Inedia, Breatharianism, Non-Eating, Living on Light, Fasting. Forum Index Inedia, Breatharianism, Non-Eating, Living on Light, Fasting.
Inediates, Breatharians, Non-Eaters, People Living on Light, Fasting and experimenting with diets.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

concepts of existence and consciousness

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Inedia, Breatharianism, Non-Eating, Living on Light, Fasting. Forum Index -> All the other topics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SNAKE



Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:16 pm    Post subject: concepts of existence and consciousness Reply with quote

[Splitted by admin, from 140. F.A.Q - It's a nonsense that people can live without ..]
---------------

Hi dogbite


JMW wrote:
The human builds his/her world by his/her own beliefs, experiences and knowledge. Therefore what is true to one person (in his/her world), may not exist or be false to another person (in his/her world). This means that the truth is relative to people's worlds.


dogbite666 wrote:
Joachim, You are quite incorrect in your assumption, you seem to assume that reality is somehow dependent upon a persons perception of reality. This is very wrong because it goes against the basic rule called the primacy of existance, i.e. 'I think therefore I am'


He was not saying reality, he mentioned truth... but, ok, these two words can be the same in this context....
REALITY has to include the whole universe, the WHOLE, therefore it cannot be completely perceived by any finite being; that is valid for THE REALITY but then there is the individual reality, or the individual truth... which is particular to THAT person, limited to his capacity or ability to perceive.

You have a limited ability to perceive the TOTAL INFINITE reality, so is my ability, so is Einstein's or Stephen Hawking's..
That reality is what i understand he is talking about.
And... what are you talking about when you mention Descartes phrase... "I think, therefore I am"?

That is a philosophical statement from him, a good one btw, and not any "primacy of existence" as you said.
No one knows what EXISTENCE itself is, everybody has a partial perception of it. Do you know what kind of existence will yours be after your body is eaten by worms??? Hahn? You don't have the slightest idea, brother. So there is not such a thing of "primacy of existence".
By the way... the word is existEnce, not existAnce as you wrote, that could be wrong typing, even though A and E are not neighbors on the keyboard..

dogbite666 wrote:
Reality is not a product of conciousness, rather the other way round. In order for you to even contemplate whether reality depends on conciousness or not you must be concious and conciousness is a product of your physical brain. Reality, therefore, must be singular and independent of conciousness and whether you believe breathrianism is true or not has no impact an whether it is.


You bit your tale again dogbite...
Consciousness is not a product of reality as you said... but the small reality that JW was talking is a product of that person's consciousness.
By the way... "conciousness", without the "s" after the first "n" does not exist in English, and that was not a typing mistake, as you repeated that misspelling on and on...

You also said.... "and whether you believe breatharianism is true or not has no impact an whether it is." I agree with that one,I guess JAW agrees as well.

dogbite666 wrote:
In reality if you make a claim which is highly improbable then we can only assume it is not real until it is proven. seeing as no one has ever proven to survive without food or water then we can only assume that claim is false. Of course, you can never prove a negative, that is to say we can never prove breatharianism wrong, but as it has never been proven to be true we can say with a degree of certainty that it is false.


First you make an unacceptable argument, then you get smart and say that one can never prove a negative, then you come with the less intelligent statement again that "we can say with a degree of certainty that it is false". That degree is ZERO, dogbiten! What are you talking about, with "degree of certainty" that the "unproven negative is false"??? There is no degree of certainty, for Christ sake! !


dogbite666 wrote:
Belief is not a substitute for reason, logic and evidence.

The final phrase from your posts is "the only" intelligent stuff I read from your messages so far. I would complete it, saying in the end.... "Actually it is a hindrance".

Where are you from dogbite? Texas? How old are you... 13? ... 87?


Last edited by SNAKE on Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:08 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dogbite666
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi SNAKE,

thanks for picking up my spelling mistakes, my English skills are not the best, I'm more of a scientist than an artist.

Quote:
REALITY has to include the whole universe, the WHOLE, therefore it cannot be completely perceived by any finite being; that is valid for THE REALITY but then there is the individual reality, or the individual truth... which is particular to THAT person, limited to his capacity or ability to perceive


What you are talking about is perception of reality, not the nature of reality itself. People do indeed have different abilities to perceive reality but their perception does not effect reality itself. If Breatharianism is not possible in a singular reality then whether someone perceives it to be real does not make it so.

