Most Logical After Death Scenario

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Leyla Shen wrote: Your difficulties with language and Nietzsche's powers of discernment when it comes to self-consciousness have nothing to do with me, I'm afraid.
You once said this.
Oh? Is "I don't know" true in all possible worlds?
The same logic is applied here.

Who is this 'I'? What is the absolute truth?
I don't know.
Oh? Who doesn't know? Is "I don't know" true in all possible worlds?

Are we both having difficulties with language?
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by ardy »

Glostik said: "I think experience is the only thing that solves what really is, an experience of thought, an experience of philosophy, an experience of emotion or of logic. What is there besides experience?"

Experience proves nothing and takes us nowhere. If it did half the world would be enlightened. It is turning your back on everything you hold dear and abandoning yourself to "I don't know" that MIGHT take you somewhere. If you had the experience of reading all the sutras, the Bible, the Koran in fact all books of relevance in this area - where would it take you? Nowhere.

To die the death of the ego, and be re-born as a true person of no discrimination with no experiences to hold on to, including the experience of enlightenment. Where are you now? and what of your experiences?

Don't know is the answer to just about everything.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Glostik91 wrote:The next thing. haha Cause and effect only pops up again because that's what you think is happening. Its not. Cause and effect doesn't exist. It is logically proven to be a contradiction.
Nothing can be proven without invoking causality at the very least, you silly! But feel free to try it.
Are you saying a meaningful experience is a contradiction? Why can I not have a meaningful experience?
Such experience becomes meaningful in a (hastily build and wheeled through the back-door) framework. On itself you cannot touch its meaning.
What reason is there to the taste of an orange?
The taste on itself is meaningless and in that sense naturally incommunicable. And when you think about it being sweet or bitter, fresh or old, you're not experiencing, you're just comparing with memories and evaluating the hell out of it. Next thing: a shot of heroin through your veins. These "experiences" mean nothing, too many and you even the destroy the little meaning and reason you have left.
All things change. Change is a thing. Therefore change itself must change.
Why would change have to be a thing?
How can change (the constant that can only be eternal) change? haha
Because it's both change and constant. Like Tao, it's no-thing. But that doesn't make it false.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

Glostik91 wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote: Your difficulties with language and Nietzsche's powers of discernment when it comes to self-consciousness have nothing to do with me, I'm afraid.
You once said this.
Oh? Is "I don't know" true in all possible worlds?
The same logic is applied here.

Who is this 'I'? What is the absolute truth?
I don't know.
Oh? Who doesn't know? Is "I don't know" true in all possible worlds?

Are we both having difficulties with language?
No, it's just you.

When RZoo suggested that enlightenment "needs to be clarified", your reply to him was that unless he already knew what enlightenment was he could not possibly know whether or not it needed clarification. How could he possibly judge whether or not Jesus's actions are enlightened without being enlightened himself? Yet, you were keenly aware that this called into question your own capacity for making such a judgment:

"But, how is one to know?"

You could settle the whole thing by answering that question (or any of the following ones) directly.

Why don't you? Is it because you can't explain the reason for your beliefs?

Is it perhaps also because you don't understand what it means when one says self-knowledge is not a prerequisite of reason?
Between Suicides
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Nothing can be proven without invoking causality at the very least, you silly! But feel free to try it.
You sound like a Mormon I know. "Nothing can be proven without invoking God at the very least. But feel free to try."

How does one invoke something that doesn't even exist?
Such experience becomes meaningful in a (hastily build and wheeled through the back-door) framework. On itself you cannot touch its meaning.
Could you explain this further please?
What reason is there to the taste of an orange?
The taste on itself is meaningless and in that sense naturally incommunicable. And when you think about it being sweet or bitter, fresh or old, you're not experiencing, you're just comparing with memories and evaluating the hell out of it. Next thing: a shot of heroin through your veins. These "experiences" mean nothing, too many and you even the destroy the little meaning and reason you have left.
You really think that the taste of an orange is meaningless? This doesn't make sense. It doesn't even make sense to say that anything is meaningful or meaningless. Things just are. Experience just is. Comparing memories and evaluation are experiences. They don't mean nothing. They don't mean anything. These words are all bogus. Just wake up and see that all these ideas are just bogus. All there is is the stuff that's in front of you right now. Experience is all there is. The present moment is all there is. Do you get it?
Why would change have to be a thing?
If change isn't a thing, then what are we even talking about? Why would you try to bring it up if it really isn't anything at all?
Because it's both change and constant. Like Tao, it's no-thing. But that doesn't make it false.
Let's just throw all logic out the door too shall we? I'm both married and a bachelor. Like Tao, its no-thing. But that doesn't make my married bachelorness false.
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

ardy wrote:Glostik said: "I think experience is the only thing that solves what really is, an experience of thought, an experience of philosophy, an experience of emotion or of logic. What is there besides experience?"

