Re: Eternal consciousness and souls do not exist (unless you make them in your head)

[Quazire]

acually matter is not physical . its mostly made up of empty space 99.9999999% empty space. i think its funny how every body thinks their right and so quick to say no its this way. look who knows really . everyones assumptions about a particular subject is only based on documentation , things we read so who the fuck knows. nobody

[directspirit]

@Quazire Yes, you're 100% right by saying atoms are 99% empty space. Matter is physical energy in process.  The critical idea, "The Morbid Atheist" (below) notwithstanding, is that the relationship of the entities among themselves partly determines what we're able to measure and not measure. Aloha!

[makasaka]

We live in a universe of wound dimensions. How can we possibly distinguish between illusion and reality?

[directspirit]

@makasaka Well, you've hit the nail on the head! Your question is the embodiment of philosophy (and other avenues) since the Pre-Socratics until now. I'm currently looking at how Zen answers your question. It says that illusion and reality are both "unreal" in a sense because both (actually, everything) is only pure Emptiness. Aloha.

[makasaka]

@directspirit Awesome answer thank you :)

[directspirit]

@makasaka, please upload a video response to my vid titled "What is Philosophy to you?" Mahalo!

[TheWillwillwill]

I have the Whitehead book sitting on a shelf right next to me.. "Science and the Modern World" is as a spiritual book as it is scientific. It seems odd to me that we consider the bridge between science and eastern spiritually to be a new thing.. There were many people aware of this 100 years ago or even thousands if we consider the gnostics and the greek philosophers.. As Einstein said, Matter and energy are manifestations of the samething.

[TheProdigySupreme]

Another left-brained

[directspirit]

Please elaborate.

Left brain refers to logical thought (in a superficial examination of neurological function) while right-brained refers to creativity.

Continental thinkers such as myself do philosophy in a creative sense.

[daddyrap89]

thoes this dude got a Phd in physics or somethin or he has too much time on his hands ?

he keeps sayin counciousness is just a brain function yet he didnt gave any accurate discription counciousness itself like how can thoughts by our brain ( made from matter ) manifest against matter or how do we perceive the space-time continium and so on .....

he basicly explains the situation from his OBJECTIVE point of view without any evidence or research what-so-ever

[directspirit]

Daddyrap: I haven't watched any Morbidatheist vids since last march, so I can only comment on them up to that point: The Morbidatheist's arguments against the process philosophical position (espoused by Matt, myself, and others) are almost entirely non sequitur because he's using a classical ontology as a basis for his arguments. I.e., we are talking about an entirely different worldview. He hasn't done his homework (understanding process phil.), so he can't argue cogently. Aloha!

[daddyrap89]

thanks for ur reply i also dont think we can really appreaciate the word ETERNAL

some say the universe always existed it has no beginin what so ever and no ending

people talk about the big bang and how it all began but what was before the big bang ?

and what was before that ... and so on

i just hate the fact that we want to gather much information yet we cant handle it cos everytime there are more questions than answers

[daddyrap89]

thanks for ur reply

i dont think we can really understand the word ETERNAL

if u look at the studies about the universe u can convince urself people talk about the big bang but what was before that ? and so on .....

everythin seem eternal : space , time , matter like it always existed yet we talk about beginings and ends X_X

[directspirit]

Re. when you said: "...thoughts by our brain...manifest against matter...):

Yes, you're right, the classical ontology which Morbidatheist is assuming, cannot overcome the mind-body problem in an adequate way. The best it can do is buy into Colin McGinn and his "cognitive closure." Aloha!

[directspirit]

I don't hold c-ness is a function of the brain...that's a reductionist view which I dont share. You say "thoughts by our brain...manifest against matter" and it sounds like you're referring to the problem of dualism. In process thought actual entities are dipolar (physical and conceptual) so there is no mind/body problem. It's a pseudo-problem. It's also a pseudo-problem for Heidegger, but his solution is different.

