In response to Pinback's NoMango

[Tdarcos]

Pinback's NoMango.com is his attempt to do some sort of pop-culture look at things but he really hasn't done a whole lot of thinking.

For example, one of the things he says to try is to describe what a banana* tastes like. A response to his concept is something I learned a long time ago. In simple terms, sense impressions are experienced by the brain; that makes them subjective and incapable of being defined objectively. You can't describe a sensation except by a reference to other sensations, if you have the reference to do so. You may lack the words to describe the sensation or an experience, if you have no other references to do so.

Anyone who disagrees is invited to describe orgasm in terms other than reference to other senses.

----
* The BBS software colors this word automatically.

[pinback]

Nomango is simply the eternal expression that there is only this. But this is not what you think it is. The mind is the world of abstract thought, so it thinks this is the planet Earth, full of people, places, things, decisions, time, objects that can be named, bananas, mangos, etc.

But in the immediacy and full splendor of here and now, apart from the abstract, there are none of those things, and yet there is everything.

You are correct, of course, when you say that an experience can only be described in comparison with other experience. Both of those are still the play of abstract thought.

That there can be no description of this, including the taste of a banana, is your key to the doorway through which you will truly see the universe for the first time.

[Tdarcos]

Nomango is simply the eternal expression that there is only this. But this is not what you think it is. The mind is the world of abstract thought, so it thinks this is the planet Earth, full of people, places, things, decisions, time, objects that can be named, bananas, mangos, etc.

It's only abstract if it refers to things upon which one is thinking about is opinion. It's abstract thought of a subjective if you think a particular player on your favorite ream is overpaid. It is a concrete thought of a objective concept to say a particular fire truck is red or yellow.

The ballplayer's value relative to their salary (or the salaries of other people) is an opinion, it cannot be proven right oe wrong; the shade of color of a fire engine, fire hydrant or any other physical object or virtual representation of an object can be measured and objectively verified against specific color values.

You are correct, of course, when you say that an experience can only be described in comparison with other experience. Both of those are still the play of abstract thought.

That there can be no description of this, including the taste of a banana, is your key to the doorway through which you will truly see the universe for the first time.

Wrong.

You can describe it, the problem is you can only describe it subjectively in terms of other subjective, abstract concepts, e.g. flavor, color, and similar things. A computer with the appropriate tools can analyze a piece of fruit and declare what it is based on objective characteristics, presence of banana oil, flavonoids specific to strawberries, etc.

It would not decide based on subjective characteristics, e.g. as Shakespeare put it, "it is shaped like itself," nor to Willy Wonka's description of lickable wallpaper, "The snozzberries taste like snozzberries!" That is something only an entity having volitional consciousness is capable of doing, or as he put it, "we are the music makers. And we are the dreamers of dreama."

[pinback]

I see what you're saying, and I appreciate your input. Perhaps Nomango is not the site for you. Thanks for checking it out, though!

[pinback]

I should say, if you are interested in discussing what's being talked about at nomango, I would be happy to do so. If your interest is mainly in analyzing why it is wrong, of course being a smart man you'll surely find plenty of ways to do that. However, there's little to be gained by that for either of us, I think.

If you do want to discuss it, I'd begin the discussion like this:

While certainly different chemical constructs interact with taste buds to form different flavor experiences, and different frequencies of light waves interact with the structures of the eye and brain to form different experiences of color and shape, I would ask you, in any of these cases, who or what is it that is the experiencer of those things?

Who or what is it that is seeing or tasting?

The snapshot answer, of course, is always: "me!" But I wonder if you can place where that "me" is. Is it the brain? Are you your brain? Are you your eyes? Are you the conglomeration of chemical reactions taking place in the general vicinity of the body that you see when you look down?

Is there really a "me" there, or is that too just an abstract concept, a thought floating through consciousness? And if so, who or what is conscious of it?

In the immediacy of the experience, is there anything you can pinpoint that is experiencing it? When you speak of "subjective impressions", is there truly a subject to be found?

Or is there only that?

[Tdarcos]

I see what you're saying, and I appreciate your input. Perhaps Nomango is not the site for you. Thanks for checking it out, though!

