Extra-Human Conciousness

The Tao that is the real Tao is not the real Tao.*
I'm a work in progress and I hope I remain so until my constituents are again dissolved into the Earth.
But Earl, CZ is right and you know I have had it out with you before for trying to attach your straw man fallacies to my thinking. So it is amusing to see you try wriggle out of it again ;) Maybe you should read what we think and think about what you think ? Good luck!! :D


*Lao Ty Phoo
 
Tao_Equus said:
The Tao that is the real Tao is not the real Tao.*
I'm a work in progress and I hope I remain so until my constituents are again dissolved into the Earth.
But Earl, CZ is right and you know I have had it out with you before for trying to attach your straw man fallacies to my thinking. So it is amusing to see you try wriggle out of it again ;) Maybe you should read what we think and think about what you think ? Good luck!! :D


*Lao Ty Phoo
Click to expand...
Well Tao you have indeed had it "out with me." But you have never pointed out how I've been erroneous regarding my assumptions of what you thought at that time. You do seem to have the tendency though that, once your philosophical stance has some doubt clearly established by someone, to muddy up your waters a bit by vaguely claiming to not actually be as rigid in your thinking as you always sound. Well then man, say what you actually mean.:) earl
 
So, Tao. What do you believe? But, be careful as whatever it is will mark you as a man "of beliefs" who can't later claim that that wasn't what he meant.;):p:cool: earl
 
Tao_Equus said:
Haphazard.

Haphazard.
Click to expand...

That's the sort of flippant crap I'd come out with :p:D:p:D

You know what I meant! I meant do you not believe in existentialist thought/assertions/philosophy/analysis to some degree?

Is not "I state that I have no beliefs" an assertion of a belief?

I genuinely can't get my head round this line. To me, it's up there with "there is no such thing as free will."

s.
 
citizenzen said:
What I find interesting earl, is the desire to label Tao (and I perhaps) as "materialists" and then to present an essay that supposedly describes what we think and shoots down the basis for our mistaken perceptions and concepts.
Click to expand...

As I introduced the M word here perhaps I could comment. I aren't labelling to shoot down aka straw man stuff; my time is too precious to waste on such nonsense. I only use it because I think it is an appropriate word, not as a criticism per se.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Materialism
For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism and to spiritualism.
Click to expand...

So you see materialism is a separate philosophy to idealism. This is not to negate the value of materialism (or idealism) but I would say that perhaps selecting only the one might not be "the whole picture". So I accept materialism as one approach but I do not (as per this definition) see it as being the be all and end all.
​

Which leads us to physicalism**...
Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties;​
I not only have no idea what this really means, but it certainly sounds like [bleep] to me.
Click to expand...

I concur. :p


s.



 
Snoopy said:
That's the sort of flippant crap I'd come out with :p:D:p:D

You know what I meant! I meant do you not believe in existentialist thought/assertions/philosophy/analysis to some degree?

Is not "I state that I have no beliefs" an assertion of a belief?

I genuinely can't get my head round this line. To me, it's up there with "there is no such thing as free will."

s.
Click to expand...

No, the statement recognises that I am only capable processing at most the sum of my education to date, which is haphazard and unschooled. It is the recognition of my limitations and that I do not 'believe' I have any fundamental answers. Just the odd conjecture. Philosophy is like art to me and just as I would not spend the rest of my life devoted to one painting or artist or even school, I will not be tied down to a single philosophical discipline.
Am I an existentialist in that I believe everything can be understood via the material ?, yes... more or less. Everything we can measure at least. In morality/ethics I do not see that existentialism promotes anything more than a great honesty when dealing with human morality/ethics. Morality and ethics are easily embraced in common law and that is where they belong...not in ideologies of divine totalitarianism.
 
citizenzen said:
What I find interesting earl, is the desire to label Tao (and I perhaps) as "materialists" and then to present an essay that supposedly describes what we think and shoots down the basis for our mistaken perceptions and concepts.

Until I'd taken part in these posts I had never heard of materialism, never attended a materialist meeting, subscribed to a materialist newsletter or had my car washed at a materialist fund-raiser. I have now only an inkling of what a materialist is supposed to believe. I even had to look it up to get a definition...
Materialism
The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism and to spiritualism.
​
The only thing that exists is matter? Does that include energy? I suppose it does if E=MC2. So matter must also include anti-matter, electromagnetism, stong force, weak force, gravity, dark matter, dark energy, quantum particles, Higgs Boson particles, neutrinos, quarks, strings and space-time itself. Matter would also include any number of phenomena that we haven't measured or discovered yet. Twenty years ago, dark matter was not a widely known component of the universe. What new discoveries will we make in the next twenty?

So do I believe that the only thing that exists is matter? Yes! The fact that it exists makes it matter or energy. If string theory is true (that's a big if) a string is theorized to be 10^20 times smaller than the diameter of the proton*. But that is still matter. You don't have to dream up magical energies of states of matter, they already exist and we have only begun the process of discovering what is out there. Show me something that does not contain mass or energy and I'll be happy to change my mind.
Click to expand...
a) Information. Even Professor Hawking recently said that the information contained in the matter/energy absorbed by a black hole is not destroyed along with the material/energetic component.

b) Your thoughts.
See the link above to idealism, and compare to Dhammapada 1:1-2
1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.

2. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.
​
I've heard of weighty thoughts, but not about thoughts containing mass. I've heard of illuminating thoughts, but not about thoughts that can be observed with the eye.
How anybody could claim that everything that exists is no more extensive than its physical properties is beyond me. I don't know the full extent of anything. Anybody claiming to know this is dwelling in the world of speculation. So if that is enough to disqualify me as a materialist, then let the record stand.
Click to expand...
Duly noted.
 
Tao_Equus said:
No, the statement recognises that I am only capable processing at most the sum of my education to date, which is haphazard and unschooled. It is the recognition of my limitations and that I do not 'believe' I have any fundamental answers. Just the odd conjecture. Philosophy is like art to me and just as I would not spend the rest of my life devoted to one painting or artist or even school, I will not be tied down to a single philosophical discipline.
Click to expand...

I concur! (with the notion of non-attachment) :)


I believe
Click to expand...
No further questions your honour. :D

s.

(I'd appreciate you saying "Oh ***k off" in a PM!)
 
earl said:
Well Tao you have indeed had it "out with me." But you have never pointed out how I've been erroneous regarding my assumptions of what you thought at that time. You do seem to have the tendency though that, once your philosophical stance has some doubt clearly established by someone, to muddy up your waters a bit by vaguely claiming to not actually be as rigid in your thinking as you always sound. Well then man, say what you actually mean.:) earl
Click to expand...

I always say what I mean. And I put forward my thinking as best I can. I make no claim of any special insight and am wholly dependent on those that really do the hard work in universities and research institutes the world over. Again your post shows that it seems important to you to put me in a box when I make it clear time and time again that I hope to never climb in any box. Sure I peer into some from time to time but how else am I to know what is inside?
What I do know is that so far in my discourse with you is that you have not presented anything I have not already looked at many times. Which is why I am often quick to dismiss. So you fish around for terms to label me with, to build a straw man. Since you are so persistent in that endeavour I have to conclude that it is quite important to you. And interesting for me to watch. As I am not the first to notice that tendency in you you should maybe start asking yourself why you do it?
 
It seems that some people are in danger of pigeon-holing Tao for convenience sake - let's try and treat each other a little more like individuals, please. :)
 
I said:
It seems that some people are in danger of pigeon-holing Tao for convenience sake - let's try and treat each other a little more like individuals, please. :)
Click to expand...

Oh a typical sentiment from a New Age pagan hippy. ;)

s.
 
I said:
It seems that some people are in danger of pigeon-holing Tao for convenience sake - let's try and treat each other a little more like individuals, please. :)
Click to expand...
I do not mind in the slightest... it is always interesting to have others pay me so much attention. Does my ego no end of good :D
 
Tao_Equus said:
I do not mind in the slightest... it is always interesting to have others pay me so much attention. Does my ego no end of good :D
Click to expand...

Ha, well I'll put you on Ignore then! Take that!

s.
 
Snoopy said:
I'm more of a McFly fan meself. Dang! You're supposed to be on Ignore :mad:

s.
Click to expand...

Its all lies!
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/byPmV-Zbmmk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/byPmV-Zbmmk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Flourish!
 
Tao_Equus said:
I always say what I mean. And I put forward my thinking as best I can. I make no claim of any special insight and am wholly dependent on those that really do the hard work in universities and research institutes the world over. Again your post shows that it seems important to you to put me in a box when I make it clear time and time again that I hope to never climb in any box. Sure I peer into some from time to time but how else am I to know what is inside?
What I do know is that so far in my discourse with you is that you have not presented anything I have not already looked at many times. Which is why I am often quick to dismiss. So you fish around for terms to label me with, to build a straw man. Since you are so persistent in that endeavour I have to conclude that it is quite important to you. And interesting for me to watch. As I am not the first to notice that tendency in you you should maybe start asking yourself why you do it?
Click to expand...
And again Tao, you believe what? :) earl
 
I said:
It seems that some people are in danger of pigeon-holing Tao for convenience sake - let's try and treat each other a little more like individuals, please. :)
Click to expand...
Brian, my pointing out the apparent philosophical stance Tao takes underlying his often vehement arguments is a logical inference based on his consistent stances. If he really believes that inference is untrue, all the lad has to do is clearly state what his beliefs are. I'm waiting.:) ;)earl
 
I describe the possible truths I visit in my writing here. I support no school of philosophy and certainly no school of theology but cherry pick according to my current thinking. Yet it relies more heavily on science. I do not know what is real but there are some beliefs you have that I am pretty sure are not real, or are misunderstood by you. The reason I think so is because I used to think that way too. Been convinced by the same evidence you present. But I am done trying to explain what I mean by having no beliefs to you. It is not that difficult to get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top