Experience proves nothing and takes us nowhere. If it did half the world would be enlightened. It is turning your back on everything you hold dear and abandoning yourself to "I don't know" that MIGHT take you somewhere. If you had the experience of reading all the sutras, the Bible, the Koran in fact all books of relevance in this area - where would it take you? Nowhere.

To die the death of the ego, and be re-born as a true person of no discrimination with no experiences to hold on to, including the experience of enlightenment. Where are you now? and what of your experiences?

Don't know is the answer to just about everything.
Why should experience prove anything? Why go anywhere when there's no where to go?

"I don't know."

Who is it that doesn't know?
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Leyla Shen wrote: No, it's just you.

When RZoo suggested that enlightenment "needs to be clarified", your reply to him was that unless he already knew what enlightenment was he could not possibly know whether or not it needed clarification. How could he possibly judge whether or not Jesus's actions are enlightened without being enlightened himself? Yet, you were keenly aware that this called into question your own capacity for making such a judgment:

"But, how is one to know?"

You could settle the whole thing by answering that question (or any of the following ones) directly.

Why don't you? Is it because you can't explain the reason for your beliefs?

Is it perhaps also because you don't understand what it means when one says self-knowledge is not a prerequisite of reason?
If I say 'I' I must know what I'm referring to, yes? Is that what you are asking me?
a gutter rat looking at stars
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

Well, no, but what the hell—let's see if we can't peel it back and see what happens in relation to your question, "Who doesn't know"! (Why-oh-why is there so much confusion on what the self is?)

So, when you (me, or anyone else for that matter) says "I" what is being referred to is a discernible continuity of thoughts, feelings and/or experience or a combination thereof.

Okay? Okay.

Now, if I ask you, "What exactly do you think is the wisdom in asserting absolutely that nothing, including causality and the self, exists?" what is your answer?
Between Suicides
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by ardy »

Glostik91 wrote:
ardy wrote:Glostik said: "I think experience is the only thing that solves what really is, an experience of thought, an experience of philosophy, an experience of emotion or of logic. What is there besides experience?"

Experience proves nothing and takes us nowhere. If it did half the world would be enlightened. It is turning your back on everything you hold dear and abandoning yourself to "I don't know" that MIGHT take you somewhere. If you had the experience of reading all the sutras, the Bible, the Koran in fact all books of relevance in this area - where would it take you? Nowhere.

To die the death of the ego, and be re-born as a true person of no discrimination with no experiences to hold on to, including the experience of enlightenment. Where are you now? and what of your experiences?

Don't know is the answer to just about everything.
Why should experience prove anything? Why go anywhere when there's no where to go?

"I don't know."

Who is it that doesn't know?
Glostik you are being silly. You should know that if you knew the answer to that question, there would be no more questions to ask. You need to do more work and less reading and writing.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Glostik91 wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Nothing can be proven without invoking causality at the very least, you silly! But feel free to try it.
You sound like a Mormon I know. "Nothing can be proven without invoking God at the very least. But feel free to try."
Religion often functions more blatantly from a metaphysical principle, that's true. The problem is not as much delusion but dilution and confusion. Although one could say a little diluted truth can be worse than a wholesale lie.
How does one invoke something that doesn't even exist?
Your question exists, but not as single experience, your question exists because you ask it inside a context. This is why some would say the answer lies in the question, which is not an answer but an attempt to turn the attention to the subject and the context first. To realize where and why you're asking it. Sometimes it helps with answering it.
Such experience becomes meaningful in a (hastily build and wheeled through the back-door) framework. On itself you cannot touch its meaning.
Could you explain this further please?
You mean you need some more context to access any potential meaning? To see if it might be "real" to you in any way? Otherwise it will remain some random words.
It doesn't even make sense to say that anything is meaningful or meaningless. Things just are. Experience just is.
And therefore it might just as well not be. Since they are beyond meaning and meaningless, to say they "are" is meaningless. Perhaps they might be. Perhaps it's a dream or illusion. Perhaps a lie shot straight into your vein. It just "is" you say. If only you're happy?
Comparing memories and evaluation are experiences. They don't mean nothing. They don't mean anything. These words are all bogus. Just wake up and see that all these ideas are just bogus. All there is is the stuff that's in front of you right now.
All your evaluations and comparisons are not right in front of you right now. It takes a little bit more attention to realize that. What is left to be there has in itself no reality of and in itself. You give one thing reality and another not. Wisdom prefers to know and understand this.
If change isn't a thing, then what are we even talking about? Why would you try to bring it up if it really isn't anything at all?
Because this is a forum dedicated to discussion of "the nature of ultimate reality"? At least, the tag-line on top of every page claims it.
Let's just throw all logic out the door too shall we? I'm both married and a bachelor. Like Tao, its no-thing. But that doesn't make my married bachelorness false.
If you'd claim to be the Tao itself then you would indeed be both married and bachelor, a giant and a dwarf, the universe and a speck of dust, truth and lie. Like you'd say something like "I am the Totality of Matter". Since you aren't obviously and demonstratively, that claim would be false.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

