Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2016, 07:59 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Yah.. but all those posts above don't some how magically remove either of your posited thought processes to some place outside reality.

Do they?

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2016, 08:06 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2016 08:19 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 07:59 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Yah.. but all those posts above don't some how magically remove either of your posited thought processes to some place outside reality.

Do they?

Drinking Beverage
If there exists a reality where my conscious and very communicative mind can exist without a physical form, there would be no reason for me to believe this reality is necessary.
Even time need not exist in a reality where thought alone exists. We can think of the future first and the past last. We can create new thoughts from nothing.
There would be no reason to ask what created everything. Every possible reality can be perceived and infinity would be something we could create.
I would gladly denounce such a reality could possibly exist but it's not something we can prove or disprove is it.

I have realized the only things I am able to prove to myself are thoughts.
Even morality cannot be defined without thoughts.

The answer to every question we shall ever ask lies somewhere in our thoughts, & if we try hard enough we can actually come up with the answer without actually performing any tests. It seems weird at first but consider it.
I watch a dot and consider what is it made of. Given enough time and an infinite number of possibilities I might one day list the components of that dot without ever actually testing it myself. Of course I would have no way of knowing which of the possible states of matter I have listed are the tue reality of the dot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2016, 08:19 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Which doesn't actually address the point of my post.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
27-03-2016, 08:35 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 07:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I agree with that logic to an extent but I made an objection to that in the "is belief in the unseen irational?" thread that explains why I can still exist even though the reality I perceive does not exist.
It would appear we have two minds & the second one does not seem to belong to this reality. If this mind is the true me then I need not cease to exist if this reality ceases to exist.

This does not help your argument. This other reality in which your second mind is housed, is it perceived? No? *poof* It ceases to exist.

Back to one mind and one reality you are once again in danger of ending the universe with a bump to your noggin.

Would you like to tack on a few more epicycles?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
27-03-2016, 08:57 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2016 09:18 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 08:35 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(27-03-2016 07:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I agree with that logic to an extent but I made an objection to that in the "is belief in the unseen irational?" thread that explains why I can still exist even though the reality I perceive does not exist.
It would appear we have two minds & the second one does not seem to belong to this reality. If this mind is the true me then I need not cease to exist if this reality ceases to exist.

This does not help your argument. This other reality in which your second mind is housed, is it perceived? No? *poof* It ceases to exist.

Back to one mind and one reality you are once again in danger of ending the universe with a bump to your noggin.

Would you like to tack on a few more epicycles?
I am glad you are taking the time to object. That's what I desire most from communication.

Why did you assume the reality in question refers to both realities?
I never mentioned the possibility of a second reality until just now. My op deals with the only reality we currently know of.
I did not seek to explain what would happen if this reality is removed.

You appear to say there is only one possible outcome should this reality cease to exist.
I just hypothesized this need not be the only outcome.

I make a conscious effort to stay away from the word "is" as much as I can although I do back peddle from time to time.

I think it would be foolish of us to rule out all possibilities no matter how strong the evidence for an "is" might be.

There exists many instances in our history where strong "is"s were ruled out after examining a weak possibility. Every thought counts.
I also agree that somethings are worth mentioning more than others even in the realm of possibilities. This would apply to things we have at least some miniscule evidence for as opposed to the things we have absolutely no evidence that could possibly send us down the line of a possibility.

I posted quite a lot of supporting research that could indicate that "the self " is a product of 2 minds.
The conscious mind whereby thoughts occur is still a mystery to science but we all feel it's presence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2016, 09:36 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 08:57 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why did you assume the reality in question refers to both realities?

I'm simply applying the same rules to both realities. Anything else is special pleading. This other reality is not observed, thus it is gone.

Quote:I never mentioned the possibility of a second reality until just now.

And I had not dismissed it until now. Applying your rules to both realities negates the one that you have proposed. It is vanished as if it had never been. Better that you had not invoked it.

Quote:My op deals with the only reality we currently know of.

And now you are invoking one that we don't.

Quote:You appear to say there is only one possible outcome should this reality cease to exist.

This would appear to be axiomatic. At least for those of us who live in it.

Quote:I think it would be foolish of us to rule out all possibilities no matter how strong the evidence for an "is" might be.

And I think it would be foolish of us to waste too much thought on what is logically foolish.

