|
Post by general313 on Jun 2, 2017 23:38:03 GMT
... The whole universe and world was created on energy and cohesion of the five elements. These elements comprise everything and everything within us. Um, I think it's time for you to get a new physics book, preferably one written within the last 150 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 3, 2017 12:20:13 GMT
To me, a good reason to avoid it is if we're not even clear what the heck we'd be talking about. I'm not going to assert that something's the case when I can't express at all what I'd even be claiming.You can't prove that it is all just matter and death is the end like a light going out, anymore than I can assert or prove to you that the light within burns eternally. This is something that needs to found within each and everyone of us, and starting with awareness of our purpose, contribution and taking responsibility for our lives, is a good start. Like I mentioned earlier, argue for your limitations, then you can get to keep them. Good luck! No one can prove any empirical claim, period. So there's no reason to talk about proof. The issue instead is whether there are good reasons to believe one thing over another.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 3, 2017 12:21:13 GMT
If you can't see that your being is all about "purpose", then all I can say is that you have a long long way to go. If you think you are saying anything sophisticated or meaningful here, then all I can say is that you have a long way to go. You've mastered the art of cheap slogans that don't actually say anything. That's pretty much your entire contribution to this thread. You also sow no sign that you've so much as read one serious paper or book on the philosophy or science of consciousness in your entire life. Without using the internet, can you tell me what "intentionality" means? What a P-zombie is? What functionalism is? What the binding problem is? If you don't bother to learn the literature, you'll be limited to your cute little slogans and basically learn or understand nothing.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 3, 2017 12:23:47 GMT
In other words, there is "no" self and the work needs to be done. There is no logical connection whatsoever between the evidence-free, mindless New Age nonsense which preceded this sentence and the meaning of this sentence itself. None.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 3, 2017 18:48:40 GMT
Um, I think it's time for you to get a new physics book, preferably one written within the last 150 years or so. Um, I go right back to the beginning. That is the core source of it all, even if you are referring to the big bang. Very well, tell me more about the "5 elements".
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 4, 2017 12:42:12 GMT
Making up any excuse that you can to discredit what I have been saying, because you feel I don't meet your pompous ass terms to qualify as a pseudo-intellectual fop, who thinks because he has read a few philosophy books full of pretentious ass rhetoric, knows what he is talking about. Okay, you like taking on the the role of the anti-intellectual rube who dismisses complexity and scholarship as "pretentious ass rhetoric". I get it. That way, the fact that you've never bothered to learn anything about a subject you've decided to post about has an excuse. How comforting it must be to imagine you are so much smarter and wiser than the thousands of philosophers and scientists over the last century or so who have studied these issues very carefully and developed the necessary tools to talk about them. Talk about projection, it is you who are displaying bottomless arrogance, here, by thinking none of their work is worth paying attention to. Sorry, cupcake, but education matters. I've done more than "read a few philosophy books"--philosophy of mind is my academic specialty. It's a subject that doesn't just require more than the pithy, greeting card slogans of the kind you post; it demands more. Yes, once again you show that your understanding is only skin deep. That's a theme that seems to be coalescing around you. I chose my avatar because Doctor Faustus was a character who appeared in works of fiction during the Renaissance as a character who was supposed to represent the new thinking individual who turned away from the theocracy of the church and used his own smarts to rule his life and study the world. He's a symbol of the humanism which gave us the modern scientific age. I'm confident this is all news to you, having rejected all that pompous, worthless book-learnin' stuff.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 4, 2017 18:12:36 GMT
Very well, tell me more about the "5 elements". Space, action of stillness Air, action of movement Fire, action of transformation Water, action of fluidity Earth, action of cohesion Every part of our being, the world around us and the entire universe is comprised of these elements, both externally and internally. These elements also determine our individual constitution or dosha. It makes up the sum of our parts. The six tastes even contain these elements and that is why awareness of what foods we should eat and what is suitable for us can determine a healthy body, mind, spirit. You can check the internet regarding ayurveda and how taste and the elements can work in harmony with each other. Interesting, although it might help if a different term was used, like essence instead of element. Other cultures believed in 5 classical elements (ancient Greece, China), though in the western world the idea of quintessence gradually fell out of favor in the late Middle Ages, toward a more modern understanding of matter and space. In any case, thanks for the reply!
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 5, 2017 10:55:18 GMT
I thought as much and like I already mentioned, I am not impressed with what you "think" you know. Good for you. The fact remains that the entirety of your contribution to this thread is empty, know-nothing nonsense. All you are capable of is making meaningless slogans. And when you get called out, you call into question the very idea that scholarship is important. That's anti-intellectualism at its most pathetic. Proud of yourself?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 6, 2017 15:14:18 GMT
Very well, tell me more about the "5 elements". Space, action of stillness Air, action of movement Fire, action of transformation Water, action of fluidity Earth, action of cohesion Every part of our being, the world around us and the entire universe is comprised of these elements, both externally and internally. These elements also determine our individual constitution or dosha. It makes up the sum of our parts. The six tastes even contain these elements ...
