1– So you’re rejecting real, or the reality of, possibilities? Logically speaking, that is, apriori, reality is the very foundation of possibility. What are you taking about? You’re just making more empty assumptions.

“In reality everything exists absolutely.” — Yet, the point is that in a given state of reality, a possibility can exist absolutely, too, in as much as it really is a possibility, then & there.

2— The point is to focus on what these words literally refer to & not what they are themselves. Now based on what you’ve just said, do you accept that what you refer to as “qualia” is conscious?

The term 'omniscientnihilist' refers to the true nature of the mind.

the true nature of the mind. — OmniscientNihilist

Something only you understand?

1- 'possibility' refers to epistemology not metaphysics.
2- color, sound, taste, smell, feeling, must be conscious or it would be impossible to experience or know of their existence

I have no understanding, I simply see that the snake is actually just a rope. You don't need belief to know its just a rope, just look.

when the mind stops and looks you are omniscient, and from that the mind gains absolute truth

1– .. except that possibilities are metaphysical, not merely objects of knowledge; if this weren’t the case, they would never in fact be possibilities. You’ve entirely missed the point. Believe whatever you want, though.

2– A scent, according to you, is/must be conscious/sentient? Boy, what are you smoking?

just look — OmniscientNihilist

Now that is so much better than your first post.

1- metaphysics does not require belief
2- consciousness and sentience are two different things. we should define these terms.

of course, but this is a philosophy forum after all.

So if there is nothing outside the universe, there is nothing then to make it contingent and it would be necessary. Dr. William Craig disagrees with this I know, but I don't know his arguments against it

there is nothing then to make it contingent and it would be necessary. — Gregory

Btu there is also nothing to make it necessary...

But that's not a reason to do bad metaphysics.

1– It doesn’t require belief but does require the foundation of reality (so, no escape in that respect for you); the former, you have a lot of, while the latter, you pretty much just skip over.

2– They may not signify the same exact thing but are still close enough in meaning (they simply refer to various kinds, or degrees, of consciousness) such that they can be, at certain times & in certain contexts, interchangeably used. Nonetheless, try & answer my question, are you claiming that a scent is not sentient but conscious, when you assert, “smell, must be conscious”?

1- trying to talk about what is real(metaphysics) is an oxymoron. using the unreal to try and reach the real is impossible unless someone is willing to let go of the unreal and go beyond it, hence why good metaphysics always leads to spirituality/meditation etc....
2- sentience refers to both mind and consciousness, which are two different things, although ultimately the same thing, but only because everything is ultimately the same thing.

First cause arguments are all flawed because they predicate something coming from nothing. If causation exists it must therefore be eternal. Nothing real can ever begin. Motion cannot just start up from nothing. Whether that motion is the movement of the big bang or the movement of god. And therefore both science and religion are wrong. Religion just tacks on the same problem as the solution and pretends it solved something haha

"The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it." -Nietzsche

Unless you assume god is a magician that can do magic. But that is magical thinking. One false thing cannot be used to prove another false thing true.

But you already created a bad starting point when you assumed the universe even exists.

The god character is basically just a projection of the human ego illusion. Overcome that and it will disappear at the same time.

1— It’s not so much talking about metaphysics as it’s thinking about it (quite the difference): again, don’t focus on the characters or words themselves, but their significance. Moreover, in the truest sense of the word, “metaphysics” is only possible because of thought, conception or intellection, i.e., only because of “nous” (the Greek word for the intellect or mind [so there’s no “oxymoron” in thinking about it]); so, again, you simply claiming that the real, or, true metaphysics cannot be obtained is merely an empty assertion, without explanation or logical support (like most of what you’ve expressed through our back & forth), which is solely dependent on your personally nuanced definitions of terms, i.e., without legitimacy.

Also, the metaphysical isn’t the only reality, as you suggest, it’s just the ultimate one. There are levels to reality.

2– All of that’s beside the point...now, answer my question for once, is a scent, according to you, conscious but not sentient?

