The Case For Non-Existence**

You're in good company as extremely few people have any clue as to what this is about. But that's not unusual as this is the case in all kinds of esoteric fields. Can I assume that you might feel at a loss if you found yourself in the middle of a discussion of leading edge-physicists, electro-physiologists, or AI folks, and many, many other fields of study.

Again, I am attempting to introduce to those interested a different way of approaching thinking, perception, and life. Believe it or not, there are some folks who find it interesting. If you don't, I would think that the reasonable way to approach would be to move on to something that does pique your interest.

People have great difficulty understanding this type of thinking the same way that people have difficulty understanding religion [and spirituality, in general]. The human intellect has limits. This is apparent in many of our experiences [those we are simply unable to intellectualize]. This is actually the case with all things but we make do just the same.

I am not sure what to tell you at this point other than if you are not interested in what I am talking about, rest assured that the rest of the folks here are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether they would like to follow the conversation or participate. There really isn't any need for you to monitor and give your opinions [unless you have something to add].

The stance you are taking [that everything can be made understood to a six year old ]is clearly lacking. According to you, the fact that you apparently cannot not make heads of tails of it must mean that the subject-matter is nonsensical and I am crazy. This is hardly intellectual enlightenment era thinking.

AND...it's not like I made this up. It's been around for thousands of years.

 

Such did not work in middle school and it's not going to work here either.

 

And how do you define “being”, good sir?

 

I don't...because it's just a term people made up to fill in a void. God is like this...impossible to define. There are many things like this [actually ALL things are like this but our ability to come close enough works (somewhat) for our purposes].

Why do you think that people have such a difficult time communicating? Or, better still, it's a miracle that people can communicate at all!

Again, the human intellect is extremely limited [in many ways]. Not only in capacity, but in its ability to take what we perceive and make sense out of it.

I am dealing with a part of reality that is not accessible intellectually. It's like trying to explain what romantic love is to a ten year old. Although they buy into the notion that it exists, they cannot not relate in the least [and is repulsive to many].

Existence is the same sort of thing. We are told that we exist but are never told exactly what that means. If we do not exist as we are led to believe, what does this mean?

Experience is another one of these words. What does it mean to experience something [that does not really exist]?

You may ask why I would go there? Who cares about any of these things? The answer is that there are many people who seek beyond the intellectual because the intellectual is only a very small part of the story. It's just asking why man searches beyond this planet. It's just what people do.

 

I defined it for you, mate.
All terms are made up, sir

 

Now we are getting somewhere. All terms are made up. Yes, but it's important to acknowledge that there is a group of them that becomes our objective reality. This is how humans operate intellectually and interact with each other. And this is where the post modernists miss the boat. But that's not what we are chatting about here.

When folks come to the conclusion that everything is made up is where most give up and stop thinking about such things, but there are others who simply use this as a point of departure [and have for thousands of years]. This is what I am talking about.

The first idea you must embrace is that because everything is essentially made up, all things become possible [not that all things are, but that they are possible]. Then, depending on your method of inquiry, you explore. Mine happens to be meditation, but there are others.

Once you begin to explore the possibilities, an entirely different world opens up. IOW, since we admit that nothing is certain, then you can dis-associate yourself from those parts of the story which make little sense [and you'll find that the more you explore, the more bizarre the story becomes until one day you leave the story behind].

Now this doesn't mean that you cease participating in the "real" world because this is how it is [just like there is a specific culture at school or work that one abides by but after school or work, ones leaves it behind to resume with their personal world].

Much of what the system does [for good or bad] is to socialize us, that is, to convince us that it makes sense to obey the laws, or participate in the labor pool, or whatever, but the most important thing it does is it gets us to go along with the story it tells. And I am not saying this is good or bad, it's just the way things operate.

Although it makes a great deal of sense to buy into the story to the degree that one must to survive [or thrive], one may also spend some of their time and effort seeing what is beyond the story. And that's what I [and many others] are doing.

Does this make more sense?

 

This entire post is garbage. This is not philosophy or religion, but some self made word salad.

 

Thank you for your carefully thought-out analysis.

Perhaps next time, think first.

 

Analyzing any case for nonexistence is pointless. We may as well debate gods existence or some other mysticism.
Because at the end of the argument you would not be able to make the argument if you didn’t exist.
And to make the argument, you would have to invalidate the senses ( which you are using now) and then invalidate the reality your senses are responding to.
That’s why I say it’s a word salad. Sorry.

 

Thank you for expanding, but did you consider the idea that you just don't understand what I am saying?

"Because at the end of the argument you would not be able to make the argument if you didn’t exist."

Why? We seem to be able to do quite a few things that defy explanation.

 

None that would require us not to exist. Or even suggest it.

 

Can you prove that you exist?

