A 4a.m. Ranting: revolutionary, or simply incoherent.
- Thread starter CHRISCUNNINGHAM
- Start date
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Hi Godless, Adios.... maybe later. Right now about to have my computer overhauled. Worldly matters have a way of demanding attention, for sure.
Godless said:**Cough* No, you're not; refuting that is.**
LOL,LOLContradicting yourself again?.
Godless.
Please point out where I'm contradicting myself in this instance and in whatever instance hitherto that made you write "again".
EDIT: Ignore this and read my latest post in the "reality versus perception" thread and all will stand clear to you.
Last edited:
P.M.
I never said I was a part of God and God was a part of me, I rather succinctly said:
I am my own God...
And as for the rest of you,
There is only duality and the paradoxical spectrum from which opposites are derived. There is no such thing as -1 this is PURELY a mathematical concept that one can never see in reality. You will never see -1 apples, -1 trees, -1 people, etc etc. Now of course one could rather densely bring up "what about owing someone 1 dollar" but of course you only AGAIN bring us back to mathematical concepts, NOT a tangible reality. Without the paradoxical spectrum to make "opposites" there is no definition, there is no meaning, and there is no reality.
I never said I was a part of God and God was a part of me, I rather succinctly said:
I am my own God...
And as for the rest of you,
There is only duality and the paradoxical spectrum from which opposites are derived. There is no such thing as -1 this is PURELY a mathematical concept that one can never see in reality. You will never see -1 apples, -1 trees, -1 people, etc etc. Now of course one could rather densely bring up "what about owing someone 1 dollar" but of course you only AGAIN bring us back to mathematical concepts, NOT a tangible reality. Without the paradoxical spectrum to make "opposites" there is no definition, there is no meaning, and there is no reality.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Chris, I know you did not, but I did.
I will, but first I must warn you nothing of this nature can be proven through empirical evidence, it is not measureable, it is not tangible, and it is nothing less than a concept, it is the very essence of logic itself, completely analogous to the realm of mathematics. Of course those with a rather limited capacity for thinking are quick to assume they can prove 2+2=4 but in the end they have no idea they are only making a statement.
Now...
Borrowing some concepts from relativity, for qualitatively logic itself is equivalent to "presuming states of motion".
Ok, consider a man completely surrounded by darkness(relative to an observer such as you or me who have very unambiguously defined what "darkness" is). This man has always been in darkness and has never known about anything which we would call "light". We shall call his frame of reference K. Ha. One day you join this man in his abyss vacuous of ANY discernible "light", moreover (for reasons irrelevant to this "experiment") you cannot create a light, you do not have a light, and there is nothing physically visible that would "show" light.
With this in mind,tell me, what is it you say to the man in order to define your concept of "light" and equally to define his frame of reference in absolute "darkness"?
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Chris, how do you explain how a sunrise looks to one who has never seen? If no one should see it, would it cease to rise? -using the word "rise" in its populat use, of course.
CHRISCUNNINGHAM said:
First of all I was a little rash in simply probing you for proof, but with the idea of anti-existence we need to re-evaluate the usual values we put to a lot of words and phrases; e.g.:
CHRISCUNNINGHAM said:
The key word here being "reality", which I blindly leaped right over with the common comprehension of the term, for indeed we shall never experience anti-reality in this reality, for if we did all would be annihilated, or at least so much a part of reality as is met with equal anti-reality.
But moving on:
CHRISCUNNINGHAM said:
I don't see where you're going with this in relation to our discussion. If you're suggesting that I'd explain Light to him as the opposite of Darkness, you are mistaken. But I'm slightly intrigued by the challenge of logic presented, so let me take a whack at it.
Before we begin though I assume that this man living in perpetual Darkness do not crave Light from the primal knowledge of it stored genetically within him, yes? Furthermore I could speculate whether or not he is aware of his eyes and is wondering what they are, and still further if he closes them when sleeping, and if this puzzles him to some contemplation. Finally I'd guess we disregard if his dreams come with images. But we'll put all this aside in benefit of the essence of your question.
