|
Senses
Nov 11, 2013 10:31:41 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2013 10:31:41 GMT -5
<TMT> If I heat a rock in a fire and then pour water on the fire, the residual heat of the rock is empirical evidence of the fact of the fire, which I can't perceive right then. The fire no longer exists, but it did, and my experience of the warmth of the rock is proof of the past existence of the fire. If I stand by a riverbank the water that flows from around the bend is empirical evidence that the river doesn't stop at the end of my line of sight, and I can confirm the postulate based on that evidence by walking up river to look around the bend. If I'm in a cave and I hear the growling of a bear all that I perceive at the time is a growling noise, not the bear, but the noise is empirical proof of the existence of the bear, that if I ignore, might result in my death by bear. If I look at a tree I perceive only the tops of the roots, not the extent of them that dive under the earth, keeping it in place, but if I walk up to the tree and lean on it, the fact that the tree doesn't fall over is empirical proof of the existence of the roots. </TMT> You know my qualia model and you know that your points are invalid. Please don't troll/waste my time with it. My post wasn't TMT, it was a perfectly precise reply to SDP's attack. (** crunches and munches on one of an order of "BIG ASS FRYS!!!" **)
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 11, 2013 10:57:09 GMT -5
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 11, 2013 10:57:09 GMT -5
(** crunches and munches on one of an order of "BIG ASS FRYS!!!" **) I have no idea what you're trying to say with this. And I don't want to be guessing. Can you please stop writing to me like that? It's just really really annoying and I feel like you're making fun of me. I think as a mod you just shouldn't be posting stuff like that. At least not in reply to me please. Is that too much to ask?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 11, 2013 12:31:46 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 12:31:46 GMT -5
Perhaps it's not your senses that your doubting is real, but the awareness of me that apparently owns those senses that's real... Tasting, touching, hearing, seeing and smelling are what is happening, but we believe they are happening to me... When the illusion of me suddenly drops away, what's left is just tasting, just touching, just hearing, just seeing and just smelling...but it isn't happening to anyone... I don't think so. I think that's your mantra, not his. The belief that there are real persons that own mantra's is an illusion...
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 11, 2013 18:32:08 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 11, 2013 18:32:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. You know my qualia model and you know that your points are invalid. Please don't troll/waste my time with it. My post wasn't TMT, it was a perfectly precise reply to SDP's attack. (** crunches and munches on one of an order of "BIG ASS FRYS!!!" **) As a moderator, what is your opinion of the above quoted post.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 0:15:42 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2013 0:15:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. (** crunches and munches on one of an order of "BIG ASS FRYS!!!" **) As a moderator, what is your opinion of the above quoted post.. Be well.. Seems to contain an inside joke that, while not an attack, and thereby not subject to direct no-attack-moderation, is unsuitable for a NAT, but of course, this isn't a NAT.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 3:32:40 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 12, 2013 3:32:40 GMT -5
I don't think so. I think that's your mantra, not his. The belief that there are real persons that own mantra's is an illusion... But it's a persistent one.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 6:19:18 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 12, 2013 6:19:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. As a moderator, what is your opinion of the above quoted post.. Be well.. Seems to contain an inside joke that, while not an attack, and thereby not subject to direct no-attack-moderation, is unsuitable for a NAT, but of course, this isn't a NAT. So, as a moderator, you're okay with 'not suitable' as your representation of the forum's decorum? Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 6:21:11 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Nov 12, 2013 6:21:11 GMT -5
The op sounds almost sounds like a quote from Descartes Meditations. "I suppose, accordingly, that all the things which I see are false (fictitious); I believe that none of those objects which my fallacious memory represents ever existed; I suppose that I possess no senses; I believe that body, figure, extension, motion, and place are merely fictions of my mind. What is there, then, that can be esteemed true ? Perhaps this only, that there is absolutely nothing certain" oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation2.html
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 10:56:22 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 12, 2013 10:56:22 GMT -5
Greetings.. Seems to contain an inside joke that, while not an attack, and thereby not subject to direct no-attack-moderation, is unsuitable for a NAT, but of course, this isn't a NAT. So, as a moderator, you're okay with 'not suitable' as your representation of the forum's decorum? Be well.. It's like he says, 'the blue jeans I'm wearing are not suitable for a formal dinner, but of course this is not a formal dinner', to which you replay, 'Are you okay with not suitable'? Your words look like a purposeful distortion. Are they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 12:07:50 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 12:07:50 GMT -5
The belief that there are real persons that own mantra's is an illusion... But it's a persistent one. We think it is...
