David, reasoning is dependent on conditions being present. Is it your understanding that Nirvana or the Kingdom of Heaven or the realm of the Unborn or Spirit is one of conditions?movingalways wrote:You cannot say that with absolute certainty about any realm other than the realm of the senses.David Quinn wrote:You're already making logical deductions about these other worlds.movingalways wrote:David, after thinking a bit more on our discussions to date, I came up with a logical argument for further discourse if it is your wish:
One can logically deduce that there are an infinite number of worlds in the mind of God. One can also logically deduce that some of these worlds follow the principles of logic as does this now world of time and space, but one cannot logically deduce that all of these worlds follow the principles of logic as does this now world of time and space. Here, in our now world of time and space, 2 + 2 is always 4, the World Trade Center fell in September of 2001, not in any other month or any other year; however, in an immaterial world yet to be discovered by the man living in a material world, it is logical to deduce that these references of time and space do not apply.
Anything that exists can be reasoned about.
With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed.
-
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
"Realm" is defined, no, outlined by its conditions or how one senses those conditions. Therefore any idea of 'other realm' does not convey very well here.
Totality has been described at times as "no place" or "no realm". Isn't that more helpful than "Heaven" and "Spirit", both loaded with so much more extra meaning?
Totality has been described at times as "no place" or "no realm". Isn't that more helpful than "Heaven" and "Spirit", both loaded with so much more extra meaning?
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Eric,
Does Being show up in circumstances only.
as in,
Being-in-a-World.
can't split 'em?
Time, space etc. constituting circumstances.
Being-in-action undertaking projects in order to deal with circumstances.
Worldly matters.
Does Being show up in circumstances only.
as in,
Being-in-a-World.
can't split 'em?
Time, space etc. constituting circumstances.
Being-in-action undertaking projects in order to deal with circumstances.
Worldly matters.
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
You can't split them experientially, but it doesn't mean you can't construct a symbolic representation of Being in its unworldified form.Dennis Mahar wrote:Eric,
Does Being show up in circumstances only.
as in,
Being-in-a-World.
can't split 'em?
Time, space etc. constituting circumstances.
Being-in-action undertaking projects in order to deal with circumstances.
Worldly matters.
Being is a property of all things, all things are a property of Being.
Seems like world play, but examine;
The property of being is characteristic of all things, all things belong to this one pandimentional property.
Go backward through the projected time dimension and see that all things are Being. Singularities beget phenomenal existence through all projected dimensions.
Entropy is the fact of existence, undifferentiation toward ever greater differentiation. Entropy isn't a property of space and time, space and time are a property of the entropic unfolding of Being into itself.
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Again, with that sentence alone, you are already reasoning about these other realms.movingalways wrote:You cannot say that with absolute certainty about any realm other than the realm of the senses.David Quinn wrote: Anything that exists can be reasoned about.
Only Reality itself, the totality of all there is, is unconditional. Everything else is conditional, including consciousness of the fundamental nature of Reality. Or to put it into the kind of language you are using: nirvana is unconditional, while becoming aware of nirvana is conditional.David, reasoning is dependent on conditions being present. Is it your understanding that Nirvana or the Kingdom of Heaven or the realm of the Unborn or Spirit is one of conditions?
Reality/nirvana, despite its lack of conditionality, can just as easily be reasoned about as anything else. For example, we can reason that it is not conditional.
As far as logic is concerned, experiencing nirvana is essentially no different from experiencing a cup of a tea or experiencing the sunshine. The direct experience of these things in each moment is beyond logic, in the sense that it is too immediate for logic to gain a foothold. At the same time, all of these experiences can be reasoned about, and so in that sense they are not beyond logic at all.
To put the matter a little more formally:
- Experiencing nirvana, sunshine, a cup of tea, etc = direct perception of "A".
- Reasoning about nirvana, sunshine, a cup of tea, etc = direct perception of "A=A".
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
is the mother of all algorithms an algorithm?
is it form (being)?
is it form (being)?
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
The mother is an infinite algorithm. All other algorithms are contained within her. One in being, begotten not made.Dennis Mahar wrote:is the mother of all algorithms an algorithm?
is it form (being)?
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Yes of course; only the totality of one big algorithm is responsible for all things.
How do we know that? Our mind that is contained by consciousness told us so.
Don't worry if your mind wanders. It won't get far.
How do we know that? Our mind that is contained by consciousness told us so.
Don't worry if your mind wanders. It won't get far.
