Past Lives and Einstein's Theory of Spooky Science at a Distance...

[philosophygirl78]

I was referring to this:

“...you are utilizing outside forces from a ‘thing’ to prove existence...That’s a big no no...
a cow doesn’t moo because the sun rises... If B, then A.. uh uh..” (philosophygirl78)

You pointed out what it’s not....
I like to hear more of "what is."

But, again, not sure if this is the place to elaborate .
Cheers !

Sure. It's not that complicated and I don't think others will get bothered by briefly speaking of it off subject...

You pointed out that "so and so" friending you confirmed your existence. That is the equivalent of If B, then A which is a blatant logical fallacy.

In your analogy,
A = you exist
B = the existence of 'so and so'

It is logical to state that If you Exist 'A', then 'so and so' exists 'B'.
What you cannot do is use 'B", that 'so and so' exists because of 'A' that you exist.
The premise collapses.

Make sense?

 

[philosophygirl78]

Sure. It's not that complicated and I don't think others will get bothered by briefly speaking of it off subject...

You pointed out that "so and so" friending you confirmed your existence. That is the equivalent of If B, then A which is a blatant logical fallacy.

In your analogy,
A = you exist
B = the existence of 'so and so'

It is logical to state that If you Exist 'A', then 'so and so' exists 'B'.
What you cannot do is use 'B", that 'so and so' exists because of 'A' that you exist.
The premise collapses.

Make sense?

Correction... What you cannot do is use "B" that 'so and so' exists, so then 'A' you exist.

 

[philosophygirl78]

Correction... What you cannot do is use "B" that 'so and so' exists, so then 'A' you exist.

Sorry, was typing too fast on my phone..

 

[2jakes]

Sure. It's not that complicated and I don't think others will get bothered by briefly speaking of it off subject...

You pointed out that "so and so" friending you confirmed your existence. That is the equivalent of If B, then A which is a blatant logical fallacy.

In your analogy,
A = you exist
B = the existence of 'so and so'

It is logical to state that If you Exist 'A', then 'so and so' exists 'B'.
What you cannot do is use 'B", that 'so and so' exists because of 'A' that you exist.
The premise collapses.

Make sense?

I’m trying to follow you .

But how would I explain or determine that you or I exist ?

 

[2jakes]

If B=A or otherwise is a "no-no “.
What is the defining element to determine existence ?
Or am I being obtuse ?

(Shawshank Redemption )

 

[HudsonHawk]

Correction... What you cannot do is use "B" that 'so and so' exists, so then 'A' you exist.

That's what we call "circular logic"...means there are no holes in it...

 

[HudsonHawk]

re: buddhism - Most aren't aware that the "water into wine" method also stems from buddhist teachings, i.e. Jesus 'lost years'...

Here is my issue with Buddhism...

I'm hip to the first half, but then we run into trouble. And you'll get my big fluffy pillow when you pry it from my cold, dead ***.

 

[Zombie_61]

Re - 'recording events' - not exactly. it is more for Observing what we label as events. we cannot record something just as surely as cannot ascertain it within a construct created for the purpose. in this way, it is a sort of 'constant' used in a framework for the observable. anything further is a stretch... ...

You are correct. What I should have posted was that our method for measuring time--seconds, minutes, hours, etc.--is a construct.

...Re - 'we each create our own reality' - what is "reality"? how do you define it and how can every person have their own? If we define the Reality in the sense of the Oxford Definition it is the world as it actually exists. This, cannot be part of a varying perception of infinite possibilities. Yet it seems to be, doesn't it? You should check out the documentary I pinned earlier on this post.. It addresses this very topic.

But who defines what "actually exists"? Almost anything we can think of exists only because of a consensus among a majority of humans who claim and believe in it's existence, but surely someone somewhere either disagrees or, at the very least, questions that existence.

If we truly create our own reality, you'd think I'd have created a better reality for myself than this one.

If you don't like your current reality, do what is necessary to change it; only you can do that.

Here is my issue with Buddhism...

I'm hip to the first half, but then we run into trouble. And you'll get my big fluffy pillow when you pry it from my cold, dead ***.

First, the Eight Precepts are moral guidelines, not commandments, and as such are not required to be rigidly adhered to unless one is a Buddhist monk. Second, most Buddhists practice only the first five in their daily lives, and even those are accepted voluntarily rather than mandatorily.

 

[Rudie]

If we truly create our own reality, you'd think I'd have created a better reality for myself than this one.

We are constantly creating by our thoughts, words and actions. Only, most of the time we are doing it unconsciously. The subconscious mind is the single most powerful goal achieving agency known to man. Whatever it is programmed to do it will achieve. It has no choice because it cannot judge. Unfortunately, as most of us have a lot of negative programming (such as limiting beliefs) in the subconscious mind we tend to create realities we do not consciously approve of. By changing the programming in the subconscious mind you can alter your reality.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

of infinite possibilities.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein

 

[philosophygirl78]

I’m trying to follow you .

But how would I explain or determine that you or I exist ?

The only way known that I am aware of is to first prove that you 'could not exist'. Only by proving the alternative to existence can you begin to explain existence itself.

 

[philosophygirl78]

If B=A or otherwise is a "no-no “.
What is the defining element to determine existence ?
Or am I being obtuse ?

(Shawshank Redemption )

Here is a good source on logic conjunctions - http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/conjunct.html

 

[philosophygirl78]

That's what we call "circular logic"...means there are no holes in it...

Exactly. Circular Logic is a fallacy. Often used to justify ad hominems.

 

[2jakes]

The only way known that I am aware of is to first prove that you 'could not exist'. Only by proving the alternative to existence can you begin to explain existence itself.

ok.

Now.... prove what you just stated.



I got time...I’m on my break !

 

[philosophygirl78]

You are correct. What I should have posted was that our method for measuring time--seconds, minutes, hours, etc.--is a construct.

But who defines what "actually exists"? Almost anything we can think of exists only because of a consensus among a majority of humans who claim and believe in it's existence, but surely someone somewhere either disagrees or, at the very least, questions that existence.

Such things cannot be defined... What you are referring to are social constructs (widely accepted ideas of existence to form a collaborated reality for communication and sustainability). It doesn't make it true though...

 

[philosophygirl78]

Here is my issue with Buddhism...

I'm hip to the first half, but then we run into trouble. And you'll get my big fluffy pillow when you pry it from my cold, dead ***.

It is the 'Attachment' of the Thing, not the 'Thing'....

 

[philosophygirl78]

We are constantly creating by our thoughts, words and actions. Only, most of the time we are doing it unconsciously. The subconscious mind is the single most powerful goal achieving agency known to man. Whatever it is programmed to do it will achieve. It has no choice because it cannot judge. Unfortunately, as most of us have a lot of negative programming (such as limiting beliefs) in the subconscious mind we tend to create realities we do not consciously approve of. By changing the programming in the subconscious mind you can alter your reality.

That is Deterministic. That is one way of looking at it. I prefer Freewill...

 

[philosophygirl78]

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein

And boy is he turning out to be wrong on several theories... Hah! That was one of the points of this thread. That his 'spooky science' theory was wrong..

 

[philosophygirl78]

ok.

Now.... prove what you just stated.



I got time...I’m on my break !

What would you like me to prove doesn't exist?

 

[2jakes]

What would you like me to prove doesn't exist?

You wrote....

“The only way known that I am aware of is to first prove that you ‘could not exist’. Only by
proving the alternative to existence can you begin to explain existence itself.”

So my question is: how do you prove that you “could not exist” ?

Thanks.