Have you existed before?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by birch, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,831
    Again, not to you exactly, again that rules god out and from the description of many give of experiences many of them also ie ghost floating through walls

    Which I hope would include evidence

    Arrh you used the E word and agreed we knew a lot less some time ago and I am guessing we still have a lot to learn. I'm also using my psychic powers (no I'm not, I'm guessing) we still have much to learn. I'm guessing again the CERN was not built to make a better even toasted slice of bread but to find out stuff we only have a hint of being present or how things work. We suspect they work a particular way from observations and CERN might confirm or reject the ideas. Either way we learn

    And we are smart enough to be able to enhance our senses with equipment but but but the equipment in essence only make the unseen / undirectly detectable reality detectable to our puny detectors (senses) and our puny senses make the call of what is being detected

    I'm studying concessness at the moment. Any reference to the above?

    Stuff I call impossible I can assure you I am not pretending. Prove it is possible BINGO I switch

    Breakfast and coffee time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    ooooh ok this will be fun,

    Experience is comprised entirely of perceived things,

    And so consequently an experience IS perceived things, because that is the only thing that an experience is comprised of.


    Because an experience IS perceived things, an experience is the way in which things exist however they’re perceived to.

    Therefore an experience is the way in which things exist.

    And therefore experience is existence.

    so, because experience is existence, your experience is your existence, you are everything that you are aware of, sights, smells, excetra.

    I suppose you could call that the soul, your awareness that is.

    also, this awareness of yours is immortal because the absence of all experience is not an experience so can not be experienced.

    you can never experience the absence of all experience because it is not an experience and therefore you must eternally not experience the absence of all experience, and must therefore experience at least something eternally.

    the implications of this are that you have always been experiencing and will continue to do so forever.

    so, your experience, which is you, has existed forever and will continue to do so forever, and therefore can not be the product of some perfect electrical pattern in the brain, or anything else for that matter because even if no vessel were there to precipitate the existence of the soul its non existence would be impossible which indicates that its existence does not require anything.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,831
    For who?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TheFrogger Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,129
    Not for us, Michael345.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,202
    No, that does not follow.

    Lot's of things exist and existed before we came along to experience them.

    But never mind, since it's all a red herring, leading up to this non sequitur:

    OK, you've simply chosen to make up your own concept of what a soul is. Try not to do that. There is an existing concept of a what a soul is. Playing with words is not a valid argument.
     
  9. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [/QUOTE]
    OK, you've simply chosen to make up your own concept of what a soul is. Try not to do that. There is an existing concept of a what a soul is. Playing with words is not a valid argument.[/QUOTE]

    I didn't make it up. and as for choice, that's a whole other argument.

    soul
    /səʊl/

    Learn to pronounce

    noun
    noun: soul; plural noun: souls
    1.
    the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

    awareness is immaterial, therefore immortal awareness, which I was referring to,
    is the same as a soul.

    I only used the word suppose because the definition of the word soul is ambiguous to me.

    and yea, sure there may have been things around before you experienced them, although you can't prove that.
    but that doesn't mean that knowone was experiencing them, just because you weren't.
    to say that is to deny anything outside of yourself, and therefore objective reality ingeneral, the very thing you so seem to cherish.

    also, my conclusion was no sequitur.

    an experience is the way in which things exist,

    therefore experience is existence because the things that exist actually have to exist as experiences in order to be experienced and therefore in order to exist.

    and so, only experiences can exist, you see, and the existence of experiences, and therefore the existence of anything, is the experience of experiences, because experiences can only exist if experienced.

    the existence of experiences=the experience of experiences, therefore experience is existence.

    I apologize for leaving all of that up to inference.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2019
  10. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    fun for me obviously, I hope it is not fun for you, and I don't care how fun it is for others.
     
  11. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,202
    The definition of soul you've quoted says nothing about awareness.

    You (bolded) decided that
    - awareness is also part of your definition of soul, and
    - immaterial awareness also means immortal awareness.

    Both have no obvious justification.

    You're obfuscating the issue by using personal definitions. Don't do that.

    This is not true. The Earth-Moon example contradicts it.

