Please have a look at this: The Magic of Stereographic Projection


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

How does an idea exist outside of the brain of a sentient biological entity?

Not for long.

Having no life of its own, it needs you to give it your emotional energy, and for you to act on it, for it to continue to exist.

Is there any objective evidence that this is possible?

There is... but only if you subjectively choose to agree with that objective evidence. There is absolutely no coersion. It is totally your own free choice to either accept or to deny that objective evidence.

I've asked this question quite a few times, and so far no one here has ever responded to it, so I'll ask it yet again:

Do you act on every thought?

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The concept of a Prime Mover, or an Uncreated Creator is perfectly rational. But I have no problem with Frank's denial, as his own free choice has nothing to do with me or my life. There is no such thing as coersion.

Greg

Prove he's uncreated. Where is the evidence other than your saying so?

By the same "perfectly rational" process I can declare that mankind is uncreated.

And if "there is no coercion," then there is no such thing as robbery, only donations. No such thing as rape, only consensual sex. No such thing as murder, only suicide.

The 2,996 people who died on Sept. 11, 2001 killed themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts as a state of zen merely means using the thinking that created those thoughts as the proverbial (Objectivist) "disowned concept." Thoughts down the "river" of your mind a few chosen by you for action upon ignores the thinking that choosing demands and the thinking that went into the creation of all those thoughts in the river. It also disowns the natural emotional state that consideration of thoughts engenders as a shorthand way of quickly focusing on what's valuable and what's not for the partial basis of further thinking.

It can be extremely important to write out your thinking as in an essay for better thinking. If the thinking doesn't seem enough in itself then you reconsider the facts or even go out and get more facts to make the thinking to a rational conclusion engine run properly. Greg's stated approach to thoughts truncates all this staff work and is needlessly atomistic (except to him). There is a social aspect to thinking. OL is an example of that. I say one thing and another says another and we work it out by thinking it out and pointing out things and adding facts and putting facts in their proper place. Disowning thinking is necessary if you want the conclusions without the real work of getting them and since they are merely "chosen" they don't have to be defended for it cannot be denied they are what they are however undigested and indigestible.

Greg of course really does think. His sophisticated bump and grind personal philosophy requires a lot of it. How he thinks is for others the real disowning. If his severely truncated epistemology is accepted he can drive right into another mind without friction. No one is allowed to see his thinking. As such all others are "the other." Hence, preaching. (All preaching is top to down.)

Thoughts actually do not flow through a mind but are in a whirlpool therein. Go fish in the purported river and all that will be caught is carp.

--Brant

what I've just written can only be replied to by Greg by Greg repeating himself, for if he argues logically and factually he'll cut himself off at the knees there being no applicable thoughts in any "river" (thinking required) so he'd have to disown the disowning by visibly thinking flatly begging the question of why he disowned in the first place (dishonesty), so what's left is to snip off an easy quote or two from all this digression and dump on a short moralistic comment about what I deserve for not agreeing with him, as if everything else said was not worth comment--true enough, but all of it if from him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is... but only if you subjectively choose to agree with that objective evidence. There is absolutely no coersion. It is totally your own free choice to either accept or to deny that objective evidence.

I've asked this question quite a few times, and so far no one here has ever responded to it, so I'll ask it yet again:

Do you act on every thought?

Greg

Congratulations, you have validated the existence of "a volitional consciousness". The action of thought is "an act" as well, before even a volitional physical act.

At each turn, you are able to begin a new train of thought, redirect it, or stop it.

"so far no one here has responded to it..."

Oh yeah, really? ha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does an idea exist outside of the brain of a sentient biological entity?

Not for long.

Having no life of its own, it needs you to give it your emotional energy, and for you to act on it, for it to continue to exist.

Is there any objective evidence that this is possible?

There is... but only if you subjectively choose to agree with that objective evidence. There is absolutely no coersion. It is totally your own free choice to either accept or to deny that objective evidence.