I see where you have some insights. I do not think you understand them fully, and you might lack the concepts to better define and refine what you believe, and I'd like to help you along on your journey to enlightenment.

I probably should use the Socratic method of examining your ideas and the underlying inferences used to support them, in order to have you defend them and perhaps define them more precisely, rather than just confront them. But I'm kind of impatient and you know I'm not good at listening as opposed to talking.

The big problem with the Socratic method is you ask questions in order to poke holes in the person's conclusions, and you often get people angrier at you than if you just criticize their ideas. The reason being is if you do it right you get the person to examine their own ideas closely, and sometimes they discover they are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's also harder to do than straight critique.

Done right it can be devastating. One time I was talking to the pastor of my brother's church; occasionally i'd go with him and attend services, ten bring something for the pot luck lunch we'd have after. (I learned desserts are more popular so I switched to bringing those.)

I had explained to him that i am an agnostic, I listen to both sides and have not made up my mind, or if i do, I'm open to change it if the evidence proves otherwise. So, anyway, I asked him a question about religion, I forget what. In response to that, I asked another, and so on.

It took 8 questions before I cracked him, when his answer contradicted something he said before in the same conversation. As I wanted the discussion to be friendly and fun rather than confrontational I didn't say anything and backed off. But I discovered how devastating the Socratic method can be when used correctly.

I should say, if you are interested in discussing what's being talked about at nomango, I would be happy to do so.

That was my intent, maybe to allow you to learn something or perhaps you can show me where I am wrong. And at least have some fun at it.

If your interest is mainly in analyzing why it is wrong, of course being a smart man you'll surely find plenty of ways to do that. However, there's little to be gained by that for either of us, I think.

If I get you to defend and explain what you believe in, or discover some things you don't really have a rationality for it other than "I say so," don't you think defending your ideas helps to strengthen your beliefs and where you don't have a defense it allows you to learn something?

If you do want to discuss it, I'd begin the discussion like this:

While certainly different chemical constructs interact with taste buds to form different flavor experiences, and different frequencies of light waves interact with the structures of the eye and brain to form different experiences of color and shape, I would ask you, in any of these cases, who or what is it that is the experiencer of those things?

The particular person, of course.

Who or what is it that is seeing or tasting?

The snapshot answer, of course, is always: "me!" But I wonder if you can place where that "me" is. Is it the brain? Are you your brain? Are you your eyes? Are you the conglomeration of chemical reactions taking place in the general vicinity of the body that you see when you look down?

As best I can tell, I'm somewhere behind my eyes. It's not definable beyond that because you can't locate the consciousness encapsulated in a person without destroying it in the process.

Continued next message

[Tdarcos]

Is there really a "me" there, or is that too just an abstract concept, a thought floating through consciousness? And if so, who or what is conscious of it?

They've probably been asking that question in one form or another since Plato, and they'll be asking that question five thousand years after you and I have long since died and our corpses have decayed into dust.

I mention this very issue in the preface to my book "Instrument of God":

One of the finest examiners of myth and mythology, the late Dr. Joseph Campbell, asks the question, "Are we consciousness or are we the vehicle of consciousness?" One way to put that is, are we, that is, our soul, and our personality, our essence, merely a display, or is it part and parcel of what we are as an entity?

If our consciousness, our 'soul' as it were, is merely a display, then when we die, we go with it. Maybe some part of our existence will remain, if you can call it that. And I think that's still a waste, because if you aren't around to remember what happened to you, what is the point of living, of having lived? Maybe there isn't one, as Supervisor 246 says later in this book.

But if - this, I hope with every fiber of my being is true - that I am something more than mere display, then I continue notwithstanding my death, and birth or rebirth, that I exist for all time, I always have existed, will always exist, and never will cease to exist. And neither will you, either.

In the immediacy of the experience, is there anything you can pinpoint that is experiencing it? When you speak of "subjective impressions", is there truly a subject to be found?

Or is there only that?

What you are essentially asking is, "Do we have a soul?'

I'll try tackling that question later.


----
"I'm Tansin A. Darcos and I approve this message!'

[pinback]

Continued next message

Yes, you wouldn't want your response to get too long.

You're asking me to defend my belief, yet I have none to defend. Nor am I interested in defending anything.

