If I am immortal, then I will soon die

[DBT]

Establish
3. To cause to be recognised and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.

recognise
1. formally acknowledged or accepted as valid
2. widely accepted as being true

Thus, proof that atoms exist only results in the existence of atoms being widely accepted as true.

This is of course very different from us knowing that atoms exist, since it may be false even if we all accept it as true.

We don't believe we know that, we actually know it.

Prove it.

Our very state of awareness and knowing proves that there is something rather than nothing because without one the other is not possible.

We are unable to prove that we are in a "state of knowing" that atoms exist.

There is something, we know that, but we don't know what it is beyond the appearance of it.
EB

For a start, I didn't say that atoms exist. I said that something exists, something that we name or call 'atoms' 'energy' 'probability waves' etc...if you can see the distinction between the label and the phenomena itself.

 

[Speakpigeon]

For a start, I didn't say that atoms exist. I said that something exists, something that we name or call 'atoms' 'energy' 'probability waves' etc...if you can see the distinction between the label and the phenomena itself.

So something exists that I label God.

Good we could agree on that.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

We know matter can be viewed either as wave or particle.

Some believe God exists .....

Nope. Not equivalent.

Back to the logic shop.

 

[DBT]

For a start, I didn't say that atoms exist. I said that something exists, something that we name or call 'atoms' 'energy' 'probability waves' etc...if you can see the distinction between the label and the phenomena itself.

So something exists that I label God.

Good we could agree on that.
EB

Whatever it is that we call atoms, energy wavelength, etc, has a demonstrable effect in the physical world, the world appears to be made of this 'stuff' whatever it actually is - anyone can test its properties - but we have no such correspondence or testability with what we call 'God'

 

[Speakpigeon]

For a start, I didn't say that atoms exist. I said that something exists, something that we name or call 'atoms' 'energy' 'probability waves' etc...if you can see the distinction between the label and the phenomena itself.

So something exists that I label God.

Good we could agree on that.
EB

Whatever it is that we call atoms, energy wavelength, etc, has a demonstrable effect in the physical world, the world appears to be made of this 'stuff' whatever it actually is - anyone can test its properties - but we have no such correspondence or testability with what we call 'God'

For example, we may want to explain all the materials we find in nature in terms of atoms. The theorised properties of atoms become the premises that we assume, and we can then prove logically that materials made from these atoms, as we would assume them, would have a number of properties. And then, we could compare the properties so inferred from our premises to the properties we observe the materials found in nature to have. This is of course gross simplification of the actual story but this is the logical backbone.

So, we did that. However, what does that prove? This proves only that if atoms exist as we theorised them, they would nicely explain all our observations of the materials found in nature. But merely finding that the properties of materials predicted because inferred from our hypothetical atoms coincide with the properties we observe the materials to have in nature isn't proof that atoms really exist.as theorised. And as long as we cannot prove these theorised atoms are all there is, we cannot be certain that materials in nature don't have other properties, not yet observed, which could then be a big surprise in store. In effect, we cannot prove the existence of atoms as theorised.

Of course, we went further, explaining atoms in terms of elementary particles, but the situation remains the same from a logical perspective. The difference is between observed properties and unobserved reality. Our models are models of properties because we can observe various properties in nature. Observing properties doesn't prove the reality that causes the properties. Another way to say it is to say that finding n properties doesn't guaranty there is not in fact n +1 properties. And as long as we don't know all the properties there are in nature, whatever our theories, we may end up with a big surprise at absolutely any time. Again, think of dark matter and dark energy.

Still, of course, you can believe rationally that science proves atoms exist, or elementary particles exist. This is all we have, so it is the rational attitude. But rationality is based on what we believe we know, not on what we know.