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 17:21:19 GMT -5
Post by mamza on Nov 12, 2013 17:21:19 GMT -5
The op sounds almost sounds like a quote from Descartes Meditations. "I suppose, accordingly, that all the things which I see are false (fictitious); I believe that none of those objects which my fallacious memory represents ever existed; I suppose that I possess no senses; I believe that body, figure, extension, motion, and place are merely fictions of my mind. What is there, then, that can be esteemed true ? Perhaps this only, that there is absolutely nothing certain" oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation2.htmlI've never read that book, but that seems somewhat accurate of my mindset (although I hadn't taken it quite so far). It seems as though the 'physical' me (i.e. - everything directly perceptible) is a lot quicker to pick up on this stuff than my mind. My intellectual understanding is light years behind, but I can look and see most things people point to. In any case, the question I posed was sort of in disbelief of how seeing that perceptions are not factual or accurate (which laughter spoke about and I understand to be relative terms) made everything seem a bit... weird. So yes, very similar.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 19:45:01 GMT -5
Post by mamza on Nov 12, 2013 19:45:01 GMT -5
Over the course of reading some of what's on that website lolly posted, something dawned on me. Considering the fact that what I previously took to be fact being in reality uncertain, there are no means available to fully ascertain the nature of myself. And continuing to try is pointless.
Attend the Actual. For some reason I placed emphasis on actual, and defined actual as my sensory perceptions. But my sensory perceptions (just gonna type SPs from now on) are just as reliable or unreliable as my thoughts and memories. There is no 'this' to compare to 'that' because it's all subjective to begin with, leaving only SPs that break down into 'this' making up what is.
Holy horseshit, Robin, I think we're onto something.
Correct me if I sound out of line..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 20:03:22 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2013 20:03:22 GMT -5
Over the course of reading some of what's on that website lolly posted, something dawned on me. Considering the fact that what I previously took to be fact being in reality uncertain, there are no means available to fully ascertain the nature of myself. And continuing to try is pointless. Attend the Actual. For some reason I placed emphasis on actual, and defined actual as my sensory perceptions. But my sensory perceptions (just gonna type SPs from now on) are just as reliable or unreliable as my thoughts and memories. There is no 'this' to compare to 'that' because it's all subjective to begin with, leaving only SPs that break down into 'this' making up what is. Holy horsenuts, Robin, I think we're onto something. Correct me if I sound out of line.. Whatever you take actuality to be, in terms of the conception of it, will be ever incomplete. FWIW, in my experience, SP's certainly seem sort of sharper, clearer ... less obscured when I follow the prescription to ATA. That we are discussing the relationship between actuality and SP to begin with is just an artifact of the inherent limitation of a given body/mind. This idea of a relationship is an idea, and in that, we can see that it is not what is attended in ATA.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 20:15:12 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 12, 2013 20:15:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. So, as a moderator, you're okay with 'not suitable' as your representation of the forum's decorum? Be well.. It's like he says, 'the blue jeans I'm wearing are not suitable for a formal dinner, but of course this is not a formal dinner', to which you replay, 'Are you okay with not suitable'? Your words look like a purposeful distortion. Are they? No.. it's a curiosity about the ethics of an activist moderator.. your question looks like a purposeful attempt to influence the perceptions of others, creating the illusion that i might distort Laughter's words, is it? Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 20:50:03 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2013 20:50:03 GMT -5
The op sounds almost sounds like a quote from Descartes Meditations. "I suppose, accordingly, that all the things which I see are false (fictitious); I believe that none of those objects which my fallacious memory represents ever existed; I suppose that I possess no senses; I believe that body, figure, extension, motion, and place are merely fictions of my mind. What is there, then, that can be esteemed true ? Perhaps this only, that there is absolutely nothing certain" oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation2.htmlSounds like Soccrates ("The only thing I know is that I know nothing") and of course Decartes punchline, if one looks beyond the reference to causality and the unfashionable use of the word "think", is that the only thing he can be sure of is that he exists.
|
|