It's time to wake up!

a reply to: daskakik

But, even if what you say was true. It still doesn't mean that you can prove anything by posting ideas on the web.

My example that all we can experience is this moment is true and you even agreed and said everyone knows this.
It is true there could be people who disagree but it doesn't take away it being a fact about how we experience reality just because some could deny it.

Not the way you are trying to prove things. Scientific method was devolped to exclude the individual scientists opinions. Double blind research being an example.

It is possible to be objective and exclude personal opinions without science. The example with experiencing the moment proves it.
EDIT: And based on you, even science can't prove anything by posting it's discoveries somewhere.

Missed it by this much.

How so? What's your point?

originally posted by: Andy1144

It does because you were basically saying that I am not making any sense calling thoughts non reality.

Whatever appears is reality - what is appearing is what there is. Thoughts are words and words do appear. However - the stories words tell are often bought into - the stories that appear are often about 'me' - how I am, how I appear to others, how I can be better, how I am not good enough - the thoughts can be self obsessed, concerned with an image I must portray to fit in etc.
Thoughts are real but the person that they speak about is not.

originally posted by: Andy1144
My example that all we can experience is this moment is true and you even agreed and said everyone knows this.
It is true there could be people who disagree but it doesn't take away it being a fact about how we experience reality just because some could deny it.

But it doesn't mean that your agreement is in line with reality.

It is possible to be objective and exclude personal opinions without science. The example with experiencing the moment proves it.

Sorry I don't trust you. When I experience that same thing I come up with a different conclusion. You don't trust me either and even came close to calling me a troll because of that.

How so? What's your point?

"No, because then you have to accept religious folks expereincing what ever they think they experience as solid proof."

If your experience is to be accepted as solid proof then we would have to accept everyone's. It all then becomes rather pointless.

a reply to: daskakik

But it doesn't mean that your agreement is in line with reality.

I don't assume this agreement, I know it directly. And that knowingness is in line with how we experience reality. I don't exactly know what that meant though. Can anything be in line with reality based on you?

Sorry I don't trust you. When I experience that same thing I come up with a different conclusion. You don't trust me either and even came close to calling me a troll because of that.

That's not even what I was talking about here.

If your your experience is to be accepted as solid proof then we would have to accept everyone's. It all then becomes rather pointless.

From that point of view everything is pointless because no matter what we consider solid proof, it's someones experience.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I was thinking about saying that to, but I thought it would strike a big paradox and confuse him. Thoughts are real, but thoughts that are assumed to be based in separation are an illusion. They are illusions but real illusions. Thoughts are real, but what they suggest is illusory.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I don't assume this agreement, I know it directly. And that knowingness is in line with how we experience reality. I don't exactly know what that meant though. Can anything be in line with reality based in you?

The question is, Can we trust those who claim that they are in line with reality?

That's not even what I was talking about here.

Sure it is. You say you can be objective and I don't believe you.

I say I have experienced what you are talking about and you don't believe me.

From that point of view everything is pointless because no matter what we consider solid proof, it's someones experience.

I'm fine with that. It still doesn't help your argument one bit.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I was thinking about saying that to, but I thought it would strike a big paradox and confuse him.

No need to be condescending. There is nothing that you have posted that has confused me.

a reply to: daskakik

The question is, Can we trust those who claim that they are in line with reality?

The answer is don't. Verify it for yourself. Maybe even then you'll be wrong. But there are some things which can be known for sure.

I'm fine with that. It still doesn't help your argument one bit.

But you agree it all pointless by that standard?

originally posted by: Andy1144
The answer is don't. Verify it for yourself. Maybe even then you'll be wrong. But there are some things which can be known for sure.

I know I can be that is why I am not preaching truths, you, on the other hand, want to spread it Billy Graham style while, you may also be wrong.

But you agree it all pointless by that standard?

What standard?

Questioning science doesn't add validity to your claim. That stands apart from science. You continue to use logical fallacies as if they bolster your point.

a reply to: daskakik

What standard?

You said "If your your experience is to be accepted as solid proof then we would have to accept everyone's. It all then becomes rather pointless. "

From that reasoning, nothing can be accepted as solid proof, even scientific evidence because it relies on someones experience.

a reply to: Andy1144

I know I can be that is why I am not preaching truths, you, on the other hand, want to spread it Billy Graham style while, you may also be wrong.

Science wants to spread the truth it discovers as well. They admit they don't know everything and can be wrong about what they know and accept new things. I am doing the same. I only spread what I know for sure and I never tell anyone to assume what I am saying is true. I say look at your own experiences.

a reply to: Andy1144

Well if you understood science you would not be asking.

Although I also said, way back in the thread, it is pointless.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Science wants to spread the truth it discovers as well.

Has nothing to do with the point. What ever science does has nothing to do with me accepting that I can be wrong.

I say look at your own experiences.