 

Yes

 

RE: The Case of Non-existence
SUBTOPIC:
※→ impermanence, et al,

(OPENING)

"Existence" in any form of reality is beyond science to prove or disprove. "Existence" must be approached as a reality before any effort to make a "proof" starts. On the other hand, IF "Existence" is questioned THEN no task by the Scientific Method will be successful. And IF it is beyond science to provide a "proof," THEN it falls into the realm of "Metaphysics."

(COMMENT)

Yes, the concept that "Existence" as a "reality" is considered one possibility.

(COMMENT)

IF "Existence" is a fabrication, THEN nothing after that point is of any consequence. The argument stops because there is nothing to argue about.

(COMMENT)

IF there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for our own existence and evidence is a critical item to the truth of the question, THEN the objection to "existence" itself cannot exist. IF you do not exist, THEN you cannot object. An objection can only be posed in the realm where there is a reality.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

Obvious well thought-out reply.

 

Was that not a polar question you asked?

 

Actually, I thought it to be quite equatorial.

 

I still think, I still exist.

Terms are made up but that is just the nature of language. It doesn’t change much about the object of discussion. It can shape our perception of the object of discussion but the real facts remain the same. Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius but if I use farenheit to measure temperature it doesn’t change the amount of energy required to make it boil.

Also, I offered a definition of existing but you ignored it. That makes me feel sad. And hungry.

 

Cute

 

Although I will give you 10 points for form, your first sentence does not make sense. What does,, "existence in any form of reality," mean?

If you suggest that existence cannot be proved by science, then you cannot prove its existence.

Existence is no more a fabrication than is any other idea, but the point is that when you attach you wagon to such a lame ass idea, it creates a reality that goes off in all kinds of tangents taking liberties with words and ideas that would make even the most boldface of lairs blush.

You suggest that, "If you do not exist, then you cannot object."
Why not?

 

Because objection is a thought and thoughts prove existence!

 

RE: The Case of Non-existence
SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
※→ impermanence, et al,

(OPENING)

(COMMENT)

First Approximation: Anything that "Existence" has characteristics and forms. IF the "object under examination" holds the characteristics of a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma, THEN the "object under examination" is in the Physical Reality according to the Science of today. IF the "object under examination" does not exhibit the form of any material characteristics but is otherwise still detectable, THEN it is not in the Physical Reality. It is in some other form of reality.

The idea of "Being" and "Existence" are unsolved concepts dating back more than four centuries. The contemporary language is "ontology." Although I am not quite custom to the frame of reference.

To answer your question directly, there are many forms of existence, for example, there is the "theoretical form of reality." The classic is "string theory." It is real, but only in the mind and in the strokes of the pen to paper (in an equation). A close cousin to this form of existence is the belief in the supernatural. In a step higher, there are the unseen forces of the material world (the Weak, Strong, EM, and Gravity). I am quite sure that at some point in this forum, you might have seen the reference to a "(higher/lower) plane of existence." And if you have delved into the special abilities of people like Edgar Cayce, you know that they often have made reference to the "Akashic Record" (that is the Universal Memory of Nature and the Book of Life). This is a reference frame into the past; but also gives rise to the "Soul" which does not die. And it raises the question about time (is it real). And the reality the Eastern Mystics believe is the key to the "Astral Body" (AKA: the Astral Plane).

I'll stop here on this subject because there are "many possible forms of reality" which have an impact on the concept of "existence."

(COMMENT)

It is not known whether or not your interpretation is true. Remember: "existence" is an undefined term. The idea of proof for the "existence" through science is based on the concept of the Scientific Method. That (current) makes things like "String Theory" outside the sphere of Scientific Study. It is not science.

(COMMENT)

The assumption is that the set of "existence" is all-inclusive. IF outside the set of "existence" THEN there is no source to originate information.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

Says who? This is just made up and accepted as some kind of truth, but it holds no water [not a drop].

Ontology is philosophy's philosophy.

Human beings are very creative and have conjured up all kinds of notions and potions to explain every damn thing in the Universe...but none of them are true. Not even close. It's all made up. Having said that, this make pretend reality seems to function [reasonably well] on some levels and not so wonderfully on others, but it's the way we humans make our way...

But that's just more bs. "Unsolved concepts," is like, "We'll put another IOU in the Social Security Trust Fund for you when you reach retirement age."

Nobody's interpretation is true. How could it be? We need to operate within the bounds of our intellectual capacity and not take these giant leaps of faith that we can interpolate our way from 1 to infinity without knowing anything about what's in between.

First rule of life [and science]: NEVER assume. You say that nobody knows what existence is but then come forth with all kinds of rules and regulations regarding the same. Non-existence is another way of saying that our intellect is not cutting it. Whatever "it" is cannot be accessed and therefore must be left alone. The attempt to mollify our egos by counterfeiting all of these ridiculous ideas will make us look even more silly then those who came before us [who actually had the good sense to place limits on their buffunary].

 

Paging Dr. Impermanence! Paging Dr. Impermanence!
Posts 29, 44 and 47 are awaiting your attention!