Who can say, without a doubt, that I am not a dream?

Originally posted by Mindship
"I" is an illusion, a symbolic construct for convenient reference in a society of like beings. Spend some time trying to quiet your mental chatter; you won't be able to because "I" has no substance therefore no real control (not that any of us do, please note). What you'll notice instead is a loosely organized collective of "agents" (for lack of a better word), each with its own agenda, will, inner dialogue and emotion-set, all together masquerading as a singular "I."

"I exist" would be more correctly stated as "The illusion of 'I' exists."

😮‍💨

wow...

something about consciousness we agree about 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
wow...

something about consciousness we agree about 🙂

Actually, though I can't recall any specific studies (it's been a while), there is quite a bit of agreement between what ancient mystical texts and modern perceptual research have to say about the ego.

Originally posted by Mindship
Ripley's should be informed, methinks.

Actually, though I can't recall any specific studies (it's been a while), there is quite a bit of agreement between what ancient mystical texts and modern perceptual research have to say about the ego.

Sam Harris talks about it, and I've even heard the schema/exemplar theory of object classification put into platonic terms.

The west got a lot of stuff right with its philosophy, the mind, however, is something they did not. LOL, and I'm sure there is probably more agreement between us than disagreement 😉

Originally posted by inimalist
Sam Harris talks about it, and I've even heard the schema/exemplar theory of object classification put into platonic terms.

The west got a lot of stuff right with its philosophy, the mind, however, is something they did not. LOL, and I'm sure there is probably more agreement between us than disagreement 😉

Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah, but where's the fun in that...

avast me harty!

have at thee then

en garde!

Originally posted by inimalist
avast me harty!

have at thee then

en garde!

Well, I didn't mean right this second...

Actually, I've been eyeing your thread on the Iranian leader's UN speech and the US's reaction. Haven't sorted out my feelings yet on that one (and I don't wanna mix threads), except to say the US walking out indeed was not the smartest nor most honorable move (damn, we agree again).

Originally posted by Mindship
Well, I didn't mean right this second...

Actually, I've been eyeing your thread on the Iranian leader's UN speech and the US's reaction. Haven't sorted out my feelings yet on that one (and I don't wanna mix threads), except to say the US walking out indeed was not the smartest nor most honorable move (damn, we agree again).

ha, thanks! I'm glad we are on the same page on that one

really, I'm more happy people took the time to read it. I sort of got really ticked at the whole issue, hence the huge thread. But ya, I look forward to your input.

Could be similar to Koholint Island in Link's Awakening, where we are a dream of some supreme being. Yet take on lives of our own on the plane of reality.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Could be similar to Koholint Island in Link's Awakening, where we are a dream of some supreme being. Yet take on lives of our own on the plane of reality.

Using Language to prove that the external world exists. For words to have correct meanings they must have some connection to the external world; Wittgenstien calls this the picture representation. As words are representations of objects, we necessarily require objects to be referred to. If the words do not represent anything that exists in the world, then language meaning is unattainable therefore meaningless. To propose a meaningful/valid Cartesian skeptical argument; i.e. I doubt whether my senses are true, as I could be dreaming, one must have clear understanding of the words "doubt", "senses", "Truth" etc. However without an external world, appropriate meaning of these words cannot be attained. Therefore in the hypothetical possible world, (where the external world is a dream) the words no longer make reference to anything. The argument is constructed with words that have no meaning. Without any meaning the proposition breaks down. One might as well be constructing a sentence with words that don't exist. However, we can construct a valid arguemnt arguing for the external world, as the external world is necessary for language to work. Wittegenstien proposes that as we can produce meanigful propositions as arguments when the words symbolise, represent objects in an external world. This doesn't mean we can prove that the external world exists, however it does show us that we cannot meanigfully debate it with Language, for without and external world there cannot be language.

^or words cud be one of the things you dreamed up to. the concept of DREAM cud rise from contrasting between what we PERCIEVE to be real and what{but fail to see it as perception and associate absolute reality with it} and what we recognise, cud be false but perceptually real. in short, they are both dreams and part of our own creation, only, we see one and not the other.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^or words cud be one of the things you dreamed up to. the concept of DREAM cud rise from contrasting between what we PERCIEVE to be real and what{but fail to see it as perception and associate absolute reality with it} and what we recognise, cud be false but perceptually real. in short, they are both dreams and part of our own creation, only, we see one and not the other.

As I mentioned previously the language response doesn't prove that there is a "true" realist world, but it shows us that the world needs to be true for us to debate it. Ok take this into consideration do you agree that the external world in the "Brain In Vat", "dream" scenario is necessarily false, i.e. by its very nature it is not "true".I.e. our sensory experiences that allow us to conclude there to be an objective external reality must be necessarily faulty in some way? If it wasn't faulty we would be able to see its true nature, no longer percieving the "false" dream. Therefore the what we percieve as objective enitys, in the external world are also false (Not what they truely are)? A meaningful linguistic representation of the world (What langauge supposedly is) requires this process to be "correct"; representation by definition requires an objective "fact" to represent. If you aren't reprsesenting something objective then there can be no representation. I.e. The word "Hand" is meangless as there is no objective entity it is representing. If there is no objective entitys then the word "hand" can mean anything, making it meaningless. The same goes for every other word. Therefore in saying that there is no object external world, you are consequently saying that there can be no objective, meaningful reprsentation. Therefore in the external world hypothetical scenario, you are simulatneously claiming that language is meaningless. Dream language is a false representation, and therefore meaningless. Therefore your argument about the anti-realist nature of reality, is also meaningless. However I do agree that the BIV scenario does seem to transcend language, however you cannot meanigfully debate it with langauge, as language requires a Realist objective world.

Yeah, actually I am pretty sure I'm in a dream at the moment. Can wake up nao plz?