The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New Deism

[DavidHenry]

It's not complicated, if you doubt you're in the thick of reality, stick your hand in the fire....reality will confirm whether you're dreaming or not.

Why do you believe that pain is a signifier of reality?

Does anything matter to you?

[Jason]

Yeah, plenty of things matter to me.

[DavidHenry]

Yeah, plenty of things matter to me.

On the assumption you value your life and limb, I would've thought pain was an excellent indictor of reality....+ we use our senses+reason to know reality.....there's no other method.

[maestro]

we use our senses+reason to know reality.....there's no other method.

Don't you know that the statement A=A can tell you everything there is to know about reality?

[Sapius]

we use our senses+reason to know reality.....there's no other method.

Don't you know that the statement A=A can tell you everything there is to know about reality?

I'm a bit lost here, Maestro. What exactly has your rhetorical question got to do with Henry's statement?

Are you saying that "A=A" is a method that does not employ the method of "senses+reason" somehow?

D Henry’s posts seem quite straightforward to me.

BTW; if one believes that there is no way to know that we are not dreaming during what we experience as wakeful time, then in effect, one is saying we cannot trust our consciousness, which is based in and off nothing else but our ‘senses+reason’; so I find no good reason to take such a person seriously.

[maestro]

Sapius, this is an oft repeated claim here. That precise definitions + A=A can reveal all truths. While sensory/empirical data is subject to error. I wonder why you did not know this as you seem to be a regular here.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

We don't create the rules, we learn them, they're already there.....they're attributes of reality and its parts.

It's only the clarity of my own reflecting self-inquiring mind that makes me think in terms of 'awake' or 'asleep'. Since this seems to be the determining factor the case can be made that the principle of reality is directly related to reflection and not to perception.

It's not complicated, if you doubt you're in the thick of reality, stick your hand in the fire....reality will confirm whether you're dreaming or not.

You should really rethink your solution. The moment one starts doubting the reality, testing it, this is already a sign of an awake or awaking consciousness. The reason I cannot use this test in my dreams is that the question of it being a dream never arises. Or when it arises the wakening process already starts before pain could be created.

People who are cut from most of their senses have still a way to determine if they are awake of asleep, I can assure you. The way that naturally happens is very instructive about what reality really is to us.

[Sapius]

Sapius, this is an oft repeated claim here. That precise definitions + A=A can reveal all truths. While sensory/empirical data is subject to error. I wonder why you did not know this as you seem to be a regular here.

And I have always asked how exactly did or can one arrive at A=A if one had absolutely no sensual faculties to begin with? (With as much regualrity if I may add, which I think you have never noticed)

“A” represents a definition, a meaning, that points to something, and the moment you point to something, anything at all for that matter, it necessarily involves the senses. If nothing else then the symbol “A” itself, so how exactly does one come to PERCEIVE even that? "Internal" magic perhaps?

[maestro]

“A” represents a definition, a meaning, that points to something, and the moment you point to something, anything at all for that matter, it necessarily involves the senses. If nothing else then the symbol “A” itself, so how exactly does one come to PERCEIVE even that? "Internal" magic perhaps?

Magic indeed, I myself think that all useful facts are drawn from observation, and never got the hang of what the moderators are upto.

[Sapius]

Diebert;

You should really rethink your solution. The moment one starts doubting the reality, testing it, this is already a sign of an awake or awaking consciousness. The reason I cannot use this test in my dreams is that the question of it being a dream never arises. Or when it arises the wakening process already starts before pain could be created.

In my opinion, all that we can go by is the final logically coherent consistency we can establish through conscious experience, it doesn’t matter which one we call a dream or awake state; so which one it that is the question? If we doubt the authenticity, which we always can, of the one we trust as the most logically consistent, then we are actually doubting our consciousness and the power of reasoning thereof, in which case, we might as well drop all inquiry and enjoy the “dream” while it lasts.

[Sapius]

“A” represents a definition, a meaning, that points to something, and the moment you point to something, anything at all for that matter, it necessarily involves the senses. If nothing else then the symbol “A” itself, so how exactly does one come to PERCEIVE even that? "Internal" magic perhaps?

Magic indeed, I myself think that all useful facts are drawn from observation, and never got the hang of what the moderators are upto.

And please note; “external” does not necessarily mean ‘empirical’ to me, but merely that which is not ‘consciousness’, but are the objects of consciousness, where the “senses’ may also be considered as “objects” of consciousness.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In my opinion, all that we can go by is the final logically coherent consistency we can establish through conscious experience, it doesn’t matter which one we call a dream or awake state; so which one it that is the question? If we doubt the authenticity, which we always can, of the one we trust as the most logically consistent, then we are actually doubting our consciousness and the power of reasoning thereof, in which case, we might as well drop all inquiry and enjoy the “dream” while it lasts.

