Karl

I'm sure I have mentioned that I once upon a time tried reading Kant but had to put the book down after about ten minutes (and I'm a slow reader) because I just couldn't handle it.

 

It's deliberately like that. Rambling sentences and dead ends designed to leave the reader in stunned acceptance.

It has to be my job to state that there's no proof for body or mind. Only "thing" that can be certain is some kind of unexplainable experience. And this experience can't be communicated to "others". I call this nihilistic solipsism, solipsism without self (mind).

 

This is science at its best. No beliefs or myths, just the bare truth.

Stolen concept fallacy. You have just proven the existence of body and mind.

No, I didn't know that.  I apparently missed the sarcasm.

 

Funny how things which were arguments against a theory end up as being used as examples of proof.

Now you are speaking a language I understand. And I will agree but only if we go no further than stating this.

 

The experience of living is what it is. All of our experiences. The illusions and delusions arise when we start thinking about those experiences. Ten Thousand factors will determine how we interpret those experiences.

There isn't any need to go any further. This was Aristotles ending of the idea of 'flux' and 'the second world of forms'. These were the dominant philosophies until Aristotle appeared. Gradually through Kant, Hegel and Hulme, these philosophies have re-emerged. Science-the scientific method/inductive logic is entirely the creation of Aristotle. Kant, Hegel and Hulme are a return to skepticism and mysticism. As such it can be seen there is a danger in a collapse towards those barbarous philosophic relics.

It's just a hunk of rock and not a conscious entity. It doesn't love any person anymore than your computer loves you.

 

It is logically erroneous to think of it as a mother or a father. It is neither. It happens to be a place we happen to live.

Some thoughts...

 

There are no 'right' conclusions because there is no objective reality; there are only infinite subjectivities each defining a unique non-overlapping phenomenal manifold.

We dont experience reality as an external relationship, we are reality.

There are potentially unlimited perspectives that could define a phenomenal manifold, hence there are unlimited realities. Each subjectivity IS a reality, they dont exist IN a reality.

 

oh no, not the old bent stick routine...

 

What cheese is that? The cheese in A's mouth is not the cheese in B's mouth. So we have two entirely different cheeses and never an objective cheese remaining the 'same'.

Not too mention that if neither A nor B existed there would be no cheese to be tasted. The cheese is inextricably tangled up with A and B's being as things that chomp on and critique appetizers.

8)

 

This appears to be a minor variation on the old 'everything is in flux' philosophy that modern philosophers have raised into modern consciousness. That an acorn becomes a tree doesn't deny the existence of an acorn. Grass becomes beef, grass and cows are existent objects. Man eats beef, but not grass.

 

I see this is where science got tangled up with quantum cats.

 

 

Yes, a convenient misconception for the meat and dairy industry

 

Plenty of calories in a potato bro!

 

Does these people look low in calorific intake?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM7MAlp0j50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xc3TSJFeY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9W7OY9M9mo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhW0ENr6YXA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucHEVNX2c9o

 

No toxic, spirit dampening, cruelty embodying, flesh ever needs to be eaten

 

Couple of things. Today we can harvest as many calories as we need, but it was far more difficult in the time of our ancestors. Crops were not so hardy and drought was common. It's unlikely that during the ice age we could grow much at all. It meant that some tribes would eat purely meat at times. I don't think Eskimos had a lot of fruit and vegetables.

 

Second, calories and protein. Where are these body building deriving the protein ?

There you go, scientific proof. And Lazarus wasn't exactly a fresh corpse.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_of_Bethany

 

This isn't scientific proof but a biblical myth. Also a creature occurring in the fossil record was 'thought' to be dead, doesn't mean it has come back to life, only that it had been believed dead because it occurred also as a fossil.

 

You seem to find it very easy to accept mythology as fact. Don't you ever question these things ?

Hmmm, emerging evidence from Meat Industry sponsored scientific studies no doubt.

 

I haven't looked into it. We are omnivores and it's unlikely that we would have been able to survive for long on a pure vegan diet due to the lack of calories.

From The Six Yogas of Naropa:

 

A bit too much Mary Shelley going on there.

 

Has this act been performed and observed under scientifically rigorous conditions.

 

That's a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious.

Yep, cheese will always be body clogging crap - nothing changes that.

