Forums » Spirituality & Philosophy

List of newest posts

    • May 7, 2015 4:41:51 PM PDT
    • I thought about not being able to observe anything (no sense of sight, sound, touch, taste, smell). Other things would exist, you just wouldn't know about them.

      I guess it depends on how you want to define existence, if something exists and there is nothing to observe it, and it's not able to observe itself, then it might as well not exist.

    • May 6, 2015 6:58:08 PM PDT
    • I understand the philosophy and I don't buy it in the way a lot of people do. Info in action out. If you want to believe it's not all real that's cool, but I've tested it a lot unintentionally and things tend to produce the same results.

      In a momentary sense there is a call to wisdom here also. You can choose to allow info in or not, creating more power than the theory maintains.

    • May 6, 2015 5:03:17 PM PDT
    • Quantum mechanics maintains that:

      a) the observer alone has independent existence
      b) the observed is dependent on observation, and therefore the observer, for existence
      c) we are quantum phenomena under the relativistic illusion that we're not.

      This is a good example of a subtle kind of epistemic reductionism. Information available =/= information apprehended, and information available certainly doesn't equal information verified. (Try contradicting either of those statements and you end up in some interesting self-contradicting pickles.)

      The solipsistic belief that nothing exists until and unless it is "observed" is the result of reductionistic denial of available information that can't be verified by observation. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

      To illustrate, consider "the observed is dependent on observation, and therefore the observer, for existence." If that statement were true, then we couldn't call it "observed", because observation implies BOTH an observer and a thing observed. But there is no thing observed until the so-called "observation". If the "observed" has no existence until an observer observes it, then the act isn't "observation" but creation, because the act constituted the object.

      So, "observation" is misleading, sneakily smuggling in an implicit notion of independent existence while explicitly disallowing it. Eliminating subtle tricks like this helps clarify that existential claims that pretend to be more than presumptions are presumptuous and shoot themselves in the foot, lol.

    • May 6, 2015 12:28:15 PM PDT
    • @ CwBarnett
      Yes, you are right. I didn't officially claim an argument. The argument would be that the ego preserves itself when transitioning between any interface; thus objectively the ego is self-preserving through any medium.
      However self-image and self-perception would be separate from this theory. This indicates a subjective vantage point from the holder, that in objectivity will be different. Inherently, the ego influences self-image but is separate in transition through any interface. Self-image would change whereas the ego would not.

    • April 22, 2015 7:34:24 PM PDT
    • The basis of your post is based on a question of "ego" vs "true/sacred" self. The argument should not be "one could argue both" but why do we have the innate ability to shift from one position to another without compromising one's self image.

    • April 22, 2015 6:18:04 PM PDT
    • Deeep

    • April 21, 2015 8:50:14 PM PDT
    • Having an ego:

      So the ego, is it an origin premise or a byproduct of self-preservation; one could argue both, any appearing byproduct of an emerging structure would consider a case of the ego being something that could quantify an ability of perseverance to maintain itself.

      Using an ego:

      By extension we can consider such an ability to be twofold:
      A.maintaining a stable interface
      B.that the interface may adapt to its surroundings

      Defining an ego:
      So this being the case we can assume that the ego is something that is three dimensional and capable of restraining its surroundings for the point of allowing its most basic structure to flourish or conform.

      The mechanics and limits of an ego:

      Now that such an ability would not only be absurd, but not extreme, referencing now the case of Newton's contents of that every action has an equal or opposite reaction being disproven; or more simply: you can do something and nothing will happen, but back to the point that's being mentioned, can be considered very extreme in classical mechanics. But. If we can consider for a second that the ego is something singular but, brought to a point considerably nearer to infinite than one would imagine, folded, looped, and traced that much and then some could it not be argued that everything, hard and soft, old and new, has a sense of self-entitling itself to a presence?

      What are your thoughts about this proposed theory of how an ego exists and functions?

    • April 30, 2015 5:46:13 PM PDT
    • I try not to 'believe'. I exist and watch. How the hell could I even begin to grasp what's beyond the physical.

    • April 30, 2015 10:01:26 AM PDT
    • I believe this (reality) is all nonsense. If people need something to anchor themselves, they should seek it out for themselves, and also except that others need to find their own anchor. Other than that, life's just about seeing how deep the rabbit hole goes, seeing who else is down there, and just not ruining things for others whenever possible.

    • April 21, 2015 4:23:13 PM PDT
    • I believe in nothing. lol.

