The Meaning of Life

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Russell Parr »

The ego likes to assume that logic necessitates empirical evidence. As a result, pure logic and Absolute Knowledge become unfathomable.

Such is the case of Laird and Carmal alike.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

The ego likes to assume abolutes truths without any actual evidence, such is nature of religionists, bluerap and Dennis alike. It allows for them be self righteous.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

jupiviv:
No you haven't answered it. Dennis didn't ask you that question, I did. So why not answer the question in a straightforward manner instead of diminishing my reading comprehension and logical capacity?

Carmel:
I answered the question twice. Explaining it a third time won't help you understand.

Carmel:
If you want to claim "Ultimate Reality", "The Totality", infinity etc, as absolutes, the burden of proof is on you.
jupiviv:
Only I'm not claiming those things are absolutes; I'm not even talking about them. I'm talking about absolute truths, which are truths that hold true for all of time and space.

Carmel:
I see, so these things aren't absolute truths from your perspective?

jupiviv:
Eg.- the truth that if something is conscious, it must be having experiences. This must be true for any conscious being at any point in space or time. Even so called "local" truths are absolute, provided we define them in the correct way.

Carmel:
That people are conscious, is this what you consider to be an "absolute truth"? Any other absolute truths that you ascribe to?

jupiviv;
You're the one with the reading comprehension problem, because you can't distinguish between the ideas of different people.

Carmel:
Per usual, you missed the point. You do have a reading comprehension problem, you clearly can't follow the thoughts in a thread. My answer to Dennis answers your question.
Last edited by Carmel on Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

Dennis:

Carmel's problem is something like that in splitting local/non-local.
QM supports non-local. denies local.
unbroken wholeness.

If you can come at things from one expressing as many and look at it that way.

Carmel:

non sequitur. You have no idea what is going on at this forum. This becomes more and more clear with every post you make.

Can you name the "absolute truths" that are espoused here Dennis?
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

bluerap:

The ego likes to assume that logic necessitates empirical evidence. As a result, pure logic and Absolute Knowledge become unfathomable.

Carmel:

There's no such thing as "pure logic", A philosophical theory can be "logically viable", that doesn't make it an "absolute truth". No one has "Absolute Knowledge", though people who suffer from delusions of grandeur, think that they do.

And what about you bluerap, can you name and explain any "absolute truths"? ...thus far, you haven't contributed anything of substance to any of these discussions. ...just some trite, self righteous blatherings.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Bobo »

jupiviv wrote:I'm not even talking about them. I'm talking about absolute truths, which are truths that hold true for all of time and space. Eg.- the truth that if something is conscious, it must be having experiences. This must be true for any conscious being at any point in space or time. Even so called "local" truths are absolute, provided we define them in the correct way.
If a truth is not dependent on the locality of neurological process, it is still dependent on the locality of itself. Like "the truth... must be true for any conscious being at any point in space or time" does not "hold true for all of time and space" because it discriminates between conscious and unconscious beings in time and space. Unless you meant "hold true for any of time and space".
User avatar
m4tt_666
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by m4tt_666 »

truth is definable by belief beyond any doubt as one sees it. all truth is subjective to individual perception and is therefore flawed, even if every life form in existence came to a common agreement on a given matter. time begets change.

science has failed to maintain sight of the fact that not only everything it may prove to be truth beyond doubt is theory, but the very foundation of the scientific model and all its methodological processes it utilizes to gain its information is also theory, not fact.

brain function has nothing to do with truth itself, rather it is only an aid for creating truths shadow.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Carmel,
Can you name the "absolute truths" that are espoused here Dennis?
It's not about 'naming'.
It's about 'knowing'.
It's about a breakthru'.

like several of the astronauts, whilst drifting in their tin cans out there in space.
looked back at the 'blue planet' and experienced satori..

something happens that is the possibility of transformation..
then there's the languaging,
an attempt to 'explain',
which isn't it,
can't be it,

even in the quarrelling and jostling of concepts for 'rightness' or 'prominence' and the seeing of the futility of that...
there's a natural joy and freedom arising...
all that's left to do is laugh happily.