Then question their experience if it doesn't agree with yours. Way to be objective and open to new ideas.

a reply to: daskakik

Then question their experience if it doesn't agree with yours. Way to be objective and open to new ideas.

You can assume things like that all you wan't, but it's pointless. I always said I am open to being wrong, but don't believe me, it doesn't matter.
However it makes a difference when I ask you about what you think SE and DE is. The difference is, I actually make support what I am saying with examples, while you avoid answering simple questions. That's why I can't trust you. But is trust really needed to have a discussion? I think that's why you should answer my questions, so I know you know what I mean by what I say.
and not assume.

Well if you understood science you would not be asking.

Although I also said, way back in the thread, it is pointless.

Science still relies on someones subjective experience. That is one way it works and everything does. They try to be objective in their reasoning and so can an individual without using science.

Explain how it's pointless. Is it possible for something to have a point to you?

You said "If your your experience is to be accepted as solid proof then we would have to accept everyone's. It all then becomes rather pointless. "

EDIT: I said "From that reasoning, nothing can be accepted as solid proof"

Is this so?

originally posted by: Andy1144
You can assume things like that all you wan't, but it's pointless. I always said I am open to being wrong, but don't believe me, it doesn't matter.

Your posts speak for themselves on this.

That's why I can't trust you. But is trust really needed to have a discussion? I think that's why you should answer my questions, so I know you know what I mean by what I say.

I know what you mean whether you believe me or not. That truth isn't dependent on you.

They try to be objective in their reasoning and so can an individual without using science.

No they can't that is why replication and external review are used. Even then, nothing is guaranteed.

Explain how it's pointless. Is it possible for something to have a point to you?

You said "If your your experience is to be accepted as solid proof then we would have to accept everyone's. It all then becomes rather pointless. "

"From that reasoning, nothing can be accepted as solid proof"

Is this so?

You ask questions when the answer is right in front of you. No that is not what I am saying.

It starts with an "If" which means that if an exception is made for your experiience based conclusions to be accepted as solid proof then the same would have to be applied to everyone's experiience based conclusions.

a reply to: daskakik

Your posts speak for themselves on this.

That doesn't mean anything. Some people could agree and some not. If you don't then explain why you don't or else your opinion is pointless.

I know what you mean whether you believe me or not. That truth isn't dependent on you.

It doesn't matter. I need to see if you know it so I can verify it for sure and not just blindly assume it.

No they can't that is why replication and external review are used. Even then, nothing is guaranteed.

So you are saying that nothing can be proven for sure, ever.

originally posted by: Andy1144
That doesn't mean anything.

It will to others who read the thread.

It doesn't matter. I need to see if you know it so I can verify it for sure and not just blindly assume it.

Your needs are not important to the discussion. My points don't rely on me understanding what you mean anyway.

So you are saying that nothing can be proven for sure, ever.

I'm pretty sure even science stands by that, given that even laws are open to change.

a reply to: daskakik

It will to others who read the thread.

Explaining why you don't agree would be even better.

Your needs are not important to the discussion. My points don't rely on me understanding what you mean anyway.

Then we are discussing two completely different things although it appears we are actually talking about each others points. I don't know how to relate to you and what questions to ask you sometimes because I don't know if you know what the words mean.

I'm pretty sure even science stands by that, given that even laws are open to change.

Even, the law that all we can experience, is this moment? Even that can't be known?

originally posted by: Andy1144
Explaining why you don't agree would be even better.

The point is for others to see. If you don't see it then it doesn't matter, the point is still made.

Then we are discussing two completely different things although it appears we are actually talking about each others points. I don't know how to relate to you and what questions to ask you sometimes because I don't know if you know what the words mean.

No we are discussing to different facets of the same thing.

You want to discuss it and I am discussing the validity of the arguments that you make based on it.

"It" is the same thing.

I say that I have experienced it but, the fact is that even if I had not, the points would be the same. That is why I don't answer your simple questions. You can't see how they are irrelevant because you want to discuss it and I don't.

Even, the law that all we can experience, is this moment? Even that can't be known?

That is not a scientific law, I was talking about science and its laws.

Philosophy is not science.

a reply to: daskakik

The point is for others to see. If you don't see it then it doesn't matter, the point is still made.

But it's a simple point and doesn't cover what we could discuss if you were more open.

I say that I have experienced it but, the fact is that even if I had not, the points would be the same. That is why I don't answer your simple questions. You can't see how they are irrelevant because you want to discuss it and I don't.

You don't want to discuss it because you don't think it matters. I do and try to explain why but I guess it's pointless if you don't want to.

That is not a scientific law, I was talking about science and its laws.
Philosophy is not science.

Science came into the discussion later, it wasn't the main point. I am not talking about making scientific facts specifically, although I told you science doesn't deal with many areas, including morals, so philosophy in needed in these cases.