You don't exist

ExtraCrispy · Boatswain Posts: 3923 **39052 Gold** -

Think to yourself "There is no me'
Over and over for five minutes.

Do it Spart.

sparticus · Helmsman Posts: 5818 **44872 Gold** -

ExtraCrispy · Boatswain Posts: 3923 **39052 Gold** -

How long did you do it for?
Are you free?

ExtraCrispy · Boatswain Posts: 3923 **39052 Gold** -

Here this might help you:
http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/2010/10/thunder-and-sunshine.html

Mr. Blue · Rigger Posts: 1947 **68613 Gold** -

Sorry, Extra C, but I cannot embrace a philosophy that looks to me like it mostly consists of asserting you are correct and self-hypnosis. You say things like you cannot possess yourself and choose definitions to prove it, even though possession can be understood in different terms, which I have explained. Even if I accepted your terms, all that would show is that expressions such as "my soul" or "my experiences" are incorrect, and I should say "the soul called Mr. Blue," and "the experiences that I experience but which do not actually belong to me."

No, don't bother showing me dictionary.com definitions of possession. I suspect that the people who write them are not thinking about esoteric philosophical considerations and do not bother to write definitions adequate for discussing such things.

Do I believe in multiple personality disorder? I believe that strange things can happen in a person's mind (minds?) Psychologists categorize these experiences and try to understand them. They are pretty sucessful at categorizing them by symptom, as far as I know. That is not the same as understanding what goes on in those minds or why.

I am not sure you understand what I meant about charged particles. Just because people give them names, quantify them, and can say which particles they are associated with does not mean we understand them. Names are just a label and the rest is just a description of what effect the charges have on the behavior of particles. The charges themselves are an unknown factor and it is also unknown how they bring about the results they cause. The internet reference you gave me does not truly tell us what charges are.

We do not understand how Julius Caesar made the decision to cross the Rubicon, any more than we understand particle charges. Still, it is easy to understand why he made that decision in light of what we know about him and the situation. This is why the assumption of individual existence is so wide spread. Because our daily experience supports it. I admit that the evidence is not as clearly quantifiable or predictable as the evidence for charged particles. That does not mean it does not exist.Even babies learn the self/other distinction before they understand speech, using the evidence all around them.

It is no use to say that interactions and experiences exist without us. If there are no "we" then there are no "we" to interact. Interactions require at least two parties.

If there is no me to set free, then I cannot be freed anyway.

Enjoy your freedom, Extra C. In my opinion freedom from suffering is not the highest good. Ask Sparticus if he would rather live in a world in which his children do not exist and never existed, or else accept the suffering that they sometimes put him through.
_________________
" ... the mistakes that we male and female mortals make when we have our own way might fairly raise some wonder that we are so fond of it. " George Eliot

Mr. Blue · Rigger Posts: 1947 **68613 Gold** -

Sorry, Extra C, but I cannot embrace a philosophy that looks to me like it mostly consists of asserting you are correct and self-hypnosis. You say things like you cannot possess yourself and choose definitions to prove it, even though possession can be understood in different terms, which I have explained. Even if I accepted your terms, all that would show is that expressions such as "my soul" or "my experiences" are incorrect, and I should say "the soul called Mr. Blue," and "the experiences that I experience but which do not actually belong to me."

No, don't bother showing me dictionary.com definitions of possession. I suspect that the people who write them are not thinking about esoteric philosophical considerations and do not bother to write definitions adequate for discussing such things.

Do I believe in multiple personality disorder? I believe that strange things can happen in a person's mind (minds?) Psychologists categorize these experiences and try to understand them. They are pretty sucessful at categorizing them by symptom, as far as I know. That is not the same as understanding what goes on in those minds or why.

I am not sure you understand what I meant about charged particles. Just because people give them names, quantify them, and can say which particles they are associated with does not mean we understand them. Names are just a label and the rest is just a description of what effect the charges have on the behavior of particles. The charges themselves are an unknown factor and it is also unknown how they bring about the results they cause. The internet reference you gave me does not truly tell us what charges are.

We do not understand how Julius Caesar made the decision to cross the Rubicon, any more than we understand particle charges. Still, it is easy to understand why he made that decision in light of what we know about him and the situation. This is why the assumption of individual existence is so wide spread. Because our daily experience supports it. I admit that the evidence is not as clearly quantifiable or predictable as the evidence for charged particles. That does not mean it does not exist.Even babies learn the self/other distinction before they understand speech, using the evidence all around them.

It is no use to say that interactions and experiences exist without us. If there are no "we" then there are no "we" to interact. Interactions require at least two parties.

If there is no me to set free, then I cannot be freed anyway.

Enjoy your freedom, Extra C. In my opinion freedom from suffering is not the highest good. Ask Sparticus if he would rather live in a world in which his children do not exist and never existed, or else accept the suffering that they sometimes put him through.
_________________
" ... the mistakes that we male and female mortals make when we have our own way might fairly raise some wonder that we are so fond of it. " George Eliot

ExtraCrispy · Boatswain Posts: 3923 **39052 Gold** -

Sparticus's kids will not disappear if he is free from suffering...

He can have his kids without the pain. Your point is?

You can raise kids without pain.

Pain is not needed for love to exist.

What is the highest good? Why not chase after it pain free?

What good is suffering? You were meant to overcome it.

ExtraCrispy · Boatswain Posts: 3923 **39052 Gold** -

ExtraCrispy · Boatswain Posts: 3923 **39052 Gold** -

sparticus · Helmsman Posts: 5818 **44872 Gold** -

You 2 have fried my Brains.