Glostik91 wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
You can't debunk causality.
I can prove causality contradicts itself.

For something to exist it must be caused.
Causality is itself uncaused.
Therefore causality doesn't exist.
I'm going to restate the same argument a little differently:

If something exists (X), it is caused (Y)
Causality is not caused (Y is false)
Therefore, causality does not exist (X is false)

Now, if we accept this as a sound argument, does it mean that causality isn't real since it doesn't exist as an immediate something and that there is no possibility of any thing or things existing other than that and/or those which exist immediately?
Between Suicides
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Leyla Shen wrote:Well, no, but what the hell—let's see if we can't peel it back and see what happens in relation to your question, "Who doesn't know"! (Why-oh-why is there so much confusion on what the self is?)

So, when you (me, or anyone else for that matter) says "I" what is being referred to is a discernible continuity of thoughts, feelings and/or experience or a combination thereof.

Okay? Okay.
Have you ever happened to find yourself saying, I have feelings, I have thoughts, I have experiences? Who has the thoughts, feelings, experiences?
What exactly do [the thoughts, feelings, experiences] think is the wisdom in asserting absolutely that nothing, including causality and the self, exists?
Did I ever assert the self doesn't exist? I believe I have proven causality doesn't exist.

What wisdom is there in logically proving that causality doesn't exist? What is wisdom without logic?
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

ardy wrote: Glostik you are being silly. You should know that if you knew the answer to that question, there would be no more questions to ask. You need to do more work and less reading and writing.
haha And what makes you think I am the silly one?
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Religion often functions more blatantly from a metaphysical principle, that's true. The problem is not as much delusion but dilution and confusion. Although one could say a little diluted truth can be worse than a wholesale lie.
I'm afraid you'll have to explain further what the difference is between delusion and confusion.
Your question exists, but not as single experience, your question exists because you ask it inside a context. This is why some would say the answer lies in the question, which is not an answer but an attempt to turn the attention to the subject and the context first. To realize where and why you're asking it. Sometimes it helps with answering it.
You're assuming cause and effect exists, and thus you say my question is being asked inside the context of cause and effect. How ironic that cause and effect can't even assume itself.
You mean you need some more context to access any potential meaning? To see if it might be "real" to you in any way? Otherwise it will remain some random words.
I mean I need more facts in order to understand its implication.
And therefore it might just as well not be. Since they are beyond meaning and meaningless, to say they "are" is meaningless. Perhaps they might be. Perhaps it's a dream or illusion. Perhaps a lie shot straight into your vein. It just "is" you say. If only you're happy?
This is the limitation of language. I say 'things just are', but this doesn't necessarily refer to what I want to get across.

Here is a question that may help. How many toes does a philosopher have?
All your evaluations and comparisons are not right in front of you right now. It takes a little bit more attention to realize that. What is left to be there has in itself no reality of and in itself. You give one thing reality and another not. Wisdom prefers to know and understand this.
Another limitation of language. 'Right in front of you right now' is to say that it is in the present moment. It is the present experience. And the present experience is all there is. Does this make more sense at all?

Here is another question. Why is it more natural for people to think that the sun goes round the earth?
Because this is a forum dedicated to discussion of "the nature of ultimate reality"? At least, the tag-line on top of every page claims it.
If that's the case then I won't need to be forgiven if I invoke other non-existent things while we're at it. Please, let's all pay homage to the the married bachelor. Oh how I love his nondiscriminatory nature. Literally a feminist wet dream.
If you'd claim to be the Tao itself then you would indeed be both married and bachelor, a giant and a dwarf, the universe and a speck of dust, truth and lie. Like you'd say something like "I am the Totality of Matter". Since you aren't obviously and demonstratively, that claim would be false.
And now we see the reason why those old sages said the Tao that can be understood is not the real Tao. Obviously we are not Tao. Obviously we are not caused.

