Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice  You are mistaken. Disproving something is proving something (that the thing is untrue). It is not possible to prove (or disprove) anything. If you are as logical as you say, surely this logic is clear to you. |
Incorrect. In disproving something we do not prove it untrue, we only show the hypothesis as invalid or the truth is not yet attained.
And I don't remember saying how logical I am, just that logic and reason are two things I strive for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice The reason for this lies in the illusion of causality - the belief that one event or condition in the universe causes another. Causality does not exist. Merely the illusion, the appearance of causality exists. Quantum physicists are venturing into this territory. Even your peer-reviewed journals contain much that is amazing. For example, at the quantum level particles are not seen to move, but are seen to disappear from one location and appear in another. |
Causality does not exist? I beg to differ. Did these words not appear on this forum as a direct
effect of my typing them? I
caused them to be here.
My peer-reviewed journals? What? When did I claim them?
And at the "quantum level", we are only yet fit to deal with electron clouds, as the movement of individual electrons is still not fully understood. They likely do not "disappear" and "reappear" but rather move faster than our capabilites can process. That's why we have theories, not laws governing this.
Where did this come from anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice Proof/disproof relies on causality, and as such is itself an illusion. Another way of saying this is the universe is free. Like the Big Bang, First Cause will never be found by looking into the past, but by looking at the Now. Time is an illusion. The only time or moment that exists is Now. As such, causality is an illusion.
(I am not attempting to prove that to you with what I said. I was merely explaining it.) |
As I stated before, causality clearly exists, and to deny it is utterly ridiculous. Do something for me, press the power button on your monitor and see if it turns off. Now, what caused that? Was it your finger pushing the button, or the illusion of your finger? If your finger is an illusion, than you are not a material being, and if this is the case, how did you manage to invade the internet?
Your arguments are not based on anything but abstract thought, and as a result do not hold water (real water that is, not imaginary water, of which I'm sure they hold plenty). To debate in circles like this is inane and juvenile, as in the end, if I just claim "you'll never understand" or "you have not experienced it so how could you know?" I do nothing for my cause. If you are in complete denial of causality, so be it, but to claim that it does not exist to people who can CLEARLY SEE THAT IT DOES (as every action has a reaction - from tying a shoelace to typing words to eating) is preposterous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice You believe only what you can see and hear. You do not believe in the "immaterial", in the spiritual dimension of energy and life. You lack perception of it. Thus you view it as empty (void). From my perspective, this is just a lack of awareness in you. |
I don't believe only what I see and hear, but also what I smell, taste and touch. I do not believe in ghosts, angels, God, or any other presence whose form cannot take that of a physical object, be it an atom or larger. A "soul" I can fathom as the entirety of a person's consciousness but does this make it anything more than a series of electrochemical reactions? No, it does not. Conscience is one of those funny things that we can't put in a box, as it is so dynamic. We can, however, find it in a skull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice Indeed, that is why I said the person receives an intuition when the car is about to break down. Receives. You did not hear me say that, because your mind was closed. |
No, I ignored that because it's insipid. I know when my car's going to break down because it starts sputtering smoke from under the hood. It did not communicate that to me, failing engine parts did. If the car
told me "Brian, I'm going to break down", that would be one thing. If it then asked me "how's your day going?", it would be another. If it then said "stop smoking the Sherm", I figure that's the time I'd actually be talking to a car, and would likely have myself admitted to care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice "Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens." - Carl Jung |
Quoting Carl Jung? Seriously? I guess since everything Freud did has been scrutinized to death we should start focussing on his star pupils. Jung was out there, or maybe "in there", either way, I'm not taking anything he says with less than a pound of salt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice Actually, it needs nothing. As you say, it simply is. YOU may need to discover and seek to understand it. Yet it needs nothing. |
The truth does not
need anything, I agree. Perhaps I should have phrased it, "we just need to (or have not yet) discovered it. Semantics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice My communication does not make me blind to what is around me. It helps me to see what is around me in a very clear light.
What you call a delusional person is merely someone who perceives a different reality than you. You are convinced you perceive THE reality, and so you believe they are deluded. Yet who is to say whose reality is REAL, or whether one is more real than another? Perhaps they are merely different windows upon a larger reality. |
This would be a much easier debate in person, because a simple slap or pinch would answer the question of whose reality is real. You would instantly know how real my reality is.
It's funny, but I'm reminded now of the potentiality/actuality debates between Aristotle and his students. Aristotle said potentiality is actuality not yet actualized, and I agree with this. If any of your claims are true, they will be actualized; but until they are, they are simply potential, and therefore, there is no proof.