The Reasoning Show - Miscellaneous Discussion

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
Locked
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Post by vicdan »

Yes, but it's 360.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

vicdan wrote:Yes, but it's 360.
I knew that... but somehow my brain was still back on lines. So the idea is that if you have eliptical space lines will never intersect, but if you have hyperbolic space they'll always intersect?
-Katy
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Post by vicdan »

It's the other way around. In elliptic geometry, lines will always intersect with their parallels. but in hyperbolic geometry, they don't have to, even if they are going through the same point off the other line.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

vicdan wrote:It's the other way around. In elliptic geometry, lines will always intersect with their parallels. but in hyperbolic geometry, they don't have to, even if they are going through the same point off the other line.
How do you define paralell lines?

And how do you not intersect through the same point? "bending" ?
-Katy
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Post by Unidian »

Yeah, I was wondering that myself. Wouldn't the traditional definition of "parallel" lose some of its meaning outside the Euclidean context?

BTW, this is reminding me of H.P. Lovecraft. Cthulhu is about to rise from some "impossible landscape..."
I live in a tub.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

.
Nat: Yes, I mention this in the show. I acknowledge that a certain understanding is required to get beyond the need to understand. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough. Speaking is not my forte.
Although I understand what you mean, it is not clear enough as yet. I would say something like this…

“I acknowledge that certain understanding’s are required to realize, that there is nothing to actually understand, or realize”.
Thanks for the good discussion.
My pleasure knowing you.

---------
Victor: The other question, of course, is that the very act of seeking absolute truths in human experience, despite the evident unreachability of anything of the sort, is an act of folly, and worse, deep-seated emotional immaturity, the grasping for the ultimate security blanket.

Life is the endless ocean of being. Both those who seek an immovable rock of certainty in the middle of the ocean, and those who despair of having any stability and coherence at all amidst the waves, are fools -- the latter being the same as the former, but after having given up on finding the aforementioned immovable rock.

Instead of being the objectivist fool or the relativist fool, you should ride the waves. Preferably on a surfboard.

Nat: This is an extremely Taoist statement, regardless of its source.
Could be, but that depends on how one looks at it, from his point of view that is, though that does not really matter.

I wanted to touch on what Victor said in somewhat of a similar manner that you point to, but it was rather late for me last night.

In essence, this particular post of Victor to me sounds totally philosophical to me, in the sense that I would consider it a philosophical equivalent to; I really know nothing; which is good enough for me.

This to me encompasses the essence of Victor. So the road to Damascus (Realization) does not really matter, for all roads could eventually lead there, and of course, one could always fly in.

In my opinion, the foundation is logic itself, and the different roads are uniquely individual reasoning’s.
David: The trouble is, both you and Victor are making these assertions on the basis of a rock-solid belief in an absolute certainty - e.g. "life is an endless ocean of being", "relative and absolute are meaningless distinctions", and so on. But you're both trying to pretend this isn't happening.
Well, all don’t have the same eyes that you or I may have, neither do we have theirs, but it is absolutely possible that irrelevant of how you or I may look at them, they may be essentially in the same boat.
David: One of the main differences between you and Victor, on the one hand, and Kevin, Dan and myself on the other, is that we are conscious of this and openly work with it. "Riding the waves on a surfboard" is just a pretty euphemism for settling into a passive, unconscious mode of existence.
They need not necessarily be what I may perceive them to be ; through just their words, and MY interpretations.
David: There is something seriously wrong if you (Nat) and Victor are in agreement in these matters, considering that he knows nothing beyond the empirical mentality. I would be deeply concerned at this, if I was in your shoes.
But the fact is, you are not in his shoes, nor can you ever be; and your concern of what he should be concerned about, shouldn't really be a concern to you.

All walk their own unique roads.

Time for me to go on my trip; But, I'll be back :D
---------
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Post by Unidian »

Sapius,
“I acknowledge that certain understanding’s are required to realize, that there is nothing to actually understand, or realize”.
Okay, fair enough, and I would certainly acknowledge that, although I find it a bit odd that someone who keeps insisting that the particular choice of words and expressions used doesn't matter much is being so picky about having me recite a certain pre-formatted creed. :p

But yeah, in this case, the pre-formatted creed in question happens to be a correct one in my view, and that is what I was trying to get at with the whole "trans-intellectual" bit in the show. Trans-intellectual is not non-intellectual - it doesn't deny the role of the intellect or conceptual understanding as means to an end, it just proposes that we have to let go of these means once they have served their purpose in revealing their own limitations.

