Why only Objectivism works

[swivel]

In response to a book-review-gone-mad, I would like to move the philosophical argument of subjectivism and objectivism out of that thread and into this one.

Nihilism and Subjectivism have long been used to grant the superstitious the right to say zany things and pretend that these fantasies possess the same credibility held by objectivist arguments. Here's why that does not work:

Nihilism states that there is no truth. Except, nihilists STATE THIS AS IF IT IS A TRUTH. Nihilism doesn't even get its own pants on before it falls on its face. It doesn't work, even by its own admission. It is not Internally Consistent. Which means it can be dismissed out of hand. It is 100% false. Anyone who comes from a nihilist standpoint can be ignored as a crackpot (Kant included), and has nothing to offer any discussion. Especially by their OWN ADMISSION.

Subjectivism is similar in content and flaw. It states that no truth can be proven to be more superior than another truth. Which means that subjectivism admits that it is just as correct as Objectivism, but objectivism states that subjectivism is wrong, which means that subjectivism admits that subjectivism is wrong. Since both objectivism and subjectivism agree that subjectivism is wrong, subjectivism MUST be wrong.

Put more simply: Subjectivism also suffers from a lack of internal consistency. It starts off by saying that no truth is better than any other truth, but the school maintains that Subjectivism is BETTER THAN objectivism.


Here's why these schools are popular: They allow idiots and the superstitious (usually one and the same) to pretend that their own stupidity is generalized. They say, "I don't have any answers, which means that YOU must not have any answers as well!" It is the language of crackpots and charlatans. It is to philosophy what abstract is to fine art, it allows the dilettantes, the uneducated, and the untalented to play like the pros. It is a shortcut.

And you can tell that it doesn't work because all nihilists and subjectivists use the language and epistemology of OBJECTIVISM in order to operate. They attempt to prove their stance through reason and logic and get in arguments crying that their stance is inherently superior to the stance of the secular objectivist.

If a nihilist was intellectually honest, a conversation with one would go thusly:

Objectivist: "There is a uniform, objective reality outside of human experience"
Nihilist: "..."

If a subjectivist was intellectually honest, here's how that would go:

Objectivist: "There is a uniform, objective reality outside of human experience"
Subjectivist: "Good point"

[CPL CHUD]

It'd be great to hear what the supporters of subjective philosophy and nihilism think about Swivel's stance. I know the other thread that led to this one had supporters of both.

[swivel]

It'd be great to hear what the supporters of subjective philosophy and nihilism think about Swivel's stance. I know the other thread that led to this one had supporters of both.

Well, the nihilists have chimed in.

Edit: Didn't they?

[CPL CHUD]

Well, the nihilists have chimed in.

Edit: Didn't they?

.................................................. .

[Tobe_Romero]

This thread reeks of logic

:neutral:

[swivel]

This thread reeks of logic

:neutral:

TOBE!

How the hell are you?!!?

(The only reason I made a serious thread was to lure you out of hiding)

[Tobe_Romero]

TOBE!

How the hell are you?!!?

(The only reason I made a serious thread was to lure you out of hiding)

I've been staying busy collecting & citing contemporary uses of the syllogism.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

LMAO! Holy shit, you guys are smart! The way you use those big words and all....

We all read in awe.

[swivel]

LMAO! Holy shit, you guys are smart! The way you use those big words and all....

We all read in awe.

Yeah, what in the hell did he mean by "contemporary"?

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Yeah, what in the hell did he mean by "contemporary"?

Ya know? I...I dont KNOW!!!

[swivel]

Funny how the subjectivists come running every time someone dares to make assertions about the cosmos that they disagree with, but when you call their school of thought out, they refuse to surface.

Morons and cowards.

[I am Legend]

Funny how the subjectivists come running every time someone dares to make assertions about the cosmos that they disagree with, but when you call their school of thought out, they refuse to surface.

