You’re glossing over the important part too quickly, there.
You say it doesn’t matter what “appears” to be so, since there is no discrete water or key. And that’s where I’m interrupting, to ask: if it doesn’t matter, then why the heck do they keep drinking the water and putting the key in the lock?
I get why I’m drinking water and putting keys in locks, and not the reverse; it’s because I think it matters. But I don’t get why someone who says that it doesn’t matter would act the same way — unless, well, they say it, but of course don’t actually mean it, since, hey, sometimes people say things without meaning them.
That’s the best way I know how “to address what they say”: by pointing out that, if they really did believe what you say, they wouldn’t act the way that I do; but, of course, they do act the way I do, because I’m, y’know, right.
It’s more like thinking in regards to death and the like.
Like in the case of people, there is no core or discrete essence to who we are as a person. Where we grow up tends to impact how we live and who we become. There isn’t a “soul” or core aspect to us.
I keep asking you to address the paragraph I quoted but you fail to do so. I keep telling you that a key into a lock or water is irrelevant to the main point being made here, that (as far as I can tell) they liken the universe to an ocean and phenomenon as waves. In that what appears to be separate is really just one thing.
Yes, you keep telling me that it’s irrelevant; but, see, I still disagree.
Say a guy says “that what appears to be separate is really just one thing.” Say he elaborates: “It doesn’t matter what “appears” to be so, since there is no discrete water or key”, he says. Maybe he’s right; but maybe he’s lying or mistaken.
Say I watch that guy for a while. Say, too, that he sure does act like what appears to be separate actually is separate: he routinely drinks water, as if it doesn’t just appear to be water but in fact is water; and he refuses to drink poison, as if (a) it appears to be poison instead of water, and (b) it truly is poison instead of water. I watch him, over and over, as he unlocks a door with a key; and, if he’s ever handed what appears to be a coin and not a key, he reacts as if it really is a coin and not a key: swapping it out for what, y’know, appears to be a key.
Now hold on a moment, I say to the guy. If you’re right, instead of being a liar or mistaken, then why do you act like what appears to be so is so? I get why I drink what appears to be water, and refuse what appears to be poison; but why the heck do you do that? And his reply might be “oh, you caught me; I didn’t really mean that silly thing I’d said; you can tell, because, see, I act sensibly.”
If that’s his reply, then the discussion is of course at an end.
So . . . is that his reply? Was he just lying or mistaken?
The start: “Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field.” Uh, okay. So what? I’d drink water, and refuse poison, if their atoms were like unto discrete balls; I’d also drink water, and refuse poison, if their atoms were more like point-like excitations of a field.
I don’t care whether they’re discrete balls or point-like excitations.
Why would I care? Why should I?
It goes on: “There are no discrete things or objects of solid substance; things as we perceive them are merely changing forms and patterns in nature (the universe) as a whole.” If there were objects of solid substance that are discrete things, then I’d use a steel key to unlock a door and not use a gold coin in that attempt — but if there aren’t discrete-thing objects of solid substance, then I’d…
…wait, what would that mean? As far as I can tell, the folks who say this still act like steel keys are solid objects that unlock doors, and they still act like gold coins are solid objects that don’t unlock doors, as if those keys and those coins are discrete things (and as if doors are solid objects that need to be unlocked, because the people who say that There Are No Discrete Things Or Objects Of Solid Substance still act like physical barriers are solid-object obstacles that block their way).
Let me just stop here for a moment to touch base with you: those two points there, what difference do you think they’d make? If I disagreed with them, I’d (a) drink water and refuse poison while thinking they were different; and I’d (b) use a steel key instead of a gold coin when unlocking a door, thinking they were discrete solid objects. But if I agreed with them, I’d — act the same way?
Why would either of those points matter at all? Like, even a little bit?
Because if either of those were true then it would mean that there is no you or me, that there is no “me” which means that there is no point in doing anything at all since there is no “doer” of the deed, it would all just be the same thing. To use their analogy it would just be the wave on the ocean.
