What Would Cause You to Stop and Listen?

Originally posted by NorEaster

What consitutes physical existence? Can you describe it specifically?
Why did physical existence emerge? What brought it into existence?
What sits at the very base of physical structure and provides any sort of consistency at all?
Is there anything that exists that isn't physical? If so, what is it? Describe its nature.
What do we see that you can point to as directly connected to your premise? How is it associated?

My friend,

I do not believe anyone enlightened enough to know the answers would be unenlightened enough to share them with anyone. Mankind has yet to learn to love each other and preserve their existence with what they do know, why would anyone think they are prepared for greater knowledge at this point?

The answers are part of our journey, to discover together.

WIth Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by NorEasterThis person has claimed to know the entire nature of physical reality. How do you challenge his premise directly?

This is the purpose of the question "What is consciousness?"

If he cannot answer the question of what consciousness it is that 'knows' the physical reality in the first place, he has nothing of importance to say.

Michael Cecil

Considering that everything is made out of atoms (and a myriad of subatomic particles some known, some unknown) you, me, everything, then would it not be truth that in point of fact this particular individual is also you and me respectively?

Are we not all a part of each other? With subconscious subtle energies flowing in, around, and through all of us, and thought being a physical energetic form, are not this entities thoughts also our own?

Are we not all God, and God is actually all of us and the whole of every atom in existence from this and every dimension?

Therefore these questions we must actually ask ourselves for we are this person you speak of, every one of us.

I know the truth: there is no truth.

Originally posted by NorEaster

What consitutes physical existence? Can you describe it specifically?
Why did physical existence emerge? What brought it into existence?
What sits at the very base of physical structure and provides any sort of consistency at all?
Is there anything that exists that isn't physical? If so, what is it? Describe its nature.
What do we see that you can point to as directly connected to your premise? How is it associated?

These are specific, but I still am not that thrilled with their ability to cross confirm each other. What I need are 5 questions that literally tie such a premise up in a nice red bow. Or kill it in its crib if it's not true.

While those are thoughtful questions, I don't think that the answers would be hard to come by (given enough time -- if you sat the guy down and peppered him with questions, it would probably indicate whether he's recalling knowledge or trying to make things up on the fly.) And, given the nature of the question, none of the answers are particularly disputable.

Consider, I guess, the case of someone who comes to you claiming that the world was created five minutes ago, and that you were created with a full set of memories to account for everything that had happened prior to five minutes ago. What can you ask that would refute something like that, given that he can pretty much answer anything, so long as it fits into that reality?

I think anyone peddling ultimate truth has forgotten that truth depends on context, and also that different people have different contexts in which they are interested.


How about the follow as a question?

"What are the most fundamental mechanisms of intelligence that make the phenomenon (of intelligence) possible?" Though I fear this question may be too broad to answer meaningfully. What if intelligence doesn't even exist in a sense that we would recognize? If it does indeed exist in the way that it seems, then we should be able to reproduce it in machines given the information our super-knowledgeable stranger will provide.

Click here for more information.

1. Whom do you serve?
2. Why are you telling me these things?
3. Am I allowed to share these things with others?
4. Why should I believe a word you say?
5. Who in God's name is in the kitchen with Dinah?

reply to post by NorEaster

If a man walked up to you

and he told you that he possesses the Truth about life, about reality, about the concept and/or existence of God, about humanity, and about why you (specifically) exist;

what list of questions would you need this man to answer correctly, for you to take him seriously as someone who just might be the one guy who actually has that Truth?

I think the novelty of the event itself...a man walking up to me and telling me that he had such knowledge...would be enough for me to listen to what he had to say. This is probably why I've spent as much time as I have listening to door-to-door religious salesmen.

However, after listening to his truths I would then evaluate them and decide whether they're valid for me.

It's been my experience that truth is not very picky about where it chooses to manifest itself. Deep truths can be found in children's books, in video games, in the words of homeless people, in the eyes of an angry lover, or in the eyes of rat drowning in a toilet. Conveyers of truth are not limited solely to angels and people wearing glistening white robes and halos.