[wholethinker]

Thanks for the video and for the text comments to TheMorbidAtheist's video. I found them very helpful.

I believe you can help me even more, but it will be (almost) off topic and I don't feel comfortable talking about it in this forum.

I don't asking money, I need much more: your advice.

Is it possible?

[theosophers]

Well, I don't know where you are going, but physics is based on just three simple kinds: mass, length, time. And these can be all descibed through extention.

An assistant director of the NRL once said that the existence of the universe is caused by mass. He said without mass the spatial vectors would go in all direction, space would have no shape, so it would not exist. Gravitation due to mass gives space its shape.

[theosophers]

Are you saying that logical positivism proposes monism based on the electromagetic force? Will the logical positivists ever comprehend 'qualia'?

If you think about qualia long enough it is very hard to understand what the substances of qualia might be. They seem to be more that simple extention, and I believe physics reduces to statements about extention.

[TheMorbidAtheist]

Matter is Most and FOREMOST a physical substance, that's the BASIC, DEFAULT perception of REALITY, but I have NOT denied that its not a process as well

Its a process only in an atomic sense, meaning that just about every object in the universe looses its atoms every second, but that in NO way means that material objects aren't MATERIAL, they still are

You and Matt act as if the atomic process of entropy and disintegration destroys the fact that substance is also matter

[TheMorbidAtheist]

The default perception of reality is that I can touch and lift a pencil-matter interacting with matter

What is so horrifying in admitting that we see the objects the way they are not because its something we don't necessarily understand, but because those subjects EXIST and we can SEE them, detect them, touch them and we can admit that they are there for these reasons

Fundamental materialism is a default perception of this reality, there is no way around it.Any other philosophy is an add-on

[directspirit]

If you don't think matter/energy at the fundamental level has internal relations (as opposed to merely external relations) and participates in some kind of prehensive activity, then realism makes no sense on your view. Said differently, but the same idea, If you hold matter in one space and time can't enter into the constitution of other matter at other spaces and times (Whitehead's fallacy of simple location), then realism makes no sense on your view. You can't be a realist.

[TheMorbidAtheist]

I dont recall denying the existence of the matter/energy relation

The relation itself is physical, even if it cannot be directly observed by anyone at a particular time. The non-changing physical laws are always there and they act as an eternal constant

Im a hardcore realist and an objectivist

as for your previously condescending comment where you conversed with daddyrap, I have done my homework. Ive been doing it for 2 years. Ive argued cogently and concisely.

I dont appreciate that ad hom

[directspirit]

I respect ur right 2 hold ur view, so I'm not being condescending. I simply stated a fact: U R "using a classical ontology as a basis for [your] arguments." But, in order 2 cogently argue against process phil U must understand what actual entities are & understand the Categories of the Ultimate, of Existence, of Explanation, and the Categorial Obligations of process thought (as well as other things). As far as I can see, U don't understand these. I don't fault U for not understanding.

[TheMorbidAtheist]

well whatever

I dont want to argue the extravagant jibber jabber, I dont need to

You think I fail to understand what entities are. I understand the most necessary entities -physics, reality, matter, deterministic principle, objective observable facts

and I think you fail to look at the basics of reality and build your philosophy on it instead of involving some convoluted notions that sound nice on the paper but have little to do or anything to do for that matter with the materialistic reality

[directspirit]

Explain how physics is an entity. Explain how matter, deterministic principle, and facts are entities? What scientific view are you subscribing to? A principle can't be an entity!

