Obviously, IF any thing is experiencing, then there is NO non-existence. Surely this is NOT that hard to understand.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:40 pmOk, so you are necessarily claiming that what you are experiencing now IS existence. Naturally - this is an axiomatic, not an empirical claim.
I have a million counter-hypotheses for you. What you are experiencing right now is NOT existence.
Penal coolony Matrix style.
Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?
Well, I don't know. You seem to be conflating experiencing with existing.
If they are the same thing then why do you need two different words to say the same thing?
If there is SOME thing, then that is existence.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:51 pmLook! You are talking about definitions againsurreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:48 pm Imaginary existence is not the same as non existence
Non existence by definition is the absence of everything including imagining what you think may be real
Non existence has no time or space or property or dimension to it at all and so it cannot possibly be real
I don't care about defining/labeling things. Things are what they are.
I am simply asking you the question. IF you claim that you are able to tell the difference between "existence" and "non-existence"
Then convince me why this is not "non-existence".
Explain the difference.
If there is NO thing, then that is non-existence.
There is some thing.
Therefore, there is existence.
The difference between 'existence' and 'non-existence' is OBVIOUS.
If "you" are experiencing SOME thing, then that is existence.
If there is NO thing to experience, then that is non-existence.
If there is NO thing, then there is NOTHING, to experience.
"you" are some thing, therefore what "you" experience IS existence.
Now, imagine NOTHING at all, that is non-existence.
Is the DIFFERENCE obvious NOW?
If there is an 'I', then there is existence.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:03 pmYour explanation is insufficient.
You cannot offer an experiment such that we can DETERMINE whether we are in the existning or non-existing universe.
There is an 'I', therefore there is existence.
OBVIOUSLY, NOTHING is in non-existence.
There can NOT be a thing in a so called "non-existing Universe".
If an 'I' exists, then that is the ONLY experiment NEEDED to VERIFY an existing Universe, OBVIOUSLY.
The "bar" has already been met.
What can NOT be verified and proven is YOUR own BELIEFS.
YES I agree that both X is real and Y is logical ARE both meaningless, worthless, and useless frameworks OF thought.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:07 pmI can't for the life of me fathom a context, or a practical scenario in which you would ever want to exchange the fact "the universe exists" with me.
Or "X is real".
Or "Y is logical"
Perhaps as a futile attempt at convincing me to sway to your way of thinking....
But none of those are testable/verifiable/falsifiable claims. They are just frameworks for thought.
Nonsense! The universe can exist with or without an I.
let me show you. I am giving up my identity and the universe remains standing!!!
The one known as Logik has given up selfhood and no longer recognizes the "I".
Logik is still observing that the universe is standing.
So it seems pretty clear that the universe is not dependent on the I.
The I is coincidental, not incidental.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: It's just language.
THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT EXIST. A giant wad of candyfloss exists!
You can SAY whatever the hell you want and nothing happens.
WHEN, and IF, people STOP saying I have beliefs and accusing me of this, OR provide some actual EVIDENCE that I do have a belief, then I will STOP repeating myself.
Maybe first try to find the one that is meant to have a belief - what exactly is this thing called “Age” that has (no) beliefs?
Yes WHEN, and IF, "they" work this out. THEN, "they" will comprehend and understand what I am saying. And more so WHY I am say it.
It is correct that a 'body' can NOT have beliefs. But just as true is there can be beliefs within a human body.
No. It is that SIMPLE.
No. On a few accounts.
The Owner/Knower of "thought", which obviously can and DOES control "thought" is NOT a "you". It is thee one and only 'I'.
Thoughts, themselves, are, literally, the thinking/NOT knowing "one", sometimes referred to as "you (and/or) people".
Yes there is and individual self entity, self labelled, "age" but, in the scheme of things, this is NO entity really. it is nothing more than a collection of gathered "thoughts" which thinks it knows what is true, right, and correct. This "no" entity, labelled "age", is NOT worth listening to. In fact "it" is nothing that has ever been worthy of ever being heard. This "no" entity really does NOT deserve to be listened to at all.
BUT, what does deserve to be LISTENED TO and HEARD is the True Self that is WITHIN EVERY thing. This Self WILL TELL "you" what is actually and really True, and Right, and Correct.
If any one Truly WANTS to SEE and UNDERSTAND the True and whole big picture of Life/Everything, then just keep asking clarifying questions, from a Truly OPEN, non-assuming, non-judgmental, and non-believing perspective, then ALL can and WILL be revealed.
The full and whole True Picture of ALL-THERE-IS can be SHOWN and ILLUSTRATED, thus SEEN, literally, through correctly defined words.
If controlling what other people say about you is the hill you want to die on - so be it.
You have beliefs. And there is nothing you can do to make me stop saying it.
I think that the readers are indeed SEEING straight past your bullshit.Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:07 am
To any rational reader the evidence is clear.
Any evidence I provide - Age will it reject as non-evidence.
And that's evidence that Age doesn't care about evidence.
Age only cares about that which he wants to hear.
Age is seeking validation for his BELIEFS.
NO. I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY THING.
IF THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE, then that is just FINE with me.
NO. I do NOT have any beliefs.
ALL of the evidence I NEEDED is in YOUR words, and is NOW in the posts that I WROTE, which by the way that EVIDENCE I wrote, you have ONCE AGAIN completely omitted from YOUR post here
The readers can inform me if what I wrote was sufficient enough evidence or NOT.
Now, in case you MISSED what I actually wrote, which you do have a very strong tendency to do, I will provide it for you, and SHOW it again.
I asked you if you could SEE a contradiction in writing that 'Everything one says is wrong', and, 'That that statement is '100% certain'?
Instead of providing the yes or no answer, which was all that was required, you preferred to INSIST that those two statements are NOT a contradiction.
Now, this would have to imply that 'Everything "logik" says could be RIGHT' but 'Everything "others" say is WRONG'.
You then insisted that this is WRONG, and stated that 'Everything logik says is wrong' ALSO, which then helps in explaining WHY "logik" keeps missing things that I say, and keeps INSISTING on obviously VERY contradictory things also when unintentional lies being told and said are pointed out.
To me the OBVIOUS IRONY of stating: 'Everything you say IS wrong' and 'I am 100% certain of that', clearly SHOWS that the one that said that subconsciously and/or even unconsciously BELIEVES that they can say things with absolute certainty and BE RIGHT but "EVERYTHING" what others say IS WRONG.
I say you do and that's that.
Yes you do. And there is nothing you can say or do to convince me otherwise.
Clearly this is the hill you want to die on
I don't believe any such thing. That is your belief.Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:28 am To me the OBVIOUS IRONY of stating: 'Everything you say IS wrong' and 'I am 100% certain of that', clearly SHOWS that the one that said that subconsciously and/or even unconsciously BELIEVES that they can say things with absolute certainty and BE RIGHT but "EVERYTHING" what others say IS WRONG.
Just to make it CLEAR that is NOT what I am doing here.
They are NOT the same thing at all. Never have been, as far as I am aware. You really do NEED to STOP making assumptions, and writing them down as though they are somehow real and the Truth of things. Continually doing this has obviously NOT helped you at all.
YES I agree that I "SEEM" to be doing some thing, from your perspective. BUT that does NOT mean that I am actually doing that thing at all. Just because some thing APPEARS within that body, that does NOT mean that that APPEARANCE is the real and actual Truth of things.
I NEVER conflated 'experiencing' with 'existing' at all.
If this is what you THINK is happening, then why did you NOT just ask for clarification FIRST. Before you went down some off beaten track of ASSUMPTIONS that was leading absolutely NO WHERE other than a completely WRONG conclusion?
If you would LIKE TO read what I wrote again, and then ASK some clarifying questions, then GREAT. Maybe you WILL find fault in what I wrote that way, because you are NOT doing it the way you have been going now. If, however, you do NOT want to read what I write more thoroughly and then ask clarifying questions, then so be it. But you WILL just have to accept that what APPEARED to YOU is completely and utterly false and NOT at all real.
If you WANT to PROVE me WRONG or INCORRECT anywhere, then you will need a bit more than just; "You SEEM to be ...".
Perfect! Then if experience and existence are NOT the same thing, then surely you can experience non-existence.
I don't want to prove you wrong. We have already established that you are wrong. As am I.