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Logic is either false, in which case the world cannot be explained. Or logic is true, in which case we are part of a totality.Beingof1 wrote:Yes of course; only the totality of one big algorithm is responsible for all things.
How do we know that? Our mind that is contained by consciousness told us so.
Don't worry if your mind wanders. It won't get far.
If logic is true universally then that reflects a universally compatible system. What does universal compatibility imply?
As an identity, logic would be equally everywhere. Logical statements could be made about all things, all things plug into logic. In my information=substance framework this means that a sufficient series of logical statements could convey the very being of an object. A sufficient series of logical statements could convey Being itself, sufficient in this case being infinite.
If logic is true, then logical statements can be made not only of actual things but hypothetical things.
All hypothetical things encompasses all possibility.
If the truth status of all possible propositions exists, outside of the asking, then all being exists because they are one and the same.
An infinite series of binary positions can be conveyed logically. All things available to us can be expressed in the binary logic of zero and one. All possible worlds can be expressed in binary logic.
If the true infinity is responsible for all things then all things should lead back to the infinity.
The symbolic language we've constructed has rules that are universally true. Grammar can be extrapolated out to evaluate the meaning of any hypothetical series of english words, some coherent, some incoherent. All those hypothetical statements, all information, exists relative to a conceptual framework which is universal.
Assuming logic to be universally true, logic contains the universe.
Assuming logic to be conditionally true (or stranger yet, simply false), the universe is unknowable and discourse is impossible.
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
in our culture, deductive logic is generally avoided, perhaps because it's difficult.
our schools 'teach' us to form opinions.
everyone has got an opinion.
opinions count for something apparently.
unfortunately opinions break down in the passage of time and entrain suffering.
That picture you've got there,
the object.
it's that which is 'up' for analysis.
the 'mother' of all algorithms.
all the little algorithms in sum constitute the mother.
Is that the object we are looking at?
Can we substitute the phrase 'mother of all algorithms' with the word 'rosary' and substitute 'little algorithms' with 'beads on a string'.
Now we have,
Rosary and beads on a string.
effectively it's the same object,
because we have a 'whole and parts' condition.
we must be very clear concerning this object for analysis otherwise it breaks down.
the object is 'whole and parts'.
our schools 'teach' us to form opinions.
everyone has got an opinion.
opinions count for something apparently.
unfortunately opinions break down in the passage of time and entrain suffering.
That picture you've got there,
the object.
it's that which is 'up' for analysis.
the 'mother' of all algorithms.
all the little algorithms in sum constitute the mother.
Is that the object we are looking at?
Can we substitute the phrase 'mother of all algorithms' with the word 'rosary' and substitute 'little algorithms' with 'beads on a string'.
Now we have,
Rosary and beads on a string.
effectively it's the same object,
because we have a 'whole and parts' condition.
we must be very clear concerning this object for analysis otherwise it breaks down.
the object is 'whole and parts'.
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:51 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Eric Orwoll wrote:
Being is a property of all things, all things are a property of Being.
Seems like world play, but examine;
The property of being is characteristic of all things, all things belong to this one pandimentional property.
Go backward through the projected time dimension and see that all things are Being. Singularities beget phenomenal existence through all projected dimensions.
Entropy is the fact of existence, undifferentiation toward ever greater differentiation. Entropy isn't a property of space and time, space and time are a property of the entropic unfolding of Being into itself.
Correct. Simple understandings based on truth are always correct. Such as: I'm part of the universe, I'm experiencing the universe, the universe is experiencing itself. So easy.
Currently trying to learn wise speech. That paradoxical truthful stuff that has more than one meaning and is relevant to both life and perspective. My inspiration coming from people like Lao Tzu or Yoda.
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Upon what basis are the labels I and Universe arrived at.Correct. Simple understandings based on truth are always correct. Such as: I'm part of the universe, I'm experiencing the universe, the universe is experiencing itself. So easy.
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
You would not be able to say this if you answered, at the least, 25% of my questions. Like most, you ignore the critical questions (especially the ones I posed to you in previous posts) and continue to accept only the evidence that bolsters your world view.Eric Orwoll wrote:Logic is either false, in which case the world cannot be explained. Or logic is true, in which case we are part of a totality.Beingof1 wrote:Yes of course; only the totality of one big algorithm is responsible for all things.
How do we know that? Our mind that is contained by consciousness told us so.
Don't worry if your mind wanders. It won't get far.
If logic is universal then mind is universal. Inescapable logic. You cannot have logic without mind.If logic is true universally then that reflects a universally compatible system. What does universal compatibility imply?
You will probably blow right past this point to underpin your concept.
