Why Physicalism is Wrong

[Arising_uk]

Why you continue to use these high sounding concepts to answer a simple question..who knows what is true or false?

Because I'm on a bloody Philosophy forum and would expect anyone who wishes to spout off on one would at least understand the basics of the one thing that Philosophy can call its own, Logic.
Having said that I'd also appreciate if you would stop butchering the English language but I doubt that'll happen any time soon so in answer to your question it'll be any thinking being that understands either logic and accepts a method of testing evidence that something is true or false, basically, is it a fact or not. Now in logic there are the tautologies, statements or propositions that can only ever be true and the contradictions that can only ever be false, then there are the contingencies which are basically assertions about the world, i.e. statements asserting something is a fact or not and the best way we have found so far to answer such things is through providing evidence so others can test for themselves if they find it true or false. So the question is really 'How do we know what is true or false?' and the who, in our case, is these thinking primates.

You answer ''logic'' knows...great, not really the answer though is it...it is known that the concept ''logic'' is known...now we are nearly there, dig deeper, and tell us ...who knows the known concept?

The thinking primate who comes up with a method of proving the evidence so others can test and agree themselves.

[Arising_uk]

Hey listen, you've already had a swipe at me about copying other peoples ideas and passing them off as my own. And now look at you. You are basically asking me to do what you previously had disliked ..in that you accused me of copying my ideas from other people. …

LMFAO! Track back through our posts and note who threw the first parrot and other beauties like 'conditioned minds'.

Just so you know, I have never copied any other persons ideas. I may read and listen to other peoples ideas, but when it comes to my nondual mind, there is no way another persons ideas will alter what only I know to be real and what is true about my reality....I don't care about what other peoples ideas about reality are..only mine, only I know my reality, no one else, unless someone elses ideas about reality matches my own ideas, I'm really not interested. …

Which is why you shouldn't be on a philosophy forum as what you have is essentially 'faith' not knowledge. You are one of those who thinks because you believe something it is true but beliefs are not necessarily true about the world despite what you think.

I was naturally born with the nondual knowledge, it's my own knowledge,why on earth would I take on some other knowledge that is not my own? I wouldn't be living true to myself then would I ?

Even tho' it could be false?

My parents stuck a label on me at my birth and that's when the search for truth all started for me, I had to deconstruct what I instinctively knew to be a false identity that did not ever feel natural for me. …

I really don't care about the psychological issues that led you to your beliefs. You are here on a Philosophy forum making ontological metaphysical statements and all I'm doing is questioning them, its called Philosophy.

Stop accusing others of copying and parroting other peoples ideas, when we are all born into a world that encourages it....I mean where have you got all your ideas from regarding philosophy and the things you know in life? It's stupid to say parroting others is not our own knowledge..of course it is, there is only knowledge and no one owns it. …

Says those who haven't created any. But I take your point and agree with it, that is why I have only ever asked you what methods or techniques have you actually used to have this 'empty mind' or 'nondual' experience? As if you can't tell me I can only assume you are just repeating what you have read and not tested it for yourself.

You have frowned upon me for parroting, but fail to see that it's what we all do all the time.

I apologise, it was mean of me to throw your parrot back but point out that you threw it first and often accuse others of being indoctrinated, conditioned, et al just because they disagree with what you claim.

Answer this honestly and truthfully...who told you.. who or what you are? ....who told you anything? hasn't all your knowledge come from others?

Not quite, of course I agree that ideas, knowledge and information is passed, but then one can apply methods and techniques to test that knowledge for oneself, its called learning, Logic being one of the great tools to help reasoning about things, also from that process of learning from others one can build something slightly newer or even brand new so new knowledge is created and passed.

If you know something that has not come from others...then where did you get that knowing knowledge from that you only know?
And if it's just your knowledge, then where are you getting it from? …

Like I say, I take your point but what you are describing is the process of how knowledge is created by these thinking primates.

Do you now see the dilemma about the idea of copyright, and how it's just another big fat lie that you have believed in, fallen for hook line and sinker?

I see no dilemma in copyright(I might disagree with patents) as all it is is acknowledging anothers creative output. It's why in the study of Philosophy, or any academic study really, you have to use quotes when using others words and acknowledge one's sources, this lazy idea that anyone's elses thoughts or ideas can be plagiarised willy nilly will in the long-run, I think, cause a decrease in creative output as what's the point is some numbnut can just claim it as their own with no effort?

[Dontaskme]

Why you continue to use these high sounding concepts to answer a simple question..who knows what is true or false?

so in answer to your question it'll be any thinking being that understands either logic and accepts a method of testing evidence that something is true or false, basically, is it a fact or not.