Good day to you, sir.

[Tdarcos]

Continued next message

Yes, you wouldn't want your response to get too long.

No, it was because I was typing on a Windows Tablet PC and it has the nasty habit of shutting down if it runs out of power in the battery - the stupid power supply is via a USB charge port and when the tablet is in use the power supplied by the charge port and power cable is less than the tablet consumes when running, and if I drain the battery It will shut down, of course, and as a result I will probably lose what I typed in.

It also gives no warning at all when it is close to shutting down for lack of power. Another reason I wanted to get out of the rehab facility and home, back to my desktop computer with a luscious 27" monitor (that i am using right now) and a UPS.

You're asking me to defend my belief, yet I have none to defend.

Bullshit. Everyone believes in something. I believe I'll have another glass of water.

Nor am I interested in defending anything.

Good day to you, sir.

Hmm. This is interesting. I've struck a nerve of fear. Anyone that afraid of talking about what they think about - since you claim you don't believe in anything - is usually scared that someone will discover what they're hiding: that they're afraid they're wrong and don't want to admit it.

But, if you want to remain in your prison of fear, fine. That's your problem. I'd rather hear from someone who has something to say and is willing to learn. I've been wrong many times, and in at least one case I changed my opinion because someone else pointed out my error, even though I did not agree with him on many issues.

But one small item on your BBS is wrong:
5/23/2015: I've been doing a little writing over at the Jolt Country BBS, but those fine people shouldn't be forced to read this stuff whenever it comes out of my fingers, so I'll start posting it here instead.l.

Actually it's coming out of the other end of your body rather than your fingers.

[pinback]

I thank you for your time.

[pinback]

Everyone believes in something.

In truth, more and more I find this not to be the case. More and more I sense thoughts coming and going, some joyous, some horrible, some with a sense of "right" and some with a sense of "wrong", but in the immediacy of what is, I cannot tell you which of them are "my beliefs".

I am the eternal stillness behind every form, passionately accepting of every form, identifying with none.

Which of the thoughts in your mind are "your beliefs" and which are just mental chatter?

[Tdarcos]

Everyone believes in something.

In truth, more and more I find this not to be the case. ... I sense thoughts ... but in the immediacy of what is, I cannot tell you which of them are "my beliefs"...

Which of the thoughts in your mind are "your beliefs" and which are just mental chatter?

How exactly can I explain such an abstract idea when you apparently don't even accept the concept in the first place. But I'll try.

A "belief" is the acceptance of a premise, an idea, or an inference without evidence, i.e. on faith. My belief is we interact with a world that exists notwithstanding our own existence and is what it appears to be from our senses as "the real world." I accept this belief because to fail to do so, if it is actual reality, will terminate my existence for noncompliance, as might have happened if I had ignored my congestive heart failure when everything bad was happening to me.

[pinback]

I thank you for your time.

[pinback]

A "belief" is the acceptance of a premise, an idea, or an inference without evidence, i.e. on faith.

There is no one to accept a premise, an idea, or an inference, with or without evidence.

My belief is we interact with a world that exists notwithstanding our own existence and is what it appears to be from our senses as "the real world."

All this "my" and "we" and "our", but you've yet to provide any evidence of any of these mythical figures, other than "it kinda feels like it". Unacceptable. I find your blind religious acceptance of a separate self to be quite disappointing, for a man of your heft.

will terminate my existence for noncompliance, as might have happened if I had ignored my congestive heart failure when everything bad was happening to me.

You have no existence to terminate, and nothing bad has ever happened to you.

[Tdarcos]

A "belief" is the acceptance of a premise, an idea, or an inference without evidence, i.e. on faith.

There is no one to accept a premise, an idea, or an inference, with or without evidence.

May I suggest you quit trying to sell bullshit without a license, because nobody is buying it.

This is a fundamental axiom of what we are. There is no possibility of us communicating, of us having this conversation, unless we do exist and do so within a medium by which communication is possible.

This is inescapable and axiomatic, that existence exists and consciousness is a factor of that existence. You cannot deny the concept of existence because the instant you touch a key to make such a claim you have to exist in order to do so.