    • March 25, 2015 6:32:04 PM PDT
    • Philosophically, I think the universe exists as a spectrum of consciousness (which i synonymous to complexity/dimension/intelligence in my view), which spans infinitely towards the minuscule and immense. As beings of fixed consciousness, I think there's a logical limit to how far we can "see" up or down this spectrum (natural asymptotes). This ties into my religious view of weak deism - something greater likely created us and our physical world, but because it exists at a higher level of consciousness we can't really comprehend it. Since consciousness has no upper bound, however, I reject the idea of any absolutely supreme thing.

    • February 5, 2015 12:15:45 AM PST
    • I built my own religion. How INTJ of me... muahaha

      Now I just need coolaid and some followers. Would anyone like to join?

      On a serious note, I believe a hybrid of Christianity mixed with new age ideas. I incorporate what I believe to be accurate about the world.

    • January 26, 2015 7:58:44 PM PST
    • I am a LaVeyan Satanist, which is an individualistic philosophy where the rituals are psychodrama. It's Atheistic, meaning there is no belief in a God or Satan and Satan is merely a representation of the individuality of the "religion."

      With that said, I love learning about religions and their philosophies and nuances! If you message me about religion, and we get on a topic, I'll probably not shut up, lol.

    • January 5, 2015 4:19:53 PM PST
    • I believe the religion and god are a load of bullshit.

    • January 3, 2015 4:08:33 PM PST
    • Very interesting beliefs here. I love hearing what other people believe and why. I am Roman Catholic and I believe that God is Love and is a communion of divine persons. I was raised Catholic but really only got to know God and own my faith through some life-changing experiences in college. After college I served as a year as a Catholic Campus Missionary which was quite awesome. If you have any questions please feel free to ask :)

    • December 29, 2014 3:26:49 PM PST
    • Wow some strong beliefs are here, I am a Christian and I prefer covenant and reformed theology. If you feel like asking me about it message me. Jesus all the way!

    • December 1, 2014 2:50:59 AM PST
    • "I'm equally torn between creationism and evolution. I can see logic on both sides, really. I was raised in a Baptist church and now see myself as "undecided". For all I know, the universe as we know it is just a spec of dust on some cheap hotel's lamp shade. Or maybe an amoeba on someone's microscope lense. Who knows?" RogerRabbit

      maybe we were created to evolve?

    • December 1, 2014 2:27:58 AM PST
    • between deism and universal consciousness. Because of quantum mechanics and placebo effect. Probably some free will with restrictions. Or all choices I make are predetermined? I don't think it's that boring. Yep, some free will.
      I like buddhism

    • October 10, 2014 7:27:50 PM PDT
    • I'm equally torn between creationism and evolution. I can see logic on both sides, really. I was raised in a Baptist church and now see myself as "undecided". For all I know, the universe as we know it is just a spec of dust on some cheap hotel's lamp shade. Or maybe an amoeba on someone's microscope lense. Who knows?

    • March 31, 2015 9:24:53 AM PDT
    • I listened to it and have a feedback but don't think i need to give it so keep it to myself ;). Anyways silence is virtue :) (thanks for reminding me) @ monogatri :)

    • March 31, 2015 12:08:37 AM PDT
    • not sure if you need to give feedback...just enjoy it when you have time:)

      I also have a few suggestions that are nice:
      this one is cool, but sometimes there is noise(like construction work in the background)

    • March 30, 2015 8:27:37 PM PDT
    • They both sound interesting will listen to them tonight and then will give my feedback.

    • March 30, 2015 5:50:46 PM PDT
    • Haven't listened to this program in a while but I love "Ideas"!

    • March 30, 2015 5:34:59 PM PDT
    • Hi everyone :)

      Just wanted to recommend 2 episodes from a great podcast "Ideas"
      Definitely deserves a listen - check it out!

      1 .A Brief History of Humankind

      2. A History of Violence


    • February 7, 2015 12:25:58 AM PST
    • Hmm, I would use my hybrid self to take over the world. Duh! Muahah

      On a serious note, uh probably, wow, this is weird. First, I would sleep with a guy... And probably not like it. I know how most guys kiss. Gross. I've been mauled before. I don't know how you girls put up with that sh*t excuse for kissing. I mean, eat someone's mouth off why don't you guys?

      After that I would experiment with orgasms and compare them to a male. And then theorize if there is a metaphysical component to why they feel different if they do.

      Second, I would attempt to make myself experience emotions.

      Third, I would attempt to gage if a gender change altered what I am attracted to.

      Fourth, I would pee while squatting.

      Fifth, I would see what more I could get away with as a female as compared to a male.

      Sixth, I would look for aspects of gender discrimination without the bias of having grown up as that gender.

      Last, I would hang out somewhere unsafe and find a sexual predator. Then I would send that low life to the after life after a bit of "play time." This would likely become of hobby of mine until caught.