I still don't know what you have to object.
EB

 

[DBT]

I still don't know what you have to object.
EB

Just pointing out the basics, that our perception of the objective world/reality is being shaped and tested by that objective world. It is an objective world because it does not cater to anyone's erroneous perception of it. It is what it is regardless of anyone's beliefs about it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I still don't know what you have to object.
EB

Just pointing out the basics, that our perception of the objective world/reality is being shaped and tested by that objective world. It is an objective world because it does not cater to anyone's erroneous perception of it. It is what it is regardless of anyone's beliefs about it.

Circular reasoning.
EB

 

[DBT]

I still don't know what you have to object.
EB

Just pointing out the basics, that our perception of the objective world/reality is being shaped and tested by that objective world. It is an objective world because it does not cater to anyone's erroneous perception of it. It is what it is regardless of anyone's beliefs about it.

Circular reasoning.
EB

No. It happens in the brain prior to thought and reasoning. An infant learns about the world before it can even think, yet alone reason.

 

[aupmanyav]

Personal opinion may not be logical. Its possible that an immortal may feel that they are going to die, but their feeling of impending death has no bearing on their actual condition, that condition being their state of immortality. Which, by definition, means they cannot die.

An immortal can die and take some other form or what constitutes the immortal may still continue to live. For example, I am an immortal. After I die my atoms will disperse and live in millions of other forms. Basic 'Advaita' philosophy in Hinduism.

Sankaracharya 800 AD:

"na me mṛtyuśaṅkā na me jātibhedaḥ, pitā naiva me naiva mātā na janmaḥ;
na bandhur na mitraṃ gurunaiva śişyaḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham."

I do not have fear of death (I have no separation from my true self). Nor have I discrimination on the basis of birth. I have no father or mother, nor did I have a birth. I am not the relative, nor the friend, nor the guru, nor the disciple. I am indeed, the form of eternal bliss, I am Siva, I am, Siva.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atma_Shatkam

 

[Elixir]

Personal opinion may not be logical. Its possible that an immortal may feel that they are going to die, but their feeling of impending death has no bearing on their actual condition, that condition being their state of immortality. Which, by definition, means they cannot die.

An immortal can die and take some other form or what constitutes the immortal may still continue to live. For example, I am an immortal. After I die my atoms will disperse and live in millions of other forms.

Do you honor all the other previous forms, whose atoms comprise the body you have now appropriated as your own? Do they "live" within you, as well as within millions - or trillions - of other forms?
All I can say is your "immortality" is extremely dilute.


As far as the OP question - time will tell. Whether it specifically tells me anything is an open question.

 

[aupmanyav]

Intuition
1. The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof.

That is not true. The brain is working on those things without our realizing, fuzzy thinking.

 

[aupmanyav]

Do you honor all the other previous forms, whose atoms comprise the body you have now appropriated as your own? Do they "live" within you, as well as within millions - or trillions - of other forms?
All I can say is your "immortality" is extremely dilute.

Yeah, of course, my atoms have come from billions of other forms and in the same way will go to billions of other forms. Yours faithfully is the current form of those atoms.

"avyaktādīni bhūtāni, vyakta-madhyāni Bhārata;
avyakta-nidhanāny eva, tatra kā paridevanā." BhagawadGita 2.28

All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, O Scion of the Bharatqs (Arjuna), and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?
https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/2/28/

 

[fromderinside]

From the wisdom of ancients one finds ..... orts

 

[Speakpigeon]

Intuition
1. The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof.

That is not true. The brain is working on those things without our realizing, fuzzy thinking.

Not true?! This is a dictionary definition of the word. This is what proficient speakers of English mean when they use the word "intuition".

Here is a dictionary definition of the word "definition", just to clear any ambiguity in what you understand of what I say:

Definition
a. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

EB

 

[DBT]

That is not true. The brain is working on those things without our realizing, fuzzy thinking.

Not true?! This is a dictionary definition of the word. This is what proficient speakers of English mean when they use the word "intuition".