Now, when someone claims that they believe in God, the impetus is upon them to provide evidence to support that claim. But existence and the concept of communication are axiomatic because they are part and parcel of any conversation, it is sine qua non proven by its very use. As soon as you use any part of language in this world to make the claim that language doesn't exist, or I don't exist, or you don't exist, you put paid to your own comments because it is impossible to make the claim without using the very elements you try to deny the existence of.

The simplest answer of an example of what you're trying to do would be like using chalk on a blackboard while you write "Chalk does not exist." You're not allowed to use the concept of a thing while denying its existence. That makes you a fool and / or a hypocrite.

My belief is we interact with a world that exists notwithstanding our own existence and is what it appears to be from our senses as "the real world."

All this "my" and "we" and "our", but you've yet to provide any evidence of any of these mythical figures, other than "it kinda feels like it". Unacceptable. I find your blind religious acceptance of a separate self to be quite disappointing, for a man of your heft.

That's not what I said. I said that existence is axiomatic. Not because "it kinda feels like it." It is, simply because if it did not, none of this conversation would be taking place.

There's a whole thread going on this very website over people who suffered "critical existence failure" before I did, and you seemed to be disappointed when I posted a recent picture of him to the thread after you posted a 30+ year-old photo of Robin Williams. Those people on that thread no longer exist. What, if anything happened to their essence or "soul" after they died - or even if they had one - is a matter of speculation. But we would not talk about death unless there was some characteristic which changes the composition of what we know as "life" and we can recognize when it ceases to exist.

will terminate my existence for noncompliance, as might have happened if I had ignored my congestive heart failure when everything bad was happening to me.

You have no existence to terminate, and nothing bad has ever happened to you.

That's your opinion, and you're wrong for one simple reason: by the terms of what you are saying, you are admitting you don't exist either. Therefore you have no opinions.

Unless existence exists - which you are denying - then none of this is taking place and the point is moot. It is not that I feel that it is this way, it is this way because it has to be. For us to communicate it is a sine-qua-non, an inescapable conclusion that there must be two people in the conversation and a medium to communicate through. Note that I did not claim that the world really is what it appears to be. I have conceded that I believe as a matter of faith the world around me is what it appears to be because I cannot prove it to be so; someone could be feeding me everything vis-a-vis The Matrix, but notwithstanding this, I would still exist, and the other party - even if that other party were a figment of my imagination - would also have to exist, and the medium of communication also has to exist.

If those three are not present, this conversation never took place, and anyone who wants to argue such has to first explain how they can deny the existence of a conversation that they themselves have to speak within in order to be a part of it, Q.E.D.

------
In any case, Ben, I find your nonexistent conversations here fascinating, and I hope to not do these again, many times. I find these nonexistent debates a lot of fun that you seem to believe I never had.

[pinback]

You cannot deny the concept of existence

I do not deny existence. I deny the separate self (or selves) who you claim it is all happening to. Existence, this, is all there is. Your religious caterwauling about there being a "me" who is doing it, who it is happening to, are the ramblings of a crazy person!

Now, when someone claims that they believe in God, the impetus is upon them to provide evidence to support that claim.

You believe there is a "you" in there, between your ears and behind your eyes, making decisions, thinking things, doing things, experiencing "a life". That is just as foundless an assertion as the most zealous Christian could offer up.

Science has never found it. You've never found it. Nobody has ever found it. Ironically, nobody could find it, since not only is there nothing to find, there's nobody to find it in the first place.

"Chalk does not exist." You're not allowed to use the concept of a thing while denying its existence. That makes you a fool and / or a hypocrite.

Not surprisingly, you've misunderstood everything I've said. I do not deny this, because, boom, there it is. No additional belief is required. The Lord (this) is my shepherd, I shall not want.

Try this for yourself. Pick something in the room, look at it, and then see if you can find the thing doing the looking.

That's not what I said. I said that existence is axiomatic.

Nobody is questioning existence here.

by the terms of what you are saying, you are admitting you don't exist either.

Absolutely correct. There is no one "in here" doing this, or deciding this, or writing this. It is all just happening, all by itself. Completely inseparable from itself, completely whole, with no one, no separate object, no thing, nothing anywhere to be found.

Therefore you have no opinions.