Morons and cowards.

ill bite.

first off, lets define nihilism:
Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" does not exist, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action can be preferable to any other.

and, more importantly:
Nihilism is often more of a charge leveled against a particular idea, movement, or group, than it is an actual philosophical position to which someone overtly subscribes. Often this means or is meant to imply that the beliefs of the accuser are more substantial or truthful, whereas the beliefs of the accused are nihilistic, and thereby comparatively amount to nothing (or are simply claimed to be destructively amoralistic).

both from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

so, we can all see that I am not nihilist, and more importantly, we can see that YOU fit that second definition to a T, using it basically as a put-down to try and add validity to your points, which proves everything i have ever said about you.

but im sure you werent talking to me anyway, right...........................
(if i were to add a smiley at the end of that, would it then make my post more PC and less vitriol?)

lets move on to subjectivism:

Subjectivism is a philosophical tenet that accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law. In an extreme form, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends only on someone's subjective awareness of it.

again, from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_subjectivism

and yet again, i dont fall into that group either.

although it is obvious from the previous topic you mentioned in your first post that you are referring to one person in particular, and also that from your last post it would only show more hypocrisy if you cried about being referred to as anything other than a genius, since you basically called anyone who didnt respond to your topic who meets "your" criteria as either nih/subj as a "moron and coward". and yet, i can pull many posts of yours where you cry about me "calling you names" (sounds like 3rd grade to me).

in summary: i am neither. you use the word nihilist primarily to insult anyone who doesnt believe exactly what you believe. the end.

also, i dont think B&T knew exactly what the word meant when she said she was one. maybe i am wrong on that, but i doubt it. either way, if she did and is, then perhaps it is her who should answer this topic, as its obvious that thats who you meant to call a moron and a coward, since she openly admitted to being one.........................


?

[swivel]

Well, since you are just quoting Wikipedia and agreeing with me, I don't see how your promise to "bite" makes any sense. I am calling out Subjectivists and Nihilists and you come along and and say, "I am neither, so THERE!"

Very strange.

[I am Legend]

Well, since you are just quoting Wikipedia and agreeing with me, I don't see how your promise to "bite" makes any sense. I am calling out Subjectivists and Nihilists and you come along and and say, "I am neither, so THERE!"

Very strange.

ill bite, as in, take the bait, not bite as in, your ass.

other than that..........................ive got nothing.:out:

[brokenandtwisted]

Funny how the subjectivists come running every time someone dares to make assertions about the cosmos that they disagree with, but when you call their school of thought out, they refuse to surface.

Morons and cowards.

No dear. It's more of this:

It's unimportant.

Objectivism is basically this: "Reality is not dependent on the mind, as a reality exists outside of it."

Subjectivism is basically this: "Reality is dependent on the mind and nothing exists outside of it."

Nihilism is basically this: "There is no meaning or value to existence, everything is meaningless."

Do I see anything wrong with them? Nope...they're schools of thought and they've with-stood time simply because each has its highs and lows and they're worth looking into. I can argue about Hegelianism and Existentialism as well...they're all philosophies I've heard before and I agree with a multitude of them. Agreeance does not mean 'following' in the slightest.

And I find it funny how "Only Objectivism works" when there are dozens upon dozens of others philosophies out there. It's opinionated, so please...don't try and force yours on me. It's not something I want. ;)


i dont think B&T knew exactly what the word meant when she said she was one. maybe i am wrong on that, but i doubt it. either way, if she did and is, then perhaps it is her who should answer this topic, as its obvious that thats who you meant to call a moron and a coward, since she openly admitted to being one.........................

I said I'm extremely nihilistic at times when in such conversations...and I'm 99.9% sure that someone's intellect is not defined by the philosophies they care for.

Perhaps I'm a nihilistic-subjectivist? ;)

[swivel]

ill bite, as in, take the bait, not bite as in, your ass.

other than that..........................ive got nothing.:out:

I know. But the bait was set for the non-Objectivists, and you are admitting to being an objectivist. I think your reading comprehension skills need some work.