Mr. Blue · Rigger Posts: 1947 **68613 Gold** -

Spart, will explain to this poor guy that you cannot have kids without suffering? When they suffer you suffer. If you care that is. Your beliefs may comfort you. They cannot remove the suffering. One of the worst experiences we parents can have is watching our children suffer when we can do nothing to stop it. Is that suffering purposeless? Maybe, or maybe the experience of shared suffering brings us closer to our children. Maybe it gives us insight into a higher purpose for suffering, even if we cannot account for every bad thing that happens. Either way, if my child must suffer, then I want to be there with him to bring what comfort I can. If that hurts me too, so be it.

When Spart interacts with his children, what is interacting? They, or their bodies and minds which are not them? If it is they, then they exist. If it is their egos or whatever, then their real selves are not interacting. For Spart to embrace his children is to embrace a lie. But perhaps you will say that he is really all along united with them at some other level, some union of everything. That is a beautiful idea, and I think there is some merit in it. However, if it is a unity of one, then Spart does not have childen because parent-child relationships require distinction. If it is a unity of different things together but still individual, then Spart and his children exist as things in union with God. If Spart does not exist then neither do his children. If he does, then there is something that is Spart that is not a lie. Looks to me like a case of have your cake or eat it.

Actually possession does not require two things. It requires two roles, possessor and possessed. I don’t see why one thing cannot fulfill both roles.

I never said that the definitions from dictionary.com are invalid. They simply are not intended for philosophy. Like many other fields philosophy has its own specialized vocabulary. I don’t know that vocabulary because I am not a philosopher. I would be surprised if real philosophers would try to tackle this sort of problem using dictionary.com.

I’ve already explained why I think the universe gives evidence of the existence of the self. If you don’t want to agree that’s up to you. I just wonder who the you is who says “Hey that thought I just had isn’t really mine!” If it is you, then you exist. If it is not you, but just another thought that is not you then it is not you who realizes that your reality is a lie. In other words, you cannot realize you don’t exist unless there is a you to realize it. Thus your expression of your belief is one of the pieces of evidence of your existence which experience supplies.

Everything in union with God sounds wonderful, but if there is no I then there is no I to be separated from God or to be joined to God.

Asking me to define soul is a pointless waste of time. I do not believe that I know everything. Therefore it is not necessary for me to be able to define something for it to exist.

I plead guilty to rudeness on the “self-hypnosis” bit. That was tactless. Yes I did try it. It is very soothing. That proves nothing. I’m not very experienced with meditation, but I believe that there are a number of mantras which can be soothing. I am a llama probably is too amusingly ridiculous to work, but other things would. If your old music teacher told you that he experiences something when he recites the Ave Maria would you accept that as proof that Catholicism is true?

I don’t know enough about multiple personality disorder to answer questions about it clearly. I don’t even know if it is truly a disorder, or only defined as such. I can believe that someone who may or may not be sick can receive what may or may not be a cure, in which case behavior which may or may not be a real personality is no longer manifested, and therefore the alleged personality may have been destroyed, assuming that it doesn’t continue to exist at a subconscious level. There are just too many unknowns here for it to prove anything.
_________________
" ... the mistakes that we male and female mortals make when we have our own way might fairly raise some wonder that we are so fond of it. " George Eliot

ExtraCrispy · Boatswain Posts: 3923 **39052 Gold** -

This will sound radical but the events in your life do not need to cause you pain. You can't control what happens to you but you can control how you react to it.

This is tricky to master but once done there will be no pain.

You suffering along with your child does not make him feel better. In fact it may make him/her feel worse.

Feel good and then make him feel good.

If you keep at the meditation and repeat "There is no me" over and over for half and hour you might see what I'm talking about.

Mr. Blue · Rigger Posts: 1947 **68613 Gold** -

"This is going around in circles."

Well, yes, that's what religious conversations tend to do.

You may think you are only trying to convince me of only a single fact, but it goes further than that. You have claimed the existence of a God and that you know the right method to achieve union with that God, which is what will happen if I accept that "single fact." You have made claims about the nature of reality and what humans are (or aren't). Thats the sort of stuff religions do. It may not be a religion as such, but it is certainly a religious outlook, and you are certainly trying to convert me. Try dictionary.com on that one and I'm sure you will find a definition of convert that fits.

So whether it is technically a religious discussion or not, it follows the same dynamics. Each side is convinced that its arguments are strong, while the other side's arguments are weak, because each side makes different assumptions and has a bias in favor of its own belief. My position is obviously true to me and yours is to you. Definitely a recepie for getting no where.

Its taken up more of my spare time than I can really afford, so I will have to opt out. I apologize that I was flippant in my earlier posts. I thought we were joking and playing around. I did not know we were discussing things that are important to you. I also thank you for getting me to exercise my lazy brain.

By the way, please use our forums properly in future. Iknow you did not deliberately lure me into this by first pretending to be joking and then acting as if it was a philosophic debate when really it was something more serious all along. However, the effect is much the same. I look forward to seeing you soon on other threads. Most of them are as fruitless as this one, but they do amuse.
_________________
" ... the mistakes that we male and female mortals make when we have our own way might fairly raise some wonder that we are so fond of it. " George Eliot

ExtraCrispy · Boatswain Posts: 3923 **39052 Gold** -

Posted this in the wrong forum.

Yeah we both got carried away.

You asked me separation from what?

You can ignore everything else I said except for the fact there is no you.

I'm going to opt out to. This has eaten up a lot of my time.

Been a pretty interesting discussion.

sparticus · Helmsman Posts: 5818 **44872 Gold** -

Lucky Rupert did not do this to this Thread :