Why? I genuinely don’t get how you can think that follows.
I just said — right there, in the part you’re replying to — that I’d drink water, and refuse poison, if their atoms are discrete balls floating in space; and that I’d drink water, and refuse poison, if their atoms are point-like excitations of a field.
Either way, it’s as if they’re not “the same thing”.
If a steel key and a gold coin are “discrete things or objects of solid substance”, then it makes sense that a guy would use one but not the other to unlock a door. But if a guy (a) tells me that there are no discrete things or objects of solid substance, and he (b) still uses the key, but not the coin, to unlock a door?
Either way, he’s still acting as if they’re not “the same thing”.
Why? Why would he do that? You attribute these views to various people; why, then, do they still drink water and refuse poison? Why do they still use keys, and not coins, to unlock doors? Why don’t they just shrug and say “it’s all just the same thing” and promptly get it wrong? I can of course explain it by figuring they don’t actually believe what you say they do; but how the heck can you explain it?
Well according to the paragraph I linked birth and death are not different from each other, they are two sides of the same coin. I mean I know on the macro level that steel is not gold, but again I think they are referring to the metaphor of the ocean and the wave.
Yeah, see, that’s sort of the whole thing, there: on one level, in a metaphorical sense, “it would all just be the same thing.” But on another level, there’s a literal sense in which folks who push that metaphor quickly grant that, heh, no, of course it’s not all the same thing: place a glass of water and a glass of poison before such a guy and he’ll say that, oh, hey, metaphorically they’re the same thing, but actually they’re quite different.
Wasting away behind bars, a guy who sneers at that metaphor will actually use a key to unlock the door. Wasting away behind bars, a guy who does a great job of talking up that metaphor will — still actually use a key to unlock the door; it’s just that he’ll do it while saying there’s a metaphorical sense in which the gold coin and the steel key aren’t different from each other (but adding that, yeah, okay, in another sense, they of course are different from each other, and he acts accordingly).
And that doesn’t seem like an especially interesting position.
You said this boils down to saying that “there is no you or me, that there is no “me” which means that there is no point in doing anything at all since there is no “doer” of the deed, it would all just be the same thing.” But make sure to note that the actual position, the uninteresting position, is this: in one sense, there is no ‘you’ or ‘me’; but in another sense, there is. In one sense, there’s no point in doing anything at all; but in another sense, there of course still is. In one sense, we can metaphorically say there’s no ‘doer’ of the deed and it’s all just the same thing; but in another sense, heh, no, of course none of that is actually true, can you even imagine?
The idea here is that since everything is just rearranging from already existing matter than you are the universe, that everything “we” see and experience is all just one big thing. Again this comes from what we know in that everything around us is just rearrangement of existing matter and that nothing exists independently of anything else. Like it is saying that there is no little man in our heads that is the thinker, it’s all the same thing, IE the universe.
I need an address to that because according to such logic there is no difference from poison or water.
But the people who you say use such logic do act like there’s a difference between poison and water. If you put a glass of each before a guy like that, he stops joking around and breaks off all There Is No Difference talk while getting it right. (And, again: if he’s locked behind bars, and asks you to hand him the steel key, and you instead give him a gold coin or a handful of sand, he’ll explain to you that, uh, no, see, you got that wrong; There Is A Difference.)
You say those are just rearrangements of existing matter. So what? If a guy says the water and the poison aren’t rearrangements of existing matter, I’ll opt for the water and not the poison while pointing out that There Is A Difference; but if a guy tells me the water and the poison are rearrangements of existing matter, I’ll — opt for the water and not the poison, and point out that There Is A Difference.
So what’s the relevance? If someone tells me the key and the coin and the sand are all rearrangements of existing matter, and so I hand him the coin or the sand when he’s locked behind bars, he’s not going to say “oh, yes, thank you; that’s correct, because, after all, There Is No Difference.”
He’ll say, “no, that’s wrong; give me the other one; There Is A Difference.”
