A Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism

Sensory preception and inferrence from sensory preception form the foundation for all thought. This much is evident from easily demonstratable facts, amongst these:

1. It is impossible to imagine a totally different colour. That is to say, not a shade of a prior colour, such as beige, mauve, or forest, but rather, a totally new colour. Let's call this blorge or...nixto. In essence, an extension of the visible spectrum of light to include a whole new rung on the rainbow.

2. Those sensory-impaired from birth cannot imagine the sense they lack. Those with five-senses cannot imagine a sixth (barring psychic phenomenon known colloquially as a sixth sense).

3. All thoughts consist of sensory rememberance (mostly audio or visual for those who have such capacities) or inferrence from that rememberance to create new things. An example of the latter would be of imaging a centaur, which would involve one merging an image of a man's torso and head with the body of a horse and thus creating a creature that one has never seen, but can infer from that which exists. One can make all sorts of crazy monsters, creatures, shapes, and other such things, by simply having knowledge of certain basic things, given to one through the senses.

4. Due to the third proof, a being who from birth has no senses, could neither know itself, formulate thoughts, or in anyway be conscious.

In essence, I posit a theory of knowledge equivalent to that of which the school of thought known as Empiricism would have one believe.

Now, in those theories of idealism which place the Mind belonging to the Self as the sole source of existence and creator of all, we immediatly have a problem. How could this mind have any knowledge of anything in order to create this existence? If it simply came into being and created this univerrse through its power, as Idealists would have us believe, then it had no external-stimuli to give it the very foundation of knowledge it would need to have in order to formulate anything. Without first sensing space, how can one think of space? Nothingness would prevail if the Mind were to create an Idealist Reality.

In those theories which do not place the Self, but rather, God as the source of mental creation, we run into the same problems. The very nature of knowledge is as described above, and thus we can assume - unless such can be demonstrated otherwise? - that God would have the same type of knowledge as we. Now, however, it is often argued that God has a quality which we lack: Omniscience. This omniscience is also often postulated to exist backwards-and-forwards in time. That is to say, omniscience is full knowledge of past, present, and future, and due to God's perfection, perfectly right. Now, would this capacity of God allow him to create anything through his mind? Nay! For we come to a paradox in such an argument! If God is the creator, yet cannot create due to a lack of knowledge, then God could not have knowledge of a time where any creation of his existed. Since creation would be contingent on God's mind creating it, and if God's mind is incapable of it, then creation would be incapable of being created, and thus God could never gain knowledge of it. Ontop of this, we even now can see that God is impotent to be a creator at all, for even if his creation is not dependent on his mind sponteneously creating things in a reality which exists in his imagination, God still would be incapable of knowledge if there were not already things there for him to perceive. Thus God -cannot- be a creator of -ANY- sort and thus the argument for Idealism on the basis of God, and for God being a creator at all, is baseless, illogical, and of course, wrong.

The rammifications of this are clear: Non-Transcendental Idealism is manifestly false. This then leaves us with Transcendental Idealism, all flavours of Materialism, and Dualism as metaphysical possibilities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i can't, and even if i could, i don't understand why it would matter...

the self is not a being, it's the existence (being), presence... definitely, the self is not conscious... consciousness is a limitation. it is a consequence of the body. things are created in the presence, not in the past. everything past is an effect. the cause is not visible.

why would it need knowledge. it doesn't need to think. thinking is a process from not-knowledge to all-knowledge. if one knows everything what would he think. nothing.

it's not a conscious mind which created the universe.

space is not something real. just an illusion. the only reality that exists is nothingness. it seems as somethingness because the mind freezes the illusion of motion (basic thing in the universe) we separate ourselves from the rest of the world with our consciousness, hence it exits.... without the feeling of separation, there would be no self, there would be nothing.

hyperscience

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God having knowledge of a time when creation existed for Him to gain knowledge from? Why must he be bound to our way and experience of gaining knowledge, ie our senses, etc.?

What then is creativity? There is no such thing in your argument, so what of art and of breaking boundaries and gaining knowledge? Your claim is that a color we have not perceived cannot exist... why? Before we could translate waves beyond our spectrum of senses, via infrared filters etc. they did not exist according to your rules here, but in fact they do now exist according to your rules. It had to be imagined to be true before it could ever be shown to be so. How, then, could such imaginations arise out of the void beyond empirically known data?

I find paradox in your assertions of reality in this expression. The missing element, though you are using it in your model, is time itself. You, as a truth seeker, accept that time is what is required in order for you to seek, to gain, truth and knowledge as you presently know it, and grow it. To be above time, is to be omniscient. That is the only possibility for one to know what does not yet exist. You can make no claim of non-existence to something that has not yet been objectively proven to be untrue. To that there is no logic.

God can have senses and perceptions above our means, as you have shown by your example of humans limited by senses at birth, actually, since sight for instance can be perceived by some and not by others. You limit the universe to the senses that evolution has granted you; or the mass of senses gathered and perceived by humans; are the limits to truth? No other senses are clearly possible?

As an omniscient being, why could not He create a thing and insert it into time eternal. Why can he not imagine a thing and then make it exist within our framework of time? Why must it be an eternally existent feature of His reality? Perhaps He likes new things.

Though a little more elaborate, the argument you present is... "If God is all powerful; can He create a rock that He Himself cannot lift?" Such arguments and imaginative hypothetical paradoxes have no real place in an objective reality. God, if He exists; is the unimaginable, though such thoughts are entertain-able.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yorda:

It demonstrates the necessity for sensory knowledge before anything can be thought of.

In what way is consciousness a "limitation"? And what do you mean by "it's the existence"? Are you refering to the True SElf you postulate, in the vaguely Upanishadic notion you've come to in another thread? And in what way is the "cause not visible"? Do you meanf or all causes? Or do you mean the ultimate cause?

The notion of omniscience entails knowledge of allt hings. However, knowledge can only come through the senses initially. If there is nothing, then no knowledge is possible, and thus the necessary knowledge in order to create anything would be lacking.

I agree, I was simply offering proofs why.

How is space an illusion? What proof do you have for that? What proof do you have that the only reality that exists is nothingness? And how does the brain "freeze the illusion of motion? Are -not- we seperate from the world? If there was no self, would not there still be non-animate things? Rocks and stars and such things? Is it simply a "feeling" and not a reality? And since there -is- a feeling does not that prove something?

Scott Myers:

It is the very nature of knowledge itself, Scott. Unless you can demonstrate why God would not follow this and how it could be so, we must really conclude this, mustn't we?

Creativity arises from inference from sensory preception. Imagination is basically taking what you have experienced, combining it in abstraction, and either retaining it or expressing it somehow.

You misunderstand me. I did not claim that the colour cannot exist, but only that we cannot know of it unless we first experience it through the senses. Ultraviolet, to an organism that can see into the spectrum, most likely has a distinct colour, but we will never experience that colour unless we modify our eyes. Until then, it is impossible to think of, as we have no means whereby we can abstract its existence.

I never claimed that omniscience was not true, simply that it was impossible for an omniscient being to be a creator due to the nature of knowledge. There would have to be a "creation" beyond its control in order for it to gain knowledge of things such as "space" and "time" and other such things.

Let me ask you this: If God created the universe, until God created that universe it did not exist, yes? His action of creation allows all other things to come to pass, yes? But if he does not have the knowledge to create a thing, could there exist a time when the creation occurred?

There could be thousands of different senses out there, but that would not change a thing. To first think, one must gain sensory preception from atleast one of these senses, regardless of which one it is. God could have an infinite amount of senses, but if there was nothing to sense, he'd not be able to think. Senses in a vacuum are just as useless as none at all.

But can he even imagine if he has no senses? Is there any knowledge possible?

Hmmm, I would not say so. The notion that God could create something that he could not lift and still be omnipotent is a contradiction of what it would mean to be omnipotent. I am merely pointing out a flaw in the notion of an omniscient creator if truly nothing existed before he created it, and showing that not even God could be the author of an ultimately Idealist reality.

As to the notion that if God exists he is unimaginable, how so? If he is a necessary being/thing, then his existence is rooted in logic. Logic is known to man. Can not we then prove God's existence, non-existence, and nature?

 

I will not go so far as to say we can conclusively prove His nature, but that logic will surely, at the end of roads fully traveled, result in the existense of the creator. As to His nature; again, this will be questions.

This one by you sir, "It is the very nature of knowledge itself, Scott. Unless you can demonstrate why God would not follow this and how it could be so, we must really conclude this, mustn't we?"

Perhaps it must, so it will be sought after, I assure you. I will think on it!

 

"abstraction"

What is 'abstraction', in your context for explaining creativity? It is one and the same, is it not? Not by complete definition perhaps, but why can one 'abstract' a reality? I think there is much to this abstraction.

 

Scott Myers:

The attributes of God - his nature - would surely also be logically deducible, nay? In fact, one day soon I shall write up my theological arguments for my conception of God.

I eagerly await your response to it.

Mental inference/abstraction is creativity, yes.

Why can one abstract reality? It seems to be linked with sensory-preception processing, which results in intelligence. An intelligent being which can understand reality, can also take what he knows of reality and apply it it all the myriad ways that it can be combined. In essence, he can conjure up a mental picture and from what he has knowledge of, alter it in anyway which that knowledge would permit. It could have colour, spatial dimensions, size, taste, touch, smell, whatever.

 

People _limit_ themselves into a specific body by thinking that the world (the things which people don't want to unite with, the things which they don't consider as parts of their personal self... repulsion) is outside them, so they separate from it (sensational illusion), and hence they become conscious... since there is an inner and outer to relate to... so, now when they have become a body, they must follow the limitations of its material reality, trying to reach the infinite goal... (evolution, life, can never end)

Consciousness separates everything (quran: "do the unbelievers not see that in the beginning heaven and earth were united, then we separated them", heaven meaning consciousness and earth meaning the "material" world) If people wouldn't push away the things which they don't consider as themselves, if they saw themselves in everything, if they didn't defend themselves, if they didn't limit themselves, they would quickly feel infinite.

The self is present. Presence is the only reality, the only existence. But the presence is also "non-existent", since it has no duration. What is visible is an illusion produced by the senses of a body.

"We cannot find the cause by observing effects. What is visible is the result of a cause. There is no visible cause."

"For a cause to become visible, it must become past, hence the goal must already have been attained. Then, with no longer any goal, no apparent effect can be observed. HENCE THE CAUSE IS ALWAYS INVISIBLE, and apparent reality is always illusory. This is why when Physics tries to seize the atoms' reality, it discovers... nothingness."

The only cause is in the presence. There was no creation in the past. It does not exist, it is just a memory, an illusion..

Knowledge is a limitation, a consequence of being separated... Information is only possible by separation. Knowledge is sensational, since it can only come through the senses. The power which controls atoms have no knowledge, it has no consciousness, that's why atoms are so obedient.

People can never reach omniscience by thinking and trying to go further and further... matter (sensations) restricts it. evolution is a spiral, it never ends... omniscience (knowledge of nothing-everything) is only possible if you stop existing.

nothing includes everything, like a blank paper with nothing drawn on it... yet everything COULD ("everything" exists in "invisibility") be drawn on it. if i draw a red apple on it, the red apple was already there in nothingness, before i made it visible by separating its positive form from the characteristics of the negative background... the apple just couldn't be seen since the negative and positive aspects of it were united, they were exactly similar, they couldn't be seen... like when you blend black and white...

the logical proof that everything is in the mind is that we can't be conscious of something outside our consciousness. yet we are conscious of the universe, hence it's in our mind.

space is just as illusional as time is, it's a human concept... a sensation of distance, known through senses of past experiences. everything we cope with is known only by our senses, so "everything is sensational", "nothing is real".

Things which we consider non-animate, are not more non-animate than we. all bodies made of the same things, just with different combinations of "dots".

