Knowing about Knowing

[Nick]

there are some types of appearance that don't seem to exist on or in a continuous (i.e. infinitely divisible) medium;

A thing can not exist independently, and all things that exist are comprised of parts that can be broken down. You mentioned smell; olfaction can at least be broken down to the thing emitting the odor, the surrounding air that provides a medium for the odor to pass through, sensory neurons that detect the odor, etc. etc. which adds up to us "smelling". There are many different kinds of senses and methods of perception, all of which help the organism or machine put together a unique and limited picture of reality.

for those for which a continuous medium is imaginable (i.e. spatio-temporal appearances), we cannot be sure that what we imagine corresponds to physical reality,

You are in fact using your mind to create this "physical reality" in which things supposedly exist independent of the mind, i.e. you're undercutting the basis on which your argument stands. Any thing we ever imagine will be a product of the mind, there is no way of getting around it.

and if it is contended that there is no physical reality to which our imaginings must conform, and that "it's all in our minds", then we cannot claim those conceptual imaginings to be absolute truth - the "infinitely divisible" spatio-temporal medium that we imagine is itself just another subjective appearance.

You're confusing appearances for the logic that underpins them. And even if you wanted to say logic itself is just an appearance and therefor can not be said to be absolute, you would have to be using logic to do this, only reaffirming the thing you are trying to break down, i.e. the absolute truth revealed by our use of logic remains the same.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: there are some types of appearance that don't seem to exist on or in a continuous (i.e. infinitely divisible) medium;

Nick: A thing can not exist independently

That's non-responsive to my point. I'm not discussing dependence or independence - I'm discussing divisibility.

The causes of an appearance are not the appearance itself, nor even necessarily parts of it.

and all things that exist are comprised of parts that can be broken down.

That's up to you to prove, and your olfactory example is far from a proof. Those "parts" which you list are no such thing: they are distinct causes.

You mentioned smell; olfaction can at least be broken down to the thing emitting the odor

The thing emitting the odour is distinct from the odour; it is not a part of it: it is instead a cause of the odour. It certainly doesn't point to a continuous medium within which the odour exists.

the surrounding air that provides a medium for the odor to pass through, sensory neurons that detect the odor

Neither of which are parts of the odour, but are rather causes distinct from it.

Let's get to the root of this though: how do you define a "part"?

guest_of_logic: for those for which a continuous medium is imaginable (i.e. spatio-temporal appearances), we cannot be sure that what we imagine corresponds to physical reality,

Nick: You are in fact using your mind to create this "physical reality" in which things supposedly exist independent of the mind, i.e. you're undercutting the basis on which your argument stands. Any thing we ever imagine will be a product of the mind, there is no way of getting around it.

Nick, it's not that I'm undercutting my argument, it's that you are building assumptions into your own. Take the word "create", which assumes that physical reality is nothing other than a product (creation) of the mind: how can you argue with integrity for something that you have already assumed? What is your proof that the imagining has no external correspondence?

guest_of_logic: and if it is contended that there is no physical reality to which our imaginings must conform, and that "it's all in our minds", then we cannot claim those conceptual imaginings to be absolute truth - the "infinitely divisible" spatio-temporal medium that we imagine is itself just another subjective appearance.

Nick: You're confusing appearances for the logic that underpins them. And even if you wanted to say logic itself is just an appearance and therefor can not be said to be absolute, you would have to be using logic to do this, only reaffirming the thing you are trying to break down, i.e. the absolute truth revealed by our use of logic remains the same.

You must then be arguing that the three-dimensional spatio-temporal model that you operate by is purely logical and absolute. Do you, then, claim to possess "absolute, purely logical" knowledge of spacetime over and above the scientific findings of, for example, the theory of relativity; do you claim to possess an "absolute, purely logical" knowledge of spacetime that is beyond question and revision?