I've asked this question quite a few times, and so far no one here has ever responded to it, so I'll ask it yet again:

Do you act on every thought?

Greg

Some thoughts arise and are briefly remembered, no overt action taken on them. Of course I can only speak of the thoughts that are remred and not otherwise acted on. I have no idea of thoughts completely forgotten

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove he's uncreated.

There is no proof either way. This means that you are just as free to deny God as I am to affirm Him. What is obvious to me is obscure to you because that is your own free choice. And that freedom to choose which is completely devoid of any coercion is called love.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does an idea exist outside of the brain of a sentient biological entity?

Not for long.

Having no life of its own, it needs you to give it your emotional energy, and for you to act on it, for it to continue to exist.

Is there any objective evidence that this is possible?

There is... but only if you subjectively choose to agree with that objective evidence. There is absolutely no coersion. It is totally your own free choice to either accept or to deny that objective evidence.

I've asked this question quite a few times, and so far no one here has ever responded to it, so I'll ask it yet again:

Do you act on every thought?

Greg

Some thoughts arise and are briefly remembered, no overt action taken on them.

That means that you are choosing which thoughts to act on and which to let go by unresponded... and it is impossible to make that decision unless you are something more than just your thoughts.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is... but only if you subjectively choose to agree with that objective evidence. There is absolutely no coersion. It is totally your own free choice to either accept or to deny that objective evidence.

I've asked this question quite a few times, and so far no one here has ever responded to it, so I'll ask it yet again:

Do you act on every thought?

Greg

Congratulations, you have validated the existence of "a volitional consciousness". The action of thought is "an act" as well, before even a volitional physical act.

At each turn, you are able to begin a new train of thought, redirect it, or stop it.

"so far no one here has responded to it..."

Oh yeah, really? ha!

You're correct, Tony. And to make those discriminating decisions, the real you has to be outside of thought looking at it. When we are immersed in thought as if it was the totality of our being we cannot choose, and we devolve into mere creatures who are enslaved to uncontrolled emotional reactions.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is... but only if you subjectively choose to agree with that objective evidence. There is absolutely no coersion. It is totally your own free choice to either accept or to deny that objective evidence.

I've asked this question quite a few times, and so far no one here has ever responded to it, so I'll ask it yet again:

Do you act on every thought?

Greg

Congratulations, you have validated the existence of "a volitional consciousness". The action of thought is "an act" as well, before even a volitional physical act.

At each turn, you are able to begin a new train of thought, redirect it, or stop it.

"so far no one here has responded to it..."

Oh yeah, really? ha!

You're correct, Tony. And to make those discriminating decisions, the real you has to be outside of thought looking at it. When we are immersed in thought as if it was the totality of our being we cannot choose, and we devolve into mere creatures who are enslaved to uncontrolled emotional reactions.

Greg

I've no clue why you'd want to insist on this inside and outside thought thing, Greg. It is simply introspection - of thoughts and emotions - by and of a single mind, you describe. Random sensations and thoughts often jump up, we know, and may occasionally lead to and reveal something useful, but it is clear-minded and focused thought (calm and deliberate, as you put it) about reality w.r.t one's morality that really pays off, we know too.

But not knocking your volitional mind achievement, the hard determinist view falsely disallows even that.

I will argue your use of "subjective" when I think you're actually meaning "personal and emotional". (Emotions are important 'barometers' of one's state - not as tools of evaluation, however -, and subjective has a unique meaning, philosophically).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free to deny and free to affirm out of mutual lack of proof is fallacious. "Proof" is on the asserter of the existence of the Creator. Absent that the denier is free to deny without proving anything. Thus atheism, which is merely consequential to lack of evidence or proof.

--Brant

the moon never was made of green cheese nor were those canals on the surface of Mars (note when Greg tries to use logic it usually comes out fallacious, but the biggie is the implicit acknowledgement of the value of logical thinking)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg of course really does think.