The feeling that there is something is just that: a feeling, a sensation, a dream..

In "dreams" we can do all the things we do in normal life, we can use our senses, hear sounds, talk, feel, see... although there are no things out there... they're all just perceptions...

When we wake up from a dream, there is no reason not to think that the thing which we call real life is also just a dream.... and that we could be awoken from the life on earth as we are awoken from a dream.

Sorry if this is confusing and annoying, you don't have to comment it. There's just so much to say so I get confused.

 

What768:

"Sensational illusion"? In what sense it is an illusion? Sensations are real phenomena felt by beings. Beings are seperate from their enviroment in key ways.

Yet you just said that consciousness results from sensory-rooted self? Is not it a contradiction to speak of it being "heaven"?

They would not "feel" infinite in the sense of sensory experience through another thing, but yes, their identity would shift to a broader spectrum.

Present where? In what way is presence the only reality, the only existence? How does it have "no duration"? And how can the senses produce an "illusion"?

Physics has never discovered "nothingness". In fact, physics has demonstrated that nothingness is impossible, via the very nature of space time being energy itself, therefore "empty space" is not in fact empty, not to mention that even "empty space", aside from being made of spacetime, is never empty of fields of various sorts, which are themselves energetic in nature. So actually, if anything, modern science has VALIDATED the old maxim of "nature abhors a vacuum" and has found -substance-, not nothingness. Ontop of this, this notion that the "cause is invisble" means essentially nothing. Whilst the Buddhist notion of a cause not becoming a cause until an effect is produced, is totally and completely valid, this does not basically anything. One can also view the process of cause-and-effect in process through observation, such as looking at a bullet impact a watermelon, for instance.

No creation in the past? So you are saying the bullet did not, in fact, impact the watermelon? This sir, seems to be absurd. I'd have you prove that memories are simply "an illusion". It no longer exists in the present 4d universe, nay, but in prior coordinates along T it did.

Moreover, note that an illusion itself must be real in order to be an illusion.

Indeed, the forces of nature are senseless and without intelligence, compulsions of universal laws.

If one stops existing, one cannot have any knowledge. Omniscience is "all knowledge", hence, one must exist and exist infinitely to have omniscience.

No, nothing is the opposite of everything. Nothing is a pure negative, something which has no spatial existence, which is the absence of existence, the antithesis.

How does something which is the polar opposite of existence give rise to existence in the fashion of which you speak? Ontop of that, you forget that in reality, your drawing of the apple imparts a new substance on the paper, not bringing out something inherent in the paper.

Yet there are no thoughts without sensory stimulation, meaning we must gain knowledge from knowledge external to us. Again: Think of another colour. Can you? Nay, it is impossible. Hence, you must first come to knowledge of colour through experience. A man who is fully colour blind can no more understand "red" than we can understand "blorg" (an imaginary name for a totally different colour). External reality is proved by the very nature of empirical knowledge. The mind has not the capacity to produce the reality we see around us.

And why are the senses "not real"? Upon what foundation does this assertion stem from? In fact, if we have sense, does not this -necessitate- a reality?

Non-animate means not alive, not conscious. Surely a rock, which has no sensory organs and no bodily system, is not conscious in anyway, shape, or form capable of being expressed, and likely capable of existing. WE are different due to the fact that we have intelligence and are alive, are organic beings with processes which sustain our existence, unlike the rock which is a chunk of matter. Are we ultimately made of the same stuff? Yes. But molecular relationship goes a long way to produce things which are fundementally different, though they be composed of the same basic stuff.

A feeling is a perceived reality. Explain how a feeling could arise from nothing at all?

A blind man from birth cannot see in his dreams. He does not have the necessary sensory experience. Hence, the mind's illusions in dreams cannot possibly be anything but facsimilies and are rooted in the necessity of an external reality.

Could this still be a dream? Yes. But we must experience some form of reality in order to dream. We may have experienced it only once, but we must have experienced it -atleast- that one time. Ontop of that, there is lots of reasons to suspect this is not a dream, due to the difference betwixt dreams and reality. Constancy is one important aspect. Dreams tend to be far more fluid than the reality of awake consciousness.