There is no concept that can convey the infinite. The empty set comes the closest.As an identity, logic would be equally everywhere. Logical statements could be made about all things, all things plug into logic. In my information=substance framework this means that a sufficient series of logical statements could convey the very being of an object. A sufficient series of logical statements could convey Being itself, sufficient in this case being infinite.
TrueIf logic is true, then logical statements can be made not only of actual things but hypothetical things.
All hypothetical things encompasses all possibility.
If the truth status of all possible propositions exists, outside of the asking, then all being exists because they are one and the same.
All possible logical positions/velocity may be conveyed given an infinite amount of time. This premise does not contain the infinite set of all positions/possibilities because it would require a number and time beyond counting.An infinite series of binary positions can be conveyed logically. All things available to us can be expressed in the binary logic of zero and one. All possible worlds can be expressed in binary logic.
If logic is universally true, all things can be identified in the universe. Logic requires mind and therefore; is contained in the mind.Assuming logic to be universally true, logic contains the universe.
The universe is therefore equal to the mind.
Here you imply and appeal to the mind as being equal to the universe.Assuming logic to be conditionally true (or stranger yet, simply false), the universe is unknowable and discourse is impossible.
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Is there a concern here?Dennis Mahar wrote:Can we substitute the phrase 'mother of all algorithms' with the word 'rosary' and substitute 'little algorithms' with 'beads on a string'.
Now we have,
Rosary and beads on a string.
effectively it's the same object,
because we have a 'whole and parts' condition.
we must be very clear concerning this object for analysis otherwise it breaks down.
the object is 'whole and parts'.
The whole contains all parts. When we refer to the whole, we automatically refer to the parts.
We have a way of reducing the whole and parts to a single unity, create the symbol "Being". When we can deal with the single unity as a linguistic construct, then we can look at the way that Being interacts with syntax.
All words have the property of existence. That which has the property of existence is. Being is.
We can't conceive of undifferentiated being, but we can refer to it with a symbol.
We can use symbolic logic to play with Being.
The combination of a symbol for where Being is, 1 and a symbol for where Being is not, 0 creates logic. Bivalent logic is on or off. True or false.
Out of logic comes mathematics.
Out of mathematics comes everything.
All parts emerge out of the whole.
The whole contains all parts and is the content of all parts.
True infinity is Not Finite, not limited. This means that however close in we go, we find infinity, however far out we go, we find infinity. Being is fractal in nature. Being zooms both out and in to its own contents.
The Rosary is what the beads are made of. The beads are what the Rosary is made of. Look in close to the bead, and we'll reach the point of binary division. The necessary atomic nature. The atom itself is the Rosary. Being is the fractal Rosary.
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
I don't like getting into the strategy of argument, but this seems unproductive. If I fail to respond to something you've said, then I fail to respond. It is up to you to motivate me to want to respond by posing a question that demands answering. If someone judges my questions to be wholly missing the point of their argument then I don't expect that they would answer. If I want to bring someone into my understanding, I must attempt to reinterpret the system they're engaged in and formulate my question toward the disillusionment of that system. If we do this then the system which stands up to questioning will be confirmed.Beingof1 wrote:You would not be able to say this if you answered, at the least, 25% of my questions. Like most, you ignore the critical questions (especially the ones I posed to you in previous posts) and continue to accept only the evidence that bolsters your world view.
It may be that one symbol set is interpreted as two different systems by two different people. By re-clarifying again and again we can eventually confirm which systems we are, each of us, operating within.
How is logic dependent on mind? It depends on mind to interpret logical symbol sets, but do those logical symbol sets exist outside of the mind or not? If there is a world external to the self then there are a series of true and false propositions which address everything in it. The truth quality of statements is what logic describes.Beingof1 wrote:If logic is universal then mind is universal. Inescapable logic. You cannot have logic without mind.
If truth evaluability of the thing erodes outside of our experience, then the thing has no existence outside of our experience.
Logic is true or solipsism is true.
The only thing which conveys the infinite is the infinite. An infinite series of logical statements is self-similar with Being.Beingof1 wrote:There is no concept that can convey the infinite. The empty set comes the closest.
It doesn't contain, but it refers.Beingof1 wrote:All possible logical positions/velocity may be conveyed given an infinite amount of time. This premise does not contain the infinite set of all positions/possibilities because it would require a number and time beyond counting.
This is all true given your axiom that mind is necessary for logic. I have expressed reason to believe that that axiom is tautologically equivalent to solipsism.Beingof1 wrote:If logic is universally true, all things can be identified in the universe. Logic requires mind and therefore; is contained in the mind.
