Perhaps you can elaborate on how an understanding of the self brings satisfaction. In what way did you mean? Because initially you claimed that one was either satisfied or not. That satisfaction was without cause. And later you are saying another thing. Which one is it? Is it with or without cause?
I never said sich a thing. Do you imagine you can understand the self? Silly silly ratty. Have you experienced nearly drowning? Have you experienced starvation? Have you been nearly frozen in the Alps and tempted to eat the fallen bodies of friends? You know yourself as well as I know the back side of the moon.
Silly silly ratty. Jumping mind here and there. Overcome trying to overcome all this shit and you will be in the present. Why make all this shit hard. Life is so simple.
Human morality need be limited only by human imagination, and our ability to reason, so no I don’t think morality is either well defined by or limited to the senses. While morality is subjective of course, we can apply reason once we have a subjective basis for our morality. To that end our senses alone would be unreliable, as they are easily deceived, and of course they didn’t evolve to understand objective facts about reality, only to aid survival at every point in our evolution.
To this end then, if we are going to rely solely on our senses to limit and define morality, then we would be basing our morals on a flawed interpretation of reality.
To the extent that it can be extinguished, I have understood it. Like a final exhale at the end of life, I have vanquished the conceit of “I am”. Know this, atheist. A Selfless One walks among you.
Never. Though of all the ways to die, it is the one I fear most. I am quite addicted to breathing and would not want a body of water to dictate the opposite to me without any recourse available on my end.
To some extent. I grew up poor. At the height of my schizophrenic catatonia I refused to eat and ate only a few bites every three days over the course of two or three months. I weighed very little and I was quite scant. What’s your point?
Have you? If your point is that I can’t imagine it, you’re also in the same boat.
And how well is that?
It’s not the present moment that worries me. Nor is it the past, nor the future (near or far). It’s the realm of possibility where my will power exists. That is the only dimension of time which ever gives me grief.
Are we not still attempting to survive at this point in our evolution?
And you interpret reality how then? In what way do you arrive at an “unflawed” interpretation of reality? And at what stage of our evolution did morality develop? Prior to the age of reason or after?
It’s been found and it’s been put to rest. There is no Self which could make a present moment exist. Thus there is no future and there is no past. There is no becoming. There is no conceit. And there is no ego. There is no one to know. And having understood the Self, the Self is satisfied; extinguished; liberated.
Does this mean you now accept that life is finite, and have abandoned your belief in afterlife?
I don’t even know what that means, so a cogent and accurate explanation is required, and then sufficient objective evidence, before I can “know” this to be true.
Our imagination can go beyond our evolved emotions obviously. As methods logic and science don’t require emotion to be efficacious. I am not suggesting emotions are entirely unnecessary of course, merely that our evolved brains have increased the scope of our reason and ability to imagine complex morality exponentially.
This this doesn’t really address the point, we know that our senses can be deceived, and thus on their own are not a reliable interpretation of reality, so why would we limit our morality to them alone?
Of course, this doesn’t change the point though, which is that our senses alone are an unreliable interpretation of reality. Unlike methods like science and logic, which are designed specifically to eradicate subjective bias, and with it poor or weak reasoning.
By attempting to remove as much subjectivity and bias as possible.
Straw man fallacy, I never claimed my interpretation was unflawed, all human methods are flawed, but they are not equally flawed. And we know that methods like logic and science are vastly more efficacious in arriving at objective results, by removing more subjective bias than our senses alone can.
Why would one assume it was a particular point, since evolution is a gradual slow process? All animals that have evolved to live in societal groups would necessarily need to know or be able to learn what was and was not acceptable behaviour to the group.
I don’t know when the “age of reason” was? You seem to be implying that our concept of moralities can be explained as a before and after, rather than a gradual changes in the way evolution works. There would likely be multiple factors influencing this after all.
Paedophile’s and rapists get satisfaction, as do some murderers, thus satisfaction of the senses alone is not really a sound basis for morality. We need not limit our morality to the senses, nor are they necessarily a sound basis on which to limit our sense of morality, on their own.
Hmm…
I understand what the words mean, but in that context they appear to have lost that meaning? For example if “there is no self” for example, how could it be understood in any meaningful way? The ego is defined as a person’s sense of self-esteem or self-importance, to claim this doesn’t exist is misleading, as though it may not exist in any objective sense, it certainly exists subjectively as an abstract or emergent property of the human brain / mind. Perhaps this was you meant when you said there is not self? Or perhaps not, the assertions lack clarity. Maybe you could clarify precisely what they mean?
When asked if he’s experienced satisfaction from the senses, he fails to answer instead opting for the atheists fall back position of “woo” and “utter bollocks”.
I find it hilarious to a degree that when faced with simple questions, Atheists are quick to see the implications and even quicker to coward away from an honest discussion.
I’m agnostic on the issue. Always have been. I don’t believe there’s anyway to truly know what happens after death. Even in our previous debate I was arguing for a belief based on the reports of others and not a conviction.
As far as life being finite, I remain open to the possibilities. In all honesty, I’m likely biased to the existence of an afterlife because I enjoy living and don’t want it to end.
The conceit of “I am” has been sourced out; calmed; and put to rest. The view point of “I am” no longer frames reference. There is a lack of subject/object duality.
And before we get into the “sufficient objective evidence” - the “Self” cannot be demonstrated by empirical science.
Im telling you right now that the only evidence you’re going to get regarding a subjectively experienced Self is from your own reference point (as if I even need to tell you this).
Like wise, there is also a way to subjectively understand how the body and mind give rise to the sense of self. And the dissolution of that ego complex is an extension of understanding that construction.
I’m not going to empirically evidence the Self, Sheldon. You already have one. You don’t need me to tell you that.
If you believe it can be demonstrated by science, I’m all ears. fMRI imaging? I don’t know. I doubt that would demonstrate the reality of the self-construct. I don’t claim that it can and I’m not getting into a debate about that with you.
So, sorry. If you want to know about the self and the non-self look at your self through the lense of your self.
You recently spent many weeks arguing that an afterlife existed though? If one is agnostic one cannot make any claims.
Can you accurately define what you think it is? Only I have no idea what this means:
And what is that, if it cannot be supported by any objective evidence?
Sorry but these are just claims I don’t understand at all, you might as well be quoting the bible or Koran at me.
I don’t know what it is, and you admit you can’t demonstrate any objective evidnece for it, so no I don;t know any such thing, how could I?
I never mentioned science? And I still don’t know what IT is?
Well if you are going to make your unevidenced subjective claims here, in the debate forum, then inevitably they will be subjected to critical scrutiny.
I already withhold belief as you admit you can demonstrate no objective evidence to support it exists outside of the human imagination. However can you define it in clear and unambiguous language?