Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
If we observe the realist closely, we will find that at some times he relies principally on his eyes and, at other times, on his ears. When different senses corroborate an error, we are still more baffled. The realist is unaware that he has no criterion of the reality or unreality of objects experienced. He has faith in the reality of movie action while it lasts, otherwise he could not really enjoy it. He has faith in his own action, otherwise how could he really enjoy life. But how reliable is such faith? On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:39 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: But it's the senses that reveal that the stick isn't bent, you just have to know a bit more about what you are looking at. Please demonstrate that there is a transcendental field hidden from view. It sounds like a belief to me as no matter how hard we look it isn't like a bent stick is it? It appears ineffable, nothing depends on it and nothing is explained or improved by it. Which is another way of saying it isn't real I suspect.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: If we observe the realist closely, we will find that at some times he relies principally on his eyes and, at other times, on his ears. When different senses corroborate an error, we are still more baffled. The realist is unaware that he has no criterion of the reality or unreality of objects experienced. He has faith in the reality of movie action while it lasts, otherwise he could not really enjoy it. He has faith in his own action, otherwise how could he really enjoy life. But how reliable is such faith? Real or not real is not important. There is no real just as there is no unreal. It is not necessary to wonder about this or to worry about it. We act on what we act on and action is based on a stimulus, a niggle, an impulse. What that impulse is based on is not important, nor is it important that someone acted. To take too much time and energy to worry/think/define this leads to the equivalent of being on a never-ending merry-go-round. If we were to actually think we have determined what is real or not real (assuming there is such a thing), what does that gain us? On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:39 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: But it's the senses that reveal that the stick isn't bent, you just have to know a bit more about what you are looking at. Please demonstrate that there is a transcendental field hidden from view. It sounds like a belief to me as no matter how hard we look it isn't like a bent stick is it? It appears ineffable, nothing depends on it and nothing is explained or improved by it. Which is another way of saying it isn't real I suspect.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
Ann and Richard, this reminds of the snake and string story. If someone mistakes a string for a snake in front of them and gets all scared, releasing damaging chemicals into their bloodstream, that's not ideal imo. Someone else comes along and tells them that it's only a string and picks it up to demonstrate. Then the scared person can return to a healthy homeostatis. So in this context, imo, real and unreal are important. On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:14 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: If we observe the realist closely, we will find that at some times he relies principally on his eyes and, at other times, on his ears. When different senses corroborate an error, we are still more baffled. The realist is unaware that he has no criterion of the reality or unreality of objects experienced. He has faith in the reality of movie action while it lasts, otherwise he could not really enjoy it. He has faith in his own action, otherwise how could he really enjoy life. But how reliable is such faith? Real or not real is not important. There is no real just as there is no unreal. It is not necessary to wonder about this or to worry about it. We act on what we act on and action is based on a stimulus, a niggle, an impulse. What that impulse is based on is not important, nor is it important that someone acted. To take too much time and energy to worry/think/define this leads to the equivalent of being on a never-ending merry-go-round. If we were to actually think we have determined what is real or not real (assuming there is such a thing), what does that gain us? On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:39 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: But it's the senses that reveal that the stick isn't bent, you just have to know a bit more about what you are looking at. Please demonstrate that there is a transcendental field hidden from view. It sounds like a belief to me as no matter how hard we look it isn't like a bent stick is it? It appears ineffable, nothing depends on it and nothing is explained or improved by it. Which is another way of saying it isn't real I suspect.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
On 1/27/2014 8:01 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: This is elementary. I know I exist. That is only thing of which I am *absolutely* certain. Most people when asked this question, would reply using a naive realist position that because we are conscious and can perceive things and events with the senses so, we conclude that there must be an existence. This answer is based on observation - perception is reality. If we are a realist we see things and experience things just the way they are. People don't usually get the notion that there is a transcendental field that is hidden from view - they just accept things as they are and as they seem - with common sense a realist just understands that gravity sucks and all human excrement flows downstream. Most people just use common sense in order to explain existence. According to my Professor, A.J. Bahm, there are six statements that summarize the realist view: 1. Objects which are known exist independently of their being known. 2. Objects have qualities or properties, which are parts of the objects. 3. Objects are not affected merely by being known. 4. Objects seem as they are and are as they seem. 5. Objects are known directly. 6. Objects are public. The problem with the naive realist position is that the senses don't reveal everything that can be known - things and events are not always exactly as they seem. For example, a straight stick when immersed half way into water may appear to be bent. Things and events appear to be real, but if appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory, it is natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration. When they contradict, which sense shall we accept as reliable?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are You Sure You Exist?
