Philosophy Now Forum

f12hte wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:06 pm

What is consciousness to you?

This much I know - it IS an extension of another 3rd parties awareness.

Funny that people all still want to argue. Determinism says that that can "change" nothing. Did you mean, determinism says that MAN can change nothing? Right. As bizarre as that sounds, that's actually the most important point Determinists hope to make you believe. It means that even man is merely ...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:25 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:22 pm

Do you have any idea of the evil that God has emanated from? Indeed, the evil that is part of its being?

I'm not sure what this has to do with "impermanence"....

I'm not sure you truly under-stand the true nature of God.

If all things are impermanent, then impermanence is not the permanent state of things. One day, things will be permanent, and impermanence will not be the state of things. So the observation of impermanence is, at most, a merely temporary one. Impermanence is temporary. Maximum entropy is permanent...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:02 pm

Funny that people all still want to argue. Determinism says that that can "change" nothing.

Did you mean, determinism says that MAN can change nothing?

Skepdick wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:11 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:23 pm

Discerning the true backbone to the nature of reality.

Given two competing theories as to the 'nature of reality' how do you discern which one is more true?

Only TWO - ??

Static time? Impermanence becoming permanent? It has to happen. At some point, things have to become "not impermanent." Otherwise, "impermanence" is a permanent state. :shock: I'm just suggesting that the claim "Everything is, and always will be, impermanent" is an irrational claim. It literally ca...

If all things are impermanent, then impermanence is not the permanent state of things. One day, things will be permanent, and impermanence will not be the state of things. So the observation of impermanence is, at most, a merely temporary one. Impermanence is temporary. Maximum entropy is permanent...

If all things are impermanent, then impermanence is not the permanent state of things. One day, things will be permanent, and impermanence will not be the state of things. So the observation of impermanence is, at most, a merely temporary one. Static time? Impermanence becoming permanent? - complet...

Why do you need a Sage? For validation? Is he the one who gives you the stamp of approval. Don't think for yourself, make sure you consult with the Sage first! :)) Understand. You are on a philosophy forum. I never stated 'I need a sage.' I simply is learnin from one - for the past 21 yrs in fact. ...

Skepdick wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:12 pm

wtf wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:37 am

The more we dumb down education, the meaner society gets.

The universe has a harsh way with ignorance and folly, and why should I be kinder than the universe? --Mike Alder

I think wtf is being an oracle - by way of averaging out of society.

Skepdick wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:54 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:28 pm

how scientific are you?

I am as "scientific" as the error rate and utility of the models I construct.

The more errors I can detect/correct in my own thinking - the more "scientific" I become.

The goal is to be less wrong, not more right.

Fuck off oxy.

You're still not getting it. The physical does not know. Being is not physical nor is it a thing. Being has no shape, size, color or any limiting qualities whatsoever. It is infinite and eternal. It can partition itself into an infinite amount of subdivisions yet those subdivisions are the total su...

Hiroshi Satow wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:38 am

It may be safe to say that, in some cases, paradoxically, imperfection makes an object the more beautiful and remarkable than perfection does.

Does that mean, we, as the observer are imperfect?

Skepdick wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:38 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:36 am

The point being made here... is that which knows the nature of life is not physical.

Does it being (or not being) physical detract from its knowing?

...and if (not being), what is the point in it knowing, since it is immaterial, it cannot affect matter, ergo has no bearing on life.