1- As the metaphysics becomes more and more true it will go more and more beyond thought and words.
2- The only thing that exists is color, sound, feeling, which is all conscious and ordered and flowing. The mind is just an echo of that only reality. A reflection, within it, of it, as part of it.

2– So, to be sure, just for my own sake, you’re claiming that color & sound are conscious, in the same which we would say an animal or human is?

animals and humans are not consicous

the mind gets everything backwards and inside out when it goes off on its own and does not rely on omniscience as the source of truth

I simply see that the snake is actually just a rope. — OmniscientNihilist

Remind me never to go bushwalking with you.

“the mind gets everything backwards and inside out when it goes off on its own and does not rely on omniscience as the source of truth” — You seem to know about this first-hand...

Well then lets forget about talk and look and see.

If we look in the body/brain do we see any consciousness in there?

Firstly, what does “consciousness” mean to you? In order to begin to understand you from here, definitions must be sorted out. So what do you mean by “consciousness”, when you ask, “if we look in the body/brain do we see any consciousness in there?” What’s “consciousness” (apart from body/brain)?

For discussion sake: brain, mind, intelligence, consciousness and qualia are five different things. Lets be careful not to 'muddle' them together as the same thing.

You know, let’s save that for another time, sorry. I’m sure that I’ll run into you again on the forum. Take care.

It’s not so much talking about metaphysics as it’s thinking about it — aRealidealist

SO, do tell us more about the ineffable...

Very strictly speaking, it’s ineffable, sure, but not imperceptible; so, as I’ve mentioned to the other fellow in one way or another, the words that are employed in metaphysical cognition don’t, per se, convey the truth of it, this only being achieved by the thoughts or conceptions which they occasion within us.

Define something that doesn't exist? Doing so would only create more confusion.

Only something exists, and it is eternal and omnipresent and unchanging. If a vacuum was truly nothing you would not even be able to see or detect it in any way. Zero is a relative term, and those only exist in the mind for pragmatic purposes. — OmniscientNihilist

I don't understand this: give it another try?

*edited to delete non-constructive content.

“Tthe teaching is merely a vehicle to describe the truth. Don’t mistake it for the truth itself. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. The finger is needed to know where to look for the moon, but if you mistake the finger for the moon itself, you will never know the real moon. The teaching is like a raft that carries you to the other shore. The raft is needed, but the raft is not the other shore. An intelligent person would not carry the raft around on his head after making it across to the other shore. My teaching is the raft which can help you cross to the other shore beyond birth and death. Use the raft to cross to the other shore, but don’t hang onto it as your property. Do not become caught in the teaching. You must be able to let it go.” -Thich Nhat Hanh

Can the singularity be it's own causality without making it spiritual? — Gregory

Yes - il n'y a pas besoin de cette hypothèse. e.g. Once upon a planck-scale spacetime, a quantum fluctuation had tunneled from (higher? false?) vacuum state to another (lower? less false?) vacuum state - "big bang" - in a runaway (inflationary?) entropic process - universe (which is still "banging", that is, accelerating towards maximum entropy).

"[So if there is nothing outside the universe,] there is nothing then to make it contingent and it would be necessary."
— Gregory

B[ut] there is also nothing to make it necessary... — Banno

Thus, a universe [is] necessarily non-necessary ...

↪tim wood :up:

↪Gregory First cause arguments are all flawed because they predicate something coming from nothing. If causation exists it must therefore be eternal. Nothing real can ever begin. Motion cannot just start up from nothing. — OmniscientNihilist

(a) Please differentiate Nothing from NothingNess.

(b) Also, if motion isn't fundamental, or absolute, give us an account (sketch) of fundamental, or absolute, non-motion (i.e. stasis).

To wit: Why (relative) motion rather than (absolute) stasis? :yawn:

Yeah, this is a set-up, but you've rolled out a lot of "End result ... I am god" flypaper so far and I'd like see how you buzz yourself woo-woo silly bouncing around in the fly-bottle - or if you can show the rest of us some way out. Doubt you can, OmNihil, but I dare you to try.

(Now I'm going to go fuck off in the corner and ... :smirk:)