Why are you making up things I never said just to pretend that you're stating something contrary to your own self generated fantasy, Brant?

I never said I don't think.

(from a previous post...)

Greg wrote: "From sitting still long enough to observe thoughts I see that my mind is as much a radio as it is a computer. Besides the ability to think about thoughts, it also has the ability to receive thoughts."

By the way... what happened to your decrees that you're finally done with me? That didn't last long... :laugh:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove he's uncreated.

There is no proof either way.

Good. Then contrary to your Post #2, "the exquisitely sophisticated order of laws which govern the physical world" is proof not of God but of nothing.

Nothing.

(shrug...) So what is proof for me isn't proof for you. That's the beauty of God's love... there is no coersion in it. You are just as free do deny as I am to affirm.

And this is why there is no point in you trying to argue with me over something which we each have already decided. You get the consequences you deserve from your own choices in life... just as I get mine. I don't get yours, and you don't get mine. It's totally your own business what you chose, so take what you chose and all of its consequences to your grave with you.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick summary of Moralist's argument:

There is no proof for God (Post #31), and, furthermore, there is a proof for God (Post #38).

"There is no proof either way," and, additionally, there "is proof for me."

A is A, and, besides, A is also non-A.

But you can only have A be non-A if you deserve it.

It's all "perfectly rational" (Post #20).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick summary of Moralist's argument:

There is no proof for God (Post #31), and, furthermore, there is a proof for God (Post #38).

"There is no proof either way," and, additionally, there "is proof for me."

A is A, and, besides, A is also non-A.

But you can only have A be non-A if you deserve it.

It's all "perfectly rational" (Post #20).

You're assuming an argument.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick summary of Moralist's argument:

I made no argument, Frank.

You need to imagine that there is one out of your own need to futilely argue over something which has been already decided by each of us. Sorry, man... I don't do that. It takes two to argue... and my need to argue is nothing compared to your own need.

So here is what had already said in regards to proof, just because you're trying to make up an imaginary argument as if I had left the topic unaddressed.

(shrug...) So what is proof for me isn't proof for you. That's the beauty of God's love... there is no coersion in it. You are just as free do deny as I am to affirm.

And this is why there is no point in you trying to argue with me over something which we each have already decided. You get the consequences you deserve from your own choices in life... just as I get mine. I don't get yours, and you don't get mine. It's totally your own business what you chose, so take what you chose and all of its consequences to your grave with you.

And I'll add that I'm perfectly content to take my choice and all of its just and deserved consequences with me to my grave. The moral playing field is perfectly level... so we each are getting exactly what we each deserve.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no clue why you'd want to insist on this inside and outside thought thing, Greg. It is simply introspection - of thoughts and emotions - by and of a single mind, you describe.

It's just how I see things, Tony. There's no need for anyone else to agree. :smile:

Consider this... Within subjective thought it is impossible to see it for what it is. However, there is an objective state of mind which is not within thought. From that vantage point it is possible to look at thought as if you were another person. And it is from that dispassionate impersonally objective point of view that you are able to make the right decision of whether or not to act upon it... and that peculiar point of objective self observation is provided for us courtesy of Conscience.

Trying to observe thought while immersed in thought is like standing in a bucket while pulling on the handle trying to lift it off the floor.

'Aint gonna happen.

You need to be outside the bucket standing on the floor to lift the bucket.

Random sensations and thoughts often jump up, we know, and may occasionally lead to and reveal something useful, but it is clear-minded and focused thought (calm and deliberate, as you put it) about reality w.r.t one's morality that really pays off, we know too.

But not knocking your volitional mind achievement, the hard determinist view falsely disallows even that.

I will argue your use of "subjective" when I think you're actually meaning "personal and emotional". (Emotions are important 'barometers' of one's state - not as tools of evaluation, however -, and subjective has a unique meaning, philosophically).