It is not confusing and annoying, no need for apologies. Though as evident, I strongly believe that you are in error.

 

Wow what a heavy read.....I say this to excuse myself from not taking the time to fully absorb what is being said here.

The thought occured to me that the arguement about God is fully determined by the definetion in use.
I have often in the past argued that the God we imagine can not exist because the God we imagined CAN not exist.
In other words if God is defined in such a such a way does this definition in itself defeat the reality of Gods existence.

If one could simply put down all prior conceptions of what God is and contemplate on what God could be one can see that God indeed does exist if only we allow that definition to exist.

For example the Christian God can not exist. Because the God of their definition is hopelessly paradoxed and probably very insane.


I might say for example that my definition is that God is all that exists.[Pathenism] Is that so hard to find as valid?
Have I stated that he must be omniscient or that he must be omnipotent? NO I have not. So to me by my definition he exists just as reality exists.

The other point that came to mind is the assumption that knowledge is only available by the senses.
But I ask you what if all knowledge is already inside our minds and our only problem is in the accessability to that knowledge. Do we need to sense that knowledge that we already have but can't access.

In some philosophies all is already known it is only our intense need to quantify and take things one step at a time that prevents it's full and immediate realisation.

To know what you already know is to know everything there is and ever will be known.
So I would venture at least these 2 complications to your theory Prince.

And BTW congrad's on the thread.

 

What768,

I find I am in agreement with this statement.

Gravity and light are only available to us as an effect.
Science postulates on and speculates on those effects generating models of causality, but these are only models.

The cause is sometimes available to be described but only in hindsight and never at the moment because all we percieve is an effect and then speculate as to it's cause.....but the point of perception is always an effect.


hmmmmm...interesting.....but is it an absolute statement of a pseudo absolute.

 

By Quantam Quack…

“The thought occurred to me that the argument about God is fully determined by the definition in use.”

Without a doubt, and that is (to refer to the topic of another thread) one of the main issue as it concerns belief in general.




“I have often in the past argued that the God we imagine can not exist because the God we imagined CAN not exist.”

Clearly… because he would be imagined, correct?




“If one could simply put down all prior conceptions of what God is and contemplate on what God could be one can see that God indeed does exist if only we allow that definition to exist.”

I agree that for one to accept the existence of God, one must put down prior conceptions to some degree, but, as I understand your statement here… God indeed does exist if we contemplate on what God could be? That would be nothing less than imagining God, would it not? If God exists (preconceived, or discovered metaphysically, physically or otherwise) than he is in no way dependant on your definitions, or mine for sure; He simply is.




“For example the Christian God can not exist. Because the God of their definition is hopelessly paradoxed and probably very insane.”

Well, very nice words for Jehovah, but beyond the personal issues… Of paradox (I hate to resort to cliché’, but there is really no alternative); “A glass is half full”, “No, it is half empty”, No it is half full!” Both are wrong, and both are right, but the glass exists. The divergent perspectives of the observers in that example have no bearing on the existence of the glass, the water or the observers.




“I might say for example that my definition is that God is all that exists.[Pathenism] Is that so hard to find as valid? Have I stated that he must be omniscient or that he must be omnipotent? NO I have not. So to me by my definition he exists just as reality exists.”

What would be the purpose of mere existence; if, in fact, that is of no consequence, why the distinction between God and reality? Or if there is no distinction (and I have misinterpreted) then why use the word God and why say it is ok for him to exist as imagined by anyone imagining; especially, as you have already concluded, when an imagined God cannot exist?




The following, by my estimation, is a valid question worthy of further discussion and a response from the Prince of reality himself.

“The other point that came to mind is the assumption that knowledge is only available by the senses.
But I ask you what if all knowledge is already inside our minds and our only problem is in the accessability to that knowledge. Do we need to sense that knowledge that we already have but can't access.”

And this one as well…

“To know what you already know is to know everything there is and ever will be known.”???

