Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

[Diebert van Rhijn]

2. The universe began to exist.

The assertion is not argued well for at all. I think you did even better Laird, at the time. But same mistake though, for example "the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things". The infinite is not about a number of things but a challenge to the existence of "things" as discrete notions altogether. The same reasoning as given could just as well lead to concluding the impossibility of the existence of things. Simply because an infinite amount of causes could be suggested. Or the impossibility to list the whole causal chain of any actual event without having to use a piece of paper the size of that same universe itself. It's not hard to see that.

[guest_of_logic]

The infinite is not about a number of things but a challenge to the existence of "things" as discrete notions altogether.

"The" infinite? Are you talking about the infinite past, as WLC and I are, or are you talking about "the" Totality?

The same reasoning as given could just as well lead to concluding the impossibility of the existence of things. Simply because an infinite amount of causes could be suggested.

How do you define "cause" in this context? If you mean "cause" in the sense of interdependent origination, then an infinite number of causes could only be suggested if the universe is infinite in physical extent/mass/energy, or in history. I believe that WLC and I have ruled out the latter through logical arguments, and, based on the argument that an actual infinite cannot exist (because of paradoxes like Hilbert's Hotel, as well as those I tried to describe in my opening post w.r.t. the past), I think we can rule out the former too. So, no, the same reasoning doesn't lead to concluding the impossibility of the existence of things - rather, it leads to concluding the impossibility of things being the result of infinite causes, whether those causes are in the temporal sense of "that which precedes in time and gives rise to the effect (thing)" or in the sense of interdependent origination (because it debunks the notion of infinite causes in the first place, so that things can only be the result of finite causes).

Or the impossibility to list the whole causal chain of any actual event without having to use a piece of paper the size of that same universe itself.

Hmm. I'm not sure what this has to do with the infinite past. If, as I believe, WLC and I have successfully argued against the possibility of an infinite past, then "the whole causal chain of any actual event" is finite, and the size of the paper needed to record those finite causes is irrelevant.

[guest_of_logic]

I think you did even better Laird, at the time.

I forgot: thank you for saying that (even though I disagree). (And yes, I know: appreciating a comment as a compliment is not really kosher on a forum dedicated to non-attachment. How rebellious of me...)

[SeekerOfWisdom]

When you refer to finite or infinite causes I'm sure you are referring to appearances.

[guest_of_logic]

Hi John, long time no talk. Unless you have radically different definitions of "cause" and "appearance" to mine, then your surety is misplaced. Sorry to break it to ya. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at in any case. Let's say you are right: what is the purpose/point of your comment?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I don't think it was long, lol.

I'm really only making a point for a past without beginning, which would be against yours. It is based on something I already know you disagree on.. what is called universe is made up of experiences of the mind. Sensations and mental formations arising. (appearances) Since we've had this discussion feel free to ignore my point as I have as little interest in it as you.

I'm actually more interested in the raw experience of life at this moment, despite differences in philosophy, I think it is one of the most easily communicable topics as I know we are all almost exactly the same in this respect.

Isn't it a weird experience to do something every day, while unable to recall the thousands of times you have done it before? Emptiness at its best.

Also I was surprised to read your comment to Orenholt about consciousness and the brain, it being very similar to my own. I was wondering how you hold that view as I was under the impression we were at complete odds on this subject.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The brain is not the cause of consciousness.

[guest_of_logic]

Also I was surprised to read your comment to Orenholt about consciousness and the brain, it being very similar to my own. I was wondering how you hold that view as I was under the impression we were at complete odds on this subject.

Oh, OK, I'll try to explain how I see our differences and similarities - feel free to chime in and correct me where you think I misfire.

We agree that consciousness is not caused by the brain, but we disagree about the ontology of the brain: the nature of its "being". You believe that the reverse of what we agree is false is true: you believe that the brain is caused by consciousness, and that the brain is nothing more than an appearance to consciousness, and has no "real"/"separate"/"objective" existence, and, in contrast, I simply believe (tentatively - I'm quite happy to be proven wrong on this) that the brain exists alongside consciousness, with the same sort of ontology as consciousness - that they have some sort of relationship with one another, and probably are caused and brought into relationship by a third, shared factor (probably God, whatever and whoever He turns out to be).

[guest_of_logic]

By the way, I'm speaking very roughly when I say I believe that the brain has the same sort of ontology as consciousness: I say this only to distinguish myself from your very radical position that consciousness is the only real thing and the brain merely an appearance - i.e. that they have radically different ontologies. If I were speaking in most other contexts, I'd describe consciousness and the brain as having different ontologies, not that I know what those ontologies really are.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Well consciousness, being made up of various factors, (for example thought, sight, or hearing) definitely exists alongside the brain/body. If I were to block your eyes or ears, the corresponding experiences of sight and hearing that appear in consciousness will alter, so it would be impossible to rule it out as a linked factor.

You were correct in saying that I believe it is only an appearance in consciousness, despite it being a deciding factor in the nature of other appearances, I do not think such a form is necessary for similar experience to continue. I also say that when there is no experience of body then it is not appearing, it existing only as far as it appears and only as a manifestation of transient forms.

If you are able to see that experience continues after the destruction or death of the brain, does that not show that the world and the body are only things passing by in consciousness? How then do they differ from an imagination or dream existing only of the mind?

I do agree that there is more to what we see, 'god'/'tao', or whatever one would like call that which manifests intelligence, this conversation. To me it is the mind/void.

[guest_of_logic]

If you are able to see that experience continues after the destruction or death of the brain, does that not show that the world and the body are only things passing by in consciousness?