I don’t really know what they will say, but they would likely say they are already free since they are everything.
The idea being that there is no essence or soul or unchanging core to which there can be called a self, just brain activity that we take to be a unified self. If there is no core essence or you, then you must be the universe. The idea here being that there is no separate and atomized “you”, just a body which is a collection of parts, which are also part, etc, etc.
You are on about the key and lock and missing the overall point being made by the paragraph, which says you are the key, the lock, everything, hence the “you are the universe”.
Why don’t they say It Makes No Difference (or: I Am Everything) and drink poison instead of water? If you’re right, and they actually believed all of this, they’d have knocked back a nice tall glass of poison by now…
…but they haven’t. They talk like they would; but then they don’t?
How do you explain that? I know how I’d explain that; I’d say “that’s not what they actually believe; they believe there is a difference between a glass of poison and a glass of water, which explains why they haven’t all poisoned themselves yet.”
If you think they do believe this, then explain why they aren’t dead yet: shouldn’t they, upon looking at water and then at poison and then back at the water and back at the poison, shrug and say, “what’s the difference?”
How do they survive?
You are on about what they say; I’m asking you to watch what they do. Watch one live his life for a while; what does he do when facing a locked door? I don’t care what he says; he’s free to say there’s no difference between a key and a coin and a handful of sand, people say all sorts of stuff without being right. What does he do?
Does he say “it makes no difference” and try using the coin? Does he say “it makes no difference” and try using the sand? Or does he, for some reason, use the key?
What does he do when given a choice between water and poison? Does he say that it makes no difference, and then drink the poison as readily as he would the water? Or does he, for some reason, drink the water?
If so: WHAT’S THAT REASON? If not: WHY ISN’T HE DEAD YET?
I don’t know what they would choose, I can’t really ask them that. What I am getting at is that the main point here is there being no separate and atomized “you” to point to.
You don’t actually need to ask them. I mean, by all means, do, if you ever get the chance; but until then, just ask yourself this: the guy who makes these odd claims, what’s he living on? Is he routinely drinking water — or if you will, milk; and maybe the occasional cappuccino, with a little cinammon on top?
How has he not died yet? Each day that he sensibly drinks something nourishing, he’s choosing to drink that instead of drinking something else. How does he keep making the right choice? Why hasn’t he shrugged, and said It’s All The Same, and opted for a nice tall glass of poison even once? What prompts him, every time, for years or even decades, to act like there’s a difference?
He’s racked up the same win-loss record as me; I’ve done it by figuring that there’s a difference between water and poison; how has he done it? Again, yes, ask him, if you can; but if you can’t, then ask yourself: why does he act like I do?
It makes perfect sense if he thinks those are separate and distinguishable from each other, such that one is to be refused and the other one accepted. Does it make any sense if he doesn’t actually believe there’s a difference?
(Does he eat sand by the handful? Does he eat his own feces? Ask him when you can; but don’t you already suspect that, no, while he surely gets thousands of chances to err, he somehow keeps managing to conclude that a nice salad or whatever greatly differs from — and is preferable to — the alternatives he rules out?)
My fucking god dude, do you not get it? If Machinaforce was trapped in a cell, of course he would ask for the key. And then he would go back on his BS obsession, because he cannot think straight. You are embarrassing yourself by humoring him and also doing damage by enabling his mental illness.
More like not getting at the central part or looking at the last link that I posted.
The idea here is that what we take to be separate and independently existing entities are not so, but rather all made of the same fundamental materials. Nothing has an essence or exists in some sort of atomized way but is made up of parts. So what you think is some unified and unchanging whole is just a collection of parts. We don’t exist separate from the universe, we are the universe (made up of the same things as all things), and there is no little man or soul riding around that we can call US. The poison and water analogy falls flat since the question is more about selfhood. If there is no separate and unchanging core to call you then it is all YOU.
That’s what I understand their argument to be at least. Like I said, the last link I gave shows more about it.