Absolutely correct again! You're doing very well. Not because I'm just a dullard who isn't smart enough to come up with opinions, but in fact because there is no one here to have an opinion.

Unless existence exists - which you are denying

Who could deny this?

[Tdarcos]

You cannot deny the concept of existence

I do not deny existence. I deny the separate self (or selves) who you claim it is all happening to.

Excuse me, but you are attempting to claim two contradictory ideas at the same time, by claiming you don't deny existence and at the same time deny that we exist. This conversation cannot take place unless some people who do exist are participating in it. You can't deny the existence of the participants of a conversation and still claim there is a conversation taking place.

Existence, this, is all there is. Your religious caterwauling about there being a "me" who is doing it, who it is happening to, are the ramblings of a crazy person!

1. Non sequitur. If I don't exist, I can't be crazy.
2. You can't argue I'm wrong or even make comments about what I say unless you concede I exist and are capable of making comments as part of this conversation. Nor can you even argue your own points if you deny your own existence.
3. Denying reality seems to be what you are doing. Oh wait, you can't since you don't exist. Therefore nothing you have to say has any significance whatsoever.
4. Ask 50 ordinary people of this and I suspect the vast majority of them would think you're nuts. That doesn't matter much since you probably don't think they exist either!

Now, when someone claims that they believe in God, the impetus is upon them to provide evidence to support that claim.

You believe there is a "you" in there, between your ears and behind your eyes, making decisions, thinking things, doing things, experiencing "a life". That is just as foundless an assertion as the most zealous Christian could offer up.

Oh really? If I don't exist then how is this conversation taking place? Where does this response come from?

Science has never found it. You've never found it. Nobody has ever found it. Ironically, nobody could find it, since not only is there nothing to find, there's nobody to find it in the first place.

And please explain how this conversation is taking place if there isn't anyone here. And if there is someone here, then you're conceding that I do exist.

"Chalk does not exist." You're not allowed to use the concept of a thing while denying its existence. That makes you a fool and / or a hypocrite.

Not surprisingly, you've misunderstood everything I've said. I do not deny this, because, boom, there it is.

And how did this get here? Did the words just form themselves? Were they always here or did they just randomly assemble themselves?

No additional belief is required. The Lord (this) is my shepherd, I shall not want.

More like "I shall not think."

Try this for yourself. Pick something in the room, look at it, and then see if you can find the thing doing the looking.

I am. My existence requires no proof because it is self-proving. To even deny my existence by responding to my comments, you have to address me to make the claim thus conceding my existence and invalidating your argument.

That's not what I said. I said that existence is axiomatic.

Nobody is questioning existence here.

Yes, you are. You're questioning mine.

by the terms of what you are saying, you are admitting you don't exist either.

Absolutely correct. There is no one "in here" doing this, or deciding this, or writing this.

Then how did it get here?

It is all just happening, all by itself. Completely inseparable from itself, completely whole, with no one, no separate object, no thing, nothing anywhere to be found.

Therefore you have no opinions.

Absolutely correct again!

Bzzzt! Try again. You've just stated an opinion that I am correct.

You're doing very well. Not because I'm just a dullard who isn't smart enough to come up with opinions, but in fact because there is no one here to have an opinion.

You can't refer to yourself as "I" if you don't exist, dummy! In fact, you can't reply at all.

Unless existence exists - which you are denying

Who could deny this?

You are. If you are not here then your responses could not be created. This wouldn't be here.

[pinback]

I'm not sure he's getting it.

Alright, let's try this a different way. Science (you like science, right?) has shown that what we call a "thought", let's say, "I like pork patties", actually consists of millions of synaptic electrical and chemical reactions per second in the brain. I don't know what the actual number is, don't get caught up on that, but let's say, "a lot".

So, are "you" in there, directing all million per second of these reactions, deciding which synapses to fire and which chemicals to produce and which thoughts to think?

Where is the one who is deciding to do all of this?

[pinback]

I don't know if anyone else cares about any of this, but if so, is there a better way to explain it than I've been trying to? Or does nobody get it, and I'm the crazy one here?

I'm probably the crazy one here.

[RetroRomper]

We're all the crazy ones - Tdarcos is the only sane, rational human being among the bunch of us.