Emotions are totally subjective... as are the subjective thoughts which give rise to them. This is because as humans, we are completely subjective beings.

However, we do have the power to freely choose to either subjectively agree or disagree with objective reality... but we can never be that objective reality.

If we subjectively choose to act in harmony with objective reality, all goes well... but if not, that's a totally different story.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick summary of Moralist's argument:

I made no argument, Frank.

You need to imagine that there is one out of your own need to futilely argue over something which has been already decided by each of us. Sorry, man... I don't do that. It takes two to argue... and my need to argue is nothing compared to your own need.

So here is what had already said in regards to proof, just because you're trying to make up an imaginary argument as if I had left the topic unaddressed.

(shrug...) So what is proof for me isn't proof for you. That's the beauty of God's love... there is no coersion in it. You are just as free do deny as I am to affirm.

And this is why there is no point in you trying to argue with me over something which we each have already decided. You get the consequences you deserve from your own choices in life... just as I get mine. I don't get yours, and you don't get mine. It's totally your own business what you chose, so take what you chose and all of its consequences to your grave with you.

And I'll add that I'm perfectly content to take my choice and all of its just and deserved consequences with me to my grave. The moral playing field is perfectly level... so we each are getting exactly what we each deserve.

Greg

Not true. An argument is "a statement or series of statements for or against something." Like it or not, you've been arguing in this thread since Post #2. Currently you are making the argument that you do not make arguments.

But that, of course, is entirely consistent with your usual inconsistency and in particular with your position that there is a proof for God and also no proof for God.

In such a worldview, one would not blink at a non-contradictory contradiction, a truthful falsehood, an impossible possibility, a meaningful meaninglessness, a non-existent existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thread. Great fun. FF has the advantage of being right but Greg'll never surrender. Rand also refused to argue while making arguments. A basic conundrum of Objectivism: how do you teach with preach without breach? Let Nathaniel do it.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true...

Trying to dodge around arguing about arguing is just a smokescreen, Frank. The objective fact remains that denial of God is your freely chosen view that you will never change...

...and even you can't deny that you're getting exactly what you deserve in your own life as the result of your choice.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. An argument is "a statement or series of statements for or against something." Like it or not, you've been arguing in this thread since Post #2. Currently you are making the argument that you do not make arguments.

But that, of course, is entirely consistent with your usual inconsistency and in particular with your position that there is a proof for God and also no proof for God.

In such a worldview, one would not blink at a non-contradictory contradiction, a truthful falsehood, an impossible possibility, a meaningful meaninglessness, a non-existent existence.

An argument is a proof starting with assumptions and ending with the sought after conclusion. If the steps follow the rules of logical inference and no "hidden assumption" is sneaked into the argument then the argument is -valid. Technically and argument is a proof.

In rhetoric an argument is a sequence of statement intended to convince the audience that a certain conclusion is true.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. An argument is "a statement or series of statements for or against something." Like it or not, you've been arguing in this thread since Post #2. Currently you are making the argument that you do not make arguments.

But that, of course, is entirely consistent with your usual inconsistency and in particular with your position that there is a proof for God and also no proof for God.

In such a worldview, one would not blink at a non-contradictory contradiction, a truthful falsehood, an impossible possibility, a meaningful meaninglessness, a non-existent existence.

An argument is a proof starting with assumptions and ending with the sought after conclusion. If the steps follow the rules of logical inference and no "hidden assumption" is sneaked into the argument then the argument is -valid. Technically and argument is a proof.

In rhetoric an argument is a sequence of statement intended to convince the audience that a certain conclusion is true.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I have a different purpose other than arguing... because arguing is based on the narcissistic fantasy that the views of others can be changed by mere words typed onto a monitor. Only the objective reality of getting exactly what you deserve in your own life possesses the power to change your view.

So rather than trying to convince others...

...I simply remain unconvinced by others. :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now