Sapius, that's not really different from what I wrote. But the way you write about 'doubting consciousness' makes me feel you don't get my drift completely. It's not about "trusting" some reality the be "the most logically consistent". It's one step up: the awareness of trust, doubt and our process of inquiry constitutes the depth of experience and how much of a 'realist' we actually are.

So to drive the point home: like a dream at nighttime works with the residue of experiences during the daytime, in a similar way is what some would describe as 'objective reality' just another type of residue but one we experience more deeper, more conscious than the residue at nighttime. During what is called lucid dreaming however we can easily demonstrate for ourselves how dreams can turn 'real' just by turning up the degree of consciousness. The same is available during our waking hours.

To summarize and re-iterate: the reality principle is the degree of consciousness, therefore we can say that reality is not 'inside' our consciousness but nevertheless all reality takes form through consciousness, to various degrees. Leaving what's out there to be real, unreal and neither at the same time.

[sue hindmarsh]

Diebert,

You're saying to Sapius that the idea of something outside of consciousness is in fact part of consciousness - thereby making the idea of an 'outside' of consciousness, or a separate consciousness, illogical.

This appears to reassert what you said earlier:

So we end up of having no choice but to assert that consciousness and reality, the whole universe, arises simultaneously and as such will disappear simultaneously.

You continued by suggesting that the above scenario gives rise to the concept of 'other':

But who would be there to witness it arise from the beginning or witness disappearing completely? Here the concept of 'other' is born.

Meaning that we can't step outside of our own consciousness; so ideas of beginnings and ends of consciousness, and the idea of 'other', relies on our consciousness giving form to those ideas. Which would mean that they have no other reality apart from what "takes form through consciousness"?

[DavidHenry]

we use our senses+reason to know reality.....there's no other method.

Don't you know that the statement A=A can tell you everything there is to know about reality?

A=A is basic metaphysical fact......what about science and experiment etc...?

[maestro]

A=A is basic metaphysical fact......what about science and experiment etc...?

Pah those always give tentative and provisional facts.
All you need is flawless definitions and apply A=A all the way through.

[DavidHenry]

FWIW, I consider the universe as eternal......and we pop up later and use our consciousness to perceive and eventually know* reality, IOW, it's not one big ole dream state.
*this means high level knowledge, not just bumping into trees.

[DavidHenry]

A=A is basic metaphysical fact......what about science and experiment etc...?

Pah those always give tentative and provisional facts.
All you need is flawless definitions and apply A=A all the way through.

Are you being sarcastic or not?
Btw, I'll take provisional facts over guesswork anyday.

[maestro]

Are you being sarcastic or not?
Btw, I'll take provisional facts over guesswork anyday.

Come on it is not guesswork, since you define terms they are true by definition. Have you ever done mathematics.

[maestro]

i will give you an example for your benefit.

A thing is defined as something which is less than the totality. This definition shows that totality is not a thing.


The implications of this argument are deep and revelatory. For example, because the totality itself cannot be a thing, it immediately means that it cannot have the form of a God or a cosmic consciousness or a physical universe or indeed anything at all. This is amazing knowledge.

[DavidHenry]

maestro.

I don't know whether I've read you wrong, but you strike me as a bit of a goose.

[maestro]

That would only be true if you define Maestro=Goose.

But seriously the above is not a product of my mind, all the credit goes to QRS, you can read all about it in the last post in this thread:

http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 1&start=25

[DavidHenry]

That would only be true if you define Maestro=Goose.

But seriously the above is not a product of my mind, all the credit goes to QRS, you can read all about it in the last post in this thread:

http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 1&start=25

I'm here to express and challenge myself, I'm not that keen on mixing it with people role playing something they're not{genius or coherent}......so by all means keep waddling.

[maestro]

'm here to express and challenge myself

Why not start a thread in which you are the sole poster, who expresses and challenges himself in turn.

I'm not that keen on mixing it with people role playing something they're not{genius or coherent}......so by all means keep waddling.

What? and play the role of a goose.

[DavidHenry]

'm here to express and challenge myself

Why not start a thread in which you are the sole poster, who expresses and challenges himself in turn.

I'm not that keen on mixing it with people role playing something they're not{genius or coherent}......so by all means keep waddling.

What? and play the role of a goose.

Ok, thanks maestro, you've proven to be nothing but a low level dickhead trying to impress the big boys.....no need to respond anymore btw.

[sue hindmarsh]

DavidHenry,

You wrote:

I consider the universe as eternal......and we pop up later and use our consciousness to perceive and eventually know* reality, IOW, it's not one big ole dream state.*this means high level knowledge, not just bumping into trees.

Maestro's presentation of A=A challenges your idea.


What were you expecting - that your ideas would lie completely unacknowledged? This is a forum. Your thinking will be challenged.


For example, what do you mean by "eternal universe"? And - What is the "reality" that we "eventually know"?