In regard to the limitations of conceptual knowledge, it's basically a question of epistemology over ontology, which is why there's a certain connection between the two shows (Victor's and mine) for those able to see it.

Enjoy your trip. :)
I live in a tub.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

.
Okay, fair enough, and I would certainly acknowledge that, although I find it a bit odd that someone who keeps insisting that the particular choice of words and expressions used doesn't matter much is being so picky about having me recite a certain pre-formatted creed. :p
Hehehe…. Could existence be any more interesting, if it were not for words? ;p
Enjoy your trip. :)
Thanks, I will, Nat; in my own way :)
---------
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Victor wrote:
DQ: Nat, The trouble is, both you and Victor are making these assertions on the basis of a rock-solid belief in an absolute certainty - e.g. "life is an endless ocean of being", "relative and absolute are meaningless distinctions", and so on. But you're both trying to pretend this isn't happening.

V: I guess you simply don't get the deeply contextual nature of reality. You just aren't enlightened enough, David. :D
The contextual nature of reality is an example of a "certainty" which you mentally hang your hat upon.

It isn't enough to simply recognize the contextual nature of reality - that is an easy thing to understand. One also needs to recognize the absoluteness of this particular piece of knowledge and use it to discover even greater absolute truths.

The deepest absolute knowledge of life springs from the truths of relativity and contextuality.

DQ: The human mind always operates, without exception, on a platform of what it believes is absolutely certain and true in life. This occurs in all situations, even if the person involved is in denial of it. The mind cannot function in any other manner.

Victor: prove it, David. Don't just assert it -- prove how we must possess absolute certainty in order to function.
Our fundamental perception of the world shapes everything that we experience, think and decide. It is like a base platform which channels how we interpret everything.

As for the core proof that the mind always holds up something as being "absolutely true", this lies in the fact that it is impossible to dismiss the principle of absolute truth without making reference to an absolute truth in the process.

For example, many people try to dismiss absolute truth by making reference to the idea that everything is contextual - an idea which is deemed, during the course of this line of reasoning, to be absolutely true.

Me, I don't feel certain that my computer will still turn on each time I push the power button; but i still push it.
That's an empirical uncertainty which fits in nicely with your absolutist view that everything is contextual, provisional, conditional, etc.

DQ: Nat, there is something seriously wrong if you and Victor are in agreement in these matters, considering that he knows nothing beyond the empirical mentality. I would be deeply concerned at this, if I was in your shoes.

Victor: Hahaha. Talk about missing the point! A perfect case of someone who is concerned only with appearance and posture of understanding -- presumably for narcissistic purposes.
Not at all. My point was that Nat, via a mistaken understanding of Taoism, has reduced himself back down to your level within the empirical mindset. That is why you and he are agreeing with each other in these matters.

It's quite funny, really. His spiritual philosophy, which he has spent many years developing, has taken him to the exact same place as a man who has spent no time at all on spiritual development. That is why I would be disturbed if I was in his shoes. For all his past efforts, he has reached no further than Victorhood.

-
Last edited by David Quinn on Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

I've noticed something rather interesting in the "technique" of the podcast series hosts. It's that they rarely interrupt when a dingbat is off on a flight of playful illogicality, but allow it to experience the unfolding of the ramifications as fully as possible, even to the point that their silence is taken as agreement or the fact of being stunned.

Interrupting and pointing out the folly, while it's still in its seed, is itself folly, because someone who is far more comfortable with being hit over the head by experience, is not at all comfortable with logical thinking. There'd be no point. All they can do is try to use examples from real life, to point to logical truths.

Like space-time bubbles, or rocks.
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Post by vicdan »

David Quinn wrote:The contextual nature of reality is an example of a "certainty" which you mentally hang your hat upon.
But only empirical certainty -- as in, 'as far as I can tell, virtually positive'. You still don't get it, huh?
It isn't enough to simply recognize the contextual nature of reality - that is an easy thing to understand. One also needs to recognize the absoluteness of this particular piece of knowledge and use it to discover even greater absolute truths.
Like Euclid's parallel postulate, I imagine. It's indubitable!
Our fundamental perception of the world shapes everything that we experience, think and decide. It is like a base platform which channels how we interpret everything.