It's about a freedom of being where once there wasn't.
It's that which the Worldhood can't provide.

You had it there Carmel, when you wrote about the experience of wonder in 'grokking' cosmology or the possibility cosmology held for you.
It was all over you, it jumped off the page, as extraordinary and outstanding somehow.

It's that spirit Aristotle held as the necessary 'place to come from' as 'a way of being'....
to get at 'astonishment'...
as a being with,
like a lover,
love of Sophia.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

Carmel wrote: When I asked David about this issue many months ago, he at least had the honesty to tell me to think of his views as the middle road between philosophy and religion.
Can you repost what I actually said, as I can't recall making any comments like that. It does sound like you have misunderstood my views on logical certainty and faith.

jupiviv:
Absolute knowledge, by definition, is knowledge that holds true for all of time and for all things that exist - so it can't be local. Local knowledge proceeds from absolute knowledge, and is a facet of it.

Carmel:
You're wrong. It's local. It is a by-product of your neurological and physiological processes. To say it is non local requires a leap of faith. This is where philosophy ends and religion begins. That you don't understand this, demonstrates a serious lack of critical thought on your part.
Jupiviv is right, actually. Absolute knowledge is indeed defined to be knowledge that is necessarily true in all times and places. It isn't something which is merely true in somes places and not others. It isn't contigent upon the arisal of a particular set of circumstances, or the appearance of particular empirical evidence, or the adoption of a particular perspective, or the consensus of a particular number of people. It is necessarily true for all circumstances, perspectives, and people. It is a form of knowledge that cannot be falsified under any circumstances whatsoever.

A crude example is the truth that things like married bachelors and square circles can never arise in the world.

I'll talk a little more about this in my next post.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

Carmel wrote: David:
To my mind, the vanity of physicists shines out of everything they say and do (the theoretical chaps at least, probably not the humble lab technicians), and it's tied to their belief that physics is the most fundamental and important of all the sciences, that their work nowadays almost transcends science; that they are, in effect, the new cutting-edge philosophers of our age.

Carmel:
"To my mind" is the key phrase here. This is not my impression of physicists, at all. I often listen to theorectical physicists on the radio and they seem quite humble, rational and down to earth. They don't seem to have any problem proclaiming "We don't know" when posed a question which is beyond the current understanding of the scientific community.

I don't doubt your experience, but it's causing you to miss the point. There are larger issues at play.

To use an analogy, when one analyzes and judges organized religion, one doesn't simply go to the local parish and listen to the words of a humble priest. Not if you want a full and comprehensive picture.

Rather, one studies its history and the impact it has had on society and on individual psychology; one studies the words and actions of its leaders, its movers and shakers - the popes, the dalai lamas, the aquinuses, etc; one looks at the manner in which it promotes or undermines wisdom; and so on. The fact that religion may be populated by many "humble" priests and monks isn't really relevant. If anything, they only serve to make the picture even more disturbing.

Carmel: Also, one could argue that "absolute truth" is a form of local knowledge i.e.that it occurs locally in one's consciousness within the confines of one's gray/white matter encased by a skull...or would you say that consciousness is non-local, and that "Ultimate Reality" exists both within and "out there"?

Consciousness is definitely local, being a product of neural activity. But since Ultimate Reality exists everywhere, both within and out there, and since its nature never changes, our localized consciousness can tap into this nature within its own own confines and fully comprehend it. And in so doing, the fundamental nature of all things, both within one's own localized consciousness and beyond, is grasped.

That's the beauty of getting involved with logic in this deeper manner. It is like hopping aboard a spaceship-cum-time machine and instantly travelling to all corners of existence and all points in time.

Carmel: My point being that there's nothing wrong with exploring different conceptual models of "reality". One doesn't detract from the other, quite the opposite, from my experience.

David: Agreed. The trouble is, we are living in a world in which science (combined with its limited materialistic/postmodernist outlook) has taken over and philosophy has all but disappeared. No one even hears about the logical path to absolute truth anymore, let alone contemplates whether it is a worthwhile path or not. Science and postmodernism have taken over to such as extent that when people do happen to hear about it, such as on this forum, they automatically dismiss it as being archaic, nebulous, religious, etc.