Quote:
So there is not such a thing of "primacy of existence".


The primacy of existence states that existence is primary and consiousness is secondary. Consiousness is a faculity which percieves that which exists. So when you talk of reality being that which is perceived you are confusing consiousness and existence. I would suggest you read some of Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon's work rather than just copying and pasting from a web site.

Quote:
First you make an unacceptable argument, then you get smart and say that one can never prove a negative, then you come with less intelligent d statement again that "we can say with a degree of certainty that it is false". That degree is ZERO, dogbiten! What are you talking about, with "degree of certainty" that the "unproven negative is false"??? There is no degree of certainty, for Christ sake!


Whats the 'd' mean after the word 'intelligent'? I guess you also make errors! Only human after all. Maybe your making grammatical errors because your a little hot-headed at the momment.

Prehaps I didn't explain simply enough for you SNAKE so I'll try again. As you correctly stated previously, we cannot know infinite reality, therefore just because we are certain something is true doesn't mean than on the other side of the Universe it may be false. However, we can make an educated guess, which carries a degree of certainty. If nobody has been able to prove that Breatharianism is possible, and its mechanics go against every basic law of energy then we can say that Breatharianism is false. However, on the other side of Universe there may be conditions which exist which we are unfamiliar with and where it may be possible to practice Breathrianism. This is unlikely to the best of our knowledge so I can say with a degree of certainty that the claim of Breatharianism is false. As humans who perceive reality we can only have different degrees of certainty about anything!

I'm from Canada.
Back to top
SNAKE



Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogbite... I will reply a little more your post, as long as I feel a bit of interest...

dogbite666 wrote:

thanks for picking up my spelling mistakes, my English skills are not the best, I'm more of a scientist than an artist.


Oops... I thought knowing how to spell words in one's own language had to do with literacy.
English is not my mother language btw.
You are welcome... allow me to help you with spelling correctly your own mother tongue and mention some more mistakes from your reply above:

1- conSiousness ...... should be consciousness.
2- "percieves" ........... correct is perceives.
3- "because your a little hot-headed" ..... should be... because you are... (but I am not, Smile )
4- "does not effect" .... should be ... does not Affect


SNAKE wrote:
REALITY has to include the whole universe, the WHOLE, therefore it cannot be completely perceived by any finite being; that is valid for THE REALITY but then there is the individual reality, or the individual truth... which is particular to THAT person, limited to his capacity or ability to perceive


dogbite666 wrote:
What you are talking about is perception of reality, not the nature of reality itself. People do indeed have different abilities to perceive reality but their perception does not effect reality itself. If Breatharianism is not possible in a singular reality then whether someone perceives it to be real does not make it so.


Of course I was talking about perception of reality. I mentioned CLEARLY that "THE" REALITY itself as encompassing the whole reality of the Universe, infinite cannot be perceived by finite beings, like you, me and everyone else. Even a being with a brain the size of the "Via lactea" will have an infinitesimal perception of the Infinite Reality. Inside an infinite space EVERYTHING that is measurable or finite is infinitesimal in relation to the whole, and is located in the center.
Man, you are infinitesimal and are exactly in the CENTER of the Universe. So do I. So does the SUN, the Milky Way, and so forth...

SNAKE wrote:
So there is not such a thing of "primacy of existence".



dogbite666 wrote:
The primacy of existence states that existence is primary and consiousness is secondary. Consiousness is a faculity which percieves that which exists. So when you talk of reality being that which is perceived you are confusing consiousness and existence. I would suggest you read some of Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon's work rather than just copying and pasting from a web site.


You are twisting my words and meanings... seems a habit you developed, what can I do?
I will repeat that there is no such thing as "primacy of existence". You didn't get the first time, I will explain again...

Existence as a whole, Reality as a whole, Truth as a whole, are related to the WHOLE, to the Universe, to something infinite...
So there can be no "primacy of existence" as a concept, as a philosophical statement describing a "rule", encompassing everything.