Knowing this, when someone says they have truth for me, I try to listen. Yes, it does mean sorting through a lot of material, discarding much...but the gems that may be found in this way are priceless.

I'm looking for a list a specific questions

This is problematic. For example, let's say we ask this man to give us solutions to unsolved math problems. What if he answers them correctly? Do you then choose to believe other things he tells you? Why? What if he's an alien who wants to eat you? What if he's a demon after your soul? Knowledge is not gauruntee of benevolence. But then, what if he cannot answer these questions? So what? If you personally were sent to 1500's europe, you could probably solve a lot of health and sanitation problems. It would be silly for the peasants to refuse to boil their water simply because you didn't have knowledge of obscure math trivia.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by NorEaster Originally posted by Michael Cecil What is consciousness?

Easy enough to answer,

Then answer it.

Michael Cecil

I won't hijack my own thread. Nice try though.

reply to post by NorEaster


I'd just listen to him, it's hard to be lied to once you know YOURSELF.

It all depends if it resonates. I'm starting to sense things energetically as opposed to intellectually.

Indoctrination and the intellect can be very misleading...

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by NorEaster

What consitutes physical existence? Can you describe it specifically?
Why did physical existence emerge? What brought it into existence?
What sits at the very base of physical structure and provides any sort of consistency at all?
Is there anything that exists that isn't physical? If so, what is it? Describe its nature.
What do we see that you can point to as directly connected to your premise? How is it associated?

My friend,

I do not believe anyone enlightened enough to know the answers would be unenlightened enough to share them with anyone. Mankind has yet to learn to love each other and preserve their existence with what they do know, why would anyone think they are prepared for greater knowledge at this point?

The answers are part of our journey, to discover together.

WIth Love,

Your Brother

I guess that if such a person had this information, and decided to share it, then it would be his to share.

And enlightened? Did you read the questions? There's nothing esoteric or philosophical about any of them. Hard nuts and bolts information. That's why I would go in that direction. This sort of stuff would either dovetail with or clash miserably with what we can likely verify through extrapolating the ramifications of the answers. And yet, no one in theology, philosophy or science has a set of answers that don't raise more issues than they settle.

I think that, while these specific questions don't completely fill the bill, they do seem to point in a workable direction.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by NorEasterThis person has claimed to know the entire nature of physical reality. How do you challenge his premise directly?

This is the purpose of the question "What is consciousness?"

If he cannot answer the question of what consciousness it is that 'knows' the physical reality in the first place, he has nothing of importance to say.

Michael Cecil

His answer is not something that you can accurately verify. You have nothing to cross confirm his information with. Certainly not the dozens of theories and philosophies that litter the world. None of them can be proven, so what makes you honestly believe that you can prove or disprove the guy's answer?

Besides, how does this work for anyone else this guy meets? Maybe you won't be the person who gets to ask him 5 questions? The questions need to exist within their own space, or they are useless. People come and people go in this world. No one can be indispensible. Especially when this is a determination that's shown up repeatedly for thousands of years. The questions themselves must be usable by anyone in any context, regardless of the man who shows yup with what he claims is the Truth of reality and our unique place within that reality.

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
Considering that everything is made out of atoms (and a myriad of subatomic particles some known, some unknown) you, me, everything, then would it not be truth that in point of fact this particular individual is also you and me respectively?

Are we not all a part of each other? With subconscious subtle energies flowing in, around, and through all of us, and thought being a physical energetic form, are not this entities thoughts also our own?

Are we not all God, and God is actually all of us and the whole of every atom in existence from this and every dimension?

Therefore these questions we must actually ask ourselves for we are this person you speak of, every one of us.

So what 5 questions would be effective in debunking ourselves if we showed up claiming to have the Truth?

reply to post by NorEaster

I guess I'd make sure he could be found at Barnes and Noble...then I'd go from there!!

Originally posted by adjensen

While those are thoughtful questions, I don't think that the answers would be hard to come by (given enough time -- if you sat the guy down and peppered him with questions, it would probably indicate whether he's recalling knowledge or trying to make things up on the fly.) And, given the nature of the question, none of the answers are particularly disputable.

