Koyaanisqatsi

The claim is implicit. The details are mine and irrelevant, since positing a "creator" who is capable of creating something out of nothing on a universal scale is an act that can readily be described as "magical."

As for the "fairy god king" part, I was just trying to cover the various colloquial titles.

Is that ok with you?

Now, if it's not too much trouble could either of you actually address the arguments and present salient points?

It would be greatly appreciated.

So far, all that you have argued is something vaguely to do with personal belief bordering on solipsism and all WJ has done is offered pointless rhetorical nonsense that implies "just have faith," because your "essence" is "outside of the domain of reason," aka, "If you aren't capable of fully understanding the answers, then there is no way for you to ask any questions, therefore, be a braind dead sheep."

That's it in a nutshell.

So, perhaps we can move forward here. I ask you honestly and sincerely, what, exactly, is your position?

Mr. Sammi

I once said reality is not fantasy. No one believed me. Then I said reality must be repeatable. WJ seems to be on to this.

To further this point, we can at some time realise that fantasy is the first phase of a perception. The quality of the perception may grow and grow, sometimes with contradicting reports,sometimes with reports which correlate.

The mind may become overburdened and must decide on the status of the perception. Does it remain fantasy or is it reality?

At this stage it seems as if reality is growing up, like understanding. The first stage of reality was to notice a pattern, a perception that repeated itself. It was a fantasy but with a hidden reality, the reality of disposition. What to do with the fantasy?

To me reality is like a ladder, you need understanding to climb it, else it may repeat for no purpose and remain a fantasy.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

John Page

My position is that I addressed my question to Walrus. I'm interested in hearing what he says before deciding what to do. I wish to avoid "taking sides", especially when there seems to be some history of antagonism.

I am sincerely interested if you have any comments on the Nocebo link I offered at the top of this page. If you haven't had a chance to look at it, basically the term has been coined for a placebo that has scientifically measurable side effects. To me, these results indicate that our (subconscious?) belief systems induce behavior independent of external reality. IMO these come from our ability as a social species to "behave in a way that is expected of us". I guess the same kind of mechanism explains voodooo.

In summary, it seems to me that reality still has a few trick up its sleeve (sorry for the athropomorphism). It can be entertaining, though, could you succesfully bring a law suit as a Nocebo consumer for the real side effects suffered? Perhaps we could try that in the morals and ethics forum.

Cheers, John

Koyaanisqatsi

Thank you, John (sincerely).

I did read the Nocebo article and am a big proponent of homeopathy; mind/matter, if you will.

It is abundantly clear, IMO, that the body heals according to both conscious and subconscious "directions;" that the mind can effect the body as the body effects the mind.

In that regard, I consider them to be one construct (mindbody, much like spacetime); they are not separate, merely that the body is the physical expression of the consciousness just as the smile is the physical expression of happiness.

WJ

Mmmm, see what happens when you infer thru logic? You may be right, or you may be wrong. Koy, which is it?

Sammi! Yes. Your idea of a continuioum is similar to existence of Being as a predicate, as our knowledge about reality [and our existence as humans] is completely dependent on time. It also goes back to a discussion John and I had about spinning ball's and not knowing what the true colors were, except for a blur. You would be faced with a percieved contradiction unless you could actually stop time. So I would agree with you insorfar as certain elements of physical reality are contradictiory upon such observation, if that is where you are going with that. Either that, or it returns us to synthetic apriori proposition's about a percieved truth.

And of course all this goes back to the reality of not being able to verify if I told you water was boiling 5 minutes ago and scientific inference ,etc...

Other than that, I'm not sure what the argument is about?

Oops, the 'carpenter' is the only one who 'truly' knows how to put together a chair v. an observer who has never built one which upon examination after the chair was built, the observer makes a claim. However, the nature of the chair's existence remains a mystery to both. So in this case 'experience' (aposterior) is closer to the truth, but obviously not in all cases, such as our understanding about the reality of mathematical truth (apriori).

Hope that helps some.

Oh, John, BTW, I'm a Christian. I still maintain my suggestion that a thread is needed to do a detailed analysis of what it actually means to hold a belief. Koy, I think, has been afraid to engage in that one... .

Walrus

John Page

No, you only believe you're a Christian. . God is a nocebo, now I come to think of it....

Cheers, John

WJ

John!

God is a synthetic apriori.



Walrus

John Page

Carpenter! Sorry. Walrus!

Wrong again. God was a synthetic apriori. That's what a priori's are, right? Now redundant, god's wandering Reality looking for another job.

Cheers, John

WJ

I beg to disagree. 'To exist' is a predicate. Being is a predicate.



Walrus

John Page

god is not a being, its a concept.

For a being to be real, there must be some proof of its existence. Thus, no being can fall into the category "synthetic a priori". god disappears in a puff of logic.

Meanwhile, back in Noceboland...