I think we're supposed to be that other thing. Te
a gutter rat looking at stars
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

Have you ever happened to find yourself saying, I have feelings, I have thoughts, I have experiences?
Probably, and if I have, I'd still have be referring to a discernible continuity of thoughts, etc.
Who has the thoughts, feelings, experiences?
I do, you do, Barnaby and Mary, too. What is your point, and why not just state it outright?
I believe I have proven causality doesn't exist.
You've presented a simple argument, beyond which you are refusing to go. Do you know why?
What wisdom is there in logically proving that causality doesn't exist?
You couldn't assimilate the question without re-asking it?
What is wisdom without logic?
Logic is the foundation of both reason and wisdom, but a single logical argument isn't. Now, are you sufficiently reasonable or wise to answer the question you're avoiding:
[..]does it mean that causality isn't real since it doesn't exist as an immediate something and that there is no possibility of any thing or things existing other than that and/or those which exist immediately?
Between Suicides
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by ardy »

Glostik91 wrote:
ardy wrote: Glostik you are being silly. You should know that if you knew the answer to that question, there would be no more questions to ask. You need to do more work and less reading and writing.
haha And what makes you think I am the silly one?
Because you seem to not understand the basic structure of what you are talking about.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

And now for your further consideration, here's another restatement with some minor variations:

If something exists (X), then causality is caused (Y)
Causality is not caused (Y is false)
Therefore, something does not exist (X is false)
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

I mean, you know, you could really get some wisdom with this.

For example:

If unicorns exist (X), then causality is caused (Y)
Causality is not caused (Y is false)
Therefore, unicorns do not exist (X is false)

OR

If all things exist (X), then causality is caused (Y)
Causality is not caused (Y is false)
Therefore, all things do not exist (X is false)

See what I mean? Not only is it true that no thing exists, but that unicorns don't exist because causality is uncaused!

Wow. I never knew that before.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Glostik91 wrote:
Your question exists, but not as single experience, your question exists because you ask it inside a context. This is why some would say the answer lies in the question, which is not an answer but an attempt to turn the attention to the subject and the context first. To realize where and why you're asking it. Sometimes it helps with answering it.
You're assuming cause and effect exists, and thus you say my question is being asked inside the context of cause and effect. How ironic that cause and effect can't even assume itself.
It was not even about cause and effect specifically. Your question only had meaning inside a context, like any action or word you might utter. Once you remove the context a puzzle arises or perhaps some "void". But feel free to experiment with it until you die - or understand!
'Right in front of you right now' is to say that it is in the present moment. It is the present experience. And the present experience is all there is. Does this make more sense at all?
Of course I understand what you say. But there's really nothing in any "present". You only made sense in the past, forming the past. Some people relive exactly the moment of five years ago. Why does it matter if it's 5 milliseconds or 5 years ago? For a computer 5 milliseconds would seem like an eternity. Whatever you sense is being interpreted by the whole of your past experience anyway. Most of our attention appears to lie in the most recent past but that shouldn't confuse you. It's a side-effect of having our attention focused there more often - probably because it's more relevant in most situations.
Here is another question. Why is it more natural for people to think that the sun goes round the earth?
Because their conception of the sun is indeed moving around their concept of earth. One day perhaps our concepts will see it differently yet again.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Probably, and if I have, I'd still have be referring to a discernible continuity of thoughts, etc.

I do, you do, Barnaby and Mary, too. What is your point, and why not just state it outright?
When you said, "I have thoughts" what were you suggesting has the thoughts?

I know you said 'I', but what is that?
You've presented a simple argument, beyond which you are refusing to go. Do you know why?
Because it is pure logic. Would you rather have me stage a complex word labyrinth for you?
[..]does it mean that causality isn't real since it doesn't exist as an immediate something and that there is no possibility of any thing or things existing other than that and/or those which exist immediately?
Causality isn't real because there is no need for it.

