn't give them a reason to be in the first place.

I think both things sprang up at once, sort of like opposing (as in different directions, even though magnets can attract too, it is because of the differences they can both attract and oppose, instead of not doing either) magnetic forces that wouldn't have a meaning or existence unless the opposing force existed as well. Does a positive exist without a negative? does an up exist without a down?

If one thing comes first, there was a time when there was only one thing, not both. You assume one causes the other. I think both thought and existence sprang forth at once, sort of like parts of a formerly static void pulling in every direction at once, making the physical world possible and the thinking, spiritual parts come into existence as well. I think energy is what holds it all together, causes the opposing/attracting forces that make everything happen. I think there are two types of balance here, one that is a + - thing, and one that is a whole, but they co-exist.

The whole concept is something I can visualize, and feel, in about two seconds. I've tried for years to find a way to explain it in words and am still trying, and failing miserably. It is something so utterly simple, and yet words don't work.

"I think therefore I am". "I exist therefore I can think". There is no therefore. There just IS, but the "IS" is a fluid, swirling, expanding,writhing thing, interactive and dependent on all its parts.

There's my two,....uhh, I mean five cents.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

...do you really think anyone here has any REAL ideas? NO! They are just repeating shit they've heard before, nigh verbatim. They might as well paraphrase; because I can see right through this bullshit.

No one here has had an original idea yet, just evokation of other's ideas and arguments. This will go nowhere, and this will accomplish nothing but an intellectual autofellatio. It's sickening to watch people discuss these things as if they have a grasp of them, and it's even worse when they act like these are their own ideas.

Maybe these ideas are only being rehashed because your mind is running out of original arguments to endow us figments.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Maybe these ideas are only being rehashed because your mind is running out of original arguments to endow us figments.

Just go to his profile, and click on "ignore", then he will cease to exist.
:^S

EmeraldLoneWolf: From the selections you provided, I would agree with the third one also. Reality continues without and despite our individual existence.

As to your "plus/minus" visualization: I also agree: In Brane theory (evolved from string theory), while "our" universe manifests gravity for example, an alternate universe manifests anti-gravity. Where Black Holes inhale matter in this universe, Quasars exhale it in an alternate universe. I think science will soon prove your theory.
It is an exciting time to be alive in the history of science and man.

[halez]

I really don't have much of an opinion on that subject. There has to be something around to lay the egg. But the thing that lays the egg had to come out of an egg to lay an egg. It is a very mind bogalling subject from my point of veiw.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Shut up you stupid bitch. I've had enough of jackasses such as yourself. Everyone wants to take a shot at me, like it's going to even matter, like I can be proven wrong by a bunch of jackasses.

That wasn't a shot at you. It was mere philosophical postulation, and nothing by which to be offended.

And technically, I'm a bastard.

[maggot]

Spright, my science teacher explained it to me that white holes are on the opposite side of the universe, due to the whole space-time thing. I'd love it if you further explained it to me?

[maggot]

I see. Thanks. ^^