And for the record, I never call people that disagree with me "nihilists". If you read this thread (and brush up on those reading comprehension skills), you will note that I don't even think anyone truly IS a nihilist. I think they are unintelligent objectivists disguising their idiocy by pretending that everyone is ignorant.

By beef in this thread are those people that pretend to be nihilists and subjectivists and do so from an objectivist base. This will be the thread that we can direct people to when they pull your usual, lame shenanigans. You know, when people lose a debate, act like immature stoners, and resort to the "nobody knows anything" defense.

When I disagree with people, I point out the absurdity of their position, like your idiotic Alien conspiracy theory. I never call them something that I don't even believe exists. I swear, trying to teach you anything is like working with deaf, autistic paraplegics. Blow into your tube and try to keep up.


Obligatory smiley so that you know I am laughing at how retarded and dumb you are, and not trying to be mean -> :p

[I am Legend]

basically............all insults. nothing there other than that. arent you grown up? i thought you were, anyway...................but hell, ill play along

aside from that...........nothing really to answer to. doesnt bother me that you continualy bring up the fact that i believe in aliens (you dont? seems a bit naive)..............doesnt bother me that you call me names on here (you wouldnt in person).................doesnt bother me that you have a problem with me (welcome to the club)..............doesnt bother me that you think if someone doesnt reply with a post then they have lost said debate (kefka thiks that way also)......................

you live in a world of black and white, mine is gray. some people are extreme white, some are extreme black, and others are somewhere in between, but moreso one than the other. you think your view is the only one that is right. congratz! SO DOES PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE ELSE! :eek: omfng! you actually think you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is no god of any kind whatsoever! alllllrighty then. but lets all massage your ego by debating you, even though you may be the most close-minded person in the debate...............seems like fun to me! like i have said before, debating you is the same as debating a xian fundie.........its fun but it does get old after a bit, and it never really goes anywhere. just you stating a fact (which is more often than not, only your opinion) then calling people who disagree idiots. niiiiiice! your the fucking idiot if you think that goes any further than the tip of my dick. useless.

so try and stay on track here: on topic and not insulting, eh.

the world is not fully subjective nor objective. its both. not in equal parts, but to a small degree, perception IS reality, at least to the one doing the perceiving at a given time. one can believe that and not belong to either one school of thought or another i would say. putting oneself into only one school of thought is limiting oneself. so dont try and say i am objectivist because i am not a subjectivist. that doesnt work for me. im somewhere in between, as i would think most people are.

and now for the obligitory go fuck yourself smiley: :D

[swivel]

just you stating a fact (which is more often than not, only your opinion) then calling people who disagree idiots. niiiiiice! your the fucking idiot if you think that goes any further than the tip of my dick. useless.

You just stated a fact and then called me a fucking idiot. Here's why you are a hypocrite, and I'm not:

1. I have never said there is anything wrong with calling other people an "idiot", especially if it can be demonstrated that they are. I welcome you calling me an idiot whenever you like. Since you are just making a fool of yourself, and providing no reason why I am an idiot, it does you great harm and none to me.

2. You constantly whine about the name-calling, but you stalk me around the forums calling me names. Everyone that knows me (Morbid especially) will tell you that I love calling people names and would call you very bad names right to your face. I don't take myself or other people that seriously, and name-calling is fun.

So: You do the "bad" thing that you accuse me of doing as if you are immune to your own standards.

Meanwhile, I hold you to my own standards, accept the name-calling and dish it out in return.

You are hypocritical baby and you can go fuck yourself. You have never added an ounce to any debate that I have ever seen you in because you are a fucking moron. And that isn't just name-calling, I have shown over and over again perfect examples of you being a hypocrite (once you have proof, it is just stating facts, not spouting insults). And you being a moron just goes without saying. You think that aliens populated Earth. Enough said.

