What is your favorite post on TL.net? - Page 2

I doubt it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Agreed.


Agreed.


I don't get what you're suggesting, but since you say further elaboration will come, I will be silent until your whole issue is presented.


Also agreed: Memories + Consciousness = sentience.


The physical universe, in a scientific sense, is defined as everything that physically exists. So I guess we can not experience what's not there, so yes, our experience is formed through the physical universe.



OK, I'm going to save us both a lot of time since the prime difference between our philosophies has just been made clear. I believe that what you call the 'mind', I call 'consciousness'- namely the fact that yes, I am actively participating in my life, and can call upon memory, which is how #4 claims the mind is known. However, I believe I can actively participate in my own existence BECAUSE something physical (let's say the brain) causes the sensation of consciousness: they are not separate. This means that yes; consciousness, in some way or form, requires matter to exist. It is not 100% spiritual: it is at least a slight bit physical, and because of this, I can deduce two things:
1. If there was no physical universe (defined as everything that physically exists) then my consciousness could not exist. I guess you could say in that sense, it has no 'value', but it would not simply exist without value, it would very literally not exist.
2. If there was no 'mind', there would STILL be a physical universe. You could say that the universe is now devoid of value, but value is a derivative from want, and the universe WANTS nothing, so the concept of value cannot be applied to it.

In essence; value derives from want: want derives from desire that is solely linked to consciousness. The mind can Want, thereby assigning value, but the universe can't. Therefore, the universe will never value the mind: it is the mind that gives value to itself. Since the mind cannot exist without the universe, you either have: A. Nothing exists. Value is undefined. B. Just the universe exists. Value is undefined. C. The Mind and the Universe exist: Value is determined as a derivative of the mind's want.


Agreed- basically restating #4: memories + consciousness = sentience, or in your terms, experience.


You are hinting at a deterministic universe. I'll wait until you come out and say it outright to elaborate further.


Agreed- there is no third party that controls how we feel.


Ok... so #4 +#7? I guess the key term here is 'nothing else', so I agree.



Each moment is separate, but there is no continuity? If they are not separated by a dimension such as time, what are they separated by? If they are separated by anything at all, couldn't some order of relevancy based on that separation be used to determine continuity? You already said each moment is made up of the circumstance of the previous moment: action x caused action y. Therefore, action y is intrinsically linked to action x, causing continuity (you can't go Y -> X, you must go X -> Y).



So your argument is that all things in the universe occur in a simultaneous and infinitely-short Instant? I highly doubt this (but since I cannot remove myself from time and examine it as a whole, I can't refute you). Instead, I'm inclined to ask why you believe so when physical evidence of constant change (and the measurement of such, Time), is clearly present in this physical universe. Time is very much PHYSICALLY real, so I guess this 1-dimensional slice of 'moment' in which all moments physically possible occur simultaneously is a non-physical thing? If such a thing has 0 grounding in phsyical, how did you or anyone come to this conclusion? Please elaborate further.





This suggests to me that you believe in a deterministic system: something initially happens, and dictates the eventual reaction of all things following. In other words, if a choice has to be made again, under the exact same circumstances and with no additional knowledge, the same choice is inevitably made, because there is no deviation to affect it. However, just because any 'choice' we make is inevitable, doesn't make it any less free will. We are very literally expressing our will to reach a certain choice, free from restrictions or limitations that would otherwise prevent us. Lack of free will is also very present, attempting to reach a certain choice and being limited by external factors, such as trying to fly but not having wings.

If you are instead arguing that free will is the ability to make arbitrary choices regardless of circumstance, then there is absolutely nothing to debate: by your theory, our choice was destined to us when the universe started, and this is impossible to label as false since we cannot determine if the world is deterministic or not (although quantum physics gets pretty damn close.) I'm starting to question if anything you say here will have any evidence to back it up (and thus have it grounded in something debatable) or if it will all be concepts like this that cannot be proved or disproved by anyone.



Purpose is a term bursting with meaning. Many things have a purpose. The screwdriver was invented for the PURPOSE of fastening screws; the airplane was invented for the PURPOSE of aerial travel. Purpose is a combination of "what is the meaning of this object," and "why is this object here." Unfortunately, outside of objects we ourselves create, we cannot determine their purpose, so the word gets skewed. Saying 'you become what you will be' as your justification suggests to me that you mean "My purpose in life" is a meaningless phrase, but I also believe that is false. People take their phsyical attributes, their skill sets and their talents, their knowledge and their interests, and assign themselves a 'purpose' in the world.