Neither Descartes, nor Francis Bacon or you can express any "primacy of existence". To say that "..."the primacy of existence states" etc , as you said above, is quite naive and disconnected from the whole concept of infinite Reality, infinite Truth, infinite Existence.

Mathematically there can be no rational definition about anything that is infinite... such as those three words...
Whatever Sir Francis said, or Descartes said, I don't rely on them as the "owners of Truth". Do you?

About what you said, that I am cutting and pasting stuff from a website... where did you get this idea from??? I consider useless your suggestion that I should read Descartes or Bacon, even though I feel I could get something more from them than whatever you got.
I don't think they would be proud of having you on their side.... at all.


[quote="dogbite666"]Whats the 'd' mean after the word 'intelligent'? I guess you also make errors! Only human after all. Maybe your making grammatical errors because your a little hot-headed at the momment.
Quote:


That "d" was a typing mistake, any child can see that, the "d" is side by side with the "s" from the next word. Can't you distinguish between a spelling mistake, repeated several times like yours, in your, from a finger hitting an extra, wrong key?

[quote="dogbite666"]... However, we can make an educated guess, which carries a degree of certainty. If nobody has been able to prove that Breatharianism is possible, and its mechanics go against every basic law of energy then we can say that Breatharianism is false.


Let me repeat once more...
There is NO EDUCATED guess, involving proving a negative.
As I said, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

And.... there is no "reasonable" guess, no "educated" guess", there is no measurable "degree of certainty" possible.
The only "degree" would be on a ZERO level.

It surprises me when you say it goes against "every basic law of energy". Energy, as our planet's scientists know now is just an infinitesiaml fraction of the REALITY. (capitals are just for emphasis purposes, nothing to do with shouting, an old "chat" idea, that is "passť").

Who could guess 100 years ago that a bunch of atoms, through nuclear fission, would generate so much energy as in the A-bomb?
And then came atomic fusion, the H-bomb, even more powerful. Amazing amounts of Energy are proven to exist in small amounts of matter.

So... your "every basic law of energy" is a poor concept. Science is a camaleon, it is ever changing. New stuff is being "uncovered" everyday by science.
We breath C, H, O, N, four elements, all the time... they are btw the basic atoms of proteins, vitamins, carbohydrates and fatty acids molecules...

The water we drink contains H and O, plus trace minerals...
What if air and water could have their atoms dissociated and recombined to form whatever substances our cells need to produce the energy we spend? The plants do it with Chlorophyl, our Hemoglobin cells are almost exactly the same as Chlorophyl. The difference is only Chlorophyl has magnesium and Hemoglobin has iron instead.

Someone mentioned here that our blood cells receive direct sunshine through the small veins in our eyes... If my hemoglobin cells start, for christ know which reason, to "photosynthesize" nutrients for my cells, I will be more than ok with that... wouldn't you?
If I can do ANYTHING to research that possibility, go trhough some non dangerous experiments with fasting, sungazing, etc, I am going to do that.

These are speculations, I know that. But the mysteries of human physiology are a lot more complex than science has identified so far.
It seems the road is long, and a lot more can be unveiled...
Inedia seems to me as a new horizon coming up. I don't get interested in any belief, whatsoever, but exploring and discovering...
I am opened to the new, much more than to the "old", what about you?

In your previous post you said correctly, I agree with you, you said it all, when you wrote:
dogbite666 wrote:
...Of course, you can never prove a negative, that is to say we can never prove breatharianism wrong...


This is what I am talking about...
But... I will help you in your case:

What you shoud say is that those who make a statement are the ones who should prove it. You don't have to prove that Breatharianism doesn't exist. Rather, those who state "they are" Breatharians should prove it, IF THEY ARE INTERESTED in proving. For everything JMW wrote, he is NOT saying he is a Breatharian now, but he described lots of different experiments he went through, living partially and/or temporarily without food, and sometimes with very little food for longer periods. I don't know if I misunderstood him.

If one day I become a Breatharian, I won't feel any, whatsoever need to prove it to anyone, unless there is a lot of money involved, hahaha.
For sure I wouldn't be trying to prove a thing to rancid minds, in any Forum , I would have lots of more interesting stuff to do.

dogbite666 wrote:
However, on the other side of Universe ...
...This is unlikely to the best of our knowledge so I can say with a degree of certainty that the claim of Breatharianism is false. As humans who perceive reality we can only have different degrees of certainty about anything!


