Faith in your mind?

[average]

Regardless of what truths you accept it is your mind at work that is accepting those truths.

If you believe God and bible are the final authority, it is your mind that predicates that authority onto them.

If you believe your worldview or logic are correct that is your mind at work.

Minds can be wrong, they can come to wrong conclusions. Maybe?

You can't reason into believing your mind, your logic, your evidence, because each of those things are verified in some way by your mental apparatus, which is in question.


It may appear to someone that their logic is flawless, that they are completely sane, and that their worldview matches the world in some sense. Yet they could be totally deceived...the victim of a distorted mind.

So what now?

[Jason]

You might find this thread interesting, it deals with these same issues.

[average]

I skimmed some of it, what was the conclusion?

I read David saying that the problem doesn't matter if you are enlightened since you are in a mental state beyond true and false, sane and insane.

I can imagine this, it would be similar to someone who just doesn't care about true and false at all, and just watches tv and goes to work..

Which is fine, but as soon as you come back down from the clouds, turn off the tv, and start using your mental apparatus, the problem arises.


So?

[David Quinn]

You need to do more than just skim that thread. It deals directly with the issue raised in your opening post.

-

[Peter L]

average,

What are absolute truths?

I read David saying that the problem doesn't matter if you are enlightened since you are in a mental state beyond true and false, sane and insane.

I can imagine this, it would be similar to someone who just doesn't care about true and false at all, and just watches tv and goes to work..

As long as you realize it's a fabrication of your imagination.

Which is fine, but as soon as you come back down from the clouds, turn off the tv, and start using your mental apparatus, the problem arises.

Yeah, it's scary isn't it? This results from evil thinking (ex. delusion is evil and so is the thought that all truth is potentially a delusion - If so, what are your intentions in asking these kinds of questions?). Ahh, so this is where honesty comes in.

[average]

average,

What are absolute truths?

I read David saying that the problem doesn't matter if you are enlightened since you are in a mental state beyond true and false, sane and insane.

I can imagine this, it would be similar to someone who just doesn't care about true and false at all, and just watches tv and goes to work..

As long as you realize it's a fabrication of your imagination.

Which is fine, but as soon as you come back down from the clouds, turn off the tv, and start using your mental apparatus, the problem arises.

Yeah, it's scary isn't it? This results from evil thinking (ex. delusion is evil and so is the thought that all truth is potentially a delusion - If so, what are your intentions in asking these kinds of questions?). Ahh, so this is where honesty comes in.

My intention would be to see if it is possible to know if you are being truthful or deceived.

[Relo]

Regardless of what truths you accept it is your mind at work that is accepting those truths.

If you believe God and bible are the final authority, it is your mind that predicates that authority onto them.

If you believe your worldview or logic are correct that is your mind at work.

Minds can be wrong, they can come to wrong conclusions. Maybe?

You can't reason into believing your mind, your logic, your evidence, because each of those things are verified in some way by your mental apparatus, which is in question.


It may appear to someone that their logic is flawless, that they are completely sane, and that their worldview matches the world in some sense. Yet they could be totally deceived...the victim of a distorted mind.

So what now?

I'm pretty sure our minds aren't able to comprehend complete truth at this state. They are basic truths that are accepted by our minds but not outer existence. As we go on in our evolutionary cycle and our brains increasingly develop, we take in more and creative aspects that truth can sit on issues for us and tie around the chains, yet that still only applies to "us".

Possibly someday we will be able to realize complete truth, but time "so called" has to lead the way of our blindness in approach to realization, anyways.

[DHodges]

It may appear to someone that their logic is flawless, that they are completely sane, and that their worldview matches the world in some sense. Yet they could be totally deceived...the victim of a distorted mind.

That's possible, but most don't make it that far. Most people are more or less completely insane, and don't really care.

So what now?

Indeed. The only thing I can see is to constantly be checking, not assuming you are right (having faith in your own mind), but constantly looking for inconsistencies or mismatches, and be constantly ready to challenge assumptions and make corrections.

[brokenhead]

It may appear to someone that their logic is flawless, that they are completely sane, and that their worldview matches the world in some sense. Yet they could be totally deceived...the victim of a distorted mind.

That's possible, but most don't make it that far. Most people are more or less completely insane, and don't really care.

So what now?

Indeed. The only thing I can see is to constantly be checking, not assuming you are right (having faith in your own mind), but constantly looking for inconsistencies or mismatches, and be constantly ready to challenge assumptions and make corrections.

FWIW, this is one of those times where I know Hodges probably does not agree with any or most of my views, yet I totally agree with what he says here.

[average]

It seems to me that the only thing you can be certain of, is that you perceive. You see an appearance, or feel something, and thats that, there is no doubt about it, there is no true or false there, it just is.

