Existence Is Infinite

[futureone]

Your every cell participates in consciousness.

No.

@Kallikantzaros

Then you know that as self-consciously is developing your mistake your inner voice for an external voice.
And that’s how you mistake your body as something other than yourself.
you are awakening to who and what you are…and you discover your own body, as something alien…strange…mysterious.
Know Thyself begins here.
This is your past manifesting as a presence. You ARE your body and your thoughts…and nothing else.

Western, Richard Dawkins, Sheldon Cooper type doctrine.

Ignoring all NDE, OBE and any such evidence contrary. In order to further the Westernism, Richard Dawkins-ism, Sheldon-Cooper-ism.

Words. Semiotics.

Your body is an avatar. You are stuck, “trapped” inside your avatar. Morpheus states that the Matrix is a prison for your mind. But I would state it differently. I would state that your brain is a prison for your soul…

As I stated earlier upon death your soul floats above your body like a videogame. At that point you are no longer “trapped” in your body.

I don’t know if you play videogames but maybe you should. Especially those of the first person camera. You will start to “get it”. Many of those games (such as Halo), the camera floats up above your body after death. Coincidence? Sure. Like you say about semiotics. Only so much can be explained with words. It is better to just play the game… maybe even take risks and do drugs, all for science of course.

Not one of these Richard Dawkins, Sheldon Coopers ever tries anything empirical, or does actual and real science experiments, like doing drugs or talking to shamans to try an OBE, not one of them, and just goes on and on about the Western doctrine about how you are only your body, souls don’t exist, reincarnation isn’t real, etc. on and on

Western spiritual beliefs are an absurdity, either you get Abrahamics or you get Sheldon Coopers that don’t believe in reincarnation or avatars at all whatsoever, they think consciousness magically appears and defies the laws of mathematics and physics, or solipism, or perhaps they don’t really believe solipism cause they don’t really consider the rammications of their beliefs or analyze it logically all the way though

In summary, YOU are a camera, no different than some FPS camera you are an observer a watcher and a witness. You observe a brain and body that you are in this is called your “avatar” the rest follows from there.

[futureone]

“Existence” is a mysterious word meant to cause some kind of illusion and confusion.

“Substance” a much better word for this. The world and universe is made of “substance”, we call this substance, atoms, wave, light, matter, etc.

Or you can call it vague things like “existence” so you can make an already complicated subject matter even more complicated, in order to confuse

[anon51310602]

@futureone

“Existence” is a mysterious word meant to cause some kind of illusion and confusion.

The term is clearly defined in the essay and further explained in discussion above.

@futureone

“Substance” a much better word for this. The world and universe is made of “substance”, we call this substance, atoms, wave, light, matter, etc.

How does “substance” account for action or activity? Immateriality? Thoughts, ideas, concepts?

Existence accounts for all. Existence easily accommodates action, activity, immateriality, thoughts, ideas and concepts. Existence accommodates substance itself.

Existence is all.

“Substance” is a relatively limited term.

@futureone

Or you can call it vague things like “existence” so you can make an already complicated subject matter even more complicated, in order to confuse

You imply I’m in error for using a general term, a specific general term. Yet you attempt to do just that, only with a different term. You present the very problem you proclaim.

[HumAnIze]

@anon51310602

Existence simply is.

Existence does not depend on any definition.

Existence does not depend on any thing.

Existence is all things. There is no other thing upon which to depend.

The commonality of all things, the metaphorical fabric of all things is existence.

All variance, all difference, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.

Existence is not dependent on perception or definitions however perception and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand existence.

God simply is.

God does not depend on any definition.

God does not depend on any thing.

God is all things. There is no other thing upon which to depend.

The commonality of all things, the metaphorical fabric of all things is God.

All variance, all difference, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply God.

God is not dependent on perception or definitions however perception and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand God.

[anon51310602]

@HumAnIze

God is all things.

God is part of existence.

God, being creator, is not creation.

This has been discussed here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/creation-makes-creator/49284

And illustrated here:

Existence concerns both creator and creation. And all else.

[HumAnIze]

The point I was making is that you can substitute existence for God or God for existence, it doesn’t change anything. Logically you are assuming that something doesn’t need to be created, doesn’t need to have any reasons for being what it is. Some people claim that is God, you claim that is existence. It doesn’t matter, it is irrational either way.

[anon51310602]

Provide an actual argument, not a simple statement.

[HumAnIze]

The Principle of Sufficient Reason, formulated in the clearest possible way “nothing exists for literally no reason.”

To claim that something “just is” for no actual reason or cause, it just IS and that is the end of discussion, no way to ask into the reasons why it is what it is or why it is what it is rather than something else, no attempt to understand it and its own existence and the fact of that existence, just a willfully blind and unquestioning acceptance… is blatantly irrational, silly and anti-philosophical. You need to make the argument for WHY existence (or God) doesn’t need to have reasons for existing, for being what it is. And this is the age-old philosophical problem. How to understand any possible reasons/causes on the maximum conceptual level of “everything everywhere all at once” (good movie by the way). Kant pointed out how this stretches our reason to its limits, and I think he was correct about that. We simply cannot conceptualize or rationalize something like “existence as such” because the idea already includes EVERYTHING and therefore what could possibly by its causes/reasons? If nothing can be other than itself? And yet the PSR remains, we cannot logically, rationally accept the notion that something simply is for no reason at all. So, how to resolve this contradiction? I have some thoughts, but first we need to acknowledge this is actually a contradiction that needs resolving.

[anon51310602]

Read the entire essay.

Particularly this part:

@anon51310602

It may be questioned why existence is. There is no why or reason. Why would imply a cause or a beginning. Existence is eternal and did not begin. There was no reason initiating existence as existence is eternal. There is no reason for existence. Existence simply is.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a man-made requirement. It concerns humans; it is complexity encountered by conscious beings.

Existence simply is. Existence requires no reason. Why would existence require something projected upon it? Humans expect or seek a reason more than existence requires it.

Besides, you have already agreed with core tenets:

@HumAnIze

Thanks for your responses, I don’t think we necessarily disagree. At least our disagreements are somewhat marginal to the core issues here

[HumAnIze]

Ah ok, so you are an ideologue and not a philosopher. Got it.

[anon51310602]

Any reason would itself be part of existence. Reason is not something beyond existence nor does reason allow existence.

Existence simply is. Reason concerns conscious beings and particular things.

This is discussed here: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=764361#p764361

[HumAnIze]

Yes, any reason would be part of existence. Which means existence itself would be self-caused, which is a contradiction.

“existence simply is” is a meaningless statement. “Reason concerns conscious beings and particular things” is also fairly meaningless. Conscious beings have nothing to do with the reasons why, unless you are claiming existence was created by conscious beings.

You disbelieve in logic and reason, you think these are merely human constructs and nothing more. This simply indicates you are not interested in philosophy or the truth. You are playing a game, where truth and reality are subsets of your own mentality. That is psychology.

You don’t believe in logic itself “beyond human expectations” but then somehow you also inherently believe in existence existing as such and for literally no reason at all. Hm. If you want to call that philosophy, I suppose you are ‘free’ to do so.

[futureone]

@anon51310602

Existence accounts for all. Existence easily accommodates action, activity, immateriality, thoughts, ideas and concepts. Existence accommodates substance itself.

Existence is all.

That’s exactly the problem. Its a general, all encompassing term, so it is muddy and imprecise and unclear.

@anon51310602

“Substance” is a relatively limited term.

That’s the entire point, to limit meaning and scope to a cohesive and coherent definition. Or you can choose to confuse

[anon51310602]

@futureone

That’s exactly the problem. Its a general, all encompassing term, so it is muddy and imprecise and unclear.

@futureone

That’s the entire point, to limit meaning and scope to a cohesive and coherent definition. Or you can choose to confuse

Limit? But you are attempting to present a word to include all things:

@futureone

“Substance” a much better word for this. The world and universe is made of “substance”, we call this substance, atoms, wave, light, matter, etc.

You are attempting to do what you claim I am erroneously doing.

[futureone]

No I am being an engineer while you are being a “philosopher” using words like a boy with toys. One problem with how philosophy is today is it is more like people using words out of thin air rather than STEM

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

All is energy.
A multiplicity of patterned and non-patterned energies, we perceive as kinds of things.

[HumAnIze]

Lol, a teslabro

Didn’t see that one coming. At least you still have the capacity to surprise.

[anon51310602]

@HumAnIze

Yes, any reason would be part of existence. Which means existence itself would be self-caused, which is a contradiction.

It is an argumentative point.

Existence is not self-caused.

Existence is.

@HumAnIze

“existence simply is” is a meaningless statement. “Reason concerns conscious beings and particular things” is also fairly meaningless.

These statements are expanded and explained in the essay and in discussion.

@HumAnIze

Conscious beings have nothing to do with the reasons why,

Conscious beings construct reason.

@HumAnIze

You disbelieve in logic and reason

Where did I state this?

@HumAnIze

This simply indicates you are not interested in philosophy or the truth. You are playing a game, where truth and reality are subsets of your own mentality. That is psychology.

Here you reveal your own approach.

@HumAnIze

You don’t believe in logic itself

Where did I state this?

[anon51310602]

@Kallikantzaros

All is energy.
A multiplicity of patterned and non-patterned energies, we perceive as kinds of things.

That is still existence. By definition.

[anon51310602]

@futureone

No I am being an engineer while you are being a “philosopher” using words like a boy with toys. One problem with how philosophy is today is it is more like people using words out of thin air rather than STEM

You have not even sufficiently defined terms.