Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Enmos, Dec 29, 2007.
What is your point ? I thought I had covered it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
So you saw an example of a form of hypnosis, Big deal.
That question has been addressed and answererd by philosophers. Your view is very close to that of Berkley, who argued that things only existed when god was observing them. It was a subtle argument but no one takes it seriously.
Alternatively, you might like to check out solipsism.
It should go somewhere else but can I remind you that learned behaviour is not passed on other than from person to person. It is not genetically mediated.
Fine.. I really don't get the hostility though.. :shrug:
Nothing ? I don't understand..
Shi demonstrates the problem I have when talking to people about this. People really think this self-centered.. they don't cease to exist, but the universe does..
No offense Shi Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is not my view at all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I was using Shi's statement to make a point.
I didn't mean experiences in that sense - learned behavior - I meant more what the results were of their skills and tendencies meeting experience were: ie. if it went well these skills and tendencies were passed on. If they went badly, well, they didn't.
Perhaps you haven't seen Brown in action, but to call what he does hypnosis is off. I'm a trained hypnotist, this guy is doing other things. And by the way, I believe his claims that he is not doing anything psychic. But his manipulative techniques while sometimes coming close to hypnosis are often something quite different.
So he never perceived you
Huh ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I lost you on this one.. sorry..
You are right. I haven't seen Brown but I have seen many hypnotists and neuro-limguistic programmers. I believe iy all comes down to the same thing; suggestibility of the participants and manipulation by the operator
You agreed with him. That when he died his world would disappear. Since you were engaging him in a dialogue you were a part of his world. Would you disappear? Or are your worlds separate? If they are separate, who are you talking to and why? If you have reasons to talk to him - goals and intentions - it would seem to imply the worlds overlap.
none taken. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am merely of the opinion that if I can no longer percieve existance it also nolonger recognizes me. The universe could exist beyond my perception, but if perception is all we have what does it matter? :shrug:
Its like this, every person exists on the same basic plain we all exist in a kind of soup its the basic code for the unique universes we all experiance so while i may percieve enmos to be existing in my version of existence just as he may percieve me in his, but he is not actually a part of my concious mind nor am I a part of his, so while we may interact we are never really a part of the same perception.
A really interesting Darren Brown technique I watched on the box, had him getting someone to stand near a window and "grab" someone walking along on the street below, and willing them to stop. By which I mean they put their hand up and closed it around their view of the person (and they filmed them doing it). The "target", a woman, stopped walking and looked around.
They interviewed her and asked her about why she stopped walking, and she said "I don't know,...". If it wasn't staged, then this woman stopped walking along because someone standing in a window and looking at them, closed their hand around their image and "willed them" to...?
I think you mean you are never sharing a perception. You are both part of my (same) perception here.
But do you think there is any overlap?
He knows not what he can do.
Separate names with a comma.