But since you persist here's a simple experiment that should satisfy you curiosity:

In a sealed room where nobody else can observe, place a circular saw and a timed device for feeding your hand through it. Turn on the saw, set the timer for 20 minutes, take a strong sedative that will render you unconscious in no less than five minutes and allow you to regain consciousness in an hour or two, apply a turnicate and place your hand in the device. Since you are unconscious when the timer on the device feeds your hand through the saw your perception will have no effect on reality.

Kindly let me know how many hands you are typing your reply with.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
27-03-2016, 10:46 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
If you want to separate perception from reality, take a bunch of LSD. While you're under the influence, reality can and perhaps may well kill you anyway. And on the other hand, the hallucinations you see will have no basis in reality outside your head at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
28-03-2016, 02:27 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 10:46 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  If you want to separate perception from reality, take a bunch of LSD. While you're under the influence, reality can and perhaps may well kill you anyway. And on the other hand, the hallucinations you see will have no basis in reality outside your head at all.
While we are still on the topic of being honest with oneself I have to make a few adjustments to your statements:
1. I don't want to seperate anything.
2. I don't want to see hallucinations outside my head.

Any other misconceptions you would like me to clear up?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 02:47 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 03:13 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 09:36 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(27-03-2016 08:57 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why did you assume the reality in question refers to both realities?

I'm simply applying the same rules to both realities. Anything else is special pleading. This other reality is not observed, thus it is gone.

Quote:I never mentioned the possibility of a second reality until just now.

And I had not dismissed it until now. Applying your rules to both realities negates the one that you have proposed. It is vanished as if it had never been. Better that you had not invoked it.

Quote:My op deals with the only reality we currently know of.

And now you are invoking one that we don't.

Quote:You appear to say there is only one possible outcome should this reality cease to exist.

This would appear to be axiomatic. At least for those of us who live in it.

Quote:I think it would be foolish of us to rule out all possibilities no matter how strong the evidence for an "is" might be.

And I think it would be foolish of us to waste too much thought on what is logically foolish.

But since you persist here's a simple experiment that should satisfy you curiosity:

In a sealed room where nobody else can observe, place a circular saw and a timed device for feeding your hand through it. Turn on the saw, set the timer for 20 minutes, take a strong sedative that will render you unconscious in no less than five minutes and allow you to regain consciousness in an hour or two, apply a turnicate and place your hand in the device. Since you are unconscious when the timer on the device feeds your hand through the saw your perception will have no effect on reality.

Kindly let me know how many hands you are typing your reply with.
Why are you applying rules that apply to a physical reality to a reality that is said to not be bound by any of the rules such as that? Such a reality would not be bound by time. If you claim it can be destroyed it would have no meaning except as a moment that can be achieved by merely thinking about it. Simultaneously, before & after does not exist. It just is. Every moment is just as equal as another moment and all moments are possible while infinite due to the possibility we can add more to that which already exists. Thought is the only thing necessary for such a reality to exist. Adding anything outside of thought to such a reality will collapse the reality.
Thus it is a necessary function that everything that will ever exist in our world and any world can only exist within the realm of thought without creating the paradox's of logic.
I have found this way of viewing what some would call absolute reality is a very easy way to explain how the universe was created. In a universe not bound by time the singularity of the big bang could be an imagined moment & everything else that was added to it after that was a logical necessity. Imagination therefore supercedes our physical reality.
This reality need not be bound by the laws of nature as we have always assumed, but rather, because this is how it was imagined it is only obvious that once created the laws of nature are bound to follow the path thought took to create this reality. If thought had took a path with e = mc3 then anything within the new reality will be bound by the laws of e = mc3 & there would be no way to escape this law unless you are no longer a part of the new reality.
Theists claim intelligent design because if 1 thing changed by a minuscule amount the whole system collapses, but it need not be intelligent. Intelligent design is just an illusion brought about by the chronology of events that made physical reality the way it is today. It is a logical necessity had the path taken any other course to be where it is today, it will still be in existence today because everything else that follows must follow from it's predecssor's state. Thus physical reality cannot collapse in on itself once thoughts supercede a physical reality. It's quite possible our reality could stop at any moment and resume whenever, who or what created us, decides.
It's quite possible teleporting electrons, particle spin and all those things we cannot explain are evidence of such a reality. Whenever we observe something on the quantum level we are probably seeing what counciousness looks like without being able to change it's true state, but only it's position within physical reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 02:53 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 02:27 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  2. I don't want to see hallucinations outside my head.

Facepalm No Huh

hallucination
Pronunciation: /həˌluːsɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
NOUN

An experience involving the apparent perception of something not present:
he continued to suffer from horrific hallucinations

Oxford English dictionary.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: