3bob Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) that's right FmAm, you will never find proof in your mind or anyone else's for - the Spirit that is - since mind can not hold it or give it to you, which is related to what Steve said as to why we suffer through mind identifications instead of using and keeping mind in its place as the great tool it was meant to be...but not letting it take over. Btw, if we give Spirit an inch it will give us a mile for it is behind the true smile. Edited October 5, 2015 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FmAm Posted October 5, 2015 A Nihlist is the worst kind. It is an abdication of life itself. It is the attitude that nothing matters, that everything is apathy. A Nihlist is a drain, a useless appendage like a rotting limb. It is better that a Nihlist has the courage of their own convictions and ends their own lives as to hang around infecting everybody else's. However, they never have the courage of their convictions and so they are never true nihilists and instead use their philosophy in far more damaging ways. They are happy to support tyrants and dictators. It's not the Nihilist who's happy to support tyrants and dictators. It's the obedient Conformist. I consider myself a nihilist. I'll cherish the beautiful names you gave me: a drain, a rotting limb. But I don't want to infect anyone. I haven't said anything mean. I'm just trying to reflect and to be honest. Btw, Spinoza thought that suicide doesn't exist, because a man cannot kill himself (there's no one to kill & a man doesn't make the "decision"). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 5, 2015 It's not the Nihilist who's happy to support tyrants and dictators. It's the obedient Conformist. I consider myself a nihilist. I'll cherish the beautiful names you gave me: a drain, a rotting limb. But I don't want to infect anyone. I haven't said anything mean. I'm just trying to reflect and to be honest. Btw, Spinoza thought that suicide doesn't exist, because a man cannot kill himself (there's no one to kill & a man doesn't make the "decision"). What is the aim of the Nihlist that remains alive ? Anhilation. It is the maggot in everything, it wants to ruin everything. It will support those who use force to get their own way in an active sense. Burn everything is the Nihlist credo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FmAm Posted October 5, 2015 What is the aim of the Nihlist that remains alive ? Anhilation. It is the maggot in everything, it wants to ruin everything. It will support those who use force to get their own way in an active sense. Burn everything is the Nihlist credo. That's not nihilism to me. Nihilism discussed here doesn't imply destruction. Nihilism in this context is just a word, a tool for pondering the world as it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 5, 2015 That's not nihilism to me. Nihilism discussed here doesn't imply destruction. Nihilism in this context is just a word, a tool for pondering the world as it is. Yet you ponder it as it isn't don't you ? That all things aren't real. The universe is as we sense it. It is real. We are real. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FmAm Posted October 5, 2015 Yet you ponder it as it isn't don't you ? That all things aren't real. The universe is as we sense it. It is real. We are real. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 5, 2015 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 5, 2015 They aren't made out of particles. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 5, 2015 Materialism is so 19th century.... It was essentially disproved by Heisenberg in the 1920's. I ignored his existence. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 5, 2015 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 5, 2015 I consider myself a nihilist. I'll cherish the beautiful names you gave me: a drain, a rotting limb. But I don't want to infect anyone. I haven't said anything mean. I'm just trying to reflect and to be honest. Have you read any Albert Camus? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 5, 2015 The energy can be seen but not the thoughts themselves. Although I don't like the way you phrased your sentence I will agree with you; the energy of the thoughts and emotions can be detected but in the most part what is being thought or emoted cannot yet be determined to any significant degree. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve Posted October 5, 2015 My view is not materialistic as I have already confirmed. I do not believe that everything is material. Thoughts exist for the thinker of those thoughts. They have neither dimension nor coordinates yet they exist never the less. A reference to authority is bad argumentation. Materialism relates to your view of the thinker, not the thought. Materialists believe that everything is either material or created by something material. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FmAm Posted October 5, 2015 Have you read any Albert Camus? I have. His books were good, but a bit wordy for my taste. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 5, 2015 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 5, 2015 I have. His books were good, but a bit wordy for my taste. I had to ask the question as I saw a little of his thoughts in what you have written. Yes, wordy, but then, he was more a novelist than a philosopher. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 5, 2015 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. Wait a minute! Please remove your brain from your skull and let me know if you still think these same thoughts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Geof Nanto Posted October 5, 2015 Wait a minute! Please remove your brain from your skull and let me know if you still think these same thoughts. If our brain - or more correctly, our whole biological system - is the environment where our personal consciousness lives, then, of course, if we damage it, so too will our consciousness suffer. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 5, 2015 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve Posted October 5, 2015 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. 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited October 5, 2015 by Karl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve Posted October 5, 2015 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. You have mastered the art of gratuitous assertion and rhetorical tautology. Congratulations. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Geof Nanto Posted October 5, 2015 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'. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 5, 2015 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. Yes, I know pretty much where you stand regarding this concept but what you said that I spoke to seemed to be a contradiction. Maybe it was just in my reading it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
forestofemptiness Posted October 5, 2015 I'd be interested in learning more about the science based evidence for the view that the body is in consciousness. Any resources? I can equally say that the body is resident in consciousness - both are gratuitous assertions and I've seen science based evidence for both. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