Er ... didn't the idea of the Classical Elements go out with the ark? (or at least by the time of Lavoisier, say?) although I have read that some modern scientists see a parallel between them and the four states of matter: solid, liquid, gas and weakly ionized plasma. But perhaps you mean something else again, although the definition "every part is comprised of" screams 'elements', Also calling stillness an 'action' sounds odd. For then what is non-action?
I'm guessing that Dr. Gautam Chatterjee is not a doctor of physics as since time, and space, came into existence at a point known by science then they can be hardly 'eternal'. While the notion of the 'ether' is more dodo science.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 7, 2017 8:16:39 GMT
An ad hominem right off the bat tells the reader more about you than I, and is to be regretted. I am sorry but the notion of the classical elements is dead science. It might suit a form of speculation, one away from the physical sciences, to form such archaic definitions to make a rhetorical point but that that does not effect that truth. Also there is no logical reason why meaning cannot be extracted from something which is temporary as opposed from something permanent. In fact your view would be quite nihilist, since existence is mortal and yet millions find meaning in life. You still haven't explained how, in your interpretation of reality, non-action can be said to ever exist at all. There is too long for one bumper sticker. Can't you boil it down some?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 7, 2017 10:16:37 GMT
Well I'm sure that Dr. Gautam Chatterjee wouldn't be impressed about the same passive ad-hominen you directed at him, or I doubt he would even care. It is not an insult, not even a passive one, to note that someone is strictly factually incorrect. Neither is it an insult to assume that someone is not a scientist based on their scientifically inaccurate views. But I am naturally pleased you do not dispute your own attempt(s) at rudeness. To which continued personal insult the same observations apply as before. I have less issue with notions of actions and consequences (why should I? it goes all the way back to Newton and beyond) Than the archaic way of seeing reality through the classical elements which science has long left behind. But I think you really know that. As already mentioned, such terms are find in a rhetorical framework but are not evidenced by physics. Remember what I keep saying about ad hominems ? I do. 'Meaning' is something ascribed to an object or idea by the personality. ('Meanings' are also different from definitions) It is arguable that things do not have 'meaning' other than those ascribed, although you are right that different meanings need apply. The only meaning given to nature is that by man, but at least so far you haven't thrown in the pathetic fallacy as is so often the case. It implies that meaning is attached by many to that which is impermanent and that meanings can vary from person to person, culture to culture, religion to religion. What did you think I meant? This naturally depends on an agreement on what 'it' is lol Oh I see; so people are really 'the greater power and force'... the 'whole cosmos'. Got it. This aggrandisement is both interesting and revealing. Is this force an active, deliberate force then? Or does it just hang about, waiting to be recognised by people such as yourself? Here you appear to assume that there is more than the mortal self. It appears you are big on metaphysical assumptions. And here you seem to be arguing for the necessity of absolute, objective morality. Is that really a can of worms you wish to open? You are also assuming we have a 'purpose' in life - other than that which we habitually give ourselves - which is unproven, at least outside of the credulities of scripture. You tell us, you are the one making the assertions without evidence. You are naturally free to hold to your purposes and make contributions. But I bear no responsibility. That wasn't answering my question. Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 7, 2017 11:30:12 GMT
You are attempting to refute my points by being a dodo Still don't remember what I said about personal remarks, eh? We are not all on the side of the angels, my friend. The essence of what you are saying appears to be a series of assumptions. Without evidence for your opinions, one can be forgiven for a trenchant and pertinent response. Your defensiveness in light of this, I think quite reasonable, approach is significant. You mean like when I say that meaning is arguably a given, and not an inherent, quality? Or that 'ether' and the classical elements to describe reality have long been dead in the water? I am, naturally, sorry that you 'couldn't care less' about things. I, do. I like to mention such things since an ad hominem is a type of fallacy, hence by repeatedly employing this type of response you are disputing fallaciously. I hope that helps. Anger is a sign that you are feeling defensive. And emojis are not arguments, by the way... In fact I am more interested in how you are impressing your own meanings on reality through a series of unsupported assertions. I would be sorry if your response here suggests an inferiority complex. On the contrary one is much happier when the beguiling fog of credulity and illogicality is stripped away. For whatever remains, no matter how uncomfortable, is more likely to be the correct view. Why does reality have to be 'about something' at all? Why can't things just 'be'? It may be the nature of things that, in this universe at least, they have randomly settled on one way that can be that stands over others, and that is a 'brute fact'. I don't deny anything. You will note that I have not said that anything you assert is necessarily wrong; just largely unfounded and thus open to interrogation. I am sorry if this process irks. As already said, you just seem to be projecting meaning which most suits you onto reality, to which of course you are perfectly entitled to do. But this does not mean that one ought to drag in the classical elements as modern way of understanding and hope to remain scientific about it. Esoteric thinking, of course, can include all sorts of imaginative and broadly conceived stuff; but that does not necessarily mean it is an accurate way of things. But your projection of, baldly, 'people = cosmos' is the biggest extension of the ego one might imagine! And without mind we are just matter, without any contemplation of our place in things at all, so I am not even sure how this would work out. (Why would the mind be 'vengeful' by the way?) Such platitudes are still too long for a bumper sticker, I am afraid, while 'conscienceness' is not even a word. And we've already covered the idea of those 'elements', haven't we? Or don't you care less here, either?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 8, 2017 10:26:37 GMT