The universe is therefore equal to the mind.
Quote:
Assuming logic to be conditionally true (or stranger yet, simply false), the universe is unknowable and discourse is impossible.
Here you imply and appeal to the mind as being equal to the universe.
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
logical investigation of rosary with 108 beads,
1. The rosary is the total possessor of its parts, 108 beads. The whole and the parts are different. If we remove the parts the rosary disappears.
2. The rosary taken as a whole is one, but the parts are many; also the rosary cannot exist as 'one' with its parts.
3. If the parts are put aside, there is no rosary that exists inherently, separate from the parts; therefore the rosary is not distinct from its parts.
4. While the rosary does not exist isolated from its parts, neither does it inherently depend on its parts, nor do the parts depend on it.
5. The rosary does not inherently possess its parts.
6. The form of the rosary is one of its qualities and therefore cannot be 'the rosary'.
7. Neither can the combination of beads and string be the rosary because they form only the base of the rosary.
Investigating thusly, we will not find the rosary in any of those 7 conclusions.
We could examine each of those beads separately to see if they exist distinct of their parts or not and we would not find them.
Similarly, 'forests', 'armies', 'countries', 'states' are all names given to a combination of parts and if we search into each part, we will not find these things at all.
phenomena are only names and when we search for the object designated by the name, we do not find real objective existence.
this indicates phenomena are based only on conventional designations which is actually sufficient to give them existence.
The inherent existence of the object, which is not affirmed solely by the force of its conventional designation is what should be refuted, 'emptied' by what we call emptiness.
Giving the combination of beads and string the condition of 'selfhood' called 'the rosary' as a real and independant entity is the object to refute through reasoning.
1. The rosary is the total possessor of its parts, 108 beads. The whole and the parts are different. If we remove the parts the rosary disappears.
2. The rosary taken as a whole is one, but the parts are many; also the rosary cannot exist as 'one' with its parts.
3. If the parts are put aside, there is no rosary that exists inherently, separate from the parts; therefore the rosary is not distinct from its parts.
4. While the rosary does not exist isolated from its parts, neither does it inherently depend on its parts, nor do the parts depend on it.
5. The rosary does not inherently possess its parts.
6. The form of the rosary is one of its qualities and therefore cannot be 'the rosary'.
7. Neither can the combination of beads and string be the rosary because they form only the base of the rosary.
Investigating thusly, we will not find the rosary in any of those 7 conclusions.
We could examine each of those beads separately to see if they exist distinct of their parts or not and we would not find them.
Similarly, 'forests', 'armies', 'countries', 'states' are all names given to a combination of parts and if we search into each part, we will not find these things at all.
phenomena are only names and when we search for the object designated by the name, we do not find real objective existence.
this indicates phenomena are based only on conventional designations which is actually sufficient to give them existence.
The inherent existence of the object, which is not affirmed solely by the force of its conventional designation is what should be refuted, 'emptied' by what we call emptiness.
Giving the combination of beads and string the condition of 'selfhood' called 'the rosary' as a real and independant entity is the object to refute through reasoning.
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Let me see here; it is my job to entertain you with responding to your statements and questions. If I respond with cogent, congruent and logical answers and questions that do not give you kudos, it is boring. I think I get it.Eric Orwoll wrote:I don't like getting into the strategy of argument, but this seems unproductive. If I fail to respond to something you've said, then I fail to respond. It is up to you to motivate me to want to respond by posing a question that demands answering.Beingof1 wrote:You would not be able to say this if you answered, at the least, 25% of my questions. Like most, you ignore the critical questions (especially the ones I posed to you in previous posts) and continue to accept only the evidence that bolsters your world view.
In other words; you lose interest in the subjects you pose? They are your subjects, I respond to your subject and you find it boring? I see.
The truth is; it is an elaborate evasion technique you have devised.
It is not about that at all. You are speaking of the dialectic. What it is about is you evading challenges that do not fit your concept that you cannot answer but know it is true.If someone judges my questions to be wholly missing the point of their argument then I don't expect that they would answer. If I want to bring someone into my understanding, I must attempt to reinterpret the system they're engaged in and formulate my question toward the disillusionment of that system. If we do this then the system which stands up to questioning will be confirmed.
It may be that one symbol set is interpreted as two different systems by two different people. By re-clarifying again and again we can eventually confirm which systems we are, each of us, operating within.
What?How is logic dependent on mind?Beingof1 wrote:If logic is universal then mind is universal. Inescapable logic. You cannot have logic without mind.