[Steven Coyle]

the money hides in a bunny rum at

[Pincho Paxton]

human cannot imagine, or accept, that the universe would simply stop. it is supposed to be what surrounds us, what defines our existence. if it were to simply stop at one point and be finite, then what would that translate to the human mind... we are just a meaningless species. the universe is supposed to represent what is to be explored, what is to be learned. knowledge is infinite, so we assume the universe too is infinite.

in terms of the universe ceasing to exist, well, we will never know if this is true. how can we tell if the universe is finite? once it ends, we end; consciousness ends. we take comfort in thinking the universe is infinite because thinking otherwise would only cause needless worrying.

as for me, i think if something is infinite, all things within it are infinite. if the universe is infinite, then the soul must exist, for it must live on forever occupying different bodies. as for the bodies, they decompose, but all their parts will never die, just be transport and changed in form.

Why can't human imagine it? the Universe is supposed to stop, and reverse according to scientists. They are confused about why it hasn't stopped expanding yet. I don't know where this infinite Universe thing started anyway, it is a bit of a pot luck guess if you ask me. How would you know if something was infinite? Like I said before, the Universe has a membrane, therefore it is not really infinite at all.

[Gurrb]

scientists lol. i discussed a theory earlier as well. that the universe is like a 'mass' constantly expanding across a sphere-like shape. once it travel far enough, it starts to overlap. time is a linear expansion travelling across the circumference of the sphere.

[Pincho Paxton]

scientists lol. i discussed a theory earlier as well. that the universe is like a 'mass' constantly expanding across a sphere-like shape. once it travel far enough, it starts to overlap. time is a linear expansion travelling across the circumference of the sphere.

Well they are mostly mathematicians, and their imagination is based on some incorrect equations, so what they end up with is a strange, inverted picture.

[Loki]

The reason we have different conception is because we have different perceptions.

Only slightly, but overall we see the world the same way, we have the same basic physiology after all. Take for instance December 25th; everyone basically perceives it the same way, yet Christians conceive of this day very differently from how I do. With their belief that a mythic savior was born on this day, the son of which is another conception I don't adhere to that they call God the Father. They believe this day to be sacred and holy. Myself, I see it as no more or less significant than any other day.

I see your point, that we both perceive the same thing, but have different ideas about the meaning of our perceptions.

Sure it can be done, but can't you admit that there's the chance you could run out of things to do? How many different combinations can you arrange reality in before you run out?

I can certainly run out of useful conceptions and meaningful arrangements, but ultimately all things can be divided any number of ways with the mind, and I can create new finite conceptions indefinitely, so long as I remain conscious and choose to do so.

You are just feeding me doctrine. You aren't demonstrating the logical necessity of certain truths.

Of course, no matter how many conceptions I come up with, there will always be that which I never end up conceiving, except by calling it "The Hidden Void".

Perhaps Nietzsche's "eternal recurrence" was an attempt at conceiving what you believe to be inconceivable?

I just don't have a reason to consider it "unbounded". I see the matter within the universe to be potentially finite.

What we conceive of as matter may indeed be finite; that doesn't really concern me. The important thing to understand is that all things finite, everything we can ever conceive of, is part of the same inconceivable whole.

But why is it necessarily inconceivable? And also, just because it is inconceivable, doesn't mean it's literally infinite and formless.

In other words, why can't the totality be simply a finite bubble of space-time? Such a bubble might have grown from nothing, and could die into nothing.

This nothing you conceive of from which all things came, and to where all things must go, is definitely a something, otherwise no thing could come of it, and it wouldn't be a place where things could go.

It's not so much a place, but it's kind of like what David Quinn once described, it's just this dead end, where if you were to stick your arm through it, you arm would just disappear.

[Loki]

Loki:

I just don't have a reason to consider it "unbounded". I see the matter within the universe to be potentially finite. And I also can imagine the universe emerging out of nothing and dying into nothing, so it would have a definite beginning and end.

How do you imagine something emerging from nothing?

