To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

[chikoka]

Hi seekerofwisdom

If you were to take your philosophy seriously (i.e. really beleived it) then , as others have mentioned, you must beleive that the rest of us are also just appearances, so this appearance (me) is asking why you bother?

You've also left a huge gap between \a/ stating that all we can ever experience are appearances , to,\b/ proving that only appearances exist.

To put a spin to this :

How can you have an appearance without having something appearing and a subject (who is the target of the appearing).

The definition of appearance itself guarantees the above statement , From which i take that even dreams are objectively real like other appearances.
I take from your statement , that" everything is a dream", that dreams are real. You seem to want to demote "awake" reality to that of "asleep" reality.
I say the argument for the inverse , where "asleep" reality is promoted to the status of "awake" reality (their both objective) has equaly strong arguments.

Could you give us your reason why "everything is objectively real" is not to be favoured over "everything is a dream".The former is at least self consistent,
This is philo 101 at these type of forums, but the question is just begging to be asked ; is the statement "every thing is subjective" also subjective...then i say "then for some subjects its false ...etc..etc."

Are you familiar with truthmaking theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthmaker

In the Australian tradition (David Armstrong esp) , the world is a collection of "states of affairs"
or tractarian facts and a statement such as "everything is a dream" would then have to be one if such was true objectively.
The last part is more on showing that some statements may qualify as fundamental (objective) exist-ants than in arguing for or against what you say.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You've asked to hear it..

Things are as real as they ever were, try to equate awake and asleep however you like, the point is they both exist only as experiences of the mind. The objects we see are empty appearances as they arise in consciousness and exist only so far as they are seen/experienced.

You know everything you see/do is going on within your own mind, some make the deluded assumption that those experiences of the mind resemble some kind of external reality independent of the mind from which the experiences are derived. This assumption exists only as a conceptualization or false imagination. The only thing ever known is consciousness and mental formations...pretty simple stuff as you said.

Just so you know exactly what I mean... you know when your sleeping but then you see stuff? Those things exist as much as all the other things you see awake.
Not sure if I could make it any clearer, and there isn't really a way to prove this besides maybe wakefulness/non-attached observation on your part.

[chikoka]

So the rest of us are just meaningless appearances of yours?

objects we see are empty appearances as they arise in consciousness and exist only so far as they are seen/experienced.

[Pincho Paxton]

You've asked to hear it..

Things are as real as they ever were, try to equate awake and asleep however you like, the point is they both exist only as experiences of the mind. The objects we see are empty appearances as they arise in consciousness and exist only so far as they are seen/experienced.

You know everything you see/do is going on within your own mind, some make the deluded assumption that those experiences of the mind resemble some kind of external reality independent of the mind from which the experiences are derived. This assumption exists only as a conceptualization or false imagination. The only thing ever known is consciousness and mental formations...pretty simple stuff as you said.

Just so you know exactly what I mean... you know when your sleeping but then you see stuff? Those things exist as much as all the other things you see awake.
Not sure if I could make it any clearer, and there isn't really a way to prove this besides maybe wakefulness/non-attached observation on your part.

There is an easy way to prove it to be honest. You use the word 'mind', so you accept that we have a mind. So you therefore accept the reality that dreams happen in a mind. If dreams happen in a mind, and the mind exists, reality exists. The mind would have to exist in reality. You could not dream of the mind, dreaming of the mind, that would be a paradox. You could dream that you are a computer dreaming that you have a mind, but you always end up with some sort of mind that exists in reality. The mind would have to be made from particles, so you end up with holes, and fillers, and the delusion still ends up with holes, and fillers.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

We already made an agreement pincho...

[Pincho Paxton]

We already made an agreement pincho...

No we didn't, that was a dream.

[chikoka]

We already made an agreement pincho...

pincho was spot on.

Where is the mind?
when does it exist?
What is it made off?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Read your three questions again.

[Pincho Paxton]

Read your three questions again.

The thread title is "To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?". I don't feel that you are attempting to weed out your delusions. You are attempting to deny your delusions on reality by sending questions back to answers. That's to hide reality in a paradox. In other words, if you can confuse yourself, and others into giving up, then you win the argument.

"They gave up, I won!"

That is the delusional win, win. Not to answer questions, and to answer questions with answers, and to answer questions with a Paradox.

That is to say "You cannot prove there is no God so if science cannot prove there is no God then God can exist."

A paradoxical win by delusion.

"You cannot prove this is not a dream, so in my mind the dream is the reality."

But you used the word 'mind' and so the delusion was broken. You make mistakes that break your delusion. If you had not used the word mind, you would have had a stronger delusion.

But you are trying to oppose the thread title. You can weed out delusion if the deluded party can understand what a paradox is. A lot of people do not recognise their own paradox.

[Tomas]

Read your three questions again.

The thread title is "To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?". I don't feel that you are attempting to weed out your delusions. You are attempting to deny your delusions on reality by sending questions back to answers. That's to hide reality in a paradox. In other words, if you can confuse yourself, and others into giving up, then you win the argument.

"They gave up, I won!"

That is the delusional win, win. Not to answer questions, and to answer questions with answers, and to answer questions with a Paradox.

That is to say "You cannot prove there is no God so if science cannot prove there is no God then God can exist."

A paradoxical win by delusion.

"You cannot prove this is not a dream, so in my mind the dream is the reality."

