Philosophy Discussion Forums

Belinda wrote:How often have you put this ability to the test, Meleagar?

Every day. However, what you imagine a proper test of intentionality would be under my philosophy is probably a misrepresentation of my philosophy. I and my wife have intended and witnessed many extremely amazing things occur as apparent result, not once or twice, but ongoing for as long as we have been together (20 years). If the model is false, it's still a pretty good model.

So why do you come to a philosophy forum? We are mostly if not all automata after all.

Why wouldn't I? That's like asking why I go to work if the people at work are automata, or why watch movies since the characters are fictional. What difference does that make? That you are automata doesn't mean that you cannot utter interesting, profound, or useful things; it just means that you cannot do so deliberately.

Meleagar, your use of 'deliberately' is unusual. There is no reason even for a free will experiencer such as yourself to assume that any profound and interesting human is not deliberating when, upon your asking him a profound question,you observe him to get his body into a position like that of Rodin's Thinker and remain silent for a minute or more.

Meleagar,

I've followed some of your responses. They've been of sufficient quality and depth that I've posted some of your comments (with acknowledgements/links) to an atheist's forum here in Sydney.

If you contact me privately, I'd enjoy discussing having you contribute an article or three to the Belief Institute website.

I expect you would find yourself in good company.

Good wishes,
Steaphen Pirie
Director
Belief Institute

You might wish, for example, to add to some of my thought experiments that prove the impossibility of physical movement, when based on the materialistic assumptions of science.

It seems that in being a new member I cannot yet post links.
read more at dub-dub-dub-dot-beliefinstitute-dot-com/science/zenos-paradoxes, and dub-dub-dub-dot-beliefinstitute-dot-com

Belinda wrote:Meleagar, your use of 'deliberately' is unusual. There is no reason even for a free will experiencer such as yourself to assume that any profound and interesting human is not deliberating when, upon your asking him a profound question,you observe him to get his body into a position like that of Rodin's Thinker and remain silent for a minute or more.

I use deliberate in the sense of "intentional", not in the sense of a mechanistic computer factoring output.

Meleager said: "I never claimed I controlled my experience; I create it. These are two different things."

Would you please explain the difference? You cannot control that which you've created? That would make you an awfully incompetent creator, wouldn't it?

Felix wrote:Meleager said: "I never claimed I controlled my experience; I create it. These are two different things."

Would you please explain the difference?"

Do I create what I drea when I sleep? Yes. Do I control it? No. I can create & influence stuff while in the dream via lucid dreaming techniques, but I don't consciously control everything in it.

It is this very lack of control that offers the space for an isolated identity to be realized, a distinction between self and other so that the structure of ongoing, personal experience can be maintained.

Just as in a dream everything in the dream is my responsibility/creation, everything I experience is my responsibility/creation.

So Mel, are you saying that you are the only one who actually exists?
That 'all this' is a product of your creation?

reflected_light wrote:So Mel, are you saying that you are the only one who actually exists?
That 'all this' is a product of your creation?

While your question is addressed to Mel, allow me to offer some perspectives.

Meleagar has, I believe, offered some quite valid ideas regarding how we all work the irreducible paradox of life.

In regards to control and creation. For those who have enjoyed a sexual orgasm or two, note that the enjoyment stems from not controlling, from letting go. Nonetheless we are still responsible for its creation. i.e. we are still creating our circumstances (in this case the orgasm) by straddling both conscious-control and unconscious mechanisms and dynamics. And that is the process of creativity, and of life. And there are no exceptions to that process.

As for being the only person. Consider one's role within a community - specifically the paradox of individuality within the 'oneness' of community. We each co-create the identity and character of the community in which we live, while retaining individuality. Yet the community has its own individuality. We create it, yet do not 'control' others who also co-create it.

But I expect Meleagar will explain the above with more style and effect.



Good wishes,
Steaphen Pirie
Belief Institute

The belief that I am the one only who actually exists is called solipsism.

reflected_light wrote:So Mel, are you saying that you are the only one who actually exists?
That 'all this' is a product of your creation?

Everything that exists in the dream "actually" exists in the only way that anything exists; as entites dreamt into individual experience by the sleeping dreamer, universal mind, god - whatever you want to call it.

Obviously, the character in the dream referred to as "Meleagar" has no intrinsic power to do anything; Meleagar is only a collection of quantum pixels, a holographic avatar. Only the "I" that is the sleeping dreamer, or god, can cause anything to occur, and is the great uncaused cause of all apparent experience.

What creative power Meleagar has, he only has because of his conscious realization that he is also the dreamer, and that he is dreaming. That doesn't mean that "Meleagar" is the only dream-avatar that is aware it is also the dreamer.

So an automaton is an entity that does not realize that it is dreaming?
And how does the realization of that change anything?

I once thought that everything I saw and did was concocted by my imagination, then I met someone who held the same belief, we had the same argument and neither of us could prove that we were right, and so were both proven wrong.
This is where solipsism fails.

You talk of a 'communal' dream state...
So where do you think our true essences reside then?
If you think this 'wakeful' part of our day is a 'dream state' then what do you call the state in which we dream in our sleep?

Mel, I got a lot of questions, it is an interesting topic but at this point sounds like another escape tactic from a world that is under a lot of stress.

How is it we all 'dream' the same dream? Communal dreaming?
I suppose that's enough questions for one post.

I see. Meleager has not manufactured and cannot control his experience and yet he claims that he created it. That is so illogical and delusional that it's not worth further discussion.

reflected_light wrote:So an automaton is an entity that does not realize that it is dreaming?
And how does the realization of that change anything?

Have you ever had a lucid dream? If so, how did being lucid change the dream experience?

This is where solipsism fails.

I haven't said anything about solipsism.

You talk of a 'communal' dream state...
So where do you think our true essences reside then?

Our? I make no claims about "everyone". What is the "true essence" of a dreamt person? Is it the experience of the dreamt person, or the mind of the dreamer?

If you think this 'wakeful' part of our day is a 'dream state' then what do you call the state in which we dream in our sleep?

California. Or, how about "dream within a dream"; have you ever dreamt that you were dreaming?

Mel, I got a lot of questions, it is an interesting topic but at this point sounds like another escape tactic from a world that is under a lot of stress.

Who cares what it sounds like? The question is whether or not it works.

How is it we all 'dream' the same dream? Communal dreaming?
I suppose that's enough questions for one post.

I didn't say "we" were all dreaming the same dream. You think god is only capable of one dream at a time? Or limited to manifesting one (or one lucid) entity per dream?

For those who have never heard of anything like what Meleagar believes, it is actually a very ancient concept common to the mysticism of nearly every religion. Hindu cosmology is essentially the same: Atman is Brahman. In particular, the metaphor of a dreaming God is very ancient and has long been known to Eastern cultures. Expand your awareness!

Well, pj, we didn't learn until his latest posts that this is what Meleager had in mind, he's been beating around the burning bush for quite a while. And his is a magical thinking, new-age take on the ancient concept. Knowing something is true and believing/wishing it is true are two quite different things.