Even though you intelligently discarded "proving the negative", you bring it all back, again and again, the "certain degree of certainty stuff"...

Dogbite, I understand you have much interest in the subject Breatharianism, otherwise, why would you be here???

Most probably you are "fighting" against it here, so that you can get "free beer"... free information people gather, showing partial or total evidence about living without eating. That's "sort" of ok.
It would be a lot easier for you just to say that, ask questions, instead of go on throwing your arrows of inner disatisfaction, affirming that there is a "degree of certainty" that Breatharianism or Inedia doesn't exist
some more research... there is a lot of interesting information out there, do some reading, man...
I will not share free beer with you. It is free, go get it yourself.

I tell you what...
There are more people here, reading in silence, trying to get some more information, researching...
I am thinking about these people, sincere and non aggressive researchers, so from time to time I might share pieces of this puzzle called Breatharianism, or Inedia.
I prefer the term Inedia, as it is not stating one is living from "breath" as the breatharianism term implies. Inedia means "no food", and it is obviously referring to solid, conventional food, you know, bread, fruits, barbecue etc.

If one is living for 5.. 8 months with a fruit one day, a cellery/apple juice another day... That is a lot of Inedia for me!

If one eats ONLY 3 oz. (some 100 g) of anything per day, that will be quite a twist on everything science understands about nutrition, about human physiology. Don't you think so?

I won't ever need to meet someone who NEVER eats a tiny bit of something. The discovery is inside myself, in my ability to find out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dogbite666
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You are twisting my words and meanings


You are doing a good job of that yourself, I am simply pointing out the flaws in your conclusions.

Quote:
So there can be no "primacy of existence" as a concept, as a philosophical statement describing a "rule", encompassing everything


You said that in your previous post, it didn't work then and it doesn't work now. You have failed to grasp the basic concepts of existence and consicousness and believe, by some misbegotten notion, that consciousness can create reality and in doing so you have dug yourself into a paradox. Allow me, once more, to show why your conclusion is simply wrong and give you a helping hand out of that hole.

Consciouness is the ability to perceive that which exists, to be aware of something. You cannot be aware of something without something to be aware of! To suggest that you can be conscious without anything to be conscious of is absurd. Nor can consciousness be conscious of itself because that would mean that consciousness would have to exist, have some measurable quality, it does not. Therefore, we can say that existence is primary and consciousness secondary. i.e. "I think therefore I am".


Quote:
So... your "every basic law of energy" is a poor concept. Science is a camaleon, it is ever changing. New stuff is being "uncovered" everyday by science.


I find it hilarious how you suggest that the laws of thermodynamics to be a poor concept. As you seem to be unfamiliar with the laws of energy I will, again, help you. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Breatharianism disobeys this law because it suggests that people can expend energy more engery than they put into their body. Are you suggesting that it is possible to break this law? I would love hear how!

Atom bombs do not break the laws of thermodynamics. Things which are 'uncovered' by science do not break the laws of thermodynamics, rather a hypothesis is made based on laws, observations made, and conclusions drawn.

Quote:
Someone mentioned here that our blood cells receive direct sunshine through the small veins in our eyes... If my hemoglobin cells start, for christ know which reason, to "photosynthesize" nutrients for my cells, I will be more than ok with that... wouldn't you?


You do not recieve enough energy from light entering through the eye to sustain your body in a heathly state. If you actually believe otherwise then you are suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed, so you can either admit you are wrong or explain how Breatharianism negates these Laws...........Lets heer it!
Back to top
dogbite666
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Even though you intelligently discarded "proving the negative", you bring it all back, again and again, the "certain degree of certainty stuff"...


I wonder, what does 'discarded' mean? I can't find it in the dictionary. Two can play at this game of obsfucation, all though you are more prolific at it than me. I guess this is because you are finding it more and more difficult to formulate coherent arguments.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Inedia, Breatharianism, Non-Eating, Living on Light, Fasting. Forum Index -> All the other topics All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group