But you used the word 'mind' and so the delusion was broken. You make mistakes that break your delusion. If you had not used the word mind, you would have had a stronger delusion.

But you are trying to oppose the thread title. You can weed out delusion if the deluded party can understand what a paradox is. A lot of people do not recognise their own paradox.

Very good, Pincho.
A lot of people do not recognize their own paradox.

[Dennis Mahar]

and the delusion still ends up with holes, and fillers.

Reality must be seamless, undivided.

the imputation here is holes have self-nature and fillers have self-nature which isn't possible because if they had that property they couldn't interact,
the process would be a serial flow of holes clunking against fillers.

is hole a cessation
is filler an arising

I think what seeker is trying to say is that observing holes/fillers depends on observer (mind)
that holes/fillers and mind depend for existence, arising together,
and whatever depends for existence does not exist from its own side,
rather,
ultimately,
is an event of the nature imaginary.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Pincho I wasn't refusing to answer anybody but you, because, whether it is a dream or not, I repeated I didn't want to discuss with you, we are not on the same page, I'm not in agreement with your whole "everything is made of particles so it must be like this" view...you simply don't know what you are talking about. Which is why my next question is directed at Dennis, what are you doing? How could you commit to wasting so much time?

And chikoka I said re-read the questions because they started with "where" "what" and "when" asking about the location, substance, and time of the mind, very silly questions.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho I wasn't ignoring anybody but you and chikoka had to re-read his questions because they started with "where" "what" and "when" asking about the location, substance, and time of the mind, very silly questions.

If you'd really like me to answer I'd say that for where, the mind is here, for what, that it is the mind, and the when is right now. Are those correct?

I guess I should mention that your whole holes and fillers view is the reason I'm ignoring you, because you are talking about reality from the average "Everything is made of particles so it must be like this" kind of view.

Not recognizing that the very word "particle" or "matter" are referring to objects of consciousness...classic noob view, it will take you a minimum of one year to recognize the noobity of such views then a minimum of another year to come to terms with reality, some people are never able to do it.

Also, I have absolutely zero delusions about the nature of ultimate reality because I have nothing I know to be wrong about... besides one fact of course... which is that all experience is of consciousness and all experience makes up all known experience.

Particles reference to thoughts. When you think, you send particles into holes. That is to remove delusion. Electricity, and Frankenstein Monster, to build a thinking man from lightning, because electricity makes a frogs legs move. Particles moving legs, and you having thoughts are very much alike.

[Dennis Mahar]

How could you commit to wasting so much time?

waste and not-waste
identity and difference.

duality.

keep in mind.
if both are empty,
they are identical in lacking self-nature therefore neither are ultimately real.
waste and not-waste depend for their existence on you, as a commentator, asserting what is wasteful and what is not wasteful.
(thanks, I don't need a parent)

non-duality.

Paradox:

A waste is a waste because there is no waste and that is why there is a waste.

The concept 'waste' applies conventionally and can't be found ultimately.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

lol so what, you know what I mean, how could you be bothered... it is like going out into the wild to pick a machine animal that runs around in circles to save it when there are millions.

A better example is like going out into the wild to save a lifeless leaf.

[Dennis Mahar]

OK Dad, can I have 200 bucks and the car keys.

if you insist on parenting me, it means I get stuff.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

What do I get then? Btw Dennis you should play da ghames. What do you think?

[Dennis Mahar]

What do I get then?

-200 and a bent fender.

Btw Dennis you should play da ghames. What do you think?

what does that mean?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Da games. What do you think? Some of the most interesting manifestations you'll find, fun and easy to do from home with a pc... I'm only mentioning it because I was playing some hectic online medieval warfare yesterday.

[Tomas]

Da games. What do you think? Some of the most interesting manifestations you'll find, fun and easy to do from home with a pc... I'm only mentioning it because I was playing some hectic online medieval warfare yesterday.

You gotta understand Dennis. You are conversing with a cradle to grave war-gamer.
Some or most of these people are incapable of growing up.
Nineteen and still playing games thought up by someone else.

[Cahoot]

Nineteen and still playing games thought up by someone else.

Internal question: Are you playing games thought up by someone else? Great constructive enquiry for any stage of life. Thanks Thomas.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You have some issues Tomas, something like a grudge or anger, not really sure. It is very clear tho seeing as you are only posting to taunt me, the beneath you guy.

[Tomas]

Nineteen and still playing games thought up by someone else.

Internal question: Are you playing games thought up by someone else? Great constructive enquiry for any stage of life. Thanks Thomas.

There is no h in my name.
BTW - It is 'inquiry' not enquiry. You've been reading too many rags at the checkout line.
Thanks, Hootie ;-)

I'll give some thought to your question.

[Tomas]

You have some issues Tomas, something like a grudge or anger, not really sure. It is very clear tho seeing as you are only posting to taunt me, the beneath you guy.

It's neither. Taunt? Really, you are a young pup. You still haven't responded to Diebert's inquiry as to whether you've been here before with a different name.
Get with the program slick.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

When is it Diebert asked me that? I made an account ages ago used it for a little, stopped using it for ages, forgot password, made a new account, you can check the posts if you like and you will see that the account did not make a single post since seekerofwisdom started, not to mention I thought this was obvious to anyone I spoke to seeing as I said my full name both times plus I was talking about the exact same thing to the same people.

You get with the program and stop following the young pup around, when was the last time you were actually posting about anything else besides commenting solely to pester people?