Ball Lightning
in [Physics]
|
Prev: $50,000 for KILLING FBI, CIA, NSA and NIS DIRECTORS
Next: * Iarnrod Hates US * the usenet kook makes HUGE stinking turd pile in newsgroups by failing to confront prove FACT that his claims are physically impossible
From: Androcles on 28 May 2010 09:20 "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message news:mjones-8E5155.08154228052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... | In article <869qivFptaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, | Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: | | > On 28/05/2010 03:27, Mitchell Jones wrote: | > > In article<8689l4FlvfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, | > > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: | > > | > >> On 27/05/2010 22:56, Mitchell Jones wrote: | > >>> In article<86801kFph1U2(a)mid.individual.net>, | > >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: | > >>> | > >>>> On 27/05/2010 19:50, Mitchell Jones wrote: | > >>>>> In article<wAyLn.7480$v%3.4039(a)newsfe15.ams2>, | > >>>>> "Androcles"<Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: | > >>>>> | > >>>>>> | > >>>>>> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message | > >>>>>> news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... | > >>>>>> | In article<htf1k6$gkq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, | > >>>>>> | "hanson"<hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: | > >>>>>> | | > >>>>>> |> .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... | > >>>>>> |> > | > >>>>>> |> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: | > >>>>>> |> > [snip] | > >>>>>> |> O Mighty Hanson! :-) | > >>>>>> |> > | > >>>>>> |> hanson wrote: | > >>>>>> |> ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many | > >>>>>> |> things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will | > >>>>>> |> bestow | > >>>>>> |> onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as | > >>>>>> |> many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you have | > >>>>>> |> been here on earth. | > >>>>>> |> ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== | > >>>>>> |> See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... | > >>>>>> |> It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. | > >>>>>> |> > | > >>>>>> |> So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your benefit: | > >>>>>> |> > | > >>>>>> |> All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the anthropic | > >>>>>> |> element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and | > >>>>>> |> sooner | > >>>>>> |> or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant& all | > >>>>>> |> heuristic thinkers end up. | > >>>>>> | | > >>>>>> | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but it | > >>>>>> | is | > >>>>>> | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which | > >>>>>> | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire structure | > >>>>>> | is | > >>>>>> | unsound. | > >>>>>> | | > >>>>>> | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the | > >>>>>> | circularity in the following: | > >>>>>> | | > >>>>>> | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of | > >>>>>> | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or | > >>>>>> | vanish into nothing--is true. | > >>>>>> | | > >>>>>> | > >>>>>> The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come | > >>>>>> from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. | > >>>>> | > >>>>> ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, it follows | > >>>>> that they come into existence out of something--which means: the | > >>>> | > >>>> Well, apart from universes and virtual particles. | > >>> | > >>> ***{Attempting to refute the only reasoning by which the existence of an | > >>> external world, hence of science, hence of scientific theories, can be | > >>> established, by citing a couple of allegedly "scientific" theories, | > >>> seems rather akin to attempting to lift oneself off of the floor by | > >>> tugging at one's own bootstraps, don't you think? :-) --MJ}*** | > >>> | > >>> ***************************************************************** | > >>> If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility | > >>> that you are in my killfile. --MJ | > >> | > >> No. | > >> Your claims that "something from nothing" is impossible is an act of | > >> faith on your part. | > > | > > ***{Pardon me for persisting here, but what you are saying seems very | > > strange to me. | > > | > > In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of continuity | > > requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is an | > > act of self-contradiction. Therefore, since denial of continuity leads | > | > Tell it to the Buddha. | > | > > to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must be | > > true. | > > | > > Where, exactly, does an "act of faith" occur in that line of reasoning? | > | > Your belief that what you say is true. | | ***{So my "act of faith" lies in the fact that I am willing to be | convinced by a proof. I can live with that. :-) --MJ}*** | Nothing wrong with that. Now start supplying proof of what you say and you'll convince *some* others.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 28 May 2010 13:09 On 28/05/2010 14:15, Mitchell Jones wrote: > In article<869qivFptaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 28/05/2010 03:27, Mitchell Jones wrote: >>> In article<8689l4FlvfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 27/05/2010 22:56, Mitchell Jones wrote: >>>>> In article<86801kFph1U2(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 27/05/2010 19:50, Mitchell Jones wrote: >>>>>>> In article<wAyLn.7480$v%3.4039(a)newsfe15.ams2>, >>>>>>> "Androcles"<Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... >>>>>>>> | In article<htf1k6$gkq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>>>>> | "hanson"<hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>> |> .