define 'exists'

[Jabberwocky]

I understand essence (at least in philosophy of mind) as that property which can not be explained without assuming the other person is self aware.

Not a philosopher, but the parallel between emotion and essence is hard to ignore. In my understanding, emotion is a perceptual capacity. The description of emotion by many is often interchangeable with essence. Emotion is not static. Essence, in my understanding, exists beyond perception. In it's essential context it requires a shared 'I'. I like to use the term oneness consciousness, but then I end up introducing a concept that is associated with God. The quality of love, for example, is an experience we all feel to varying degrees and we claim to exchange it, but in it's emotional context it is subjective what is being exchanged. In it's essential context it is a shared experience.

 

[methamaniac]

I don't think it's absurd at all, it's litearly a sure way to derail any philosophical discussion to the question of god.

I'm going to save myself a little time
I went into this here :
http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...forum-Suggestions-for-Improving-P-amp-S/page2

It is the latest post. If you want more explanation on why I think is silly just ask.

Also, I never said our perception of rocks is real, I view the "I" to be as proven to exsist as a rock, In fact, my main point was that proving "I" exist is no more easier than proving a rock does.

I didn't mean necessarily you (although it does read that way) I was really replying to this:

you can't say "I" , the most basic axiom in all of philosphy is that there is something, but beyond that, saying "I exist " is a loaded statement

Describe what you mean by something.
I just used a rock as an example because I figured it was something you could argue exists.
What exactly is so self evident that it can be considered an axiom.
( I agree both are equally unprovable)

one, we don't know what is this "I", and secondly, we don't know what does it mean for this I to "exsist".

I still don't know what this 'something' is and what it means for it to exist.

If by 'I' you mean self ( which I am presumming),
I would ask you exactly what is making the decision that 'I' doesn't exist. Is there some kind of objective observer inside you passing judgements on self? Is it a case of self trying to prove self doesn't exist? Or is your main objection that self is subject to change therefore it can not exist.

Secondly, am not sure you explained essence, you talked about the DNA anology, but it's still not clear beyond saying, we are god's spirit .

I've tried several times to explain it.
What is so hard to comprehend about it?

EDIT:
I just realized I have been assuming you believe 'I' doesn't exist.
I have conflated you with Murpheythecat.
Forgive me if this is not your position
And if so, just substitute *might not* for does not

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

Why do I get the feeling without even reading these posts that the people involved are motivated more by proving every single fricking point of the other as wrong rather then adhering to a logically valid point of view?

 

[methamaniac]

Why do I get the feeling without even reading these posts that the people involved are motivated more by proving every single fricking point of the other as wrong rather then adhering to a logically valid point of view?

Why? Simple, it's because you are obviously some type of clairvoyant
I can assure you the reason for making this thread was not for contentious purposes. Is it likely we will do more than just respectively disagree? Probably not, but personally I find the discussion thought provoking.
I watched a very interesting video today on the correlation of body-soul-spirit and the Trinity as a direct result of the discussion in this thread.

 

[snazzy_sn]

How close is your perception to reality?
How well can you understand your perceptions?

There ya go.