And then when I stand up for it, place value on it, distinguish it from science, etc, people automatically think that I'm being anti-science. That's how ingrained it has become.

Carmel: point taken.

As I mentioned, my only concern, was that you seemed to be trivializing a well established scientific theory and while I realize that the philosophy of science is not the focus of this forum, I don't think that minimizing the "Big Bang" as a well established theory, does your readership any good. I would almost liken it to a Christian who tries to dismiss the Theory of Evolution as merely a "theory". We all know better than that, I hope... :)
What is more harmful? Trivializing science or trivialing absolute knowledge and wisdom?

I would say both are harmful, but the latter infinitely more so.

Again, my concern is the way scientists and their followers trivialize the higher path to absolute truth and philosophic wisdom. They don't necessarily do this deliberately, as they are invariably unconscious of this path themselves. But it remains a potent instinctual force in modern society nonetheless, one that I have to combat on a daily basis.

What I do is point out the limitations of science and place it in its proper context, thus making room in people's minds for awareness of the philosophic path. As you rightly say, the two don't negate or contradict each other. But at the moment, the dazzle of science is crowding philosophy out (just as the dazzle of religion used to do) and the human race is immeasurably poorer for it.

Carmel wrote:David:
I think you'll find, if you delve deeply into your own psychology, that it's there - subtly, but powerful.

Carmel:
um, no. :-/...As much as I find beauty and awe in the Universe, its powers of destruction negate any "womb like" feeling of security. The idea of being ripped to shreds, atom by atom, by the process known as "spaghettification" by a black hole, is none too comforting!

Well, it's up to you whether you want to unearth this piece of self-knowledge. But if I were you, here are some of the things I would explore:

- Absorbing oneself in detached, intellectual forms of knowledge which are "fascinating" gives one a feeling of control over the environment. It's a way of keeping the chaos and madness of reality at bay. The knowledge resides at the distance of the imagination. Nothing ever really comes too close. No ethical demands are ever made on one's life.

- That it is deemed to be "fascinating" indicates that the knowledge isn't really that threatening in the first place. Being amused implies that one is feeling in control and on top of things. It's akin to enjoying crosswords over the breakfast table, or reading a detective novel in bed.

- Absorbing oneself in science also enables one to feel part of the mainstream, part of the crowd, which is another piece of the womb. Nay, one feels that one is part of a special crowd, the intelligensia, which further cocoons the ego in sheaths of its own fantasy.

- Even the stress involved in imagining being "spaghettified" by black holes contributes to the womb-construction. It's like going to the cinema to watch a horror movie, so as to experience the pleasures of fear and the associated warm feelings that one is actually safe. A way of revelling in the idea that one is still within the womb and not outside it.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

-
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

David:
Can you repost what I actually said, as I can't recall making any comments like that. It does sound like you have misunderstood my views on logical certainty and faith.

Carmel:
ok, I found the quote I had in mind, but you're right, it really wasn't analogous to the issue at hand...my apologies for misrepresenting your position, it most definitely wasn't intentional.

--

aw crap, I accidentally deleted the rest of my response to you...I'll rewrite it later or not, whichever happens first... :)
Last edited by Carmel on Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by guest_of_logic »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Laird,
you are splitting genes/culture into separate factors.
they're not.
culture affects which genes are turned on. genes affect which culture shows up. I've heard only 10% of one's genes are turned on.
That could be where Kevin is going with his genetic postulate.
Too much for you to accept the reality that Kevin is talking about biological women, huh coach?

And so, the guy who spends so much of his time on this forum asking other people questions won't even answer a simple, direct question put to him. Come on Dennis, answer the question in the other thread and tell us exactly how far you go in your agreement with QRS chauvinism.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Laird,
Too much for you to accept the reality that Kevin is talking about biological women, huh coach?
It's not that simple Laird.
In the World of Laird there appears to be something at stake for Laird in relation to Kevin's position.
This 'at stakeness' holds a certain irritability and discontent.