So in other words, what you are impliying is that it is ''a thought'' that knows what is true or false? fact or fiction? ''Thought'' is the knower ...is that correct? Is that conclusion classed as being logical insomuch as ''a thought'' gets to have overall authority when deciding what is true or false, fact or fiction?

Now in logic there are the tautologies, statements or propositions that can only ever be true and the contradictions that can only ever be false, then there are the contingencies which are basically assertions about the world, i.e. statements asserting something is a fact or not and the best way we have found so far to answer such things is through providing evidence so others can test for themselves if they find it true or false. So the question is really 'How do we know what is true or false?' and the who, in our case, is these thinking primates.

You mean ''thought'' knows ? ..see above.

You answer ''logic'' knows...great, not really the answer though is it...it is known that the concept ''logic'' is known...now we are nearly there, dig deeper, and tell us ...who knows the known concept?

The thinking primate who comes up with a method of proving the evidence so others can test and agree themselves.

If what's true or false, fact or fiction can be proved by the evidence itself ...then where is that evidence coming from ? and why would there be a need to agree with that which has already been presented as proved evidence? ...that doesn't make sense ...what if no agreement comes. ..does that still make any presented proved evidence to be true or false? ..or is the idea of what is true or false, fact or fiction just a ''thought''? ..aka knowledge known, concepts known?

So back to the drawing board? ....who ultimately knows known concepts? who knows each and every ''thought'' ?



.

[Dontaskme]

Hey listen, you've already had a swipe at me about copying other peoples ideas and passing them off as my own. And now look at you. You are basically asking me to do what you previously had disliked ..in that you accused me of copying my ideas from other people. …

Track back through our posts and note who threw the first parrot and other beauties like 'conditioned minds'.

Oh that's right, lets play the blame game now, I throw the ball and you catch it, and throw it back to me.

So what's wrong with that, that's what I've been saying happens we have no ideas of our own so we take on the ideas of others. No one is working hard to think for themselves, all ideas are freely available ...having a good memory dictates someones capacity to be knowledable or not. This is not intelligence, just so you know, it's about being able to rememeber what's already known to all of us.


So who was the very first knower? ..or are we all just parroting what we already know?

Just so you know, I have never copied any other persons ideas. I may read and listen to other peoples ideas, but when it comes to my nondual mind, there is no way another persons ideas will alter what only I know to be real and what is true about my reality....I don't care about what other peoples ideas about reality are..only mine, only I know my reality, no one else, unless someone elses ideas about reality matches my own ideas, I'm really not interested. …

Which is why you shouldn't be on a philosophy forum as what you have is essentially 'faith' not knowledge. You are one of those who thinks because you believe something it is true but beliefs are not necessarily true about the world despite what you think.

People who search for answers they already have within them, coming to a philosophy forum for those answers is bacically looking to find answers in other people...something you detest since you believe we have to work hard at finding the answers through our own efforts...so please make up your mind what it is to be....also, if we seek the answer from another, then we are literally taking on another persons idea ...isn't that being lazy?

do you even know what you are talking about when you use the word ''faith''....are we not all taking knowledge on ''faith'' ...afterall, knowledge is all we got to go by is it not?

Of course knowledge is going to be taken of faith...or belief or whatever....this is the easy part...the hard part is knowing who the knower of knowledge is...or do you just take the knower of knowledge on faith alone?.....do you see a dilemma here?

I was naturally born with the nondual knowledge, it's my own knowledge,why on earth would I take on some other knowledge that is not my own? I wouldn't be living true to myself then would I ?

Even tho' it could be false?

But how would you know that? ..unless you personally have the truth which would contradict your projected false accusation at me, and if you have the truth, then where are you getting it from? ..do you see the dilemma here?

My parents stuck a label on me at my birth and that's when the search for truth all started for me, I had to deconstruct what I instinctively knew to be a false identity that did not ever feel natural for me. …

I really don't care about the psychological issues that led you to your beliefs. You are here on a Philosophy forum making ontological metaphysical statements and all I'm doing is questioning them, its called Philosophy.

And all I'm doing is answering your questions with more questions and maybe some final answers,on a philosophy forum too. SO WHAT?

''psychological issues that led you to your beliefs'' ...what beliefs? ...the ones you believe i have when you have no way of proving them?
I don't believe in anything other than my own intuitive knowing which is not a belief, rather I come from a place of clarity, thank you very much.

Is it your belief not mine, that someone has to have a psychological issue just because they choose not to think like every one else?
Who told you to believe such nonsense? ...you come across as very desperate to prove a pointless point, and I am trying to show that to you, but are you willing to look at it?

Stop accusing others of copying and parroting other peoples ideas, when we are all born into a world that encourages it....I mean where have you got all your ideas from regarding philosophy and the things you know in life? It's stupid to say parroting others is not our own knowledge..of course it is, there is only knowledge and no one owns it. …

Says those who haven't created any. But I take your point and agree with it, that is why I have only ever asked you what methods or techniques have you actually used to have this 'empty mind' or 'nondual' experience?

I've already given you the answer to this question in this discussion here right now that we are having. Do you not read my responses to you? obviously you are not paying much attention to them...the answer I have already given.

As if you can't tell me I can only assume you are just repeating what you have read and not tested it for yourself.

Already personally tested and presented in a response given, are you not paying attention?

You have frowned upon me for parroting, but fail to see that it's what we all do all the time.

I apologise, it was mean of me to throw your parrot back but point out that you threw it first and often accuse others of being indoctrinated, conditioned, et al just because they disagree with what you claim.

I have never once asked for anyone to agree with my claims. You are being hysterical and inchorent as usual, projecting your beliefs at me that are not mine. As soon as we take on the belief of another, that is what I call conditioning, but you are too small minded to see that is what I have been saying, you spend your entire time twisting this conversation around to fit your own model of reality which is not mine and never will be, so stop projecting it at me as if it is. You really do not listen to the words I write here do you?

Answer this honestly and truthfully...who told you.. who or what you are? ....who told you anything? hasn't all your knowledge come from others?

Not quite, of course I agree that ideas, knowledge and information is passed, but then one can apply methods and techniques to test that knowledge for oneself, its called learning, Logic being one of the great tools to help reasoning about things, also from that process of learning from others one can build something slightly newer or even brand new so new knowledge is created and passed.

Yes, and that's called passing the ball game, it takes two to tango. Without knowledge what the heck am I, and who the heck am I to know anything unless knowledge informs me. For I am nothing without knowledge.

Knowledge is known, that's the easy part, but what and who knows knowledge?

If you know something that has not come from others...then where did you get that knowing knowledge from that you only know?
And if it's just your knowledge, then where are you getting it from? …

Like I say, I take your point but what you are describing is the process of how knowledge is created by these thinking primates.

What is the process, and how does it evolve to become something real and tangible, fact rather than fiction...please explain?

Do you now see the dilemma about the idea of copyright, and how it's just another big fat lie that you have believed in, fallen for hook line and sinker?

I see no dilemma in copyright(I might disagree with patents) as all it is is acknowledging anothers creative output. It's why in the study of Philosophy, or any academic study really, you have to use quotes when using others words and acknowledge one's sources, this lazy idea that anyone's elses thoughts or ideas can be plagiarised willy nilly will in the long-run, I think, cause a decrease in creative output as what's the point is some numbnut can just claim it as their own with no effort?

Anyone can make up knowledge you numbnut, it's called imagination..but can anyone make up the knower?

That's not for you to know is is?...everything else is just a fancyful wishful thought...faith at best.

.

[Atla]

You didn't read it correctly, there are Phenomena, the rest is metaphysics.

That's more or less correct but already a distortion as I explained.

Kant's point was exactly about our 'conceptual boxes' and what reason can and cannot say about 'reality'.

You don't understand. He was basically right but he and others didn't realize just how deep these issues really go. So we ended up with a shallow understanding anyway. We didn't reach critical depth. Now Western philosophy is preoccupied with trying to solve the insoluble problems it automatically generates, without realizing the deeper issues that were already present long before Kant.

A clear application of a conceptual box surely?

No, that was a nondual metaphor. We are it / tat tvam asi is a common expression but I guess I should somehow make it more clear when I switch to the other metaparadigm. Because it will be misinterpreted "dualistically".

Well Western Philosophy is definitely a dead-end to those who wish to make-up metaphysical ontological explanations for 'reality' nowadays and the reason is that from Philosophy came the Natural Philosophers who had a better method for explaining how things work. But logic, reasoning and critical analysis are never bad tools to have even though they also seem out of fashion nowadays, so I think Philosophy will still muddle along into the future.

By-the-by, you didn't say what eastern 'philosophies' you were talking about nor how modern science(whatever this is?) can confirm anything when we ourselves cannot accurately perceive the world?

I'm talking about the common nondual "essence" found in Buddhism, Advaita, Tao. 70-80% of Eastern philosophy is also complete nonsense but at least some of them got the metaparadigm right, we Westerners didn't.

And of course you haven't kept up with modern science. But even if you had, you probably wouldn't have grasped some of the findings. Look I'm done with this forum I won't elaborate.

I must admit it really bugs me to listen to people from the west claim western civilization(I presume that's what you mean) was and is fundamentally wrong about everything when it has actually changed the whole history of everything compared to the thousands of years that went before it. It also annoys me that they make this claim without bothering to actually read any western philosophy.

Changed a lot but we still have a fundamentally wrong view of existence since the Greeks. We don't even know who or what we are.