Now, quit crying about how I make you feel dumb all the time and debate the issues. Quit with the lame attempts to show me up by making an ass of yourself. If you really cared about the name-calling you would never engage in it with me. Fucking retard. :rolleyes:

[I am Legend]

You just stated a fact and then called me a fucking idiot. Here's why you are a hypocrite, and I'm not:

1. I have never said there is anything wrong with calling other people an "idiot", especially if it can be demonstrated that they are. I welcome you calling me an idiot whenever you like. Since you are just making a fool of yourself, and providing no reason why I am an idiot, it does you great harm and none to me.

2. You constantly whine about the name-calling, but you stalk me around the forums calling me names. Everyone that knows me (Morbid especially) will tell you that I love calling people names and would call you very bad names right to your face. I don't take myself or other people that seriously, and name-calling is fun.


or you could have said this:


And feel free to start a new thread on ex nihilism and we can continue that old debate, or just drop baseless insults in every post as an immature attack on my character, if you prefer.

so, in actuality, you whine first about name calling, and then later you throw out how its actually your favorite thing and how much you love it? and then the "ill say it to your face too, just ask morbid!" spoken like someone who knows he will never have the chance to actually prove that.

wtf dude? so all that "hypocrisy" you like to throw on others means what coming from you?

also:, i didnt say you were an idiot, i said you were if you believed your shit went any further than the tip of my dick. so that one is on you, eh. did you say "reading comprehension"?

and i never said its bad, i just said you do it yourself, then cry about it. which is true.

furthermore, you are the one who seems to be getting his panties all in a twist. hate to tell ya, but this is more fun for me than you seem to realize.

and, i see how you continually bring up "aliens" to try and get others to join in and say "yeap, he must be an idiot, he thinks we on earth may not be the only lifeforms in the universe!!!."

weak.

and please refrain from saying go fuck yourself to me in the post after i say it to you. i covered this long ago. get your own phrase.

we good now? basically its like this:

we disagree. i think you are full of shit, and vice-versa. so, why would you respond to this post unless you are ghey or something. let it die right here. lord knows i dont wanna get banned or something. its like i said before, you keep it civil and i will, but if you act like a fuckwad so will i.

and by now, we know what this means, eh: :D

[swivel]

Never said we were the only lifeforms in the universe. You seem to operate by making shit up a lot. I guess it makes you feel better?

I never cry about name-calling. I said "if you prefer", meaning I left it up to you. Your reading comprehension skills are for shit.

Do I need to rename this thread "I am Legend feels insecure about his intellect so he stalks swivel with his army of straw men"? Because I don't see you posting anywhere except in response to me, and always with the crying like a little child when I point out how ignorant someone else is. Serioulsy, are you this insecure?

And the last bit of your post just seems like you are begging to have the last word in some sort of marital spat. Yo, dude, you aren't that important. This isn't any skin off either of our backs. Stop obsessing so much and go play on your alien conspiracy theory some more.

Better yet, post somewhere else on the forum. Contribute a tad. Because if you are just on Dreamindemon because I made you look like an ignorant ass on the old forum, then you need professional help.

The objective reality is that you are retarded. Try sucking a lungfull through your nose and see how that feels. :)

[I am Legend]

are you really kiddcappone?

[swivel]

are you really kiddcappone?

Wouldn't you (and morons the world over) say that perception is reality?


And would you like to debate objectivism? Can't we agree that my dick is bigger than yours and do something constructive?

[I am Legend]

you post yours and ill post mine. i bet mine is WAYYYYYYYYYYYY bigger.

and if you had read my posts well, i did give my thoughts on obj/subj like 3 posts ago. i have nothing more to add.

:D

[swivel]

you post yours and ill post mine. i bet mine is WAYYYYYYYYYYYY bigger.

and if you had read my posts well, i did give my thoughts on obj/subj like 3 posts ago. i have nothing more to add.

:D

You assert that Subjectivism is often correct. In what situations does reality bend to the whim of the perceiver?

And quantum theory doesn't work as an example. Our measurements result in the collapse of the wave function, but nobody knows what this means, much less you and I. And regardless, you have no control over what position or velocity the particle represents. It is a statistical model with more precision than any other field of science.