 

Scott, possibly you have missed my point about the definition of God. I did not state my examples as a particular arguement I only used my examples of how our definition of God means he can't exist. I am suggesting that if we want to determines God's existance or not would it not be better to find a definition that actually is possible?

Another example:

God is a multiplistic universal consciousness that has it's center of perception at the center of everything both in time and space. His thoughts consists of all thoughts, his desires consists of all desires his material substance consists of all material substance.

He is omni present but only omniscient if one consders his multiplistic nature.

He exists not as an individual mind but a multiplistic mind which renders him impotent as a single mind.

Is there a problem with this definition?....Most probably..... but it is more plausable than that of the Christian definition.

Can God effect change when he is in fact all change?

or
God is as the Christians define however he is totally indifferent to his own existance because he is existance.

SO if we really want to we can come up with many more workable definitions for God and I repeat it is only the definitions we usually apply that renders God as an unworkable notion thus a mere fantazy of imagination.

 

Quantum Quack:

If God is not a necessary being, then no logical argument can demonstrate his existence. If, however, he is the necessary being, he has certain attributes, and if some are proven to be absurd, then we must conclude that he doesn't have those attributes, and if all are proven to be absurd, then he does not exist.

Pantheism is a bit more complicated than that, but if God is all that exists, he would by definition be omnipotent (since he does everything) and omniscient (since he is everything), though one could make an argument that he is not conscious, and thus the term "omnsicient" is a bit off.

What proof, however, do you have for this? And if we cannot access this knowledge, why do you think we even have it?

Yes, but these philosophies cannot explain why the blind from birth cannot think of sight, or the colour blind of colour, or the deaf of sound.

My thanks.

Witnessing the entire event, one can see the correlation, can one not? Zeno's Second Paradox of the arrow in flight, which this is somewhat deriviative of, does not take into consideration this notion of time and motion (though probably because he thought he disproved both). If one had a snapshot only of the effect, one could not demonstrate the cause, but we see the cause-and-effect in action in motion.

Scott Myers:

See my responses to Quantum Quack's objections, as you noted they were valid and such objections and such.

Quantum Quack:

I agree.

 

I just wondered where, or how, we have derived the the implausible "Christian definition?"

Which actually leads me to think there is a fun exercise we can do perhaps. I may start my first thread.

 

Prince:
I have had another read and will probably have another and another...I find this discourse facinating and in many ways quite true to my own belief systems.

However I am not all that familiar with the terminology of non-trancedental idealism so I will stick with my own interpretation.
A couple of things stick out, two of which I mentioned earlier concerning definitions of God and how it is possible that all knowledge is already known just not realised.

The other thing that came to mind is that like most persons will refer to creation as created, in the past there was nothing and God created his creation. And you are arguing that his knowledge would have been such that he could not have created anything.

At this point it is worth looking at our notions of time, future Now and past....how we percieve the past as happening before the now or the future. We automatically make the assumption that reality was created in the past. Easy to see why yes?

How ever maybe the notion of creation always in the Now is worth a look at.

Thesis:
Creation didn't occur in the past it occurs in the present and will always occur in the present.
29 billion years ago if you believe science the universe was created but even then it occurred in the present 29 billion years ago. And it occurs or is occuring even today also in the present or now.

Every thing that will ever be known for eternity is concieved in the present. And at that precious moment 29 billion years ago all was known that can be or would be known. and so to is it now this very moment, no different except that knowledge is being realised in to the conscious realm which is the reality as it is and will be. Sort of like realities reality is unfolding itself as change continues.

The now then could be considered the continuous unfolding of all that is concieved in this eternal now.

In a way it's like saying time is realy as state of mind, a vertical rather than horizontal continuum as reality unfolds upward into consciousness.

so the future is of what we are unconscious of rising up to consciousness as the now unfolds all that is concieved.

Possibly this is way to deep even for this thread and certainly I have great difficulty explaining what I mean.

The premise is that creation is unfolding. All is now determined [ not predetermined] Even though it may appear to be predetermined it is in fact now determined.