There's a risk that in answering this, our exchange will end up as a repetition of our previous discussions, which neither of us wants, I'm sure. Hopefully we can avoid that. In any case, my short answer is: no, it doesn't show that, because there is (I provisionally believe) an external reality, and the world, the body and the brain exist in, and are a part of, that external reality: their appearance in/to consciousness is not their sole existence, as you believe it is; instead it is a reflection of their real (external) existence. And that is the basis for my answer to your second question:

How then do they differ from an imagination or dream existing only of the mind?

They differ in that imagination and possibly (I believe that at least some dreams occur in realms which are an external reality, just a different one to the one (realm) we exist in when awake) dreams do not reflect an external reality, whereas our conscious experiences of the world and body do reflect an external reality.

[Tomas]

I think you did even better Laird, at the time.

I forgot: thank you for saying that (even though I disagree). (And yes, I know: appreciating a comment as a compliment is not really kosher on a forum dedicated to non-attachment. How rebellious of me...)

Honestly Laird?

I would've sent a PM.

But life is life.

Good to see you back! (insert happy face).

Kosher.

[Dennis Mahar]

for the 240,000th trillionth time Laird,
infinite means not finite, not-a-thing, not solid, an appearance.
thingness is thingified by a mental thingy.
it's not a quantity.
it's a quality.
it's quality is empty of inherent existence.

thang you.

[guest_of_logic]

Tomas, thanks for the tip, good to see ya too.

Dennis, I don't see how defining "infinite" as "not-a-thing, not solid, an appearance" helps when discussing an infinite past, as its clearly an inappropriate definition for that purpose, and not the one we've been using in the thread until now. But anyhoo: hello there, I hope all's well.

[Dennis Mahar]

you'll piss fart around forever trying to work out a concept like 'infinite past' and get nowhere.
it's an idea of no substantial means.
it's all in your head fred.
come to your senses.

the chair you are sitting on appears to exist from it's own side, as though it was born to be a chair.
the chair is taken for granted, as all phenomena is, as actually having a solid existence.
a being, unconscious of the true existence of the chair is simply unconscious.

the existence of the chair depends on an array of causes as wide as the universe.
one day the chair will break down and be 'firewood'.

the chair is dependent on a mental thingy as well.

unconsciousness, or a mind without intelligence in discriminating appearance from reality is completely in charge of planet Earth.

You disagree with an entity called 'house philosophy' and haven't got the wherewithal to grasp it, that's why you disagree with it.

[guest_of_logic]

a concept like 'infinite past' [is] an idea of no substantial means

OK, well, if that's your view, then there's not much point in our discussing it, is there? I didn't see anything in the remainder of your post that had a bearing on the topic of this thread, and I'm not in the mood to defend my position on the house philosophy in general, so perhaps we can just let it rest - yes?

[Dennis Mahar]

think about it for 10 minutes will ya' lad.
it may dawn upon.

so much of the activity here is 'the taming of the shrew' (unconsciousness)

pick the frikkin chair up in your hands.
how does it exist?
does it exist independent of senses/mental act. No.
list all the causes that are brought to bear on the chair occurring.
carpenter, wood, molecule, soil, climate etc

the chair is of dependent origination.

if it is dependently arisen,
does it actually exist ultimately? No.

shake your buddy's hand.
how does he exist?
conditionally, of course.
if your buddy is of dependent origination,
does your buddy exist ultimately?

hahaha
geddit?
there's nothin' to get.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It's a trick of the body/eyes- the light here is coming in through my eyes and being processed by my brain to appear in consciousness - hence these things must be external to my seeing of them and really exist.

Which is flawed on so many levels because one could not deny light/eyes/body are only things appearing in consciousness themselves. Not to mention that these forms are as closely linked as a leaf is from the stalk or the soil.

Hold on I must have had some flawed reasoning myself, how could a leaf be the same as the soil if they are a different color and shape? lol.

Also, if appearances arise only because something exists externally (well, only for the 'real' appearances) how does one explain seeing without any light?

[guest_of_logic]

Argh, you guys both know that for me to engage with either of you would lead to an endless, futile round of cross-talk in which none of us budged an inch and which we've all heard and been through a million times before. So, well, let's nip that nightmare in the bud now, eh? :-)

[Dennis Mahar]

you already 'get' dependent origination Laird.

you desire 'human rights'/ 'animal rights'.

that means you perceive a lack thereof and in the same moment perceive it as a possibility for human relations.

therefore you realise it as empty of inherent existence and as a possibility for human being existentially.

you realise you have to speak it in your conversations to get 'broadbased enrolment' for it to be uniformly manifest.

a curriculum of education

wtf are you arguing about lad.

[guest_of_logic]

Yep, I get [inter]dependent origination, although I'm more than a little suspicious of your linking of animal/human rights with it! As for what I'm arguing about: it is the (im)possibility of an infinite past - it's all there in the very first post to this thread if you could be bothered to wade your way through it.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

When is there a conversation that isn't pointless?

[Dan Rowden]

When it doesn't involve you? ;)

[Dennis Mahar]

Yep, I get [inter]dependent origination, although I'm more than a little suspicious of your linking of animal/human rights with it!

you may wish to assign animal/human rights as independent of causality,
that is wishful thinking.

Emptiness/dependent origination cannot be refuted.
many have tried and failed.
the inquiry persists in the forlorn hope of finding inherent existence.
Alas.

[guest_of_logic]

you may wish to assign animal/human rights as independent of causality

Oh, it's not that I wish for that, it's that if we were to be consistent with your suggestion to link the two, we would link everything we talk about with causality, whereas I'm not interested in turning every discussion on every topic I have into a dialogue on causality. I'm quite happy to leave that to you and the rest of the GF crew. ;-)