On 1/27/2014 12:58 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: */My Descartesian answer: I post obvious trollbait, and some people are so stupid and so attached as to get their hot buttons pushed by it and feel that they have to reply. :-) :-) :-) /* You just had to reply with a Descartesian answer because you are so stupid and so attached to troll bait that you posted a reply because your button got pushed: I think, therefore I am. - Rene Descartes
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
Richard, I think the stick appearing bent in the water is a great example. We can know a lot about sticks and water and light refraction and still, we won't see the stick as straight! Even if we dip our hand into the water and touch the straight stick, we still won't see it straight! Can all these experiences and knowledge be unified? On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:59 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/27/2014 8:01 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: This is elementary. I know I exist. That is only thing of which I am *absolutely* certain. Most people when asked this question, would reply using a naive realist position that because we are conscious and can perceive things and events with the senses so, we conclude that there must be an existence. This answer is based on observation - perception is reality. If we are a realist we see things and experience things just the way they are. People don't usually get the notion that there is a transcendental field that is hidden from view - they just accept things as they are and as they seem - with common sense a realist just understands that gravity sucks and all human excrement flows downstream. Most people just use common sense in order to explain existence. According to my Professor, A.J. Bahm, there are six statements that summarize the realist view: 1. Objects which are known exist independently of their being known. 2. Objects have qualities or properties, which are parts of the objects. 3. Objects are not affected merely by being known. 4. Objects seem as they are and are as they seem. 5. Objects are known directly. 6. Objects are public. The problem with the naive realist position is that the senses don't reveal everything that can be known - things and events are not always exactly as they seem. For example, a straight stick when immersed half way into water may appear to be bent. Things and events appear to be real, but if appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory, it is natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration. When they contradict, which sense shall we accept as reliable?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
But it's the senses that reveal that the stick isn't bent, you just have to know a bit more about what you are looking at. Please demonstrate that there is a transcendental field hidden from view. It sounds like a belief to me as no matter how hard we look it isn't like a bent stick is it? It appears ineffable, nothing depends on it and nothing is explained or improved by it. Which is another way of saying it isn't real I suspect.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
Salyavin, I'm simply exploring this experience. Yes, our senses demonstrate the straightness of stick. We can touch it. We can lift it out of the water. We can understand how water and light work to create the optical illusion. But we still won't see the stick in the water as straight. For some reason, this boggles my mind. Which is a fun thing for me! On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:39 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: But it's the senses that reveal that the stick isn't bent, you just have to know a bit more about what you are looking at. Please demonstrate that there is a transcendental field hidden from view. It sounds like a belief to me as no matter how hard we look it isn't like a bent stick is it? It appears ineffable, nothing depends on it and nothing is explained or improved by it. Which is another way of saying it isn't real I suspect.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
Hi Share, that was directed at Willytex, I should have quoted from his post. This stupid system is no fun to use, no wonder Yahoo shares are dropping!
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
Salyavin, that's ok and I agree Neo is a mess. It's just wonderful to have you back posting again. On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:59 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Hi Share, that was directed at Willytex, I should have quoted from his post. This stupid system is no fun to use, no wonder Yahoo shares are dropping!