What you can be deceived about is your interpretation of that appearance, your judgment of it.

[brokenhead]

It seems to me that the only thing you can be certain of, is that you perceive. You see an appearance, or feel something, and thats that, there is no doubt about it, there is no true or false there, it just is.

What you can be deceived about is your interpretation of that appearance, your judgment of it.

Well, obviously. Yet if you appeal to anyone else, it must be to someone who necessarily has a non-identical perception to the one in question. That anyone else's perception of the same thing is even similar cannot be proven. But so what? The only alternative is to listen to no one, and not even try to interpret or judge, discriminate, or make sense of your perception in any way. Insects can do as much.

[brokenhead]

It may appear to someone that their logic is flawless, that they are completely sane, and that their worldview matches the world in some sense. Yet they could be totally deceived...the victim of a distorted mind.

So what now?

Equivocating everyone's worldviews is an answer to nothing. It takes a new child several years before enough patterns in his observations have been experienced before he begins to feel that he may behave according to his understanding of his environment. The steps are tentative at first, and continue to grow. The early worldview is so plastic, that it is usually difficult to recall later on: most people's earliest memories coincide with a rudimentary grasp of language, i.e., you don't remember much before the age of two.

Unless you are completely sheltered, there come times in your life when you might question your own sanity as your environment becomes temporarily unrecognizable. Yet people adjust even to extreme or "insane" circumstances, such as concentration camps. I once read a definition of sanity that sort of stuck with me as being reasonable and minimal enough: you are sane if you have "primary ontological security."

What you are saying is that insane people may believe they are quite sane. You also seem to be saying that since this is the case, how do you know you are sane, or are different from one who is insane? Well, for one thing, you recognize that even insane people can believe they have no delusions. This is not deluded thinking. It is questionable whether a deeply deluded person could ever come to such a conclusion, so there is a difference right there.

Also, I make use of the analogy that your dreams can seem very real. It is not something you outgrow, apparently, at least I know I have not outgrown it. There are dreams that are terrifyingly real. Yet, when you awake, you know it was a dream and that the waking state is, in fact, the real one. You may reasonably protest and say, but if you thought the dream was real and you think it is real now that you are awake, how can you be sure? The answer is, I can't. But I can recognize that there is a definite difference between the two states when I am awake. You may in fact have that same recognition during a dream, but at that very moment when you are aware it is a dream, it no longer seems as real, and in fact many times you can control its course or intentionally disrupt it.

You don't seem to be the type who throws up his hands and says, "so now what?" average. I tend to agree with DHodges' reply above. What about you? Maintaining one's sanity is a question of balance, I think. It takes alertness and active participation. In fact, it is this very effort that gives you the reasoning and right, in other words, the authority, to reject someone else's logic. It is your right to reject another's logic even if you have not tried to substantiate or validate it, as long as you keep questioning and validating your own, as Hodges said.

[average]

Ok, check this:

You can be certain of what you perceive. (a pain that is felt is a pain that is felt A=A)

You can be certain of what you define. (a bachelor is someone who is unmarried - again A=A)

Neither of these are true or false though, they just are. ^

So you can't be certain of any truth?


To exist is to be caused. Otherwise, something can come from nothing, and be made of nothing, which is incoherent.



This all sounds reasonable, yet I could be deluded somehow...?

If I ask someone to verify my reasoning, what am I doing? I'm reasoning that they are some sort of authority capable of true verification...

lol ...

[maestro]

I think A=A refers to modelling (language,representation) and experience. That is if you have a certain model of something (M) and you observe it (O), if observation agrees with your model then M=O and the model is tentatively correct. That is you gain confidence in the model. If observations contradict your model you lose confidence. With enough observations you will either have high confidence in the model or very less confidence. Thus the model tends to truth or falsity.

An authority can only give you M, you have to use your own experience to supply O. Now humans are such that O is easily corrupted by M, however it is (hypothesised that its) possible to develop a knack for keeping M and O separate. I think that is where the techniques of meditation (detached observer, slowing down the mind) help a lot.

Of course in the end every model is only approximately correct, however if a model agrees with 95 percent of your obervations, then it is not wholly wrong either. Let us say it is a good view of the picture but not the whole picture and there are hidden components.

Ordinary people have contradictory M's in them and they do not update their model to concord with M= O, and the same with insane people. Thus A=A is a device that takes you from darkness to light.

A sane person is one who knows his M's and knows their limitations as well.

And when your M=O naturally you feel at home in the world, since you can make sense of everything. People are so miserable because they are bewidered. They try to do something and something else happens they have no understanding.

[Jason]

You might find this thread interesting, it deals with these same issues.

I skimmed some of it, what was the conclusion?

I'm not sure it concluded per se, but my view is that it exposed some fatal flaws in Kevin's philosophy and David's philosophy. I think it was especially obvious with Kevin. The way I see it, Kevin ended up essentially left with "I'm sane, therefore I can correctly judge that I am sane." They may have other interpretations of what happened.

It seems to me that the only thing you can be certain of, is that you perceive. You see an appearance, or feel something, and thats that, there is no doubt about it, there is no true or false there, it just is.

Very good and I agree that sense perceptions are certain, and yes this can accurately be described as "just is", but I don't think that certainty is limited only to sense perceptions:

What you can be deceived about is your interpretation of that appearance, your judgment of it.

But you are certain that you are making interpretations and judgements when you make interpretations and judgements, right? Just as you are certain that you feel pain when you feel pain. Experiencing thoughts and judgements is just as certain as experiencing sense perceptions.

Ok, check this:

You can be certain of what you perceive. (a pain that is felt is a pain that is felt A=A)

You can be certain of what you define. (a bachelor is someone who is unmarried - again A=A)

Neither of these are true or false though, they just are. ^

Given that sense perceptions and thoughts(and every other experience you can have) are certain in this way, literally all things "just are" aren't they?

You can't reason into believing your mind, your logic, your evidence, because each of those things are verified in some way by your mental apparatus, which is in question.

There's an interesting circularity that can occur:

My reason tells me that my reason will lead me to truth. My heart tells me that my heart will lead me to truth. My instincts tell me that my instincts will lead me to truth.

How about this: why assume the need for verification/justification in the first place? What makes justification justified? Maybe simple brute unjustified pronouncements are valid?

"I have taken up my cause without foundation and all the world is mine." - Goethe
(Disclaimer: I don't know if Goethe meant that sentence to mean anything like what I am using it for, but it is written so nicely that I use it to express my point anyway.)

Check out this post of mine. I think it has relevance to these issues but perhaps views them from a slightly different perspective. Finding absolutely certain foundations is a central problem.

[average]

Hmmm...but certainty is just a state of mind, one that lacks doubt.

I don't think it's as complicated as we think, I don't think we need foundations or a reasoning process to reach certainty...because we could always doubt the foundation or the process itself.

All you have to do to be certain is to stop doubting. I don't think it amounts to reaching any truth though --- it's just a mental state that lacks doubt.

The idea of truth is also another mental state, it's the correlation between your idea and some separate state of affairs (reality).

First of all, a "separate state of affairs (reality)" is actually another idea.

Secondly, there is no access to anything outside mental states, so then truth is just the correlation of one idea to another.

So then an absolute truth is only a description of the space of your mind.

?

[brokenhead]

How about this: why assume the need for verification/justification in the first place? What makes justification justified? Maybe simple brute unjustified pronouncements are valid?

Yes, I'll buy that. An unjustified pronouncement can be valid. But if it were to lead to something else, that is, have an implication for another person,then justification may be required.

[brokenhead]

Hmmm...but certainty is just a state of mind, one that lacks doubt.

I don't think it's as complicated as we think, I don't think we need foundations or a reasoning process to reach certainty...because we could always doubt the foundation or the process itself.

All you have to do to be certain is to stop doubting. I don't think it amounts to reaching any truth though --- it's just a mental state that lacks doubt.

Yes, and when that cessation happens spontaneously, we say something has the "ring" of truth.

[Jason]

Hmmm...but certainty is just a state of mind, one that lacks doubt.

I agree. To relate it to the "just is" we spoke of previously:

When you experience doubt, you are certainly experiencing doubt. When you experience certainty, you are certainly experiencing certainty. Doubt "just is". Certainty "just is". Exactly like sense perception "just is."

"Just is" transcends and yet includes both certainty and doubt. Personally I think that is perfect and beautiful in a way.

"If you understand: things are just as they are. If you do not understand: things are just as they are." - zen proverb

I don't think it's as complicated as we think, I don't think we need foundations or a reasoning process to reach certainty...because we could always doubt the foundation or the process itself.

All you have to do to be certain is to stop doubting. I don't think it amounts to reaching any truth though --- it's just a mental state that lacks doubt.

I suppose, among other things, that depends on what you consider truth to be. Obviously any answer depends on the question that is asked. What question/s are you ultimately asking(if any)? What is truth to you? What do you seek? Anything? After a long philosophical search I realized I was trying to "find out what reality really was." That was what my questions could be distilled down to, that was the truth I was after.

The idea of truth is also another mental state, it's the correlation between your idea and some separate state of affairs (reality).

First of all, a "separate state of affairs (reality)" is actually another idea.

Secondly, there is no access to anything outside mental states, so then truth is just the correlation of one idea to another.

So then an absolute truth is only a description of the space of your mind.

Do you think that any of what you wrote in the above quote escapes the sanity/insanity problem?