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... >>>>>>>> |> > >>>>>>>> |> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> |> > [snip] >>>>>>>> |> O Mighty Hanson! :-) >>>>>>>> |> > >>>>>>>> |> hanson wrote: >>>>>>>> |> ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many >>>>>>>> |> things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will >>>>>>>> |> bestow >>>>>>>> |> onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as >>>>>>>> |> many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you have >>>>>>>> |> been here on earth. >>>>>>>> |> ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== >>>>>>>> |> See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... >>>>>>>> |> It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. >>>>>>>> |> > >>>>>>>> |> So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your benefit: >>>>>>>> |> > >>>>>>>> |> All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the anthropic >>>>>>>> |> element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and >>>>>>>> |> sooner >>>>>>>> |> or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant& all >>>>>>>> |> heuristic thinkers end up. >>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>> | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but it >>>>>>>> | is >>>>>>>> | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which >>>>>>>> | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire structure >>>>>>>> | is >>>>>>>> | unsound. >>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>> | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the >>>>>>>> | circularity in the following: >>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>> | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of >>>>>>>> | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or >>>>>>>> | vanish into nothing--is true. >>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come >>>>>>>> from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, it follows >>>>>>> that they come into existence out of something--which means: the >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, apart from universes and virtual particles. >>>>> >>>>> ***{Attempting to refute the only reasoning by which the existence of an >>>>> external world, hence of science, hence of scientific theories, can be >>>>> established, by citing a couple of allegedly "scientific" theories, >>>>> seems rather akin to attempting to lift oneself off of the floor by >>>>> tugging at one's own bootstraps, don't you think? :-) --MJ}*** >>>>> >>>>> ***************************************************************** >>>>> If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility >>>>> that you are in my killfile. --MJ >>>> >>>> No. >>>> Your claims that "something from nothing" is impossible is an act of >>>> faith on your part. >>> >>> ***{Pardon me for persisting here, but what you are saying seems very >>> strange to me. >>> >>> In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of continuity >>> requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is an >>> act of self-contradiction. Therefore, since denial of continuity leads >> >> Tell it to the Buddha. >> >>> to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must be >>> true. >>> >>> Where, exactly, does an "act of faith" occur in that line of reasoning? >> >> Your belief that what you say is true. > > ***{So my "act of faith" lies in the fact that I am willing to be > convinced by a proof. I can live with that. :-) --MJ}*** You have not offered proof. All you have offered is an assertion: "In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of continuity requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is an act of self-contradiction." I say it does not require doubt of the existence of his own mind. And if it did, that too would be a valid point of view given modern (and ancient) views on the illusory nature of "self". -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Mitchell Jones on 28 May 2010 19:30 In article <86abmnF3koU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 28/05/2010 14:15, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > In article<869qivFptaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 28/05/2010 03:27, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >>> In article<8689l4FlvfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 27/05/2010 22:56, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >>>>> In article<86801kFph1U2(a)mid.individual.net>, > >>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 27/05/2010 19:50, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >>>>>>> In article<wAyLn.7480$v%3.4039(a)newsfe15.ams2>, > >>>>>>> "Androcles"<Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>> news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... > >>>>>>>> | In article<htf1k6$gkq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >>>>>>>> | "hanson"<hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>> |> .