As I thought, you are just playing games and stringing words together to make roundabout, incohesive sentences that are not grounded in anything that is supported by anything other than what you have been brainwashed and conditioned to believe. Hilarious considering that this is a perfect description of everything you've posted here. Literally perfect. Let us know how your claims that "consciousness is eternal" are grounded in anything other than your ridiculous faith in outdated religious metaphysics. This should be rich.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 8, 2017 11:48:47 GMT
MORE blah, blah, blah................................and dodo— it's your word, and absolutely perfect—droppings. As I thought, you are just playing games and stringing words together to make roundabout, incohesive sentences that are not grounded in anything that is supported by anything other than what you have been brainwashed and conditioned to believe. Still not understood what I said about making personal attacks, eh? I am not aware of any one who thinks this. As already mentioned, the notion of the classical elements is dead science. And how do you know that the consciousness is eternal (or is necessarily separate from the mechanics of body for that instance?) I am not the only one to ask this. It is a shame to see you not wishing to engage, but just insult and leave. Ah well.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 8, 2017 14:11:33 GMT
I am not aware of any one who thinks this You do now So you think science is taught by those who think 'matter and space is all that it is about'? Interesting. but you are right: I do know a one now, lol. As you are someone 'who couldn't care less', arguably it is not a question of not being told, but you not being interested. I see you are now apparently insulting anyone here who disagrees with you. That tells me a lot. BTW: any supporting evidence or compelling necessity yet for that "eternal conSCIENCEness awareness" of yours? It sounds fab
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 8, 2017 14:34:45 GMT
no one likes a smart alec, and I am only interested in hearing something that connects on a more authentic and deeper level, than just spouting of [sic] scientific knowledge ... It is a good job then that you aren't a spout of scientific knowledge then isn't it? Interested or not, there is no logical necessity for the death of the individual to be anything more than something final (as far as consciousness - or 'conSCIENCEnees' - is concerned). Although I can see how thinking otherwise might be comforting and give one a warm feeling about existence. I don't; but thanks for caring. The universe can cope without me. In which case, this sweeping statement is also not. For which the evidence is... Not to me, my friend; I have had no interrogations for two or three messages. I'm still remembering about what I said to you about the ad hominem Fallacy. A shame you don't. But you don't care, right?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 8, 2017 17:11:08 GMT
You have no richness, It's all headspace with you. You can't even acknowledge that what I wrote describes you perfectly as well as that other puppet poster. Most people with any common sense and "innate" intelligence, something you lack, would see that you are just operating from the sense of self-superiority and boring ass pseudo academia. Most of what you write is rhetorical bullsh!t and pretends to tell much, when in fact it tells little. Perhaps what you really need to do is reevaluate yourself. I won't be holding my breath though. There you go again, still projecting your own very obvious flaws onto others. I note with great satisfaction that my request for you to ground your claims about eternal consciousness was ignored. Because we both know these claims have no basis in anything approaching a process of logic, reason, or evidence. You just like to make crap up because some mystic seems to have said it.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 9, 2017 1:41:22 GMT
Like I asked that wooden puppet head about proving his evidence that there is no conscious awareness, he can't, anymore than you can. All you will spout, is the knowledge of philosophy and science that you have read about, been lectured on and ingested mentally, without any authentic connection, feeling or understanding of who you really are. Your arrogance and conceit is not logical, and if anything, it is a deceit and fallacy that you can't acknowledge in the true and genuine nature of your being. The evidence is all around you, and in you and in every pore and facet of your being and what you have created for yourself. It is in your life, look closer! Your utter failure to supply evidence or reason in support of your claims has been duly noticed, again. All you do is make a fool of yourself in post after post. If you had any sense or self awareness, you'd just stop. But you're like the Trump of dumb New Age metaphysics: you just can't restrain yourself. Carry on. You've become the poster child of why no one should take metaphysics of any kind with the slightest sort of seriousness. You are a walking joke.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 9, 2017 10:35:40 GMT
Show me the proof that there is NO eternal conscious awareness. T Sorry, cupcake, that isn't how things work. When you make an incredible, incoherent claim, the burden of proof is upon YOU to back it up. You don't even know what "eternal conscious awareness" means. It's just a slogan you picked up. Here, let me hold your hand. One way to articulate what you mean by a concept or property would be to imagine how the world would be noticeably different if the universe lacked that property versus if it had that property. So please: describe how we could tell if "eternal conscious awareness" existed versus if it didn't. Good luck with that!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 9, 2017 10:39:19 GMT
We know you are wooden puppet head, and you need to do plenty more chipping away, before you can be seen as superior as me. Poor pitiful thing! Is this insulting really all you have by way of rebuttal LOL?
|
|