Kant's point was exactly that one cannot go 'outside'.

As I said Kant and others only addressed a part of the problem, didn't realize some of the deeper consequences.

If you are saying that accepting your metaphysic leads to some kind of psychological solution to something then fine but to claim your metaphysic as fact is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

As things stand right now, my metaphysics IS fact. 100% of what we know about the world supports the nondual view of reality as opposed to the Western dualistic thinking. And it's the simpler view, in other words Western philosophy is making random sh*t up. Get used to the thought.

I won't comment anymore in the topic.

[surreptitious57]

Although it seems the opposite is also true who knows that all things are being things

Being is a state of existence and as all things exist they are by definition being things

You have avoided answering the who or the what knows

Anyone or anything that can understand the concept that all things are being things

[surreptitious57]

are we not all taking knowledge on faith ... after all knowledge is all we got to go by

Of course knowledge is going to be taken on faith ... or belief or whatever ... this is the easy part ... the hard
part is knowing who the knower of knowledge is ... or do you just take the knower of knowledge on faith alone

Any knowledge claim can be tested so it does not have to be [ and indeed should not ] be taken on faith as it could be false
Is there actually a knower of knowledge and if there is then should that claim not be tested like any other knowledge claim

[Dontaskme]

You have avoided answering the who or the what knows

Anyone or anything that can understand the concept that all things are being things

And who / what is that one?

It's not a 'thing' is it?

A 'thing' doesn't know does it?

.

[Dontaskme]

are we not all taking knowledge on faith ... after all knowledge is all we got to go by

Of course knowledge is going to be taken on faith ... or belief or whatever ... this is the easy part ... the hard
part is knowing who the knower of knowledge is ... or do you just take the knower of knowledge on faith alone

Any knowledge claim can be tested so it does not have to be [ and indeed should not ] be taken on faith as it could be false

How is the knowledge claimer tested?
It's no good just saying it without knowing what you are saying, ..lets be honest with each other, explain what you mean?

Is there actually a knower of knowledge and if there is then should that claim not be tested like any other knowledge claim

That's what I'm asking you, if there is a knowledge claimer, how is that knowledge claimer tested? ..and who is going to test it?

.

[surreptitious57]

I dont actually think there is a knowledge claimer as there is no evidence for one
There are however knowledge claims that can be tested by potential falsification

[Dontaskme]

I dont actually think there is a knowledge claimer as there is no evidence for one
There are however knowledge claims that can be tested by potential falsification

Any knowledge claim would require a claimer...and as there is no evidence for one....any testing would be inconclusive.

.

[surreptitious57]

Any knowledge claim would require a claimer ... and as there is no evidence for one ... any testing would be inconclusive

Human beings are the ones who can and indeed do test all types of knowledge claims all of the time
They can also do this without being enlightened which is something for which there is zero evidence
It could of course be true but without any actual evidence it cannot simply be accepted as being so

[Dontaskme]

Any knowledge claim would require a claimer ... and as there is no evidence for one ... any testing would be inconclusive

Human beings are the ones who can and indeed do test all types of knowledge claims all of the time
They can also do this without being enlightened which is something for which there is zero evidence
It could of course be true but without any actual evidence it cannot simply be accepted as being so

Consciousness is doing the testing, not humans, the human is a concept known by consciousness, the human body is the conceptual action figure the vehicle for consciousness / mind. It's the machine the spirit energy uses to experience life in all it's glory. There is no consciousness in the body vehicle machine action figure that is known as a human. The human is but an instrument used by spirit energy which animates the instrument into action.

But you don't have to believe any of this, this is just my opinion how I intuit consciousness and matter.
You can of course believe what ever suits you...no one is right or wrong, because here there is only an informational field) picked up by the instrument brain...projecting that info into a moving picture show of colour and sound...no thing is doing this, so no one to be right or wrong, there's just what's happening to no thing, by no thing.

And although it may seem like things can be tested by consciousness (in a dream mindscape kind of way)....consciousness itself cannot be tested because it's not a thing.

And like I keep repeating ..no one becomes enlightened. You have your own ideas surreptitious57 and you are going to stick to them like glue, and I have mine, so unless we both can 100% agree with each others ideas, which we don't, we will just keep going on and on and on around in circles getting nowhere.


.

[surreptitious57]

It is not really a question of us agreeing with each other but of me trying to understand you
For I am just a mind trying to understand other minds and why they think they way they do

[Dontaskme]

It is not really a question of us agreeing with each other but of me trying to understand you
For I am just a mind trying to understand other minds and why they think they way they do

Okay...but note there is only one mind..and within that one mind, many minds are but temporal appearances of it.

I understand you, but you say you are trying to understand me..so be it...the mind games will continue.

.