Boundaries (revisited)

[Isaac]

First off, I just want to apologize for my rude outbursts directed towards the moderators many months ago. The truth is that I am made very anxious and upset by the philosophy that is promoted here, and I lashed out in anger. I was just blowing off steam.


A conversation I had with David has been occasionally invading my mind over the months, and I feel it is time to resolve my confusion about it.

David Quinn wrote to me:

If the boundary between myself and the rest of Nature was objectively real, then the needle wouldn't be able to pass through it and reach in under my skin. Similarly, I would not able to take advantage of the chair's mass and use it to support my body. It is precisely because boundaries are merely imaginary that interactions between things can take place at all - indeed, as easily as the interactions that occcur within things.

If we are to use differences in behaviour as the criteria for determining that boundaries are objectively real, then what of the differences within your own body? Take a bone out of your body and leave it sitting there on the table and it will just stay put, unmoving. Yet take some blood out and it will spill everywhere, staining everything in its path. Does this mean there is an objectively real boundary between the blood and bones inside your body?

If we were to take this line of thought to its logical conclusion, we would have to conclude that your entire body is nothing but a dense mass of objectively real boundaries. Yet even that's not true, for each of the components inside your body which have these objective boundaries can themselves be broken up into parts, with each of these parts having their own objective boundaries. Indeed, we can keep whittling it all down until there is nothing left at all, other than objective boundaries. The entire world would consist of nothing else but objective boundaries, each of them surrounding nothing at all.

^ I just posted that again, because I would like people to read it. It's one of the most stimulating things I've ever read.


But Ok David, what about sub atomic particles? Isn't it possible that there is some sub atomic particle out there that cannot be broken up?

[Blair]

I just posted that again, because I would like people to read it.

I read what Quinn said to you the first time.

It's one of the most stimulating things I've ever read.

They are the considered words of a wise person, that's why.


Something deep inside you tells you that there is some essence, something that is actually real, tangible, no matter how much its whittled down? There isn't. Everything whittles down to nothing, in the end. There is nothing there, nothing.

There is just the dream. A bubble of a mind that will play out and wither.

[Isaac]

Something deep inside you tells you that there is some essence, something that is actually real, tangible, no matter how much its whittled down? There isn't. Everything whittles down to nothing, in the end.

How do you know this for sure?

[David Quinn]

First off, I just want to apologize for my rude outbursts directed towards the moderators many months ago. The truth is that I am made very anxious and upset by the philosophy that is promoted here, and I lashed out in anger. I was just blowing off steam.

No problem.

But Ok David, what about sub atomic particles? Isn't it possible that there is some sub atomic particle out there that cannot be broken up?

Anything that exists can be divided by the mind.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

David wrote:

Anything that exists can be divided by the mind.

That is an important point. For instance: At the quantum level, quirks can be divided for infinity into smaller particles, but at the macro level, galaxies and clusters of galaxies can be divided for infinity. It doesn’t matter what your relative reference point is, there is no source material to which the universe stands on - it is all appearance; appearances that are relatively interrupted by minds in different ways.

[Isaac]

But Ok David, what about sub atomic particles? Isn't it possible that there is some sub atomic particle out there that cannot be broken up?

Anything that exists can be divided by the mind.

True. But that's different. When I break apart a stick into two, that is not my imagination.

When I use my mind to imagine the stick divided in two, that is my imagination.

You strike me as being evasive when you suggest this atomic particle can be broken up with the mind. You know I'm not talking about the imagining. I'm talking about doing.

[David Quinn]

It isn't evasion when you consider that all boundaries are mentally created and not objectively real. It goes directly to the point, in fact.

It seems you are still linking boundaries to the observation of physical behaviour.

-

[Isaac]

It isn't evasion when you consider that all boundaries are mentally created and not objectively real.

I agree that of all the phenomena I have ever seen, the boundaries have proven illusory. However, that doesn't mean that there cannot be a sub atomic particle that is indivisible.

[David Quinn]

It isn't evasion when you consider that all boundaries are mentally created and not objectively real.

I agree that of all the phenomena I have ever seen, the boundaries have proven illusory. However, that doesn't mean that there cannot be a sub atomic particle that is indivisible.

If it can exist, then it is divisible.

At the very least, a particle can be thought of as a fusion of two halves.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It is precisely because boundaries are merely imaginary that interactions between things can take place at all...

...each of the components inside your body which have these objective boundaries can themselves be broken up into parts, with each of these parts having their own objective boundaries. Indeed, we can keep whittling it all down until there is nothing left at all, other than objective boundaries. The entire world would consist of nothing else but objective boundaries, each of them surrounding nothing at all.

Isn't it possible that there is some sub atomic particle out there that cannot be broken up?...I agree that of all the phenomena I have ever seen, the boundaries have proven illusory. However, that doesn't mean that there cannot be a sub atomic particle that is indivisible.

If it can exist, then it is divisible.

At the very least, a particle can be thought of as a fusion of two halves.

If a particle can always be divisible into something, if only into two haves of the particle that was divided, how can things can be whittled down to where there is nothing left at all except these boundaries surrounding nothing at all?

[David Quinn]

If a particle can always be divisible into something, if only into two haves of the particle that was divided, how can things can be whittled down to where there is nothing left at all except these boundaries surrounding nothing at all?

That remark of mine is not meant to be taken literally. It is simply an illustration of what happens when an irrational concept is taken seriously. In this case, it degenerates into an infinite regression.

It is similar to asking the question, "If boundaries really exist in Nature, then where do they begin and end? The boundaries themselves would have to have boundaries." And so once again, the concept degenerates into an infinite regression.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Ah - thanks. You know my penchant for literalness.

[Loki]

David, or anyone else, why do we not have access to each other's subjective experience if there is no boundary between us?

[Nick]

We do. We share them with eachother all the time.

[Loki]

You have no access to my (or anyone else's) subjective experience. We have access to each other's descriptions of our subjective experience which is not the same thing as the experiences themselves.

Also, if it's true you don't believe in boudaries, how do you deal with the problem of other minds?

[Nick]

You have no access to my (or anyone else's) subjective experience. We have access to each other's descriptions of our subjective experience which is not the same thing as the experiences themselves.

Sure, that would be a violation of A=A, I'm not you, you're not me. My point was that we can access eachother's subjective experience by sharing our thoughts and feelings.

Also, if it's true you don't believe in boudaries, how do you deal with the problem of other minds?

I'm not sure where you're getting this argument from. Boundaries exist, but not inherently. Our mind creates them, which shapes our subjective experience of the things they contain.

[Steven Coyle]

The mind (reality) is the phenomenon being stared into before and during all the blackbox experiments. The indivisblity (emptiness) is simply the underlying void. I see blue stars from my own space ship - we are all already communicating via photons. Some of us consciously.

[Loki]

My point was that we can access eachother's subjective experience by sharing our thoughts and feelings.

Yes, I recall that. That was the very point I found fault with in your earlier response.

I'm not sure where you're getting this argument from. Boundaries exist, but not inherently. Our mind creates them, which shapes our subjective experience of the things they contain.

So you are convinced that other minds exists? (I know. It's amazing that I even have to ask this question.)

I'm not you, you're not me.

Great! It seems that you are so convinced. Is the boundary between me and you inherent, as you put it, or illusory?

[Isaac]

Nick,

Please clarify some things:

when you suggest reality is illusory and only mental constructs, are you specifying that reality is the construction of human mind, or any sentient being's mind?

Because before humans existed, I would venture that reality blissfully cavorted on the earth, and before life existed, that pesky reality stubbornly existed. Unless you also deny science.

As for boundaries, I would suggest many are human delineations, some are rooted in the physical nature of matter. You know, the Greeks did get some things wrong....

[Nick]

So you are convinced that other minds exists?

Based on the evidence this appears to be the case.

Is the boundary between me and you inherent, as you put it, or illusory?

Boundaries do not inherently exist. That is, they only arise when their is an observer to place the boundary. Take away the observer and you take away the boundaries. The only thing that exists absolutely without an observer is the Totality, by definition, due to its infinite unbounded nature.

when you suggest reality is illusory and only mental constructs, are you specifying that reality is the construction of human mind, or any sentient being's mind?

I'm not saying Reality as a whole is illusory. What I am saying is that boundaries and the things they contain are very much illusory because they do no exist in an absolute sense, i.e. they can not exist without an observer.

Because before humans existed, I would venture that reality blissfully cavorted on the earth, and before life existed, that pesky reality stubbornly existed. Unless you also deny science.

I agree, Ultimate Reality is infinite. It is not bounded by time, space, or mind. Everything else that can be distinguished from another thing is finite and has no meaning without an observer experiencing them.

As for boundaries, I would suggest many are human delineations, some are rooted in the physical nature of matter.

What do you mean by "rooted in the physical nature of matter", and can you provide an example of a boundary which exists in this way?

[Loki]

Boundaries do not inherently exist.

Since you keep asserting that, it must be true. ;)

Seriously, what do you mean by "inherently"?

Also, I have a challenge for you:

If you are constrained only by your state of mind, you could impress me and everyone else - by becoming an infinitely small, inert, silent, elephant... for eternity.

[Talking Ass]

If you are constrained only by your state of mind, you could impress me and everyone else - by becoming an infinitely small, inert, silent, elephant... for eternity.

And Nick, if I can be of service to you, please don't hesitate to contact me.

[Nick]

Seriously, what do you mean by "inherently"?

Seriously, what didn't you understand about the explanation I gave you?

If you are constrained only by your state of mind, you could impress me and everyone else - by becoming an infinitely small, inert, silent, elephant... for eternity.

Not quite sure what you mean by "constrained by my state of mind" (perhaps you can elaborate on that?), although I can define my self as any one of those things you mentioned, but it wouldn't serve a useful purpose.

I think your problem is that you are too taken in by appearances. Things appear a certain way because we are inclined by our physiology to interpret reality in a manageable way. It's as simple as that; what's the big deal?

[Loki]

Nick, in your view, can movement be real or is it always illusory?

[Nick]

If somethings moving, then yes it's definitely moving. What are you trying to get at?