Picture walking down (or up) a 200 foot narrow corridor. This corridor is not suspended in space, it has no exterior. At one end of the corridor is the beginning. At the other end of the corridor is the end. If you walk up to the beginning of the corridor, you reach a black void. And from this void, "things" emerge. Maybe a cat comes walking out of it. Maybe a dog. If you walk down to the end of of the corridor, you also reach a black void. Maybe a cat walks into it and disappears. Maybe a dog walks into and disappears. If you stick your arm through this void, your arm simply disappears. It doesn't reappear on the other end, because there is no other end! It's kind of like video game where if you go too far off the screen, you just disappear.

In other words, why can't the totality be simply a finite bubble of space-time? Such a bubble might have grown from nothing, and could die into nothing.

The finite exists within that against which it is defined. This is what makes it finite.

The finite parts of the totality definitely have to exist against the other parts, but the finite totality itself doesn't have to exist against anything.

[Gurrb]

Picture walking down (or up) a 200 foot narrow corridor. This corridor is not suspended in space, it has no exterior. At one end of the corridor is the beginning. At the other end of the corridor is the end. If you walk up to the beginning of the corridor, you reach a black void. And from this void, "things" emerge. Maybe a cat comes walking out of it. Maybe a dog. If you walk down to the end of of the corridor, you also reach a black void. Maybe a cat walks into it and disappears. Maybe a dog walks into and disappears. If you stick your arm through this void, your arm simply disappears. It doesn't reappear on the other end, because there is no other end! It's kind of like video game where if you go too far off the screen, you just disappear.

this is just an imagining used to 'rationalize' the impossible.

[Loki]

How is it impossible? Prove it!

[Gurrb]

How is it impossible? Prove it!

everything is 'impossible' until proven possible. for something to be possible, it must be carried out; until then it is only imagined to be possible. i use impossible loosely, as i don't apply it as something that cannot be done, or that which cannot occur, but more of what is yet to occur, or as humans wish to believe cannot occur.

an elephant cannot become a pig spontaneously... it's impossible in terms of human belief. but if this were to occur as human as its witness, it is deemed possible, even if a second occurrence is 'impossible'.

[Nick]

I see your point, that we both perceive the same thing, but have different ideas about the meaning of our perceptions.

It's also important to understand that the way in which we perceive things is not set in stone. Different organisms and machines perceive the world in very different ways. Really though, no matter how we perceive things, it is our brain which takes the sensory information and processes it for us into a workable conception that allows us to survive. So in actuality, we don't ever experience perceptions, we just experience our conceptions.

You are just feeding me doctrine. You aren't demonstrating the logical necessity of certain truths.

I have demonstrated them, and I have repeatedly told you that nobody else can do your thinking for you. What would I have to gain by you taking what I have to say on faith? If you get what I'm saying that's great, and I really hope that at some point you will, but at the same time if you don't I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. And if all you're interested in is debate for the sake of debate then you're barking up the wrong tree.

Perhaps Nietzsche's "eternal recurrence" was an attempt at conceiving what you believe to be inconceivable?

I've read very little Nietzsche, but what he seems to mean by eternal recurrence doesn't seem to be any different from what I mean by The Infinite.

But why is it necessarily inconceivable? And also, just because it is inconceivable, doesn't mean it's literally infinite and formless.

Because when we define The Infinite as the culmination of all things finite, it transcends duality, and in order for it to be finite and have form it would need to exist within duality.

It's not so much a place, but it's kind of like what David Quinn once described, it's just this dead end, where if you were to stick your arm through it, you arm would just disappear.

I don't recall Quinn ever describing such a place. Either way, no matter how you describe it, it still exists within duality, and it doesn't come close to demonstrating that Reality has a beginning or an end.

[pointexter]

l look at thinking as if it were a computer. There's memory and programs for processing the contents (information) in memory. Its a library of information. The movement or linking of memory is thought. Knowledge requires a personal attachment to the information in memory and the thought structures (the linking up). A reference to self (separation/other). As in MY information. Therefore attachment to thought is knowledge, the attachment making it mine. Memory + Attachment = Knowledge. Knowledge is all that the self is.