[TheMorbidAtheist]

And I've seen you posting a comment on Matt's page stating that I'll never agree with you, that's right, I actually won't. Because I have been looking at metaphysics and consciousness as something spiritual and misunderstood for a long time, but not anymore. And it should't be about us agreeing or disagreeing with each other, it should be about other people who aren't sure about these subjects

[TheMorbidAtheist]

by the way if you still can't link this video to mine, just add my video's URL in your video description box, so that people know who you are responding too

Thanks

[directspirit]

You're right. Looking at anything as "spiritual" is a major problem. But looking at anything as "material" is also a problem. The only view that makes given science and given our full experience in the world (radical empiricism) is that at the fundamental level, matter/energy is dipolar (both physical and conceptual). Aloha

[TheMorbidAtheist]

looking at anything as material is not a problem at all. Its the default perception of reality without any add-ons (contrived spirituality, religion, pseudoscience, wishful thinking, etc)

looking at anything as material is the fundamental to our understanding of the universe

physical and conceptual are two different words pertaining to two different categories. We understand physical concepts through observable facts. period

[directspirit]

U can split the universe in 2 categories, physical & conceptual, as long as you admit a split ontology makes causality, time, and even a real world problematic. The fundamental units of nature are not matter but rather spatiotemoral events, internally related to each other & thus provide for causality & epochal time. This is postmodern physics. The materialism you're talking about is the world prior to the discovery of the electromagnetic nature of reality (19th century).

[TheMorbidAtheist]

"U can split the universe in 2 categories, physical & conceptual"

you can split the universe in those two categories in PEOPLE'S HEADS, but you can't split the basic fabric of the universe which is primarily physical in itself

Its a concept of two asteroids smacking against each other, a concept has something to do with human understanding. If humans didnt exist, then the asteroids would still smack against each other which implies a physical reality, independent of the observer

[directspirit]

Again, you're arguing from traditional ontology. Your choice to not engage.

[TheMorbidAtheist]

because traditional ontology is the most sound one

I dont choose anything because I cant see reality any other way

[directspirit]

That's my point, exactly. You can't see it any other way. YOU want to split reality into physical and conceptual. I'm saying there's only one reality, and it's physical and conceptual. (dipolar).

[TheMorbidAtheist]

I misspoke. I did not mean to call physics, the deterministic principle, etc entities

Im subscribing to the unbiased scientific view of describing the world in PURELY materialistic terms

that's right, a principle cant be an entity. lets not use the word entity at all

I cant see it any other way because I already have. I used to be an agnostic who didnt know wtf was going on. Now I do.

[TheMorbidAtheist]

now I have simply filtered out any bs from my philosophy.

I dont want to split reality into physical and conceptual, I never said that I did, I was simply replying to your statement which I will quote. This split you are talking about can only occur in people's rationale, but the reality itself will not split in any way possible. I will quote you:

"U can split the universe in 2 categories, physical & conceptual"

[TheMorbidAtheist]

I dont know whether you were arguing that we could split reality in that way or whether you were reaffirming what I said when i didnt say

regardless, I dont see how we are stuck in any way possible. I honestly cannot see how pure materialism can be of any harm or detriment in describing reality

matter isnt just process + relations. rock will be a rock on earth and at the other end of the universe

[TheMorbidAtheist]

and no the fundamental units of nature ARE matter PLUS events the matter goes through. its not just events. and yes, thank you, the materialism I talk about is free from the new-age pseudoscience and notions that materialism is in any way weakened by the scientific discoveries of the 20th century. If anything, materialism was made stronger

[directspirit]

You don't seem to understand physics. Do you believe the integral calculus provides for transition between externally-related entities on your materialistic ontology? Whitehead, one of the most brilliant logicians and mathematicians of the 20th century disagrees with you!

[TheMorbidAtheist]

I do understand physics.

wth are you talking about?

what exactly is it that you are talking about? what is your philosophy? can you use plain English words to describe it?

i dont argue dead philosophers. I argue what's observable in the universe

[theosophers]

Wouldn't states of matter be the real appearances that we are confronted with?

There are five states of matter that have been known since ancient times: water, air, fire, earth, aether.

Of course in modern times we see states of matter in other varieties like, silly putty, vaseline, coka-cola, memory metal, etc..

And, of course an energy field can occupy a space without having any mass. Or, the virtual paricle field, and what not.

Gold is a chemical, has a very long half-life...

[0ThouArtThat0]

Thanks for offering all this background!