GENIUS FORUMS

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You're the one getting frustrated.

And I would address your points, but I just said 'separate' is meaningless, so I can't.

Continuum is also meaningless *says this at the risk of hijacking the thread to another one he authored*

Dennis Mahar wrote:nothing happens 'til something moves.
the movement is consciousness.

Good, something to work with.

Isnt consciousness a "part" of the totality(i.e. everything)? The continuum. So how can it move?

chikoka, why do you people never address the points i bring up you've got a subtext goin' on buddy like an invitation for turbulence. I feel like going to play lotto..i totaly predicted this. If you cant address these points then let someone else do it. You are a very frustrating person.(no offence)

Chikoka, how can one address nothing to your satisfaction? Not nothing, my points.You guys are a dishonest bunch. So Seeker address this: But if nothing is separate then there can be no change. And if something is really separate then , as you pointed out, change will still not be possible. Do you ...

why do you people never address the points i bring up Please address this Dennis . And dont bother replying if you are not going to: But if nothing is separate then there can be no change. And if something is really separate then , as you pointed out, change will still not be possible. Do you agree...

Hi Russell chikoka, I'm not avoiding anything. Well you managed to avoid the passage i asked you to respond to, again . I'm going somewhere with my questions. Qsr doctrine is logical on the surface but when you try to go deeper into it it doesnt hold water. In particular finite things can only be a ...

Dennis Mahar wrote:ultimately nothing is separate despite appearances.

But if nothing is separate then there can be no change.

And if something is really separate then , as you pointed out, change will still not be possible.

Do you agree with the above analysis.

That things lack self-nature is accorded the status of normal order and that there is no 'other-nature' apart from that things lack self-nature. are you attempting to subvert the normal order? ouch! Do you do this on purpose..deliberately refuse to address the points in my post? Adress this: Its bo...

If a thing has self-nature as a sort of substance, then that thing can never participate in change or,by extension, causality. But if it doesnt have self nature then there will be no change (no things to guage any sort of change by), just a continuum. It seems to me that the more self nature things...

Its not word games. Your failure to follow an argument in a straight line is what put "your knickers in a twist" I said this: It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum. My point was that things cannot be a function of the totality as ...

When I said "they are the same thing," I mean they are equally part of the unity that is the Infinite. I know this sounds like double speak, but I'm really talking about two different concepts in that statement, one being the universe is ultimately boundless, whereas a conscious phenomena...

Wow!

Dennis

There is a reason why no one else wants to join you in this discussion.

chikoka wrote: It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum. Causation is the continuum, as sure as time passes by moment by moment. So things are causation. you said : They are the same thing, it is only in the presence of a differentiating cons...

Differentiation is built into the nature of consciousness. There can be no identification without the appearance of separation. This phenomena has arisen due to the memorization capabilities of our minds. Think about that for a second, is there such a thing as "consciousness" without memo...

Russell wrote:They are the same thing, it is only in the presence of a differentiating consciousness do the boundaries arise.

I'm interested in this differentiating of yours. How does it happen?

Anyone else ....

Not the redbull,...whats the meaning of meaning?

chikoka wrote: Good point but if the first hole does not leave enough room for the second then the first hole and the possibility of the second hole are not separate substances. If the hole does leave enough room then they are separate substances. Introducing possibility in a non mental or ideal ma...

Dennis Mahar wrote:I know you're leading me down the path.
So what?
You owe me a coffee.

Just tell me what meaning means.

..sorry , all i have is redbull.

Causation is also circumstantial. The characteristics of the first hole directly influence the second hole in a number of ways, e.g., the first hole leaves enough room for the 2nd hole on the sheet of paper , or, the source of the hole (scissors, hole puncher, what have you) must exist before the 2...

Dennis Mahar wrote:What you're saying is a breakthru' to an experience formlessness, groundlessness.
In order to do that form is interrogated.

It's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

But its also empty and meaningless that its full and meaningful.

just tell me what meaning means.

All conceptions (stories) are based in identity and difference. The story breaks down in a process of interrogation by 'circling the wagons' of identity and difference. not that, could be this, maybe, check that out, what did he say, what did she say, couldn't be that surely, that doesn't work, not...

Why cant moments be humean substances?

Free will involves the boundaries of humean substances.