Here is a dictionary definition of the word "definition", just to clear any ambiguity in what you understand of what I say:

Definition
a. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

EB

Intuition does not entail conscious deliberation, but that doesn't mean that the brain has not been unconsciously processing information prior to the article of intuition becoming conscious. In fact that is what happens. Even conscious deliberation has its roots in unconscious processing of information.

 

[fromderinside]

Like I said before, practice, practice, practice ....... intuition ........ habit

 

[Speakpigeon]

Intuition does not entail conscious deliberation, but that doesn't mean that the brain has not been unconsciously processing information prior to the article of intuition becoming conscious. In fact that is what happens. Even conscious deliberation has its roots in unconscious processing of information.

Yes? And how is that relevant?

Dictionary definitions try to be statements of what people mean. They don't provide encyclopedic or scientific context.

When aupmanyav says of the definition, "That is not true", he is just demonstrating he either doesn't understand what a definition is, or what this definition says.

Let me know if you disagree.

That it is the brain that does something is not apparent to the subject, hence this dictionary definition, which is as it should be.

Intuition is the conscious result of an unconscious process. This process is largely a function of the experience and training of the subject. I think we all know that. So far so good.

However, the remarkable thing about it that many people seem to miss is that the experience and training in question is essentially done under conscious supervision, and yet, conscious reasoning is unable to produce the same ideas as our intuitions. Creative people depend on their intuition to get most of their best ideas. This is what mathematicians and indeed scientists, for example Einstein, have described again and again. This should be mandatory teaching in all schools.
EB

 

[DBT]

Intuition does not entail conscious deliberation, but that doesn't mean that the brain has not been unconsciously processing information prior to the article of intuition becoming conscious. In fact that is what happens. Even conscious deliberation has its roots in unconscious processing of information.

Yes? And how is that relevant?

Dictionary definitions try to be statements of what people mean. They don't provide encyclopedic or scientific context.

When aupmanyav says of the definition, "That is not true", he is just demonstrating he either doesn't understand what a definition is, or what this definition says.

Let me know if you disagree.

That it is the brain that does something is not apparent to the subject, hence this dictionary definition, which is as it should be.

Some may want to develop a scientific understanding of how our perception of the world and thought works, while others may be satisfied with superficial descriptions and dictionary definitions.

Intuition is the conscious result of an unconscious process. This process is largely a function of the experience and training of the subject. I think we all know that. So far so good.

However, the remarkable thing about it that many people seem to miss is that the experience and training in question is essentially done under conscious supervision, and yet, conscious reasoning is unable to produce the same ideas as our intuitions. Creative people depend on their intuition to get most of their best ideas. This is what mathematicians and indeed scientists, for example Einstein, have described again and again. This should be mandatory teaching in all schools.
EB

The brain works on a body of information unconsciously until an 'Aha' light bulb moment is achieved at which point the solution or insight comes to mind.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Some may want to develop a scientific understanding of how our perception of the world and thought works, while others may be satisfied with superficial descriptions and dictionary definitions.

This is a stupid remark. You have no idea what I do.

I was also replying to aupmanyav's erroneous comment, and you interjected with an irrelevant remark. And now, LOL, you pontificate from the vantage point of your ignorance.

Intuition is the conscious result of an unconscious process. This process is largely a function of the experience and training of the subject. I think we all know that. So far so good.

However, the remarkable thing about it that many people seem to miss is that the experience and training in question is essentially done under conscious supervision, and yet, conscious reasoning is unable to produce the same ideas as our intuitions. Creative people depend on their intuition to get most of their best ideas. This is what mathematicians and indeed scientists, for example Einstein, have described again and again. This should be mandatory teaching in all schools.
EB

The brain works on a body of information unconsciously until an 'Aha' light bulb moment is achieved at which point the solution or insight comes to mind.

Well, yes, but the brain also works consciously, no? This certainly seems to be my own empirical experience.

And this work seems to include making us consciously do the things that will lead to us having intuitions, and precisely the kind of intuitions we think we need.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

One's experience is always subjective. Objective experience requires external measurement and comparison by several at the very least.