 

Go Vegan!!

 

 

 

hmmm...

 

Those things are the way they are - how we see them depends entirely upon our own filters.

 

Otherwise all the human numbskulls on this planet would be seeing things as they really are - instead they only see the inside of their asses, because their heads are up there...each to their own though.

 

There are some concerns about the mental effects of vegan diets. There is emerging evidence that the brain requires saturated fats to perform optimally. That's another conversation.

 

People see things as they are, they don't necessarily interpret them correctly. That might be ignorance through lack of experience, or simply poor cognition.

 

 

I call that subjective interpretation of what they feel at the time.  Our interpretations of reality are always subjective.  We used the best words we can in order to express our experiences.  These should be understood figuratively.

 

Reality is reality we aren't 'interpreting it' we experience it directly through our senses. We might not reach the right conclusions about the things we see, but we see those things as they are.

 

Take a stick and put it into a tumbler of water and the stick looks bent. This is reality that the stick appears bent. Even when the science behind the bending is known, the stick does not become unbent because we have that new knowledge.

 

The same is true of conceptual integrations. If we lack the words to describe the integration or the concepts then we have failed to define the concepts sufficiently well.

 

Personally I question the idea of subjectivity. If one person dislikes the taste of cheese and another finds it pleasant then this is true for both parties. The dislike and like are existent emotional reactions. The cheese remains the same.

If mind and body were indivisible, as you stated, then you shouldn't be able to transfer your consciousness to a dead body, which is also what the practice of phowa teaches.

 

You can't transfer consciousness to a dead body.

You have mastered the art of gratuitous assertion and rhetorical tautology.

Congratulations.

 

It wasn't a gratuitous assertion, it was in reply to you being seemingly unable to understand the difference between a complete abscence of consciousness and the state of being unconscious.

It seems to me that conflict here, in part, resembles the split between between religion and science; it is both ontological and epistemic. Religion and science offer two very different ontologies (theories about what exists) and epistemology (ways to figure it out).  Consequently, participants are operating from irreconcilably different perspectives of 'reality'.  

 

That is absolutely true. Going back to early philosophies we can see where these ideas come from. Aristotle lead the movement out of mysticism and scepticism. Currently we are living through a period in which mysticism and scepticism seem to be in the ascendant.

Hi Tibetan_Ice,  No, I'm not going to drill a freakin' hole in my head.  But thanks anyhow.

 

I'm still trying to figure out what the relevance of posting that video is ?

I can equally say that the body is resident in consciousness - both are gratuitous assertions and I've seen science based evidence for both.

 

One can be unconscious and alive, whether transiently or for a prolonged time.

 

You say that the material does not cause conscious.

What then irrevocably links mind and body?

Unconscious is not without consciousness. A corpse isn't unconscious, it is without any consciousness.

Mind and body are indivisible. Consciousness is and body is.

And now this:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf53Pg2AkdY

 

Those were the days :-) still one of my favourites. I always struggled with the accuracy of the beat.

Wait a minute! 

 

Please remove your brain from your skull and let me know if you still think these same thoughts.

 

No brain then dead. Wasn't that clear? The body is a composition and the brain is where all processing occurs and every bit of the nervous system is connected.

Materialism relates to your view of the thinker, not the thought. Materialists believe that everything is either material or created by something material.

 

Neither. Consciousness is resident in the body as part and parcel of the construction, but it is not caused by the material anymore than the consciousness causes the material. No consciousness then dead, no body then dead.

 

This is the difference between the way in which I think compared to how you think. For you it is a case of A and non A, for me it is that both thinker and thought exist. I don't need to rationalise the apparent duality that you see because I don't see any.

Based on that then it must be said that they are not material.  However. the energy of these two processes can be measured with the proper electronic equipment.  So they it must be said that they are real energy.  And we know that all material things are made up from energy.

 

The energy can be seen but not the thoughts themselves.

No, that's not what I've been saying.

 

There's sensing, feeling, thinking.

 

Real, universe, thing, me, you - merely abstract speculations that can't be proven.

 

As long as you are happy.

Can you elaborate on these please?  Especially the second one.

 

:-)

 

"I'll never find another you" "I'll will beg, steal or borrow"

 

Old seekers and new seekers.

 

So, 2 kinds.