I'll assume he has heard sounds in his existence since he obviously knows a language with which he and I can communicate, which again proposes he knows of other people. Now, he would know of the senses of smell, taste and feel, too, so my angle would naturally be presenting him with the idea of a 5th sense, sight. I'd compare sight to sound and present him with the idea of depth perception by talking and shouting to him from various distances. I needn't teach him form as he can feel, but colours I'd akin to various tones of sound. To wrap it up I will compare light to sound waves.
I would of course acknowledge to him that he can never truly know what Light is before he experiences it.
All in all this, your argument of incomprehensibility, strikes me as more of advocating the idea of anti-existence than anything else.
So I guess the real question must be: Where were you going with this?
Where am I going, you ask?
..to a place far beyond the fingers of the common man's mind: where logic, knowledge, and comprehension evaporate into the ether of nothingness, namely reality.
You see, your definition of light and dark is only one of experience and the spectrum, the paradox. The very essence of this thought experiment is: "How do WE understand existence? How do we define it?" You do not define it by colors, you do not define it with sounds, you may perhaps corroborate and categorize it with such, but you do NOT define it that way. So in this challenge, I am in fact challenging you to define your own existence and perception without hindsight, and without guised axioms. Your approach to this, Jubatus, was rather long-winded. You brought in speculative factors that are immaterial to the very quintessence and answer of the question: "How does one define his frame of reference and his experiences in another frame of which his experiences do not exist?", in metaphor, "How can one prove to the blind man that the color (not the 'sound' not the 'taste' etc. etc. etc.) red exists?". Furthermore if one cannot prove it to another, what proof does he have for himself? Is this 'proof' not the very same argument the blind man uses as a counterxample?
...in summation, how can you DEFINE your reality, as the full, untarnished TRUTH, rather than a blatant and disquieting falsehood?
..to a place far beyond the fingers of the common man's mind: where logic, knowledge, and comprehension evaporate into the ether of nothingness, namely reality.
You see, your definition of light and dark is only one of experience and the spectrum, the paradox. The very essence of this thought experiment is: "How do WE understand existence? How do we define it?" You do not define it by colors, you do not define it with sounds, you may perhaps corroborate and categorize it with such, but you do NOT define it that way. So in this challenge, I am in fact challenging you to define your own existence and perception without hindsight, and without guised axioms. Your approach to this, Jubatus, was rather long-winded. You brought in speculative factors that are immaterial to the very quintessence and answer of the question: "How does one define his frame of reference and his experiences in another frame of which his experiences do not exist?", in metaphor, "How can one prove to the blind man that the color (not the 'sound' not the 'taste' etc. etc. etc.) red exists?". Furthermore if one cannot prove it to another, what proof does he have for himself? Is this 'proof' not the very same argument the blind man uses as a counterxample?
...in summation, how can you DEFINE your reality, as the full, untarnished TRUTH, rather than a blatant and disquieting falsehood?
Last edited:
And P.M.
Yes that does mean it will not rise, for no one is there to define it as such, or view it doing so, and until there is someone that has claimed (with 'credence' of course) to see the green half-legged dog kick the Pam Spary out of orbit, it is safe to say( by man's illogically logical standards) that it hasn't happened and will not happen.
Yes that does mean it will not rise, for no one is there to define it as such, or view it doing so, and until there is someone that has claimed (with 'credence' of course) to see the green half-legged dog kick the Pam Spary out of orbit, it is safe to say( by man's illogically logical standards) that it hasn't happened and will not happen.
CHRISCUNNINGHAM said:
I hope you do not assume that I claim to be able to, because I'm fully aware that I cannot. No one can. Reality is relative, subjective. Most rely unquestioning on the interpreted inputs given through their senses, that is the instinctual thing to do, and they define reality given the frame of terms through language developed during the ages, and thereby through common conceptions "agreed" upon interrelatingly from individual to individual.
Given that, an anti-existence stays even more an incomprehensibility, yet the concept is simple. But still only an idea.