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
Salyavin, a tip that Feste discovered: Type your message, and when you're through, before you send it, click on the three dots in the lower left-hand corner of the Reply window. Then what you're responding to will show up when you make your post. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Hi Share, that was directed at Willytex, I should have quoted from his post. This stupid system is no fun to use, no wonder Yahoo shares are dropping!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Salyavin, a tip that Feste discovered: Type your message, and when you're through, before you send it, click on the three dots in the lower left-hand corner of the Reply window. Then what you're responding to will show up when you make your post. I find it easier to click on the reply to this message in the box first and see the previous post which you can then respond to including interspersing comments with the last person's post. I don't usually type anything until I am sure I can see what I am responding to. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Hi Share, that was directed at Willytex, I should have quoted from his post. This stupid system is no fun to use, no wonder Yahoo shares are dropping!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
You can also see what you're responding to in the message box above the Reply box, which may be sufficient if you're top-posting in response. But you should still click the three dots in the Reply box to make sure what you're responding to is quoted--if you don't, it won't be. I'm trying to stick with top-posting because otherwise the whole post, including what I've written, is hidden underneath the Show message history notation, and folks may not bother to click the notation to reveal the post, even just to see what it's about. The way things are set up is just insanely stupid for a forum in which conversational exchanges are actually going on--or trying to go on. Salyavin, a tip that Feste discovered: Type your message, and when you're through, before you send it, click on the three dots in the lower left-hand corner of the Reply window. Then what you're responding to will show up when you make your post. I find it easier to click on the reply to this message in the box first and see the previous post which you can then respond to including interspersing comments with the last person's post. I don't usually type anything until I am sure I can see what I am responding to. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Hi Share, that was directed at Willytex, I should have quoted from his post. This stupid system is no fun to use, no wonder Yahoo shares are dropping!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
P.S.: Even if you top-post and click the three dots to make sure what you're responding to is quoted, the quotes may still be hidden under the Show message history notation. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're visible without having to click the notation; I haven't figured out what makes the difference. You can also see what you're responding to in the message box above the Reply box, which may be sufficient if you're top-posting in response. But you should still click the three dots in the Reply box to make sure what you're responding to is quoted--if you don't, it won't be. I'm trying to stick with top-posting because otherwise the whole post, including what I've written, is hidden underneath the Show message history notation, and folks may not bother to click the notation to reveal the post, even just to see what it's about. The way things are set up is just insanely stupid for a forum in which conversational exchanges are actually going on--or trying to go on. Salyavin, a tip that Feste discovered: Type your message, and when you're through, before you send it, click on the three dots in the lower left-hand corner of the Reply window. Then what you're responding to will show up when you make your post. I find it easier to click on the reply to this message in the box first and see the previous post which you can then respond to including interspersing comments with the last person's post. I don't usually type anything until I am sure I can see what I am responding to. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Hi Share, that was directed at Willytex, I should have quoted from his post. This stupid system is no fun to use, no wonder Yahoo shares are dropping!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
It works! that should make life a bit easier. Cheers! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: P.S.: Even if you top-post and click the three dots to make sure what you're responding to is quoted, the quotes may still be hidden under the Show message history notation. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're visible without having to click the notation; I haven't figured out what makes the difference. You can also see what you're responding to in the message box above the Reply box, which may be sufficient if you're top-posting in response. But you should still click the three dots in the Reply box to make sure what you're responding to is quoted--if you don't, it won't be. I'm trying to stick with top-posting because otherwise the whole post, including what I've written, is hidden underneath the Show message history notation, and folks may not bother to click the notation to reveal the post, even just to see what it's about. The way things are set up is just insanely stupid for a forum in which conversational exchanges are actually going on--or trying to go on. Salyavin, a tip that Feste discovered: Type your message, and when you're through, before you send it, click on the three dots in the lower left-hand corner of the Reply window. Then what you're responding to will show up when you make your post. I find it easier to click on the reply to this message in the box first and see the previous post which you can then respond to including interspersing comments with the last person's post. I don't usually type anything until I am sure I can see what I am responding to. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Hi Share, that was directed at Willytex, I should have quoted from his post. This stupid system is no fun to use, no wonder Yahoo shares are dropping!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
Question of the day: how do you know you exist? I typed this.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
What is the I? On 01/27/2014 09:38 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Question of the day: how do you know you exist? I typed this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Are You Sure You Exist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: Question of the day: how do you know you exist? My Descartesian answer: I post obvious trollbait, and some people are so stupid and so attached as to get their hot buttons pushed by it and feel that they have to reply. :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Are You Sure You Exist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Question of the day: how do you know you exist? I typed this. Typed what? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Are You Sure You Exist?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: Question of the day: how do you know you exist? My Descartesian answer: I post obvious trollbait, and some people are so stupid and so attached as to get their hot buttons pushed by it and feel that they have to reply. :-) :-) :-) Now here is a man with a real direction in his life. Sit by the computer and decide how to post really important and thoughtful things on the internet. You're a real catch Bawyy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are You Sure You Exist?