If you could open up about that then we can get access beyond this gestalt of 'holding a gun at someone's head' which has us stuck.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by jupiviv »

Carmel wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Only I'm not claiming those things are absolutes; I'm not even talking about them. I'm talking about absolute truths, which are truths that hold true for all of time and space.
I see, so these things aren't absolute truths from your perspective?
Depends on how you define them.
That people are conscious, is this what you consider to be an "absolute truth"? Any other absolute truths that you ascribe to?
I didn't say "people are conscious". I said that conscious beings necessarily have experiences, and that is an absolute truth. 1+1=2 is another absolute truth. These are "simple" examples, sure, and I can give you far more complex, deep-sounding examples...but these examples are enough to understand the point I'm making.
My answer to Dennis answers your question.

You have to mention which question and which answer. I can't be bothered with finding it out in such a big thread. Besides my question was directed to you, so it's only proper that you should answer me directly. I don't know why you are refusing to simply post the answer, instead of diminishing my reading comprehension.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:Consciousness is definitely local, being a product of neural activity.
I wouldn't say it's "local", because then what is being conscious of the fact that consciousness is a product of neural activity and where is that located? Or maybe it's "local" in the sense that there are things which are not consciousness. Actually, I don't think the dichotomy of local and non-local you've introduced here makes a lot of sense in this context. It's better to stick with finite and infinite.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Bobo »

David Quinn wrote: A crude example is the truth that things like married bachelors and square circles can never arise in the world.
I suppose you mean that a married bachelor is an impossibility, and an impossibility can never arise in the world. From dictionary something impossible is "a : incapable of being or of occurring"... can't arise in the world. A=A I suppose. Doesn't it follow that as a impossibility can only appear as label to the mind but not in the world, your absolute truth can only appear in the mind but not in the world.
David Quinn wrote:It isn't something which is merely true in somes places and not others. It isn't contigent upon the arisal of a particular set of circumstances, or the appearance of particular empirical evidence, or the adoption of a particular perspective, or the consensus of a particular number of people. It is necessarily true for all circumstances, perspectives, and people.
From what I know about marriage it makes me think that it is contigent, empirical, consensual. What do you mean with married bachelor to make it an impossibility? Doesn't it depends on 'empirical' marriage?
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

jupiviv:
I didn't say "people are conscious". I said that conscious beings necessarily have experiences, and that is an absolute truth. 1+1=2 is another absolute truth. These are "simple" examples, sure, and I can give you far more complex, deep-sounding examples...but these examples are enough to understand the point I'm making.

Carmel:
I've seen these and other "crude" examples, such as a circle isn't a square many times. This sort of rudimentary trivia is of no interest to me, but if you want to give some "deep sounding" examples, go for it.

jupiviv:
You have to mention which question and which answer. I can't be bothered with finding it out in such a big thread. Besides my question was directed to you, so it's only proper that you should answer me directly. I don't know why you are refusing to simply post the answer, instead of diminishing my reading comprehension.

Carmel:
Let it ride, jup, let it ride... :)
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Consciousness is definitely local, being a product of neural activity.
I wouldn't say it's "local", because then what is being conscious of the fact that consciousness is a product of neural activity and where is that located? Or maybe it's "local" in the sense that there are things which are not consciousness. Actually, I don't think the dichotomy of local and non-local you've introduced here makes a lot of sense in this context. It's better to stick with finite and infinite.
It's local in the sense that one is only conscious of the tiny portion of Nature that is detected by one's senses.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

Bobo wrote:
David Quinn wrote: A crude example is the truth that things like married bachelors and square circles can never arise in the world.
I suppose you mean that a married bachelor is an impossibility, and an impossibility can never arise in the world. From dictionary something impossible is "a : incapable of being or of occurring"... can't arise in the world. A=A I suppose. Doesn't it follow that as a impossibility can only appear as label to the mind but not in the world, your absolute truth can only appear in the mind but not in the world.

The understanding of absolute truth can only appear in the mind, while the absolute truth itself necessarily applies everywhere.

Do you see the distinction?

For example, in this case, the understanding that married bachelors are logically impossible is a phenomenon that occurs in the mind, while the truth that it is impossible for married bachelors to arise anywhere is something that necessarily applies everywhere.

Bobo wrote:
David Quinn wrote:It isn't something which is merely true in somes places and not others. It isn't contigent upon the arisal of a particular set of circumstances, or the appearance of particular empirical evidence, or the adoption of a particular perspective, or the consensus of a particular number of people. It is necessarily true for all circumstances, perspectives, and people.
From what I know about marriage it makes me think that it is contigent, empirical, consensual. What do you mean with married bachelor to make it an impossibility? Doesn't it depends on 'empirical' marriage?
No, it depends on our definitions of these terms. If we define a bachelor to be an unmarried man, then a married bachelor automatically becomes a self-contradiction and therefore an impossibility. The fact that marriage itself is contingent and empirical doesn't come into it.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

Carmel wrote:David:
Can you repost what I actually said, as I can't recall making any comments like that. It does sound like you have misunderstood my views on logical certainty and faith.

Carmel:
ok, I found the quote I had in mind, but you're right, it really wasn't analogous to the issue at hand...my apologies for misrepresenting your position, it most definitely wasn't intentional.

No problem.

-
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Consciousness is definitely local, being a product of neural activity.
I wouldn't say it's "local", because then what is being conscious of the fact that consciousness is a product of neural activity and where is that located? Or maybe it's "local" in the sense that there are things which are not consciousness. Actually, I don't think the dichotomy of local and non-local you've introduced here makes a lot of sense in this context. It's better to stick with finite and infinite.
It's local in the sense that one is only conscious of the tiny portion of Nature that is detected by one's senses.

-

It is possible to be conscious of more than sensory data. A fully conscious being must be conscious of everything else except itself, by definition.
Last edited by jupiviv on Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by jupiviv »

Carmel wrote:
jupiviv wrote:I didn't say "people are conscious". I said that conscious beings necessarily have experiences, and that is an absolute truth. 1+1=2 is another absolute truth. These are "simple" examples, sure, and I can give you far more complex, deep-sounding examples...but these examples are enough to understand the point I'm making.
I've seen these and other "crude" examples, such as a circle isn't a square many times.

...and you are evidently too stupid to understand them. But don't fret - there is always the warm, assuaging, and even subtly erotic voice of a theoretical physicist talking on the radio to make you feel good about yourself.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Bobo »

David Quinn wrote: The understanding of absolute truth can only appear in the mind, while the absolute truth itself necessarily applies everywhere.
Do you see the distinction?
Yes. And a thing (truth) can only appear in contrast with another something. I will make of an 'impossibility can never arise in the world' into 'nothing can't be something'. What is not 'nothing can't be something' so it can arise. If every something affirms this, it doesn't contrast and doesn't exist.
David Quinn wrote:For example, in this case, the understanding that married bachelors are logically impossible is a phenomenon that occurs in the mind, while the truth that it is impossible for married bachelors to arise anywhere is something that necessarily applies everywhere.
Instead of taking 'nothing can't be something' as a truth I will break it down to:
Nothing can't be 'that which is not nothing' (something). > If you have another definition of something tell me.
Nothing is not 'not nothing', or nothing is nothing, or something is something. A=A.
A married bachelor (as impossibility) is not something.
So nothing=nothing. A=A. Is nothing an A? Does A need to be something?
Since nothing is not something it doesn't exist in the world. As your absolute concerning nothing.
The truth that 'nothing can't never arise' is affirmed by the definition of something (as that which is not nothing). Since every something affirms this it would need something other than something for it to exist. Or better, if 'something is something' is an absolute, pretty much anything is an absolute.
Bobo wrote:
jupiviv wrote:I'm not even talking about them. I'm talking about absolute truths, which are truths that hold true for all of time and space. Eg.- the truth that if something is conscious, it must be having experiences. This must be true for any conscious being at any point in space or time. Even so called "local" truths are absolute, provided we define them in the correct way.
If a truth is not dependent on the locality of neurological process, it is still dependent on the locality of itself. Like "the truth... must be true for any conscious being at any point in space or time" does not "hold true for all of time and space" because it discriminates between conscious and unconscious beings in time and space. Unless you meant "hold true for any of time and space".
David Quinn wrote:
jupiviv:
Absolute knowledge, by definition, is knowledge that holds true for all of time and for all things that exist - so it can't be local. Local knowledge proceeds from absolute knowledge, and is a facet of it.