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... > >>>>>>>> |> > > >>>>>>>> |> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> |> > [snip] > >>>>>>>> |> O Mighty Hanson! :-) > >>>>>>>> |> > > >>>>>>>> |> hanson wrote: > >>>>>>>> |> ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many > >>>>>>>> |> things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will > >>>>>>>> |> bestow > >>>>>>>> |> onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as > >>>>>>>> |> many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you > >>>>>>>> |> have > >>>>>>>> |> been here on earth. > >>>>>>>> |> ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== > >>>>>>>> |> See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... > >>>>>>>> |> It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. > >>>>>>>> |> > > >>>>>>>> |> So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your > >>>>>>>> |> benefit: > >>>>>>>> |> > > >>>>>>>> |> All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the > >>>>>>>> |> anthropic > >>>>>>>> |> element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and > >>>>>>>> |> sooner > >>>>>>>> |> or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant& > >>>>>>>> |> all > >>>>>>>> |> heuristic thinkers end up. > >>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>> | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but > >>>>>>>> | it > >>>>>>>> | is > >>>>>>>> | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which > >>>>>>>> | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire > >>>>>>>> | structure > >>>>>>>> | is > >>>>>>>> | unsound. > >>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>> | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the > >>>>>>>> | circularity in the following: > >>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>> | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of > >>>>>>>> | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing > >>>>>>>> | or > >>>>>>>> | vanish into nothing--is true. > >>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come > >>>>>>>> from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, it > >>>>>>> follows > >>>>>>> that they come into existence out of something--which means: the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, apart from universes and virtual particles. > >>>>> > >>>>> ***{Attempting to refute the only reasoning by which the existence of > >>>>> an > >>>>> external world, hence of science, hence of scientific theories, can be > >>>>> established, by citing a couple of allegedly "scientific" theories, > >>>>> seems rather akin to attempting to lift oneself off of the floor by > >>>>> tugging at one's own bootstraps, don't you think? :-) --MJ}*** > >>>>> > >>>>> ***************************************************************** > >>>>> If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility > >>>>> that you are in my killfile. --MJ > >>>> > >>>> No. > >>>> Your claims that "something from nothing" is impossible is an act of > >>>> faith on your part. > >>> > >>> ***{Pardon me for persisting here, but what you are saying seems very > >>> strange to me. > >>> > >>> In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of continuity > >>> requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is an > >>> act of self-contradiction. Therefore, since denial of continuity leads > >> > >> Tell it to the Buddha. > >> > >>> to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must be > >>> true. > >>> > >>> Where, exactly, does an "act of faith" occur in that line of reasoning? > >> > >> Your belief that what you say is true. > > > > ***{So my "act of faith" lies in the fact that I am willing to be > > convinced by a proof. I can live with that. :-) --MJ}*** > > You have not offered proof. > All you have offered is an assertion: > > "In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of > continuity requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, > which is an act of self-contradiction." ***{That's another very strange statement, since you should know perfectly well that the above quoted sentence is NOT the only thing I have offered along those lines. Multiple posts from me elaborating on the above in great detail are in fact sitting in sci.physics right now, only a mouse click away, a fact that is readily verifiable by anyone who is interested. Below, between the lines of asterisks, is one of those detailed elaborations. ************************************** (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing--is true. (2) The possible answers to that question are two: it is either true, or it is false. (3) Doubt is a state of mind. Hence the claim to doubt that one has a mind is a contradiction in terms. Hence the existence of one's mind is a self-evident fact. But the mind is more than consciousness: it is that which, by receiving sensations, IS conscious, and by sourcing sensations, acts. If, however, we assume that the principle of continuity is false, we must doubt that anything exists to receive sensations: they may be simply vanishing into nothing; and we must doubt that anything exists to act as a source of sensations: they may be simply leaping into existence out of nothing. To say, therefore, that the principle of continuity is false, or even that it may be false, is to say that we doubt the existence of anything outside of the field of consciousness, including the existence of the mind. But that is a contradiction: we cannot doubt the existence of the mind, because doubt is a state of mind. Therefore we can eliminate the possibility that the principle of continuity is false from our consideration, and, when we do so, we find that only one possibility remains: that the principle of continuity is true. (4) Since only one possibility remains, we must accept