Tell me why is it natural for people to think that causality is logical?
Last edited by Glostik91 on Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

ardy wrote:
Glostik91 wrote:
ardy wrote: Glostik you are being silly. You should know that if you knew the answer to that question, there would be no more questions to ask. You need to do more work and less reading and writing.
haha And what makes you think I am the silly one?
Because you seem to not understand the basic structure of what you are talking about.
You seem to know what you're talking about by how boldly you exclaim 'I don't know.' Tell me who is this 'I' that doesn't know?
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Leyla Shen wrote:And now for your further consideration, here's another restatement with some minor variations:

If something exists (X), then causality is caused (Y)
Causality is not caused (Y is false)
Therefore, something does not exist (X is false)

If unicorns exist (X), then causality is caused (Y)
Causality is not caused (Y is false)
Therefore, unicorns do not exist (X is false)

OR

If all things exist (X), then causality is caused (Y)
Causality is not caused (Y is false)
Therefore, all things do not exist (X is false)
You've really outdone yourself. I mean you really did a good job of debunking causality. By this its clear causality is a silly notion altogether.
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It was not even about cause and effect specifically. Your question only had meaning inside a context, like any action or word you might utter. Once you remove the context a puzzle arises or perhaps some "void". But feel free to experiment with it until you die - or understand!
My question was, 'how does one invoke something that doesn't even exist?' I assumed you were going to say something to the affect of one doesn't invoke a nonexistent thing but rather one invokes the idea of it within the mind. Is this what you're saying?
Of course I understand what you say. But there's really nothing in any "present". You only made sense in the past, forming the past. Some people relive exactly the moment of five years ago. Why does it matter if it's 5 milliseconds or 5 years ago? For a computer 5 milliseconds would seem like an eternity. Whatever you sense is being interpreted by the whole of your past experience anyway. Most of our attention appears to lie in the most recent past but that shouldn't confuse you. It's a side-effect of having our attention focused there more often - probably because it's more relevant in most situations.
Are you really saying that the present is nonsense because only the past makes sense? Even though I think this is a weak argument, it really isn't even relevant to what I'm trying to communicate. Forget about past, present, or any of these terms.

The reason why I asked you 'how many toes does a philosopher have' is because I wanted to show you that its a bogus question. A philosopher can have no toes, and a philosopher can have 1 million toes. The question is dumb. Likewise the question, 'where in time do things really happen?' or 'how is it that causality is uncaused?' or 'what is the meaning of life?' are all bogus questions. They are all dumb questions, and one who asks them in expectation of a solution is diseased. There are no philosophical/metaphysical/epistemological problems.

Why is it more natural for people to think that the sun goes round the earth?
Because it looks like that is the case.
What would it look like if it were the other way around?

Why is it more natural for people to think that cause and effect exists?
Because it looks like that is the case.
What would it look like if cause and effect didn't exist?
It wouldn't look any different at all.

Causality is logically proven to not exist, but it is insane to think that causality solves anything philosophical in the first place. Its logical proof of non-existence shouldn't bother anyone because its not supposed to be a philosophical solution to anything. Experience is it. That's all there is. If you're really looking for a philosophical solution that is also logically sound then I'm sorry, but you're never going to find it. You're just going to end up like Leyla and proclaim that nothing exists. By the way, how ironic is it that she's saying 'nothing exists', as if nothing can really exist somehow.

btw I'm a little drunk as I type this so don't school me on my grammar.
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Cahoot »

Define further "the reality of who you are."
The real you is not a little drunk. ;)

The little drunk will die.
Does the real you die?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

Glostik91 wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:And now for your further consideration, here's another restatement with some minor variations:

If something exists (X), then causality is caused (Y)
Causality is not caused (Y is false)
Therefore, something does not exist (X is false)

If unicorns exist (X), then causality is caused (Y)
Causality is not caused (Y is false)
Therefore, unicorns do not exist (X is false)

OR

If all things exist (X), then causality is caused (Y)
Causality is not caused (Y is false)
Therefore, all things do not exist (X is false)
You've really outdone yourself. I mean you really did a good job of debunking causality.
What a surprise it is to me that you are impressed.
By this its clear causality is a silly notion altogether.
Clearly!
You're just going to end up like Leyla and proclaim that nothing exists.
Actually, I demonstrated nothing exists/no things exist in the same way you demonstrated that causality doesn't exist. How on earth could you have a problem with it?
Causality isn't real because there is no need for it.
Oh. So humans didn't calculate and experiment how to get to the moon, hunt for food, build bridges, etc, on the basis of causality because there's "no need for it"; and causality has nothing to do with any decision you make (like jump out of the way of a bus if it's brought to your attention) because there's "no need" for it?
Tell me why is it natural for people to think that causality is logical?
Clearly, only some people comprehend the logic of causality, even though all people otherwise act in accordance with it.
Between Suicides
Locked