If you answer this question, you just proved that logic is contingent on mind.
Show logic apart from mind. One example should suffice.It depends on mind to interpret logical symbol sets, but do those logical symbol sets exist outside of the mind or not? If there is a world external to the self then there are a series of true and false propositions which address everything in it. The truth quality of statements is what logic describes.
Another false dilemma?If truth evaluability of the thing erodes outside of our experience, then the thing has no existence outside of our experience.
Logic is true or solipsism is true.
We agree.The only thing which conveys the infinite is the infinite.Beingof1 wrote:There is no concept that can convey the infinite. The empty set comes the closest.
Could you explain what you mean here.An infinite series of logical statements is self-similar with Being.
You may refer to the infinite. You may not, under any circumstances define the infinite.It doesn't contain, but it refers.Beingof1 wrote:All possible logical positions/velocity may be conveyed given an infinite amount of time. This premise does not contain the infinite set of all positions/possibilities because it would require a number and time beyond counting.
Beingof1 wrote:If logic is universally true, all things can be identified in the universe. Logic requires mind and therefore; is contained in the mind.
The universe is therefore equal to the mind.
Eric:
Assuming logic to be conditionally true (or stranger yet, simply false), the universe is unknowable and discourse is impossible.
Here you imply and appeal to the mind as being equal to the universe.
I repeat:This is all true given your axiom that mind is necessary for logic. I have expressed reason to believe that that axiom is tautologically equivalent to solipsism.
If logic is universal then mind is universal. Inescapable logic. You cannot have logic without mind.
You will probably blow right past this point to underpin your concept.
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Beingof1,
I think what has happened is that you responded to something with what you perceived to be infallible logic, that logic depends on mind, and you weren't satisfied by my response.
Either;
I could have failed to grasp the infallibility in your premise (That logic depends on mind)
You could have failed to grasp my argument.
Presumably, if each had a perfect understanding of the other's argument then we would arrive at a mutual point of synthesis. Since this has not yet occurred, I will re-clarify and reformulate my argument to ensure that I'm not obfuscating my conclusions.
I can only claim that I have not knowingly brushed aside valid points because they don't confirm my framework. Over the course of this discussion I've had changes to my framework, I'm not averse to that. I have, however, brushed points aside which I took to be redundant or that I took to be of a lower caliber of the rest of this forum.
Now to reiterate my argument against the necessarily mental nature of logic.
There are many types of logic, I'm talking about bivalent logic. The claim for the universality of this kind of logic rests on the claim that you can break the universe down into True or False propositions.
This apple is red. True
This apple is a cat. False
The formulation of the propositions into language requires a mind, but this does not imply that logic itself requires a mind. Logic is a principle regarding propositions, that they have either a True or False value, logic is not the propositions themselves.
Can things be true or false outside of the mind?
Lets take the case of the material universe as it is understood by common sense.
The moon orbits the earth. True.
The moon exists. True.
Existence exists. True.
Assuming, for the moment, materialism to be true, the truth status of propositions regarding r e a l objects is necessary for their existence as concrete entities.
If the moon has no intrinsic true or false qualities then it becomes a nonentity.
The moon exists. Neither true nor false?
The moon is a moon. Neither true nor false?
"The moon" ceases to refer to anything at all.
We don't have to use materialism. If all differentiated being is defined by the relationship of information, which I believe it is, then the same applies.
A square has four equal sides. Neither true nor false?
A square has 90 degree corners. Neither true nor false?
A square is a cat. Neither true nor false?
If the properties of an object can be neither true nor false outside of one's mind, then they have no existence outside of one's mind.
Logic is true, or solipsism is true.
One last point;
Mind exists. True.
If mind were necessary for logic, then how could that statement come to be true? Mind, before it can formulate the proposition has already proven the truth value of it. Therefore, it is possible for propositions to be true or false outside of being formulated.
I think what has happened is that you responded to something with what you perceived to be infallible logic, that logic depends on mind, and you weren't satisfied by my response.
Either;
I could have failed to grasp the infallibility in your premise (That logic depends on mind)
You could have failed to grasp my argument.
Presumably, if each had a perfect understanding of the other's argument then we would arrive at a mutual point of synthesis. Since this has not yet occurred, I will re-clarify and reformulate my argument to ensure that I'm not obfuscating my conclusions.
I can only claim that I have not knowingly brushed aside valid points because they don't confirm my framework. Over the course of this discussion I've had changes to my framework, I'm not averse to that. I have, however, brushed points aside which I took to be redundant or that I took to be of a lower caliber of the rest of this forum.
