...

[Marblehead]

NO. This is the biggest wrongful assumption people have here when replying to my threads. i do not care at all to talk or debate about the possibility of them having perception. i only care about the "how?" in the hypothetical situation that they do have perception. Your "no they don't"s fall on completely deaf ears. i already have my beliefs, i just want to understand them.

Well, if, but they don't, inanimate objects had the ability to percieve they would percieve me about the same way animate creatures percieve me.

 

So we don't say what you want to hear. Hmmm. Is that our error or yours? Or both?

 

It would be impossible for anyone to respond to your question based on the above criteria if they believe that inanimate objects do not have the ability of perception. Not honestly anyway.

[Flolfolil]

...

Edited March 6, 2015 by Flolfolil

[Marblehead]

good for you dude.

How about good for you too? You know what you are looking for. There are many people who don't even know that.

[steve]

NO. This is the biggest wrongful assumption people have here when replying to my threads. i do not care at all to talk or debate about the possibility of them having perception. i only care about the "how?" in the hypothetical situation that they do have perception. Your "no they don't"s fall on completely deaf ears. i already have my beliefs, i just want to understand them.

I was addressing the how... I think you know that.

 

 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. They keep talking about how good their pudding is but never offer me a taste of it. I remain skeptical.

 

No one can give you a taste, not even the greatest master. It's something you either choose to do, usually because of some dissatisfaction with the way you currently view things, or something very traumatic; or you just go along with your current view which is fine as long as it works for you.

 

Not true. I have been known to walk into lamp posts that didn't exist until I walked into it while watching a beautiful woman.

 

Your distraction is irrelevant, you experienced the pole through a different sense, that is all. Separating out sight was an artificial illustration.

 

 

I watched one of those science programs last night with some quantum physicists talking their stuff about particles being in two places at once, particles acting like waves and particles not existing until you observe them. You know what my thought was? Bull!

 

So either you accept the scientific method or you don't. Which is it?

 

 

Sure, our awareness of the tree causes it to be real to us but it was already real without us. The entire universe existed for 13.69 billion years perfectly well without us. Our awareness means nothing to the universe. We are but straw dogs.

 

How do you know how long the universe has been around? What did it look like before you were born?

All of that is assumption and an acceptance of something beyond direct knowledge.

 

 

 

 

Too late now. We are already on a roll.

 

A corpse. Little difference between it and a rock.

If you took away all sensory input, you would still be alive and there would still be awareness.

Your answer is incorrect.

[Flolfolil]

...

Edited March 6, 2015 by Flolfolil

[Marblehead]

No one can give you a taste, not even the greatest master. It's something you either choose to do, usually because of some dissatisfaction with the way you currently view things, or something very traumatic; or you just go along with your current view which is fine as long as it works for you.

Little wonder! I have no dissatisfactions.

 

Your distraction is irrelevant, you experienced the pole through a different sense, that is all. Separating out sight was an artificial illustration.

It was very relevant when my head hit the pole! 20/20 vision and walking around blind. (That's from a Bluegrass music song.)

 

So either you accept the scientific method or you don't. Which is it?

I accept it. You know that. But all I have heard are theories with almost no factual data and no conclusions so that others can test the conclusions for validity. Just because someone tells me something doesn't mean that I have to assume it is the truth. Show me!

 

How do you know how long the universe has been around? What did it look like before you were born?

All of that is assumption and an acceptance of something beyond direct knowledge.

Well, I don't personally know because I haven't ben around that long. But it is the accepted age by those who are supposed to know those things and I have seen no "proof" to prove them wrong.

 

The universe likely looked pretty much the same before I was born and after I was born. No, I don't have proof of that but there were millions of people who were alive before I was born and still alive after I was born and it looked pretty much the same to them before and after.

 

So, no, it is not just assumption but based on facts gathered by others.

 

If you took away all sensory input, you would still be alive and there would still be awareness.

Your answer is incorrect.

What? You are not yet aware that I reserve the right to be wrong?

 

But you are right. Life would still be possible, for whatever that would be worth, and to me, that would be nothing.