On 1/27/2014 12:58 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: */My Descartesian answer: I post obvious trollbait, and some people are so stupid and so attached as to get their hot buttons pushed by it and feel that they have to reply. :-) :-) :-) /* So, you just had to reply. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are You Sure You Exist?
On 1/27/2014 1:58 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: */Now here is a man with a real direction in his life. Sit by the computer and decide how to post really important and thoughtful things on the internet. You're a real catch Bawyy./* You caught Barry again, good work Ann!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
Re Question of the day: how do you know you exist?: This is elementary. I know I exist. That is only thing of which I am *absolutely* certain. What I can't be certain of is that *you* exist. In an act of condescension on my part I am prepared to accept that you *probably* do exist - at least as phenomena appearing within my consciousness. I am presently witnessing messages appearing on my laptop that purport to come from an entity called Bhairitu. But all I can know of Bhairitu is a sequence of typed sentences on my screen. There is no awareness in Bhairitu I can access. All the awareness I am ever conscious of is my very own - Seraphita's - awareness. And that awareness - that consciousness - is the only sentience I will *ever* have direct cognizance of in the universe I inhabit - the universe that is centred on me. I can embrace a lover and exchange the most tender, the most intimate sentiments, but the bald fact remains that my consciousness is the only consciousness I will ever know. To allocate awareness to Bhairitu or to a lover is always an act of projection of my own consciousness. I am trapped in my own universe with me as the centre. But is this a solipsistic nightmare? No, because Bhairitu's awareness is not a something *behind* his appearance - his face - (as everyone assumes) it exists in *front* of his appearance and is identical with my own awareness of him - or my lover or anyone else. Because our awareness is the One Self being aware of itself behind a multitude of apparent separate identities. This is Advaita-Vedanta 101.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Are You Sure You Exist?
Well, there is existence, at least there seems to be. It is a question of whether there is any ownership involved. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re Question of the day: how do you know you exist?: This is elementary. I know I exist. That is only thing of which I am *absolutely* certain. What I can't be certain of is that *you* exist. In an act of condescension on my part I am prepared to accept that you *probably* do exist - at least as phenomena appearing within my consciousness. I am presently witnessing messages appearing on my laptop that purport to come from an entity called Bhairitu. But all I can know of Bhairitu is a sequence of typed sentences on my screen. There is no awareness in Bhairitu I can access. All the awareness I am ever conscious of is my very own - Seraphita's - awareness. And that awareness - that consciousness - is the only sentience I will *ever* have direct cognizance of in the universe I inhabit - the universe that is centred on me. I can embrace a lover and exchange the most tender, the most intimate sentiments, but the bald fact remains that my consciousness is the only consciousness I will ever know. To allocate awareness to Bhairitu or to a lover is always an act of projection of my own consciousness. I am trapped in my own universe with me as the centre. But is this a solipsistic nightmare? No, because Bhairitu's awareness is not a something *behind* his appearance - his face - (as everyone assumes) it exists in *front* of his appearance and is identical with my own awareness of him - or my lover or anyone else. Because our awareness is the One Self being aware of itself behind a multitude of apparent separate identities. This is Advaita-Vedanta 101.