So, tell me, in what situations would a subjective view of reality alter what is actually occurring outside of the sphere of the observer?

[I am Legend]

time would be one example. its almost imperceivable on a small scale, but on greater scales, its easy to notice. the constancy of the speed of light causes what we see to be percieved as different to us depending on our point of reference. in essence, motion affects the passage of time. ala the moving light clock.

although im not sure if this is exactly what we are talking about, and also, its small time in this discussion, only because we should be able to agree that if we did the experiment, there would actually be a light clock, so perception can affect reality somewhat, but there is still a reality that all can agree upon.

but, knowing that the electron has farther to go when the clock is moving changes ones perception of the situation.

but, to just some random person: one light clock stands still, one moves. over the same "timeframe" they read different times, because the electron in the moving clock has further to go.

for someone reading onlya moving clock, they will think time is moving slower, it isnt really. motion only makes them perceive that it is.

another example:
man comes home, sees his wife with another man in the kitchen bent over, he goes off and kills them both. later finds out the stove was broke and the guy was there to fix it. perception for him was different than reality, but to him, reality was infidelity.

[swivel]

time would be one example. its almost imperceivable on a small scale, but on greater scales, its easy to notice. the constancy of the speed of light causes what we see to be percieved as different to us depending on our point of reference. in essence, motion affects the passage of time. ala the moving light clock.

although im not sure if this is exactly what we are talking about, and also, its small time in this discussion, only because we should be able to agree that if we did the experiment, there would actually be a light clock, so perception can affect reality somewhat, but there is still a reality that all can agree upon.

but, knowing that the electron has farther to go when the clock is moving changes ones perception of the situation.

but, to just some random person: one light clock stands still, one moves. over the same "timeframe" they read different times, because the electron in the moving clock has further to go.

for someone reading onlya moving clock, they will think time is moving slower, it isnt really. motion only makes them perceive that it is.

another example:
man comes home, sees his wife with another man in the kitchen bent over, he goes off and kills them both. later finds out the stove was broke and the guy was there to fix it. perception for him was different than reality, but to him, reality was infidelity.

You have a poor understanding of the Theory of Relativity. Einstein showed that the order of events could seem different to two observers, but he also stated that this was not a reflection on reality. There is an objective truth to the nature and ordering of events observed (http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/moon.cfm), but you have to use a third perspective to see this.

The gist is this: The two observers will disagree, because both are wrong. Only with an absolute perspective (usually the perspective of the event that is the subject of the disagreement) can one say what is really taking place, and when.

Your last statement proves my point. There is one objective reality, the man was there to fix the stove. The husband's subjective reality was incorrect, and nothing he could perceive could make it any different than it always was. The FACT that his killing was a MISTAKE disproves your notion of subjectivity. Your example is dripping with Objectivism.

Feel free to try again. It will take hundreds of failed attempts before you learn that subjectivism has no effect on reality. It can only have an effect on the mistakes made by the observer. That is, the only success had by subjectivity is examples of its complete failure as an epistemology, and the further effects of that failure.

[I am Legend]

no, i agree with that. there is an overall truth to it, just that for the observers, its different. but for the observers, it is truth enough for them. overall i agree 100% that they are wrong in the big picture, but that doesnt matter to them when they are seeing what they think they are seeing. so anything after this is semantic BS, since we basically agree that no matter what they think they are seeing, there is an objective truth behind the scenes.

and yeah, on that scale i mentioned, maybe im way more objective than even i realized.

but consider, we havent dealt with aliens and conspiracies yet, so i think i still have some subjective tendencies.
:D

[swivel]

no, i agree with that. there is an overall truth to it, just that for the observers, its different. but for the observers, it is truth enough for them. overall i agree 100% that they are wrong in the big picture, but that doesnt matter to them when they are seeing what they think they are seeing. so anything after this is semantic BS, since we basically agree that no matter what they think they are seeing, there is an objective truth behind the scenes.

and yeah, on that scale i mentioned, maybe im way more objective than even i realized.:D

Wow, that was quicker than normal. Welcome to sanity!