Carmel:
You're wrong. It's local. It is a by-product of your neurological and physiological processes. To say it is non local requires a leap of faith. This is where philosophy ends and religion begins. That you don't understand this, demonstrates a serious lack of critical thought on your part.
Jupiviv is right, actually. Absolute knowledge is indeed defined to be knowledge that is necessarily true in all times and places. It isn't something which is merely true in somes places and not others. It isn't contigent upon the arisal of a particular set of circumstances, or the appearance of particular empirical evidence, or the adoption of a particular perspective, or the consensus of a particular number of people. It is necessarily true for all circumstances, perspectives, and people. It is a form of knowledge that cannot be falsified under any circumstances whatsoever.

A crude example is the truth that things like married bachelors and square circles can never arise in the world.
Your example was better indeed. But it was not local because nothing, being not something, can't be local.
David Quinn wrote:No, it depends on our definitions of these terms. If we define a bachelor to be an unmarried man, then a married bachelor automatically becomes a self-contradiction and therefore an impossibility. The fact that marriage itself is contingent and empirical doesn't come into it.
But when does one becomes a married man? Automatically when you sign some paper? When you do some ritual? A legal self-contradiction is a legal impossibility but can happen in the world.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

Bobo wrote:
David Quinn wrote:For example, in this case, the understanding that married bachelors are logically impossible is a phenomenon that occurs in the mind, while the truth that it is impossible for married bachelors to arise anywhere is something that necessarily applies everywhere.
Instead of taking 'nothing can't be something' as a truth I will break it down to:
Nothing can't be 'that which is not nothing' (something). > If you have another definition of something tell me.
Nothing is not 'not nothing', or nothing is nothing, or something is something. A=A.
A married bachelor (as impossibility) is not something.
So nothing=nothing. A=A. Is nothing an A? Does A need to be something?
Since nothing is not something it doesn't exist in the world. As your absolute concerning nothing.
The truth that 'nothing can't never arise' is affirmed by the definition of something (as that which is not nothing). Since every something affirms this it would need something other than something for it to exist. Or better, if 'something is something' is an absolute, pretty much anything is an absolute.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.

Eliminating from the mind all belief in logical impossibilities is the essence of wisdom. For example, the belief that things can objectively exit.

It is definitely more than nothing. The "something" that is left over from the elimination of all these "nothings" is reality.

Bobo wrote:
David Quinn wrote:No, it depends on our definitions of these terms. If we define a bachelor to be an unmarried man, then a married bachelor automatically becomes a self-contradiction and therefore an impossibility. The fact that marriage itself is contingent and empirical doesn't come into it.
But when does one becomes a married man? Automatically when you sign some paper? When you do some ritual?
It doesn't matter what we decide marriage to be, or where we choose to define its boundaries, the fact still remains that one cannot be married and unmarried at the same time.

A legal self-contradiction is a legal impossibility but can happen in the world.
In what way?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote: It's local in the sense that one is only conscious of the tiny portion of Nature that is detected by one's senses.
It is possible to be conscious of more than sensory data.

It depends on what we mean by the "senses". If we simply mean the five senses of touch, smell, etc, then yes, we can indeed be aware of more than sensory data. But if we include in the definition of the senses all neural activity, thus bringing into play the inner experience of emotions, intuitions and thoughts, then no. We can't jump outside our own neural net and experience what lies beyond. Not even Buddhas can do this.

A fully conscious being must be conscious of everything else except itself, by definition.
A fully conscious being is simply one who is fully conscious of reality, which includes the reality that his own consciousness is necessarily limited when it comes to being aware of all the little details in the world.

-
Locked