The contextual-logical ramifications of his answers to these questions would quickly begin to become apparent, since physical existence is extremely rigid and highly structured (it has to be to remain in stable existence at any level) I would prefer better question, as I admitted, but this direction seems to be better than a challenge to his premise's more esoteric aspects.

Consider, I guess, the case of someone who comes to you claiming that the world was created five minutes ago, and that you were created with a full set of memories to account for everything that had happened prior to five minutes ago. What can you ask that would refute something like that, given that he can pretty much answer anything, so long as it fits into that reality?

Let's say that he did tell me that the world was created 5 minutes ago, along with all that other stuff you stated. Okay, so that would be an answer to one question.

My next question might be - "If you know that the entire world was created only 5 minutes ago, then how can you account for your knowledge of this, given that you can only be 5 minutes old as well?"

I think that the conversation would likely devolve rapidly from there, and two questions would be enough to derail his presentation. Realistically, I can't imagine such an assertion from someone fitting my question's hard-to-challenge profile. That sounds more like the ATS poster you mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by Tearman
I think anyone peddling ultimate truth has forgotten that truth depends on context, and also that different people have different contexts in which they are interested.

Relative truth, yes. However, for a true sub-structure to exist (and one does) then a True that transcends all contextual environments must exist. That said, what has become increasingly obvious is that redundancy is the go-to strategy regardless of what contextual setting is setting the agenda. The nature of this redundancy (impetus, initiation, broad application, parameters) would likely be a very critical aspect of this man's information suite, and certainly a good target for inquiry.

How about the follow as a question?

"What are the most fundamental mechanisms of intelligence that make the phenomenon (of intelligence) possible?" Though I fear this question may be too broad to answer meaningfully.

This might be a good one, and since intelligence is definable, as well as pervasive, the answer might be verifiable. His job would be to answer it meaningfully. Vagueness would be a strike against his premise. Intelligence is not esoteric. It can be examined.

What if intelligence doesn't even exist in a sense that we would recognize? If it does indeed exist in the way that it seems, then we should be able to reproduce it in machines given the information our super-knowledgeable stranger will provide.

edit on 4-1-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

Keep in mind that nowhere in my question is it suggested that this is a super-knowledgable person. Just that he claims to possess a very specific information set. This could be all that this person knows. That's what needs to be ascertained through extended questioning. The first task is to quickly determine whether he's legit enough to go to that level with him.

Ok, I am new to this site, but I am going express shock at the fact people are answering the OP's post.

Do none of you sense danger here ?

wake up people.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
1. Whom do you serve?
2. Why are you telling me these things?
3. Am I allowed to share these things with others?
4. Why should I believe a word you say?
5. Who in God's name is in the kitchen with Dinah?

I don't know how you'd verify any of the answers this man might give to any of these questions.

That said, I can tell you the answer to #5. I won't, but I can.

Originally posted by LordBucket
Conveyers of truth are not limited solely to angels and people wearing glistening white robes and halos.

I agree.

I'm looking for a list a specific questions

This is problematic. For example, let's say we ask this man to give us solutions to unsolved math problems. What if he answers them correctly? Do you then choose to believe other things he tells you? Why? What if he's an alien who wants to eat you? What if he's a demon after your soul? Knowledge is not gauruntee of benevolence. But then, what if he cannot answer these questions? So what? If you personally were sent to 1500's europe, you could probably solve a lot of health and sanitation problems. It would be silly for the peasants to refuse to boil their water simply because you didn't have knowledge of obscure math trivia.

This is all true. Another issue is that if another person walks in on someone else 500 years from now with a similar claim, what does that person have to help them discern a liar from someone who's got a big chunk of Truth - especially the kind of broad-range Truth that this guy claims to have? This is why the questions themselves have to work in congress with one another to cross-confirm the claim, using what we already know to be clear and confirmed as being true and immediately impacted by the validity of his responses. There's so much that we, as 21st century people, have established as hard fact. The information he provides must be unique, plausibly overlooked or misunderstood by others, and definably interwoven with what we already know to be true about hard reality.

Not easy, but not impossible to put such a quick list of direct questions together.