it as the truth, until and unless we find an error in steps (1) through (3) above. ************************************** The sentence that you quoted, and falsely claimed to be the only thing I have offered on this subject, was in fact intended as a sort of summary, an abstract if you will, of the detailed content that I supplied above, and at multiple other locations in this thread. That's why the first three words of the sentence are "In a nutshell." Those words are there to tell you that what follows is a brief summary of comments that I made elsewhere. --Mitchell Jones}*** > I say it does not require doubt of the existence of his own mind. ***{The denial of continuity opens up the possibility that things may leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing. Hence it opens up the possibility that our sensations are doing that. Hence it opens up the possibility that all of our sensations are doing that--which means: it becomes possible that nothing exists other than the field of consciousness itself. That would mean the external world may not exist: your sensations of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell might under that scenario not be coming from anything; they might be simply leaping into existence out of nothing. And it would mean the internal world--your mind--might not exist: the sensations you think indicate the existence of faculties of mind such as memory, judgment, imagination, choice, understanding, etc., might in fact merely be leaping into existence out of nothing; and you might be similarly mistaken in thinking that they were impinging upon, hence influencing, any such mental faculties, because those sensations might in fact merely be disappearing into nothing. In summary, the mind involves faculties which exist outside of the field of consciousness, faculties which receive, process, and respond to sensations. The mind, like the external world, is an inference which is called into question by the notion that sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing and/or vanishing into nothing. Bottom line: the denial of continuity does, in fact, require one to doubt the existence of one's own mind. --Mitchell Jones}*** > And if it did, that too would be a valid point of view given modern (and > ancient) views on the illusory nature of "self". ***{As I have said repeatedly, doubt is a state of mind. Thus if doubt is taking place, it is taking place within a mind. If the mind in question is in the process of doubting its own existence, that is most assuredly NOT "a valid point of view." It is, instead, an act of such fundamental absurdity that to even speak of it is to utter a contradiction in terms: doubt of anything, including the existence of the mind, is proof that the mind exists. The existence of the mind, to the mind, is a fundamental, unassailable, self-evident fact. The self-evident existence of one's own mind is the premise that lies at the base of a rational philosophy. It is the one given which, being supplied by reality itself, does not have to be derived from something else. As such, it is the immovable rock on which the structure of knowledge rests. From that base, each reasoning individual begins the structure of his personal knowledge by simply tossing out anything, such as the denial of continuity, which requires him to doubt the existence of his own mind. Rational physics then arises based on the framework supplied by the principle of continuity, as a result of tossing out all interpretative frameworks that posit continuity violations--which means: by rejecting all instances of magical thinking. These are hard lessons for most people to choke down, of course, in a world standing on the brink of destruction precisely because virtually everyone has been taught to believe in magic, and to apply magical thinking in their everyday lives. Nevertheless, whether you can accept it or not, there it is. :-) --Mitchell Jones}*** > -- > Dirk > > http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK > http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Edward Green on 29 May 2010 19:25 On May 28, 9:15 am, Mitchell Jones <mjo...(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > In article <869qivFpt...(a)mid.individual.net>, > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 28/05/2010 03:27, Mitchell Jones wrote: <...> > > > ***{Pardon me for persisting here, but what you are saying seems very > > > strange to me. > > > > In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of continuity > > > requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is an > > > act of self-contradiction. Therefore, since denial of continuity leads > > > Tell it to the Buddha. > > > > to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must be > > > true. > > > > Where, exactly, does an "act of faith" occur in that line of reasoning? > > > Your belief that what you say is true. > > ***{So my "act of faith" lies in the fact that I am willing to be > convinced by a proof. I can live with that. :-) --MJ}*** Your "proof" smacks of scholasticism. I am not convinced by it. Mind you, I agree with your premise... that something from nothing is unthinkable... just not your alleged proof. If nothing begets something, why then it was not complete and utter nothing -- it was the kind of nothing which is apt to beget that kind of something, which is not quite nothing. This reminds me of Chalmers... to change the subject, but, perhaps not that much. I find myself in complete agreement with the first section of his book on consciousness, but complete disagreement with the second part.
