Can you expound on this? Which part of the phrase is disputed, on what grounds, and by whom?Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Can you expound on this? Which part of the phrase is disputed, on what grounds, and by whom?
“As Kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame . . .”
Why disqualify the rush? I'm tabled. I'm tabled.
The 'I' could be part of a dream, then the 'I' would be imagined and not real. People that dispute Descartes also include A. J. Ayer and Jean-Paul Sartre, to name two. The existence of God qualifies the existence of man as an illusion; for if He exists, what is more real than God?
Last edited by G L Wilson; 06-21-2011 at 11:25 PM.
Something is still existant enough for the thought to exist, right? The thought "occurs." Whether it is in a dream, or we're just brains in vats and this world is something like the Matrix, or whatever ... something happens, and it directly involves "me" (whatever I am) ... this doesn't lead one to believe that one exists on your view?
“As Kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame . . .”
Why disqualify the rush? I'm tabled. I'm tabled.
If what you say were true, no, we wouldn't exist in any real sense. Life could be an illusion, it could very well be. But I would rather have the illusion than nothing at all.
Last edited by G L Wilson; 06-22-2011 at 06:25 PM.
Ah, okay. I'm not sure what to make of your idea of existing in a "real sense" but I understand where you're coming from. I myself think it is evident that when I think, something is occurring, at whatever level; indicating that "I" exist.
“As Kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame . . .”
Why disqualify the rush? I'm tabled. I'm tabled.
What if your thinking was not really yours, that you were merely the host of a parasite?
At times we surprise ourselves because we don't know ourselves, and what would life be without surprises?
Last edited by G L Wilson; 06-24-2011 at 12:44 AM.
The question is not likely part of religious belief. And it's not just "religio" but people in general who have "chronically unstable persona."
The religious know everything, don't you know?
Can you explain that point?
Last edited by ralfyman; 06-25-2011 at 03:34 AM.
The Lord, their god, is their answer for everything, therefore they think that they know everything.
Last edited by G L Wilson; 06-29-2011 at 06:09 PM.
On the flip side though, it's possible they do talk to an omnipotent being that you have just never had the capacity for. Like a blind man trying to understand blue through words or sounds. Or a computer trying to understand the moral of a story stored within itself.
I'm not sure it's possible to ever really know though.
And to your main question, I think we're so complex, it's pretty impossible to define. All I am is my past experiences. But I can't put all that into something transferable like words or pictures. Well, right now I can't. I think someday though, we'll figure out a way to transcribe whole webs of neurons and insert them into other brains (essentially copying and pasting memories and thoughts into another's mind).
Then I'll carry around a disk, and when you ask me about myself, I'll just plug it into you and you'll know all my struggles, beliefs, and dreams.
"The more I learn, the more I realize that I know nothing"
"Be the change you wish to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates
"All this worldly wisdom was once the unamiable heresy of some wise man" - Henry David Thoreau
I've talked with God, unfortunately I was mad at the time.
You are saying that because of my belief in God, that I believe myself capable of sharing his omniscience?
Come on now, I pray you can reason better than that.
Currently reading Brothers Karamazov
Truth be told, atheism cannot be beaten for cranks and weirdos. No wonder no-one trusts us, I don't trust us.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote