If energy can neither be created nor destroyed...

[phyllo]

You need to prove that a shared viewpoint is can be something more than just a shared viewpoint.
Which you fail miserably . . . over and over again.

I don’t see you proving anything.

Reading is a personal experience too. But not a personal experience of what is being read.
In other words, reading someone’s description of walking the streets of Paris is a personal experience.
But of reading and not of walking the streets of Paris.
There is NO going BEYOND personal experience.

Are you now going to claim that’s what you meant in your previous post? That “reading” is the “personal experience” that you acquire?

So you’re denying there is such a thing as too much education?
You can throw any quantity of information at anyone and they can be realistically expected to make sense of all of it in no time?
You think that people can’t be destroyed by being forced to process too much information?
You think that people shouldn’t control the inflow of information but should simply surrender to whatever quantity of information is thrown at them?
Why? Because you want everyone to agree? Because you do not want people to disagree with each other?
Noone should have their own perspective? Instead, everyone should have one and the same perspective and pretend to be “objective”?
You think that people should spend most of their time reading books and listening to what other people have to say instead of directly engaging reality?

A bunch of leading questions.
I’m surprised that you did not ask “when I stopped beating my wife”.

[surreptitious75]

You cannot become a critical thinker without first acquiring a basic education
Once you have that then you can start questioning every thing but not before

[surreptitious75]

@Anderson

You are denying there is such a thing as too much education
It is not education that there is too much of but information

You can throw any quantity of information at anyone and they can be realistically expected to make sense of all of it in no time
No of course not because the processing and understanding of information is not something that can just happen instantaneously

You think that people cant be destroyed by being forced to process too much information
Maybe but that would be at the extreme end of the spectrum so not very representative

You think that people shouldnt control the inflow of information but should simply surrender to whatever quantity of information is thrown at them
Obviously the flow of information has to be controlled because otherwise it becomes difficult if not impossible to process it in any meaningful way

Because you want everyone to agree. Because you do not want people to disagree with each other
Completely untrue because I actually think that it is better if everyone disagrees with each other

No one should have their own perspective. Instead everyone should have one and the same perspective and pretend to be objective
What you have just described there is very idealistic and therefore entirely unreal because it is just not how human beings function

You think that people should spend most of their time reading books and listening to what other people have to say instead of directly engaging reality
The best books are actually about reality but everyone is free to read as much or as little as they want and also engage reality in anyway they want to

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Phyllo

I don’t see you proving anything.

What do I have to prove? That “objectively true” is either a meaningless expression or merely another way of saying “experienced” and “informed”?

Are you now going to claim that’s what you meant in your previous post? That “reading” is the “personal experience” that you acquire?

Are you now going to claim that that’s NOT what I meant in all of my previous posts?

Let’s just say that you misunderstood what I said. If you don’t believe it then I don’t think I will have enough patience to prove it to you. So take it or leave it.

A bunch of leading questions.
I’m surprised that you did not ask “when I stopped beating my wife”.

I am sorry if you feel overwhelmed by my questions. You are not obligated to respond to them. Nonetheless, a lot of what you say, and most importantly, the fact that you responded to my claim that “there is such a thing as too much education” by accusing me of being against education in general, leaves me with no choice but to conclude that you are one of those modern types. I am not going to elaborate any further – it would be too exhausting to do so.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

Philosophically, it is hypocritical and dishonest if one claims that energy can be eternal (re: “neither created nor destroyed”) but God cannot. Energy is defined as “the ability to do work” and it seems that this is something distinct from consciousness, which, as the evidence of our existence plainly demonstrates, is subjective experience. This it may be that God is not energy, but consciousness.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

@mannequin01

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, doesn’t that law suggest that a god exists? that God is that energy and all comes from it as a original source and it continues to perpetually exist?

Seems like a logical fallacy.

Consciousness does not violate C.O.E.

Energy can flow indefinitely until it happens to morph into forms compatible with conscious experience.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

Seems like a logical fallacy.

Consciousness does not violate C.O.E.

Energy can flow indefinitely until it happens to morph into forms compatible with conscious experience.

We can’t know if energy, if thought to be something that is not or is something other than consciousness, exists, as the only form of existence that produces proof of its existence is consciousness. Therefore, we can’t know that energy exists or if a magic exists in which something that isn’t subjective experience inexplicably morphs into subjective experience.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

@phenomenal_graffiti

Seems like a logical fallacy.

Consciousness does not violate C.O.E.

Energy can flow indefinitely until it happens to morph into forms compatible with conscious experience.

We can’t know if energy, if thought to be something that is not or is something other than consciousness, exists, as the only form of existence that produces proof of its existence is consciousness. Therefore, we can’t know that energy exists or if a magic exists in which something that isn’t subjective experience inexplicably morphs into subjective experience.

This is a giant, giant, logical fallacy.

Energy is the action of movement. The action transfers in inverse relation to it’s mass. This is because the action is directly related to mass, if an object contains 1 unit of energy inside 1 unit of mass, and it transfers the energy to an object with 100 units of mass, the resultant energy in each unit of mass will be 1/100.

Consciousness provides proof of other things, beyond only proving the existence of itself. That is the nature of consciousness. Consciousness is not actually a thing that exists, it is simply an actuator of things that exist. It is silly to say that we can’t know energy exists.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

Consciousness cannot indicate or prove the existence of something other than itself. One only mistakenly believes it can. It, being subjective experience, cannot indicate the existence of something that is not subjective experience.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

@phenomenal_graffiti

Consciousness cannot indicate or prove the existence of something other than itself. One only mistakenly believes it can. It, being subjective experience, cannot indicate the existence of something that is not subjective experience.

Wrong. Consciousness is not a “self”. It is a process which INDICATES the existence of things. Subjective experience=the indication of existent things within the range of detection within the bounds of subjective experience.