Again, if we believe this world is deterministic, then they would have always assigned themselves that 'purpose', but it would not make that purpose any less valid. And again, its not possible to outright refute the possibility of a deterministic world, just like you cannot disprove the existence of a God, just like you cannot prove there is anything outside of your consciousness, just like you cannot disprove ANY CONCEPT outside those which are PHYSICAL.


Many people will disagree because it's poorly worded. You define peace as 'spiritual liberation' and any state that is not peace, 'suffering', or more accurately, 'not spiritual liberation', and then say that the cause of experience is "any state that is not spiritual liberation (I will henceforth say 'nirvana' instead of 'spiritual liberation')." I guess this means that anything you do until you reach this penultimate philosophical heaven causes 'experience'. So to put it in not-so-philosophical terms, living gives you experience. I think we all already know and accept that.



Nirvana > not Nirvana. Moving on.


Or maybe detachment causes suffering. The brain tells the mind that self-preservation comes before all things, yet all things are communal. To let go of all detachment is one step of freeing the mind from suffering.

^ That was total bullshit; I don't have any evidence to back it up, any professional psychological analysis that says people are closer to 'nirvana' by following it, or absolutely any way to prove it is true or untrue without somebody achieving 'nirvana' and saying "yep, this helped." This is why so many people are saying you have a burden of proof: because my bullshit is no less valid than your genuine stance. If this thread is no more than saying "here is a list of my ideas that are no more valid then random bullshit" that would also be fine, but you go out of your way to make your opening point "0.) The following is the result of (attempted)objective analysis." which makes us all think your ideas are not random bullshit, but instead something that can be confirmed, supported or at the very least,be more likely than any other event, which they aren't. Additionally, I enjoy how you mention both that time is an illusion, that everything instead, simply 'occurs' and our brain just bothers to sort it out, and then you continue to say that things change with time. Did you include this simply because Time is a convenient, if not illusory, concept that we the reader might understand better? If so, I'll simply assume you mean "all things are in a constant state of change" so I don't have to worry about tripping over vague words representing powerful concepts. In fact, your whole post is a linguistic minefield, with almost every concept being ill-explained or taken at face-value to be thought of as something traditional (time, suffering, etc) when it is in fact very different and a very key point in your philosophy.



I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. I can accept this argument if you mean "achieving Nirvana requires one to first become open to the concept of Nirvana", but I don't think that's what you're trying to say. Maybe you mean "The more you know about all sides of an issue, the closer you get to pure neutrality on said issue," which I can also agree with. I have no beef with this line, but if you'd clarify it a bit, it would be much appreciated. Moving on.



This belief says that wanting control over change, or at least enough control to remove ourselves from change, causes suffering. These are fairly awkward positions, since all things are in a state of constant change (as mentioned in #2: Attachment). You could make the argument that wanting ANY control over ANYTHING causes suffering. Also, purposefully wanting LACK of control can cause suffering. So the path to Nirvana includes accepting the exact amount of control fate charges you with? But how do you clarify control? You already told me that the world has no true 'free will', that if I seize an opportunity to become ruler of the world, it was not my 'choice', and instead this is what always would have always naturally occurred. So the only thing my wants/desires can accomplish for me in this universe is to possibly achieve Nirvana by ignoring them? This concept seems to have a shaky foundation, so I'd appreciate it if you clarified.



OK, slow down. This is by FAR your most bizarre statement. Everything we make labels for, or rules for, or evaluate with, or determine, simply causes more suffering? How terribly deluded we are, believing that these things that we can touch and feel and can physically experience (note: I did say physically experience- again this is our key difference rearing its head again- i believe the mind must be linked to the physical in some way) can be articulated as 'rough' or 'rubbery' or 'sharp.' How terrible that we can evaluate their worth to affect our decisions in our interactions. How wonderful it must be to be free from these delusions, so that every noun is simply unlabeled (perhaps we can meet halfway and just call it Marklar?), so that every sensation is promptly dismissed, that every task should have no rules and no rankings and especially no worth, because these are all unreal and simply cause suffering.

It sounds like to me that you are labeling BASIC COGNITIVE ABILITY as 'suffering'. Doesn't it sound like freeing our minds from basic cognitive ability will make us more ignorant? I simply must be misunderstanding your stance on this, but every time I read it, it just seems more apparent that this concept is simply far too vague to be argued at best, and simply backwards at worst. Please, please, please tell me what you mean in more depth, because this one sounds like you ran out of steam on your other ideas and simply picked a concept at random and told me it causes suffering. Are you trying to say that cognitive ability is for the brain only, and not for the consciousness? The only way I can think to bring clarity to your argument is by saying that the mind has no innate value, and it's value is merely bestowed upon it by the brain. And even then I can't make the leap and say this point is justified. You are basically saying, in one sweeping motion, VALUE = SUFFERING. Please reconsider your phrasings ('it labels.. it determines worth') or explain to me how value != suffering if that is true, or come out and say No Value = No Suffering.

I will pontificate further, saying that perhaps you are hinting at a TRUE value independent of mind, and to free the mind from delusion is to adjust our innate values to be in line with the TRUE values... but this falls flat in that the universe does not assign value, only the mind does. I'm sorry, your philosophy has now become a twisted knot in my mind, please untangle it.

---

In conclusion, this is pretty lose-lose for the brain, don't you think? If I'm understanding this right, you have are stating there are AT LEAST 4 things that induce suffering (aside from the 'all we experience is suffering' line, which would make all four of these points pretty moot.) and they are as follows:

Attachment
Ignorance
Aversion
Delusion

If we want something that is changing to instead stay the same, we suffer. If we accept that it's changing, and instead wish for an amount of control over that change, or to remove ourselves from being included in that change, we suffer. If we ignore it, we suffer. If we classify the change (even by doing as little as simply LABELING it), we suffer.

Fuck my brain for all this suffering. I guess the ultimate state of nirvana that you wish to achieve will accept change (no attachment), fully understand the change implemented (no ignorance), will do nothing to adapt to the change (no aversion) and will not attempt to label, classify or evaluate the change (no delusion).

So let me shorten your argument for you.


Part 1. Anything the brain tells you is wrong.

This is the feeling I get from your philosophy. That everything the brain feeds you, from sensation to recognition to adaptability all help cause suffering. Apparently the mind is some perfect entity that is hampered by this suffering-causing brain. Here, once again, our key difference arises. I don't believe the mind is 100% free from the physical- therefore, even if all this was absolute truth, it would be impossible to achieve nirvana since some % of you would be linked to this physical world of suffering. Can you give me an example of something that the brain does that does NOT cause suffering? Or something that the mind does that DOES cause suffering? It seems like you've stopped just short of declaring this the apex of your argument.

Part 2. Being nothing, accepting nothing, acknowledging nothing, and wanting nothing is the only way we don't suffer. This is called Spiritual Liberation (I call it Nirvana).

A fairly well-known concept I'd say, and one that goes by a bunch of different names. I prefer to think of it as complete objective neutrality, and also say that it is impossible. Not much to say here, because most of your points were fairly fluff and didn't offer any more than that: Nirvana is good.

I sat here for about 30 minutes trying to expand your ideas past those 2 points, and couldn't. There simply isn't any substance here. This is certainly not "(attempted)objective analysis". What strikes me as odd is that you posted here asking for argument (or at least said 'feel free to let me know how wrong I am but please also say why', which I will shorten to 'debate me!') when there is nothing to debate. Debate involves comparison of ideas, challenging existing ideas, and creating a BURDEN OF PROOF that must rival or exceed the proof established by the currently-accepted idea so that one can become more believable then the other. From what I've seen in this thread, you instead challenge US to break down your ideas that are so rooted in untestable theory that any bullshit theory from any source will adequately be considered 'enough proof'. It is easy to 'debate' you because it is easy to present as much or more proof to further ones argument than the amount of proof you've presented: 0. I suggest if you don't want post after post saying "plz give proof", remove the opening line of your post and ask for this to be moved to blogs, since that's exactly what this is. The general forum isn't the place for closed-circuit streams of consciousness.

If this is a thread to instead exchange differences in philosophy, then my sincere apologies for sounding rather harsh. My philosophy is in no way spiritual. Simply put, to me, assuming aspects of spirituality is erroneous, since we only have the rules of our physical universe to live by, and extrapolation is fruitless.

My Philosophy:
+ Show Spoiler +