Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its true in a way. But the events that form the illusion are as real as it gets. What I mean is that if everything is an illusion then everything must be real.
The "fire" is in the oil it is not "nothing".
The fire isn't permanent, it must replace itself constantly with another fire... the flame (person) is psuedo-permanent because it is the label of the process that gives light from the candle wick's evaporating oil.
The fire isn't nothing, but a fire labeled as Permanent definitely is nothing, since it is contradictory of its own nature.
That is the buddhist concept of no-self, more aptly explained as "no permanent self."
They actually are changing that view. There is no nothing. Space is "something". Remember quantum mach is a probability description based on waving and observations. What does that mean? it means they don't know what it is yet. But it has been 100% correct so far in making predictions.
Yes, "nothing" is a thing that contradicts itself, it cannot exist. That is also a concept in western philosophy surviving as far traced as from Parmenides. If it exists, it is paradoxical as "nothing can both be and not be" applied paradoxically to the law of non-contradiction.
The previous scientific community was incorrect about empty-space being nothing and having nothing in it, as some philosophers so long ago predicted. People were mislead by what seemed, and didn't realize what actually was. Yet there is not, and might never be enough evidence, because empirically it might be hard to realize when we have looked at everything and correctly found whether there is or isn't nothing.
Even the school of natural philosophy now called Science was largely based on the empiricist school and must fall back on logic. AS WELL AS THE neo-physicists which decry philosophy and its contradictions with Empiricism and mathematics will see that, what seemed might not always be what actually is... then again, what is "thought" might not always be what is either. It goes both ways.
Nothing might not be labeled correctly. Something and lack of something might exist, given the logical law of identity (law of excluded middle).
Nothing is a very hard concept.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 11-13-2014 at 06:53 PM..
Yes, ideas of identity are often ignorant of realities. When I took my elective introduction to philosophy course I was very troubled by the topic of philosophical questions upon ideas of identity. Then I found something that fit the "I," a river. but the idea of the candle is also useful. The mind is fleeting (thoughts and memories are impermanent), the body is fleeting (atom in atom out). A third cannot be part of the self, for there is nothing to identify it. Yet a river is not always the same water, not always the same course or speed. Yet we still find something to label a "river" identity there.
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.
[...] Look at a tree. It has no independent existence: It dissolves in a network of relationships extending to the entire universe: the rain falling on the leaves, the wind agitates it, the soil that nourishes and makes it live, the seasons and the weather, sunlight - it's all part of the tree.
Whole universe helps make the tree what it is.
It can in no way be isolated from the rest of the world and at every moment, it changes imperceptibly.
Is there an afterlife for the trees?
What seems impossible to accept for the trees and even animals, knowing what they are really, why accept for men?
Whole universe helps make man what he is, is not that enough?
What does it take more? a soul? eternal me?
206 bones, 640 muscles, 100 billion neurons, 100,000 billion cells of 300 different kinds but no fixed me. Over a lifetime, 50 tons of food. In one day, 8,000 liters of air inspired and no "I" to do so.[...]
If there is nothing to burn, there can be no fire.
Go deeper or stop at the flower. That's the beauty. Buddha couldn't know more but that doesn't mean he didn't understand. Funny, although we know more we are as amazed at that flower as he was.
The "fire" is not a thing it is an event. The events that make it up never "come from nothing or go away into nothing" because there is "no nothing". That flame was going to be seen at t plus 1 second. Well, at least at our level of perception anyway.
Yes, "nothing" is a thing that contradicts itself, it cannot exist. That is also a concept in western philosophy surviving as far traced as from Parmenides. If it exists, it is paradoxical as "nothing can both be and not be" applied paradoxically to the law of non-contradiction.
The previous scientific community was incorrect about empty-space being nothing and having nothing in it, as some philosophers so long ago predicted. People were mislead by what seemed, and didn't realize what actually was. Yet there is not, and might never be enough evidence, because empirically it might be hard to realize when we have looked at everything and correctly found whether there is or isn't nothing.
Even the school of natural philosophy now called Science was largely based on the empiricist school and must fall back on logic. AS WELL AS THE neo-physicists which decry philosophy and its contradictions with Empiricism and mathematics will see that, what seemed might not always be what actually is... then again, what is "thought" might not always be what is either. It goes both ways.
Nothing might not be labeled correctly. Something and lack of something might exist, given the logical law of identity (law of excluded middle).
Nothing is a very hard concept.
yep. Nothing freaks me out more than nothing too. i wouldn't use the word "mislead". They used what they knew.
The fire isn't permanent, it must replace itself constantly with another fire... the flame (person) is psuedo-permanent because it is the label of the process that gives light from the candle wick's evaporating oil.
The fire isn't nothing, but a fire labeled as Permanent definitely is nothing, since it is contradictory of its own nature.
That is the buddhist concept of no-self, more aptly explained as "no permanent self."
cool, thank you for the explaination.
What they are describing is "conservation" to me. If, and it is a big if, conscious is fundamental then it too will follow these laws. I think it is an emergent property based on complex city. Bit that also fits big Buddha in that the most complex thing we know of is the universe so maybe it is alive.
I am an "illusion" in that I am not what I think I am. But, just because I can take myself apart and find "no me" doesn't mean I don't exist. I personally think we are "the universe" having a "human experience".
Also, I do not know of one "permanent" thing, not one. There are no "nouns" only "verbs". We are "humaning" not "human".
[...] because self is the biggest trick that mind ever played…
Liberation Unleashed is…
here to help you see through the illusion of a separate self;
a global internet-based community. Everyone is welcome to join;
an ever-growing movement of volunteer guides, here to Point you to no self.
All we do here is point. If you are a long-time seeker, or just curious about this, we invite you to investigate and explore what no self really is. This service is available to everyone, for free. Join the forum and request a guide if and when you are ready to see this for yourself. We use the Direct Pointing method, which consists of a dialogue between a guide and a seeker. This is a process of looking at what IS; no prior knowledge or years of seeking are required. The guide poses very specific questions in order to focus the attention on the experience of the present moment. This triggers what we refer to as ‘crossing the Gateless Gate’: an instant in which the illusion of a separate self is seen through. A shift in perception happens. We guide because we are a community that openly and freely shares what we have been given by others that did the same for us. We guide because we believe that questioning assumptions leads to freedom. You only need to bring your honesty and curiosity. We ask nothing from you except your willingness to Look. [...]
As I've never looked into the workings of a candle deeply, I looked through
this and was up-brought with understanding... How does a candle work? - HowStuffWorks
If we are a as impermanent as a flame, then we know that our bodies are a wick, and our substanance is the oil. Yet a flame is a flame, and not just the energy and gas molecules that compose it. Nor is a flame reborn, except but as a mere clone and different identity.
Consider that you are the vessel, and a wick is a fine woven work inside the vessel.
The vessel is empty and it needs to be filled with oil..
What happens to a wick when the oil runs out?
The wick that burns without oil will be snuffed out and broken.
Better to have oil.
Here is the vessel, and here is the wick, but who will give me the oil?
Interesting thread. The questions about the nature and feelings of identity are interesting and often worrying ones. The analogy of a river is a good one. We are never the same identical thing twice. We change all the time. But there is a physical (in the very broadest sense, and incorporating thoughts and feelings, too, since they are the products of our physical body) pattern that can be recognized and identified.
The feeling of 'I' is as real as Love (I would say more so) and that it is innate, instinctive and also illusory (in that it implies a permanency that our body - like the river - does not have) is enough to say 'It exists. Therefore I exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.