Now to reiterate my argument against the necessarily mental nature of logic.
There are many types of logic, I'm talking about bivalent logic. The claim for the universality of this kind of logic rests on the claim that you can break the universe down into True or False propositions.
This apple is red. True
This apple is a cat. False
The formulation of the propositions into language requires a mind, but this does not imply that logic itself requires a mind. Logic is a principle regarding propositions, that they have either a True or False value, logic is not the propositions themselves.
Can things be true or false outside of the mind?
Lets take the case of the material universe as it is understood by common sense.
The moon orbits the earth. True.
The moon exists. True.
Existence exists. True.
Assuming, for the moment, materialism to be true, the truth status of propositions regarding r e a l objects is necessary for their existence as concrete entities.
If the moon has no intrinsic true or false qualities then it becomes a nonentity.
The moon exists. Neither true nor false?
The moon is a moon. Neither true nor false?
"The moon" ceases to refer to anything at all.
We don't have to use materialism. If all differentiated being is defined by the relationship of information, which I believe it is, then the same applies.
A square has four equal sides. Neither true nor false?
A square has 90 degree corners. Neither true nor false?
A square is a cat. Neither true nor false?
If the properties of an object can be neither true nor false outside of one's mind, then they have no existence outside of one's mind.
Logic is true, or solipsism is true.
One last point;
Mind exists. True.
If mind were necessary for logic, then how could that statement come to be true? Mind, before it can formulate the proposition has already proven the truth value of it. Therefore, it is possible for propositions to be true or false outside of being formulated.
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Let me see if I have the gist of your argument:Eric Orwoll wrote:Beingof1,
I think what has happened is that you responded to something with what you perceived to be infallible logic, that logic depends on mind, and you weren't satisfied by my response.
Either;
I could have failed to grasp the infallibility in your premise (That logic depends on mind)
You could have failed to grasp my argument.
Logic is information and information exists outside of the mind therefore; being exists outside of the mind.
Let me know if I am keeping up with your argument.
You refuse, once again, to address the falsification of your argument with a single example of logic existing outside of mind. I can only conclude your above statement as a bunch of chewy word games.Presumably, if each had a perfect understanding of the other's argument then we would arrive at a mutual point of synthesis. Since this has not yet occurred, I will re-clarify and reformulate my argument to ensure that I'm not obfuscating my conclusions.
The BS meter just went off but do not let me interrupt your digression.I can only claim that I have not knowingly brushed aside valid points because they don't confirm my framework. Over the course of this discussion I've had changes to my framework, I'm not averse to that.
Blah - blah. Give a single example of logic existing outside of mind and overturn my objection. It is you who are not getting the stunningly obvious because you confuse a concept you hold in your mind as reality. It has always puzzled me how scientists, gurus, teachers and so on attempt to escape the universe and their very own experience to attempt to peer back into the universe as a third party. This is impossible.I have, however, brushed points aside which I took to be redundant or that I took to be of a lower caliber of the rest of this forum.
You are saying that laws and principles exist in a state of being with or without mind. I get it you see.
1) The Law of Identity: A is A or anything is itself.
2) The Law of Excluded Middle:
Anything is either A or ~ A
3) The Law of Contradiction:
Nothing can be both A and ~A.
Because you can adhere to this framework, construct a truth table and create a universe in your mind - you think it exists outside of your mind. I can assure you, you cannot escape yourself.
Don`t feel like the Lone Ranger, almost everyone on this forum does the same thing. Because you can hold a tidy concept in your mind does not mean it is reality, it just means you are capable of abstract thinking.
Your entire argument is a version of this one for the existence of God:Now to reiterate my argument against the necessarily mental nature of logic.
There are many types of logic, I'm talking about bivalent logic. The claim for the universality of this kind of logic rests on the claim that you can break the universe down into True or False propositions.
This apple is red. True
This apple is a cat. False
The formulation of the propositions into language requires a mind, but this does not imply that logic itself requires a mind. Logic is a principle regarding propositions, that they have either a True or False value, logic is not the propositions themselves.
God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
Did this question exist in your mind? Can this question exist outside of your mind?Can things be true or false outside of the mind?
Can you escape your experience?
Can you remember a time you were not?
What part of your reality are you not aware of?
What are the dimensions of your field of awareness?
Can you demonstrate a moon outside of the mind?Lets take the case of the material universe as it is understood by common sense.
The moon orbits the earth. True.
The moon exists. True.
Existence exists. True.
If we assume materialism is true, we must use a mind to do it.Assuming, for the moment, materialism to be true, the truth status of propositions regarding r e a l objects is necessary for their existence as concrete entities.
If the moon has no intrinsic true or false qualities then it becomes a nonentity.
The moon exists. Neither true nor false?
The moon is a moon. Neither true nor false?
"The moon" ceases to refer to anything at all.
Let P stand for physical
Let M stand for mind.
If - in all possible worlds - P is responsible and the cause for M, then P fixes M.
It must fix(allow to exist) M no matter the physics, laws, or beings.
There is no such thing as a perfectly static square. The only place a perfect square can exist is a concept in your mind. It is like asking "how long is the perfect shoestring"?We don't have to use materialism. If all differentiated being is defined by the relationship of information, which I believe it is, then the same applies.
A square has four equal sides. Neither true nor false?
A square has 90 degree corners. Neither true nor false?
A square is a cat. Neither true nor false?
If the properties of an object can be neither true nor false outside of one's mind, then they have no existence outside of one's mind.
How do you know 1=1? Because it as an axiom that is self evident by your mind holding the perfect - non static concept.
The world is to crowded for perfect cities.Logic is true, or solipsism is true.
Because the mind is in a continuum of a stream of thought and therefore; in an infinite state of eternal flux.One last point;
Mind exists. True.
If mind were necessary for logic, then how could that statement come to be true?
Let C stand for consciousness
Let d stand for perception
Let A stand for the infinite momentum of the universe
C=dA+A^A
You are confusing perception with awareness. The Law of Identity states that a thing can only be itself or A = A. This requires a boundary because all things equally require what they are not.Mind, before it can formulate the proposition has already proven the truth value of it. Therefore, it is possible for propositions to be true or false outside of being formulated.
The fact is - there is nothing outside of your consciousness and it is you making all boundaries in the universe.
If you look at your watch, what are you looking for, a universal constant? The time in Denver is not the same time in London as the clocks must be reset. Mass and velocity distorts time, it is relative to your experience and is therefore a creation of the mind.
Time is the electrons updating the information and is therefore thought in motion.
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Then you are a solipsist.Eric Orwoll wrote:The fact is - there is nothing outside of your consciousness and it is you making all boundaries in the universe.
I didn't claim that I was disproving solipsism, just proving that differentiated existence is coextensive with logic.
If logic is universal then there is a universe outside of your mind. If logic is limited to our mind then there can exist nothing outside of our minds.
Logic is universal, or Solipsism is true.
There's no way to epistemologically distinguish which reality we inhabit.
There's no way to prove either true without presupposition.
I choose to believe there is an external world because of the remarkable consistency of mathematics. Mathematics seems to be discovered and not invented, but of course, there's no way to be sure.
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
solipsist is a label.
solipsist is not a case of direct perception.
You can't see solipsist.
what is the base for the label solipsist?
when we look at a quantity of trees ranging across a series of hills,
we call it a forest.
'forest' is not a case of direct perception.
you can't see 'forest'.
'forestness' is a conventional designation agreed upon in a conversation that goes on in the human family.
'forestness' exists in human language only.
Don't worry about the labels.
Recognise the mental activity of labelling.
What isn't mind substance only?
solipsist is not a case of direct perception.
You can't see solipsist.
what is the base for the label solipsist?
when we look at a quantity of trees ranging across a series of hills,
we call it a forest.
'forest' is not a case of direct perception.
you can't see 'forest'.
'forestness' is a conventional designation agreed upon in a conversation that goes on in the human family.
'forestness' exists in human language only.
Don't worry about the labels.
Recognise the mental activity of labelling.
What isn't mind substance only?
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:51 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Eric Orwell
You don't choose to believe there is an external word because of mathematics. You choose to believe there is an external world because you made the assumption that all the other people actually have perspectives and aren't just manifestations of you.
Solipsism goes beyond mathematics because the logic in mathematics can't be shown to be reliable without the other perspectives.
You have to view your experience from the solipsist point of view and it is clear that many things you think are logical or steadfast are actually not.
Realize how very limited your experience is and how illogical your reasoning is at fundamental levels and you will see that you alone could never show mathematics to be consistent or full proof on your own. Because who would you be showing your work to but you?
Most of what I've read from some of these peoples forum posts has completely missed the point or have lead to irrelevant discussions which are mostly based on word play.
Use your minds not your logic, most of what you know comes from direct insight, our logic doesn't apply in the same way when considering our own existence. And it definitely can't be grasped in words, only by reference to shared experiences that we have all experienced through direct insight can we get anywhere.