From: Edward Green on 29 May 2010 19:43
On May 28, 7:30 pm, Mitchell Jones <mjo...(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: Reluctantly I leave the entire hash. > In article <86abmnF3k...(a)mid.individual.net>, > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 28/05/2010 14:15, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > In article<869qivFpt...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 28/05/2010 03:27, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > >>> In article<8689l4Flv...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> On 27/05/2010 22:56, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > >>>>> In article<86801kFph...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > >>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> On 27/05/2010 19:50, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > >>>>>>> In article<wAyLn.7480$v%3.4...(a)newsfe15.ams2>, > > >>>>>>> "Androcles"<Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> "Mitchell Jones"<mjo...(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message > > >>>>>>>>news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... > > >>>>>>>> | In article<htf1k6$gk...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > >>>>>>>> | "hanson"<han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> | > > >>>>>>>> |> .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... > > >>>>>>>> |> > > > >>>>>>>> |> "Mitchell Jones"<mjo...(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> |> > [snip] > > >>>>>>>> |> O Mighty Hanson! :-) > > >>>>>>>> |> > > > >>>>>>>> |> hanson wrote: > > >>>>>>>> |> ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many > > >>>>>>>> |> things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will > > >>>>>>>> |> bestow > > >>>>>>>> |> onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as > > >>>>>>>> |> many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you > > >>>>>>>> |> have > > >>>>>>>> |> been here on earth. > > >>>>>>>> |> ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== > > >>>>>>>> |> See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you........ > > >>>>>>>> |> It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. > > >>>>>>>> |> > > > >>>>>>>> |> So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your > > >>>>>>>> |> benefit: > > >>>>>>>> |> > > > >>>>>>>> |> All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the > > >>>>>>>> |> anthropic > > >>>>>>>> |> element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and > > >>>>>>>> |> sooner > > >>>>>>>> |> or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant& > > >>>>>>>> |> all > > >>>>>>>> |> heuristic thinkers end up. > > >>>>>>>> | > > >>>>>>>> | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but > > >>>>>>>> | it > > >>>>>>>> | is > > >>>>>>>> | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which > > >>>>>>>> | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire > > >>>>>>>> | structure > > >>>>>>>> | is > > >>>>>>>> | unsound. > > >>>>>>>> | > > >>>>>>>> | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the > > >>>>>>>> | circularity in the following: > > >>>>>>>> | > > >>>>>>>> | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of > > >>>>>>>> | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing > > >>>>>>>> | or > > >>>>>>>> | vanish into nothing--is true. > > >>>>>>>> | > > > >>>>>>>> The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come > > >>>>>>>> from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. > > > >>>>>>> ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, it > > >>>>>>> follows > > >>>>>>> that they come into existence out of something--which means: the > > > >>>>>> Well, apart from universes and virtual particles. > > > >>>>> ***{Attempting to refute the only reasoning by which the existence of > > >>>>> an > > >>>>> external world, hence of science, hence of scientific theories, can be > > >>>>> established, by citing a couple of allegedly "scientific" theories, > > >>>>> seems rather akin to attempting to lift oneself off of the floor by > > >>>>> tugging at one's own bootstraps, don't you think? :-) --MJ}*** > > > >>>>> ***************************************************************** > > >>>>> If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility > > >>>>> that you are in my killfile. --MJ > > > >>>> No. > > >>>> Your claims that "something from nothing" is impossible is an act of > > >>>> faith on your part. > > > >>> ***{Pardon me for persisting here, but what you are saying seems very > > >>> strange to me. > > > >>> In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of continuity > > >>> requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is an > > >>> act of self-contradiction. Therefore, since denial of continuity leads > > > >> Tell it to the Buddha. > > > >>> to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must be > > >>> true. > > > >>> Where, exactly, does an "act of faith" occur in that line of reasoning? > > > >> Your belief that what you say is true. > > > > ***{So my "act of faith" lies in the fact that I am willing to be > > > convinced by a proof. I can live with that. :-) --MJ}*** > > > You have not offered proof. > > All you have offered is an assertion: > > > "In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of > > continuity requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, > > which is an act of self-contradiction." > > ***{That's another very strange statement, since you should know > perfectly well that the above quoted sentence is NOT the only thing I > have offered along those lines. Multiple posts from me elaborating on > the above in great detail are in fact sitting in sci.physics right now, > only a mouse click away, a fact that is readily verifiable by anyone who > is interested. > > Below, between the lines of asterisks, is one of those detailed > elaborations. > > ************************************** > (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of > continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or > vanish into nothing--is true. > > (2) The possible answers to that question are two: it is either true, or > it is false. > > (3) Doubt is a state of mind. Hence the claim to doubt that one has a > mind is a contradiction in terms. Hence the existence of one's mind is a > self-evident fact. But the mind is more than consciousness: it is that > which, by receiving sensations, IS conscious, and by sourcing > sensations, acts. If, however, we assume that the principle of > continuity is false, we must doubt that anything exists to receive > sensations: they may be simply vanishing into nothing; and we must doubt > that anything exists to act as a source of sensations: they may be > simply leaping into existence out of nothing. To say, therefore, that > the principle of continuity is false, or even that it may be false, is > to say that we doubt the existence of anything outside of the field of > consciousness, including the existence of the mind. But that is a > contradiction: we cannot doubt the existence of the mind, because doubt > is a state of mind. Therefore we can eliminate the possibility that the > principle of continuity is false from our consideration, and, when we do > so, we find that only one possibility remains: that the principle of > continuity is true. > > (4) Since only one possibility remains, we must accept it as the truth, > until and unless we find an error in steps (1) through (3) above. > ************************************** > > The sentence that you quoted, and falsely claimed to be the only thing I > have offered on this subject, was in fact intended as a sort of summary, > an abstract if you will, of the detailed content that I supplied above, > and at multiple other locations in this thread. > > That's why the first three words of the sentence are "In a nutshell." > Those words are there to tell you that what follows is a brief summary > of comments that I made elsewhere. > > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > I say it does not require doubt of the existence of his own mind. > > ***{The denial of continuity opens up the possibility that things may > leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing. Hence it > opens up the possibility that our sensations are doing that. Hence it > opens up the possibility that all of our sensations are doing > that--which means: it becomes possible that nothing exists other than > the field of consciousness itself. > > That would mean the external world may not exist: your sensations of > sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell might under that scenario not be > coming from anything; they might be simply leaping into existence out of > nothing. I cannot rule it out. I can only say it seems exceedingly unlikely. For either the continuity of my own experience is an illusion, or else my perceptions similarly show continuity, which seems to imply a consistent generating engine behind them. The assumption of continuity of the world behind perception really hinges on the assumption of sanity -- not that I am saying we can in anyway prove that we are sane, but that the alternative is unfruitful, so we may simply assume it is not the case in order to make progress. It is a fallacy to think that we must "prove" something about the world in order to simply use it or assume it -- it's more a matter of utility than proof. That's why I think your "proof" of continuity, as you call it, is like trying to prove the existence of God. > And it would mean the internal world--your mind--might not exist: the > sensations you think indicate the existence of faculties of mind such as > memory, judgment, imagination, choice, understanding, etc., might in > fact merely be leaping into existence out of nothing; and you might be > similarly mistaken in thinking that they were impinging upon, hence > influencing, any such mental faculties, because those sensations might > in fact merely be disappearing into nothing. All true. So? I merely reject it out of utility, not out of the belief that I have proven it out of existence. > In summary, the mind involves faculties which exist outside of the field > of consciousness, faculties which receive, process, and respond to > sensations. The mind, like the external world, is an inference which is > called into question by the notion that sensations may be leaping into > existence out of nothing and/or vanishing into nothing. > > Bottom line: the denial of continuity does, in fact, require one to > doubt the existence of one's own mind. I can live with that, and simply shelve it. |