There is no doubt that people's perception of reality is subjective. That is a circular argument, and not a very large circle, at that. The fact that people perceive contains the notion that their perception DEPENDS ON THEM. The question about Subjectivity is whether or not this perception has any effect on reality, which it clearly does not.

Only the dumbest of the dumb think that the tree, when it falls, does not send out a sphere of compressed airwaves. (can we call this "noise" when it is just airwaves, does make some philosophical sense, even if it is a pointless question)



but consider, we havent dealt with aliens and conspiracies yet, so i think i still have some subjective tendencies.

You had taken two steps forward, so why take a step back now?

Believing in conspiracy theories has NOTHING to do with subjectivity. You admit that believing in the aliens doesn't make them real. Earth was either populated by aliens, or arose from natural chemical processes. Our disagreement on which happened doesn't affect the past or reality.

The fact that you believe 9/11 was committed by our government, and Earth was populated by aliens are OBJECTIVE VIEWS on your part. They are wrong, but that is immaterial. No part of you thinks that your beliefs alter reality, or that two mutually-exclusive views can BOTH be correct. And THAT is the nonsense of nihilism and subjectivism.

[alizardsbet]

I’ll bite. I am a subjective nihilist. I can’t defend this argument based on the criteria that I am not allowed to argue from an objectivist stand pt. So I must make irrational claims with no physical evidence other than what you can bring to the table of my personal perceptions. Hmm… that makes it kinda tough. Ok. Don’t people do that every day? And what is to say is rational to make conclusions based on things you yourself do not perceive personally? The only way these realities are warranted as real is because a group of people get together and share their thoughts, thus blending their individual realities together to create a universal one in which they can interact together in. Only by agreeing with our individual perceptions do we achieve a reality we then can agree or disagree about. Has this altered the actual state of being? What qualifies as disrupting, effecting, or influencing said reality? Let’s say those same people that perceive that very same reality were to all disagree with what they experienced, each baring a unique interpretation of the situation how then do we define reality?

[swivel]

I’ll bite. I am a subjective nihilist. I can’t defend this argument based on the criteria that I am not allowed to argue from an objectivist stand pt. So I must make irrational claims with no physical evidence other than what you can bring to the table of my personal perceptions. Hmm… that makes it kinda tough. Ok. Don’t people do that every day? And what is to say is rational to make conclusions based on things you yourself do not perceive personally? The only way these realities are warranted as real is because a group of people get together and share their thoughts, thus blending their individual realities together to create a universal one in which they can interact together in. Only by agreeing with our individual perceptions do we achieve a reality we then can agree or disagree about. Has this altered the actual state of being? What qualifies as disrupting, effecting, or influencing said reality? Let’s say those same people that perceive that very same reality were to all disagree with what they experienced, each baring a unique interpretation of the situation how then do we define reality?

But that is just it, the major problem with subjectivism is its gross anthropocentric nature. The "Nothing is real unless HUMANS are here to witness it". How illogical and disgusting.

The only way humans exist is with an external support mechanism. The evidence leans towards that support mechanism being the universe, which expanded and cooled and coalesced in places to form stars and planets. One of which was wet and warm, and chemistry led to RNA, which led to life, which evolved into us. OR, we are the figments of a dreaming faerie. Any way you cut it, something exists outside of us which led to us. Which means that there was a reality without us. Which means that our perceptions aren't the prime movers of the universe (Thank god!).

The idea that humble, little Homo sapiens control the fabric of the universe due to the inaccuracies of our senses has no evidence going for it, and a ton against. The idea should have been put to rest with the death of Plato.