You don't choose to believe there is an external word because of mathematics. You choose to believe there is an external world because you made the assumption that all the other people actually have perspectives and aren't just manifestations of you.
Solipsism goes beyond mathematics because the logic in mathematics can't be shown to be reliable without the other perspectives.
You have to view your experience from the solipsist point of view and it is clear that many things you think are logical or steadfast are actually not.
Realize how very limited your experience is and how illogical your reasoning is at fundamental levels and you will see that you alone could never show mathematics to be consistent or full proof on your own. Because who would you be showing your work to but you?
Most of what I've read from some of these peoples forum posts has completely missed the point or have lead to irrelevant discussions which are mostly based on word play.
Use your minds not your logic, most of what you know comes from direct insight, our logic doesn't apply in the same way when considering our own existence. And it definitely can't be grasped in words, only by reference to shared experiences that we have all experienced through direct insight can we get anywhere.
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Dennis,
Solipsist is a label.
It may or may not be that labels correspond to objects.
That's the question in this topic.
Do labels, mental or linguistic, correspond to objects?
I can never prove that they do, I can never prove that they don't. It is the very fundamental epistemological limitation.
Being,
Because I have a model of understanding a total reality that fits the sense data I receive, I find it worth operating under the assumption that this model is accurate. I will assume the validity of any useful model until it disagrees with sense data or logic.
The decision to believe that an external reality exists amounts to the decision to attempt a model of reality.
The claim of solipsism- that Being manifested, but incompletely- leaving some metaphysical possibility out.
The claim of monism- that Being manifests completely.
Our nature is to experience an incomplete fragment of metaphysical possibility. This could be because;
A. That fragment is all there is.
B. We don't have access to the remainder.
There is no conceivable way to verify which is the case.
Solipsist is a label.
It may or may not be that labels correspond to objects.
That's the question in this topic.
Do labels, mental or linguistic, correspond to objects?
I can never prove that they do, I can never prove that they don't. It is the very fundamental epistemological limitation.
Being,
Because I have a model of understanding a total reality that fits the sense data I receive, I find it worth operating under the assumption that this model is accurate. I will assume the validity of any useful model until it disagrees with sense data or logic.
The decision to believe that an external reality exists amounts to the decision to attempt a model of reality.
The claim of solipsism- that Being manifested, but incompletely- leaving some metaphysical possibility out.
The claim of monism- that Being manifests completely.
Our nature is to experience an incomplete fragment of metaphysical possibility. This could be because;
A. That fragment is all there is.
B. We don't have access to the remainder.
There is no conceivable way to verify which is the case.
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
Take a peek at what David said in another thread.
as soon as the mind starts to create and perceive divisions in Nature (e.g. things or events), cause and effect immediately becomes a reality.
In other words:
No things = no cause and effect = beginninglessness and endlessness.
Things = cause and effect = beginnings and ends.
Would you agree with that?
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am
Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed
I would agree that that is the nature of what is generally labelled cause and effect (what I label syntactic association) emerging in consciousness. Perception is reality for the mind. To draw the conclusion, from that, that no reality exists outside the mind requires further argument. As far as I can determine, it is outside our epistemological limits to ascertain.Dennis Mahar wrote:Take a peek at what David said in another thread.
as soon as the mind starts to create and perceive divisions in Nature (e.g. things or events), cause and effect immediately becomes a reality.
In other words:
No things = no cause and effect = beginninglessness and endlessness.
Things = cause and effect = beginnings and ends.
Would you agree with that?
Things exist in consciousness and appear with perception. This doesn't imply that nothing exists outside consciousness. Things could perfectly well exist in perspective but outside of perception.
Perspective is not fundamentally a property of mind, it's a property of information. Perception is of an order of complexity far greater than that of perspective.
Why must Mind have a special place in existence?
Perspective could have the special place in that it makes possible differentiation.
As a side note- The "No things" described above is still an existence. The existence of "No things" like that outside of consciousness still implies the validity of bivalent logic.
If an existence without limits (undifferentiated being) exists then it interacts with the Mind.
Mind necessarily is included in a limitless existence- or else that existence is not limitless.
Mind would then be an unlimited existence interacting with itself.
If an unlimited existence interacts with itself to produce differentiation, then it must produce all differentiation.
An unlimited existence is infinitely divisible into differentiated states.
A fixed differentiated state, and if all such states exist then all are fixed, has a set of true propositions which describe it.
Last edited by Eric Orwoll on Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.