This is a part of my ongoing thesis into ex-nhillo creation. A work in progress that is just about impossible to put in words.
So to close my contention, God is constantly creating or should I say rising into the conscious realm in the NOW and certainly not in the past as one would intuitively expect.

Further, Free will is the expression of our creativity as we continuously improvise our way through life and this is humanities contribution to the creation that is rising into consciousness. Thus human creativity [Our experession of free will] is in fact a part of the collective creativity that is sometimes defined as God.

 

Possibly this quick diagram might help ...keep in mind that knowledge of the future is also in the main a part of the unconscious.

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/untime.gif>

As we become better able to predict the future with some certainty, such as astral bodies, ie planets etc and so on this effects our freewill and creativity....thus the future becomes more and more conscious....as our knowledge of it increases.

So your main contentions are both correct and not correct simultaneously...more like a bit of both.....IMO

 

Quantum Quack:

No problem with your own terminology, you explain yourself well, but if you're interested in learning about Idealism, I'd suggest this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Yes. If there exists nothing, then no thought is possible. As we discussed in A Ship thread, a personality/intelligence cannot exist in a vacuum.

Now, as to your thesis, I have several questions:

1. What proof do you have that this is so?
2. If we have memory of the past, would not this somewhat refute this?
3. Would not inertial frames, which force something out of perfectly synchronized time, refute this?
4. Are you saying there is no past at all?

Elaborate, please?

 

Imagination and thought can be different or exactly the same. Thought is required to form a sensible construct out of information. The psychological imagination may make or break that construct overtime, after perceptual biases take effect. Thus forming a mental construct that has no relation to the real-world environment.

True. We cannot imagine or invent a new means of perception.

Sensory receptors are required to receive external information where it becomes processed by the brain. For sight we have the visual cortex which is responsible for the brain's processing of visual information.

Not unless the universe it created was infinitely old. Perhaps your are taking the Idealist point of view overly literally.

I agree. Ominiscence is paradoxical indeed. Incomprehensible if you will. There can be no other way to see it. One can argue that the universe and God are mutually connected in order to resolve the infinite loop as I interpreted from Chris Langan's CTMU.

These days I am opting for a Multi-verse in which there are no gods/ goddesses or God. But this might fail to explain the possibility of psychic powers in terms of physics. Time is non-existent.

 

I'll attempt to answer your questions as best I can, however please accept this is all work in progress and not at all firm.

1. What proof do you have that this is so? :
None other than what is observed from this perspective.


2. If we have memory of the past, would not this somewhat refute this? :

But until remembered it is unconscious to us even though it maintians our consciousness.

Do you consciously remember everything you know you can remember at at the one moment? No, as most of what you can remember is unconscious or at least subconscious.

So is the past conscious or unconscious?
The past is conscious in the Now by what we see in comparison with what we have seen. So in this sense the past exists only Now. As you remember something you do so Now. Thus the past can only be realised in the present.
So we find that memory and bring it into the conscious realm and this is always in the now.
In some ways my earlier diagram is actually misleading in that the horizontal lines need to be erased. As time is only a vertical rising in the now. From unconscious to conscious and then back to unconscious again as we forget [ or die]

3. Would not inertial frames, which force something out of perfectly synchronized time, refute this?

Only if one accepts Special relativity theorys relative time concept.

Which I don't as I believe time is both absolute and relative and always a simultaneous zero duration moment of continuous universal change.
Absolute in the context of a universal Now and relative because change rates [tick rates] are relative to velocity [dilation]

4. Are you saying there is no past at all?

No, I am saying that the past exist in the unconscious NOW.

We only see the past when we bring the past into the present consciously. Other wise the past is unconscious to us.

Another version of the diagram:
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/untime2.gif>

Note the absence of thinking of time as a horizontal linea timeline. Considering time as a vertical zero duration event I think is more productive and more realistic. We are so used to thinking of time as a linea future to past plotted graph that it may at first be difficult to imagine it as a verticle non- line.