Bill, O for God's sakes Bill. It doesn't make Santa Claus real, it makes the approach real...
Edgar On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > Using the 'carrot and stick' approach with children by telling them if > they're good Santa Claus will bring them presents Christmas Eve but if > they're bad they'll get none (or it used to be a lump of coal). > > That's usually a useful and effective approach. Does that make Santa Claus > real? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > "Useful and effective" are good criteria for knowing something IS real... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > The explanation you gave below is a good example of pluralistic thinking. > > > You have explained the act perception using pluralistic logical concepts > > > which includes dividing the world up into many separate and distinct > > > parts. This is what human intellect does. Discrimination is it's job. I > > > have no argument with these any more than I have an argument with the > > > many rules of chess...as long as you don't form attachments to them by > > > believing they are real - useful and effective, maybe; but not real. > > > > > > Experience on the other hand is real. It is monistic which means there is > > > no discrimination, no divisions, no logical concepts; just pure awareness > > > - not consciousness which is pluralistic, but awareness which is monistic. > > > > > > You ended your comment below with "You can't just make things up that are > > > contrary to the way biology actually works...". What's ironic about that > > > statement is biology is not how things 'actually work'. Biology is an > > > explanation (and usually a temporary one) of how scientist think things > > > 'really work'. It's actually science and scientists who 'make up things' > > > using discrimination and logic to describe what they perceive; and they > > > call that 'how things really work' - that is until someone else comes > > > along and develops a better logical model. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > >> > > >> Bill, > > >> > > >> That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw > > >> sensory experience which occurs separately in each different sense > > >> organ. There is considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and > > >> motion are preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic > > >> lobes, 3rd the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the > > >> context of one's internal model of reality. > > >> > > >> You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology > > >> actually works... > > >> > > >> Edgar > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: > > >> > > >>> Edgar, > > >>> > > >>> What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only > > >>> from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction > > >>> between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there > > >>> is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated > > >>> into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. > > >>> It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism > > >>> there is just experience - Just THIS! > > >>> > > >>> It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like > > >>> eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't > > >>> produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being > > >>> blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for > > >>> vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are > > >>> sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not > > >>> have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. > > >>> > > >>> ...Bill! > > >>> > > >>> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs > > >>>> glasses, or a blind person? > > >>>> > > >>>> Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? > > >>>> > > >>>> Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? > > >>>> > > >>>> Edgar > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Edgar, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon > > >>>>> eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we > > >>>>> call senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience > > >>>>> and would have no awareness. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> There would be nothing. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ...Bill! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Panda, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? > > >>>>>> With or without corneas? With or without eyes? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of > > >>>>>> 'things'.... > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Edgar > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Are you wearing glasses right now? > > >>>>>>> Can you see the frames in your periphery? > > >>>>>>> Did you see them before I asked? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > >
