When you die...

[bluestreak]

i prefer to imagine i go on an epic voyage into the vortex and retieve the philosopher's stone from its sacred nesting place, EVERY night

And then forget it all just in time for waking up

not a bad plan.

i imagine my consciousness inhabits a small dormouse called roger as he snuffles his way around a barn in wiltshire. it's kind of cool, but leaves me nervous around the cat for a few minutes every morning.

 

[bluestreak]

Matter isnt solid? Well i dont know what matter is in that case i always thought it was

it's great though innit.

i ignored physics for years because it didn't match up with my preconceptions of reality, and then i dated a scientist and learnt that physics was far more interesting and trippy than anything i'd come up with in my own head.

streams of photons... wtf? how cool.... quantum mechanics, fuck my brain, that's a good un....

 

[Blagsta]

Not strictly true, we know that (for example) 1 + 1 = 2, completely independently of the senses, it's called a priori knowledge

Utter nonsense. We have a conception of maths because we can sense objects. We think in base 10 because we have 10 digits on our hands.

 

[Azrael23]

Numbers map expressions that pre-date them.

Google: SACRED GEOMETRY

 

[Blagsta]

The point being that we have a concept of mathematical relationships because we have a relationship with the physical world around us.

 

[Azrael23]

Or because we are one with the world around us and born of the same essence. The same expressions underlie the shape of your eye as underlie the shape of a galaxy.

All is one.

 

[Blagsta]

That doesn't even mean anything.

 

[Azrael23]

Maybe not to you. lol

 

[118118]

Utter nonsense. We have a conception of maths because we can sense objects. We think in base 10 because we have 10 digits on our hands.

You can't deny a prori knowledge that easily. As far as I can tell, its fairly wrong to deny a priori knowledge Maybe there is no knowedge prior to being in the world, though.

And, as far as I can tell, you don't need to beleive in platonic forms to believe in a prioris.

 

[Blagsta]

You can't deny a prori knowledge that easily. As far as I can tell, its fairly wrong to deny a priori knowledge Maybe there is no knowedge prior to being in the world, though.

And, as far as I can tell, you don't need to beleive in platonic forms to believe in a prioris.

I just denied max's example fairly easily.

 

[Blagsta]

Maybe not to you. lol

But of course you have secret knowledge.

You and max should get it together I reckon.

 

[118118]

I just denied max's example fairly easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori
Read this, then tell me if you, still think you did

 

[Blagsta]

Read it already. I disagree with it. IMO we have to have a knowledge of the world to understand how to count or what counting means.

 

[Blagsta]

Its a nonsense argument anyway. We have experience of the world - to argue what knowledge we have without experience of the world makes no sense. To have no experience of the world, we wouldn't exist and wouldn't be able to have the argument.

Unless I've missed something.

 

[118118]

Sorry, you think that you have proved every living philosopher, barring Ayn Rand, wong, with half a line of your thoughts

 

[Blagsta]

Maybe I've misunderstood what "a priori" means then.

Explain my mistake to me?

 

[Blagsta]

As far as I can tell, I'm merely arguing an empiricist position.

 

[118118]

No, like, I don't think your completely worng, we have to presuppose a certain amount of knowledge of concepts in some examples of a priori knowledge, I think. Not sure what the original argument was about tho, so, huh.

 

[Blagsta]

I'm not sure what you mean tbh. Do you mean like Godels's theorem? Where within mathematical systems we have to start from assumptions that can't be proved from within that system?

 

[118118]

i thought that empiricists still thought a priori truths possible, just that they were trivial.

 

[Blagsta]

Dunno tbh. Although wikipedia has this to say "John Locke, in believing that reflection is a part of experience, gave a platform by which the entire notion of the "a priori" might be abandoned." Which is pretty much my position. We are creatures born of experience, into an experential world. To argue that there is anything that is divorced from experience seems non-sensical to me.

 

[Azrael23]

I don`t have secret knowledge, i just read a lot and have been lucky enough to experience some wierdness.

Try "the field" by lynne mctaggart.

It will change your life. And if it doesn`t I`ll give you the money you paid for it.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I'm sure I read a book once where everyone who died went to live in yorkshire or something. This guys mum died and went there. Anyone know what it was called?

 

[angry bob]

Dunno tbh. Although wikipedia has this to say "John Locke, in believing that reflection is a part of experience, gave a platform by which the entire notion of the "a priori" might be abandoned." Which is pretty much my position. We are creatures born of experience, into an experential world. To argue that there is anything that is divorced from experience seems non-sensical to me.

You dont think that there is an underlying reality?

i.e. we see (or experience) light interacting with atoms.

And we use our reason to establish that atoms exist.

I'm not saying your wrong ... with the advent of the quantum world it seems likely that we cannot divorce the two worlds of appearance and reality.

 

[Azrael23]

Atoms are an approximation. Its only the interaction of vibrational frequencies. Atoms are not solid per se.

Matter is an illusion. Most people know that on an intellectual level but can never bring it into their state of being. Always wondered why that is.

Science continues to prove mysticism right, I love it.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

I'm sure I read a book once where everyone who died went to live in yorkshire or something. This guys mum died and went there. Anyone know what it was called?

Sounds a bit like "How The Dead Live" by Will Self. Dead people all inhabit a secret part of London called Dulston and spend a lot of time queuing in badly-run social welfare offices.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Science continues to prove mysticism right, I love it.

Only because mysticism is so bloody subjective, vague and woolly that it can mean anything. The similarities between Eastern philosophies and quantum mechanics are mostly superficial.

 

[kerb]

I don`t have secret knowledge, i just read a lot and have been lucky enough to experience some wierdness.

Try "the field" by lynne mctaggart.

re: 'the field' can i ask how and why please?

Whats weirdness to?

Very Interesting thread.

 

[Blagsta]

You dont think that there is an underlying reality?

i.e. we see (or experience) light interacting with atoms.

And we use our reason to establish that atoms exist.

I'm not saying your wrong ... with the advent of the quantum world it seems likely that we cannot divorce the two worlds of appearance and reality.

Eh? Where have I argued against an underlying reality? Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Blagsta]

I don`t have secret knowledge, i just read a lot and have been lucky enough to experience some wierdness.

Try "the field" by lynne mctaggart.

It will change your life. And if it doesn`t I`ll give you the money you paid for it.

Oh yes, a journalist coming up with new ideas on quantum physics.

Sorry, I'm not that credulous.