As for the core proof that the mind always holds up something as being "absolutely true", this lies in the fact that it is impossible to dismiss the principle of absolute truth without making reference to an absolute truth in the process.
Of course it's possible. You can simply finitistically undermine each specific claim to absolute truth, as I had done.
It's quite funny, really. His spiritual philosophy, which he has spent many years developing, has taken him to the exact same place as a man who has spent no time at all on spiritual development.
This was what I found so amusing. What you mean is that I have spent no time at on on spiritual matters you approve of. If you were any more myopic, your eyes could serve as a microscope.
That is why I would be disturbed if I was in his shoes. For all his past efforts, he has reached no further than Victorhood.
I am the best Victor I can be! Huah!!!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: My take

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

vicdan wrote:However, even here the problem manifests already -- to be able to say that not-A is different from A, you have to introduce the axiom of non-contradiction (i.e. that A and not-A cannot both be true).
What is the problem you refer to? Why is the introduction of a second axiom somehow undoing the importance of the first one? It's better to say that A=A already implies the axiom of non-contradiction. It follows because if contradiction was possible the A=A axiom would not hold. Non-contradiction has to be the case the moment I introduce A=A.
vicdan wrote:To get even the most basic classical logic, you also need to add in non-contradiction and excluded middle
Again, it's not as much a 'need' to 'add in' anything. It follows automatically. Like if you throw a pebble in the water (introducing identity) the concentric waves (logic, mathematics, science, thought) just follow this event without denying the impact as center of it. This goes even beyond any 'synthetic emperical statement'; it stand beyond all categories and becomes an intuitive truth in the sense there's no way to prove it or disprove without pulling the rug underneath you. Which is one way to define 'absolute truth'.

It seems to me your only real issue is one of function, were can any talk or thought about A=A lead us to apart from what it already did in mathematics, logic at a very abstract level?

bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Post by bert »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
bert wrote:the absolute appears to become other than itself,sufficiently.it is and is not,nor in,nor is it beyond,nor of,me,or anything else : it is 'unbalanced'.

the delusion is contained within A=A
But that is only appearance, which is flawed. The Absolute perpetually is or is not (etc.) what it is or is not (etc.).
.
ok, a year ago I came to a conclusion(on this forum) that unless we accept the fact that we create our Ego from Universal Mind,everything is irrational.
and it is this that you are pointing to,right?

the only capacity of reality we know is Ego,or potential Ego: the premiss that there is related Ego - something like our own that can feel in some manner - has the mental attitude that someyhing is believable and should be accepted as true because all things are parts of a whole: hence,everything has equal significance and an essential and universal interdependence.

what are you going to regard as absolute,then?
are you claiming that I should accept reality as fullness and finality?
what is your position?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

vicdan wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote:For one, you are certain of the appearance of the computer, the fact of its appearance is certain.
And the fact of the facticity of that appearance is certain, and the fact of the facticity of the facticity, etc.

No, the appearance simply is. I experience it.
Yes, that's right, a distinct it. Which leads us to another absolute. An it cannot be acknowledged by consciousness without being contrasted to another it. For instance, it's impossible for consciousness to distinguish light unless that light is contrasted with a darker shade, or complete darkness. Pleasure cannot be distinguished unless there is a contrasting sensation of less pleasure or non-pleasure, or pain. It's impossible, no matter what sort of world consciousness emerges in, for there to be a distinction unless that distinction is in contrast. Without duality there cannot be consciousness. That's an absolute.
victor wrote:
Cory wrote:You can doubt it, but the very act of doubting it implies that you are experiencing the appearance of the computer.
Well of course I am experiencing it. Whatever I experience, that is my experience. What's your point?

That I must be certain that I experience it?


Well, I don't know what or who you are assuming the I to be. The 'I' is just another appearance, one that cannot exist without the conscious sensation of other various distinctions under the category of not-I.

And this is absolutely true. Manifestations as they appear and as are defined by your sense of consciousness are precisely as they appear and are as defined.
Victor wrote: The experiences comprise me


If you mean that your sense of me is dependent on every distinction that defines your experience, then yes, in a sense, you are all that you can experience, as well as even that which you cannot experience. Ultimately no thing can be known in its entirety (empirically speaking), as each thing is merely the face of the infinite. We can merely know various faces, all of which are rooted in the same empirically unknowable totality, extending infinitely.
Victor wrote: you got the relationship between the self and the experience completely wrong

-- you are thinking of the self as a casually disconnected observer, a subject fundamentally distinct from the object;
I don't see any inherently existing self. The self, like any distinction appearing to consciousness, is like an eddy in a stream.

However, the appearance of a thing (such as a computer) is distinct (as an appearance) from everything else that has become known to one's consciousness. It's impossible for a distinction to appear to consciousness unless that appearance is contrasted with other distinctions. Distinctions depend on each other. As for the actuality of what the computer is beyond mere definition and appearance, well, that is empiricially unknowable by consciousness.
Victor wrote: We are all a part of the process, we define it and are defined by it. To speak of being certain of experiencing the experience is a category error.
Ok, so since there are category errors, then what are some examples of the opposite of a category error? For instance, what in your view would be a correct categorization?

Doesn't all categorization rest upon A=A?
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Post by vicdan »

No, all categorization rests on the principle of non-contradiction. A=A is merely a secondary derivation from non-contradiction, the fundamental truth is that a thing is not its own negation -- that ~(A&~A).

In case you haven't guessed, I am rolling my eyes. You people need to get out more, intellectually speaking.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Bert,

To me, a thing absolutely is what it is, each facet of it is absolutely that facet of it, and our perception of it is absolutely our perception - which may or may not match what it really is, or even a facet of what it really is, was, or will be. There is a core reality which people may or may not know, but they can function without knowing.

No, you should not accept reality as fullness and finality because there is no finality to the Infinite, and it is not full, nor empty nor any measure in between. It is complete, but never completed.

All things have relative significance - relative to time and purpose.

All we know is what we can know through our senses, and we have no way of knowing what we can not perceive due to the lack of the proper sense. A deaf person can understand that he is deaf because he receives communication explaining something of the sense he lacks, but if all humans had always been deaf, no one would even have a concept of sound. They would sense some vibrations, but those would be vibrations easily explainable through cause and effect, and they would think that all there was to it was the tactile sensation. If we never had it, we would not miss it. If no one could ever have heard anything, it would not have significantly altered humanity. All that is real would still have been as real, but there would be another dimension that we just wouldn't know about. Similarly, there could be additional senses that we don't have and have no concept of.

I can know that there is water in my mug that looks, tastes, and acts like a substance that some humans have named "water" - but I can't know that I know this due to the limitations of senses. This could all be a long dream by a comatose being - I may not even be human. I could be an alien from outer space in suspended animation after a visit to Earth. This isn't likely based on the reality that I believe i perceive around me, but it isn't totally impossible either. There is knowing, but there is no meta-knowing.

I know the functioning of logic as absolutely true based on my observations of its functionality, but I can't know that I know this is true because I can not prove it without involving the circularity of using logic to prove logic. Logic is, however, what makes things work - so the neither provableness nor unprovability of logic gives it the nondualistic nature of the Infinite. People can still regard it as dualistic (logical vs illogical) because that is how human minds perceive things, but its nondualistic quality reveals logic to be a core aspect of Reality.
.
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Post by bert »

Elizabeth,
To me, a thing absolutely is what it is, each facet of it is absolutely that facet of it, and our perception of it is absolutely our perception - which may or may not match what it really is, or even a facet of what it really is, was, or will be. There is a core reality which people may or may not know, but they can function without knowing.
since I know only my impressions of reality ,felt or seen, I find reality illusive and call it illusion : the shadow misnaming the substance.illusions transfer to into reality and vice-versa.there are illusions that are illusions ;there is an illusionable reality.that reality is make-able.a thing is as real as it is conative.
All things have relative significance - relative to time and purpose.
ok.maybe because our personalities differ from situation to situation.
All we know is what we can know through our senses, and we have no way of knowing what we can not perceive due to the lack of the proper sense. A deaf person can understand that he is deaf because he receives communication explaining something of the sense he lacks, but if all humans had always been deaf, no one would even have a concept of sound. They would sense some vibrations, but those would be vibrations easily explainable through cause and effect, and they would think that all there was to it was the tactile sensation. If we never had it, we would not miss it. If no one could ever have heard anything, it would not have significantly altered humanity. All that is real would still have been as real, but there would be another dimension that we just wouldn't know about. Similarly, there could be additional senses that we don't have and have no concept of.
perception is a rapid chronological succession of impressions ,none of which are accurate or complete but vague and partitive,unfinished or untrue.perception is a buit-up from a multitude of impressions giving a reflection of a thing relating to a particular position.by constant reorientation we can come to an obvious truth or judgement of the whole.
for perception to have a true reflex,a skilled faculty is necessary.
I can know that there is water in my mug that looks, tastes, and acts like a substance that some humans have named "water" - but I can't know that I know this due to the limitations of senses. This could all be a long dream by a comatose being - I may not even be human. I could be an alien from outer space in suspended animation after a visit to Earth. This isn't likely based on the reality that I believe i perceive around me, but it isn't totally impossible either. There is knowing, but there is no meta-knowing.
observation is never perfect,always partitive,leaving out particular states of illusion by 'comparisons',perspective,wishful seeing,and seeing our flabby pre-knowledge of a thing.ideas by impressions,and when they become expriencedfull ,they become affective.thus they awaken correspondence with the intuitional.conative ideas are born with empiricism.

I know the functioning of logic as absolutely true based on my observations of its functionality, but I can't know that I know this is true because I can not prove it without involving the circularity of using logic to prove logic. Logic is, however, what makes things work - so the neither provableness nor unprovability of logic gives it the nondualistic nature of the Infinite. People can still regard it as dualistic (logical vs illogical) because that is how human minds perceive things, but its nondualistic quality reveals logic to be a core aspect of Reality.
lets say I observe a work of art.it would be derivable as:'composition,proportional reality,values'.
the failure of any such a formula is that there are but few one-to-one meanings.thus 'composition' implies 'balance', but not necessarily 'pattern' by an arranged dis-symmetry(composition is essentially asymetrical balance).not only does every word(one-to-one meanings) need qualifications but the whole thing could be transposed and transcribed into other words and terms.whole sets of derivations could be written,more or less as true :'idea','form',and 'composition' would be sufficient - if our words were - and would give a fundamental axiom from which tautology must follow,allowing all very close connection in space or time,correlative, and lifted up as deductive state of being linked together as in a series.
all this bull-shit means is that all forms of mentation adopting 'a form of logic' ,as expression,are a mode or point of view under which an object presents itself to the mind whose rules serve only their own.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Post by Unidian »

David: It's quite funny, really. His spiritual philosophy, which he has spent many years developing, has taken him to the exact same place as a man who has spent no time at all on spiritual development.

Victor: This was what I found so amusing. What you mean is that I have spent no time at on on spiritual matters you approve of. If you were any more myopic, your eyes could serve as a microscope.
Yeah, the presumptuousness of this is too much. Who is David to claim that a given person has spent "no time at all on spiritual development?" I know Victor from way back, and although we often don't get along, I'm aware that he's been involved in spiritual pursuits of a pantheist nature for many years. This kind of sweeping dismissal of another person's spiritual pursuits is a hallmark of religious zeal.

You're behaving like a fundie again, David. It's disappointing.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

vicdan wrote:
Cory wrote: Doesn't all categorization rest upon A=A?
No, all categorization rests on the principle of non-contradiction.
And the principle of non-contradiction is A=A.

Sitting down = sitting down

When I'm sitting down I am not running.

A=A

not A=B
A=A is merely a secondary derivation from non-contradiction, the fundamental truth is that a thing is not its own negation -- that ~(A&~A).
I'm curious, how would you express the law of non-contradiction more effectively and simply than A=A?
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Post by vicdan »

I see you confuse the simplicity of form with the atomicity of substance. :) Bloody good show. Carry on.
User avatar
Philosophaster
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am

Post by Philosophaster »

Cory Duchesne wrote: I'm curious, how would you express the law of non-contradiction more effectively and simply than A=A?
Law of non-contradiction is:

! ( A & !A ) = "It cannot be the case that both A and not-A" (where "A" is some proposition being considered).

A = A does not contain or imply (logically) the law of non-contradiction.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Yes it does. It does so because identity cannot be singular. No thing can exist by itself so identity always necessitates non-contradiction.
User avatar
Philosophaster
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am

Post by Philosophaster »

Yes it does.
No. You can learn all the rules of inference in logic and none of them will enable you to derive "! ( A & !A)" from just "A = A." That makes it an invalid inference, a non-sequitor.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

What I'm saying is there is no such as "just A=A".
User avatar
Philosophaster
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am

Post by Philosophaster »

I guess you can include other logical laws within the expression "A = A" if you wish, but when you encounter anybody who has any familiarity with "academic logic," you might want to specify that you mean something completely different by "A = A."
Locked