If 10 people look at a blue, wooden chair, does that chair MEAN the same thing to all 10 people? Of course not. But, since we are not the masters of the universe, how does our perception alter ANY of the features of the chair? It doesn't. Sensory input is a one-way mechanism. Stimuli excite receptors, which transmit along neural pathways to our brain, which puts the stimuli together into an inaccurate picture of the world. Now, by what process do these imperfect sensory mechanisms then REACH OUT and alter the physical reality that has already triggered them? They don't.

The Objective Reality is still sitting there. And just because we have different reactions to that reality says nothing about the fluid nature of reality, it just says something about the individual nature of the people involved. And here is where I have proof for my stance, and you have none for yours: I can prove to you that there are differences in the perceptive abilities of each individual. Their hearing, vision, taste, touch, sense of balance, kinesthetic sense are all to some measurable degree in variance with each other. This would account for the differences in perception.

Repeated, standardized measurements of the chair, using the same sets of calibrated equipment by hundreds of trained scientists will all turn up the exact same properties of the chair every time. With perfect regularity.

So, we know that people change. We can see that external realities are standard. So it is logical to assume that changes in the perception of reality is due to changes in the perceivers, NOT in the thing perceived.

Which means that an external, Objective Reality exists, even if we can only be aware of a portion of it due to our limitations.

[alizardsbet]

Hmm. Interesting.

I do not disagree with the fact that something physical stands outside our bodies, nor our receptors being imperfect. What I think you then are asking for physical proof is then that something physical of that chair change due to my perceiving. Ok, say I perceive this chair, which very obviously I don’t, but at the moment this chair has been thrust into my reality so that I may say I agree with the chair being there or not. Let’s say I do say the chair is there this gives me some subjective power over it by which I perceive. My perceiving it gives me power over the chair. There fore lets say I just don’t like the fact that the chair is blue, so wish the blue away. Well… I can sit there here on my computer and make the chair red in my mind. It’s red, and I really really want it to be red. It’s red! Ok, in my mind it’s now red, I have headache as a result of wishing, however in your mind the chair remains blue. Well if I want to make you see the chair as red well then I have to go through a different medium, I have several different choices. I can hit you on the head where you loose the ability to see red. I can go paint it red. I can extract the chair from its place and substitute in its place a red chair. Perceiving is just the first step here in my reality.

[swivel]

Ah, but to make the chair red, you had to physically interact with it. You had to alter the Objective Reality in order to change my subjective one. Painting it, substituting it, injuring my senses, all of these are modifications to the Objective Reality, which admits defeat.

And while you are wishing for the chair to be red, it is still blue. We could get into the problem of defining these qualia, which would only confuse the matter. The point is, your subjective sense of the outside world has no effect whatsoever on the outside world. The only way your delusions modify reality is if you ACT on those delusions and physically modify reality.

[alizardsbet]

Yes but isn’t that what you asked for when you asked for me to demonstrate in this hypothetical atmosphere how to alter the objective state of mind? I did so. It wasn’t against the rules to use my physical body in order to do so. Without the body there is no sense of reality, there fore it can not exist. Or rather you (relative term) do not exist without the manipulation of the body from the ether state of the mind? In a sense you stand outside reality without a body. If I had denied the chair’s reality all together I would have then had no means to manipulate it. My perceiving it gives me grants me the power to interact with it physically.

What about those people that bend spoons with their minds?

[I am Legend]

good question! now bring forth a spoon bender and lets see it in action...............


































is it ok if i do something else while i wait?

[alizardsbet]

good question! now bring forth a spoon bender and lets see it in action...............


































is it ok if i do something else while i wait?

if you are talking to me...? i have no idea. i only ask questions. i have no answers. i'd like to see that myself. i think its just some gypsie trick but...

[I am Legend]

na, na................just realize that the spoon doesnt really exist...just like the rest of the world.

[alizardsbet]

hey! my world is real and that is all that matters.

[swivel]

What about those people that bend spoons with their minds?

Nobody has ever done that.

[CPL CHUD]

Check out this shite.....

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/11.27.03/spoonbending-0348.html

[swivel]

nZGq3VYMVkQ


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