    In fact - 9.3 billion years of universe existing and evolving before the first cyano-bacteria came along - contradicts your idea that events must be experienced.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2019
  13. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    actually, there is no evidence that the universe existed in the manner it does currently before anyone observed it, and also, if it did, it experienced its own existence and there is no contradiction involved in that unless you believe that experience is a brainfunction.

    I am not personalising definitions, I am extrapolating information from them to find out what fits the already existing definition of the soul, which is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being, regarded as immortal.

    awareness is regarded by me as immortal, and awareness is immaterial. so awareness, at least in human beings, is the soul.
    I don't know if you have a soul or anyone else for that matter but I know I do, and I rather like it.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,202
    There is. There is a preponderance of evidence.


    All of which falls under personal belief.

    Personal belief is fine - unless you put it out there where it can be challenged, and then "I believe" is an insufficient defense.
     
  15. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    If anyone is in a position of defense it is you.
    and I can't help it that the definition of the word soul requires some degree of subjectivity, as it uses the word "regarded".
    apparently the soul is a thing that is "regarded" as immortal.
    however despite the degree of subjectivity introduced by this term, all of my regards about the soul including this one are justified.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2019
  16. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    there is no evidence to suggest that the universe existed before you did because the only thing you can ever be aware of is your own experience. and "evidence" is a part of that.
    however, I do think that the universe has existed for a rather long time, but not before you existed as an aware being because you have always been experiencing something, it is impossible for you not to because you can not experience the alternative, which is nothing, because there simply isn't anything to it to experience.

    I suppose it could be argued that the universe did exist before you if it existed at an infinite amount of time into the past.
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,729
    = explanation of a law ...
    law =
    "evidence" is just stuff
    all stuff is a part of all other stuff

    Reason defines the nature of perceptual connection

    "opinion" & "theory"(laypersons theory) are no less valid, however ... when you assert your opinion as a "law" things tend to get a bit lost(like logic & your readers)

    experiencing not experience Vs nothing or nothingness...
    philosophically there is quite a big difference.

    posing a question ?
    subjectiveness...
    some people define the universe as potentially having no end
    this equally suggests a possible variation of also having no beginning.

    just because you cant experience what another person is experiencing, does not mean someone else cant experience what that other person is experiencing.

    the learning and confusion and discussion between group acceptance of implied terms of experience verses group acceptance and self actualization.
    this is quite an involved subject and probably not one to be had where trolls and pervs can use it to manipulate others(so im not going to get technical because anyone can read this stuff ).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,202
    Yes. That is what evidence is. The observance of nature.

    Therefore:
    is false. There is a preponderance of things we observe that are evidence the universe existed before any of us came along.


    There is no higher version of evidence - no "realer real"- than that which we observe. That doesn't diminish it.
     
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,729
    you are proposing a theory...

    time is equal to some value which validates its self as a past event.

    if time was not infinite, would that mean the beginning of the universe was indeterminable ?
    no

    as Dave mentions "observations"/"evidence" as used in the psychological definition means the ability to perceive.

    if you are going to use scientific terminology in specificity, then you may want to define the difference between a conversational theory, and a suggested law of relative concepts e.g time, space, big bang etc .

    i had perceived your definition of "experience" to be a perceptual philosophical concept of the basic schrodinger/Einstien theoretical physics

    attaching time to a quantum mechanics value renders time into a purely notary abstract of implied measure.
    (is that what you intended?[possibly not])

    a personal opinion of mine...
    if you conceptualize thought and learning as an entropic nature toward time and perceptive reason
    one would want to have more complexity develop from a single point
     
  20. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    I never said that finite time would prove the beginning of the universe indeterminable, I said that there is no evidence that the universe existed before dave.

    and that dave has existed forever so the universe probably didn't exist before him.
     
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,729
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,202
    And it's still demonstrably false.
     
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,729
    perceptual self actualization reality
    verses
    ...what(?)(what are/am we/i?)

    theory of self actualization
    theory of theoretical physics / quantum physics / quantum mechanics

    all exist at the same time in a single time reference, however all are different.

    manifest actualization of theory defines self actualization
    however, such transcendental aspects do not re-invent the universe.

    all things change after this point and change forever
    such is that is
     

Share This Page