What is Logic?

[Sapius]

Change only exists relative to an observer. If there is no observer, then there is no change. Instead, there is only an undivided continuum beyond perception, beyond time.

Cory, could you please define ‘observer’, ‘observation’ and ‘perception’?

[Sapius]

You know what I mean.

Yes I do; catch you later.

[Cory Duchesne]

Change only exists relative to an observer. If there is no observer, then there is no change. Instead, there is only an undivided continuum beyond perception, beyond time.

Cory, could you please define ‘observer’, ‘observation’ and ‘perception’?

Observer: a unit that has a memory of distinctions perceived.

Observation: sensory detection of distinction that is remembered

Perception is synonymous with Observation

[Sapius]

Change only exists relative to an observer. If there is no observer, then there is no change. Instead, there is only an undivided continuum beyond perception, beyond time.

Cory, could you please define ‘observer’, ‘observation’ and ‘perception’?

Observer: a unit that has a memory of distinctions perceived.

Observation: sensory detection of distinction that is remembered

Perception is synonymous with Observation

And how do you define 'memory'?

[Cory Duchesne]

And how do you define 'memory'?

Memory is the sense of there being a past that exists in contrast to a present and anticipated future.

[Sapius]

Thanks,Cory.

I take it by ‘continuum’ you mean - a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees. (Webster). Or do you define that differently.

[Cory Duchesne]

Thanks,Cory.

I take it by ‘continuum’ you mean - a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees. (Webster). Or do you define that differently.

How about an unfathomable whole?

[Sapius]

Thanks,Cory.

I take it by ‘continuum’ you mean - a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees. (Webster). Or do you define that differently.

How about an unfathomable whole?

I don’t know…

By that you mean immeasurable, or impossible to comprehend?

If immeasurable, then fine, but what has that then got to do with ‘undivided’? How does immeasurability make it a whole or undivided? One can’t measure it any ways, so what makes it a “whole” or undivided? It could well be an unfathomable infinity of individual but related, interconnected and interactive things.

Not unless one looks at it from an “external” perspective as a “WHOLE”, can one talk about it as being undivided, where essentially there seems to be no “external” to begin with, (philosophically speaking), so absolutely any characteristics one uses to describe IT (the unfathomable whole) from that “external” perspective, would be illogical, for that would necessarily wouldn't be a THING at all, hence by definition lacks description; but it seems one simply imagines this Ultimate “boundary” to an “unfathomable whole” to justify ones view of “undivided-ness”.

Any ways, leaving my ranting aside; what exactly is it that points to an “undivided” – “continuum”, even in the absence of an observer?

And I don’t think you meant ‘impossible to comprehend’, because apparently you already do.

[Cory Duchesne]

If immeasurable, then fine, but what has that then got to do with ‘undivided’?

We say undivided because a particular thing is always the expression of other things. No thing can exist separately. It's always connected.

How does immeasurability make it a whole or undivided?

It isn't immeasurability that makes it such.

One can’t measure it any ways, so what makes it a “whole” or undivided?

One thing is always the expression of other things. E.G., water is the expression of the right temperature, elements, etc.

what exactly is it that points to an “undivided” – “continuum”, even in the absence of an observer?

We can't have exact or complete knowledge of what 'it' is that reasons about the totality.

If an observer is absent, then 'a thing' is impossible.

[sagerage]

Cory Duchesne,

If you were to subtract the factor "Socrates as mortal man" from the equation, then the occurrence of death would be impossible. Therefore, the fact that 'Socrates is a mortal man' is one of many causes contributing to his death.

Well, when you say: "Socrates is a mortal man", then that is correct, however, I don't see how that contributed to his death. There is no "cause of death" in that statement. Mortal means that man is susceptible to dying of a cause, but not dying because they can die. For example:

Being mortal is like an unclosed cup filled with water. The water in the cup represents life and the emptying of that cup represents death. Now, lets say something happens and the cup flips over and spills (death). Was the cause of this spillage due to the cup being unsecured (opened), or was it caused by whatever made the cup empty its contents?

Mortal - means that death is inescapable, but I don't see how it's a cause of death. It's more like an open door to death. The cause is whatever creeps through that door.

You can say the poison wasn't agreeable with his biology, but it's also correct to say that the poison killed him because he was a man, rather than some other creature or object that might be impervious to poison.

Man is not the cause of death - the poison and its interaction within the man is part of the cause.

Also, another man might have lived after drinking the same amount of that same poison. So, would it be OK to say that the poison didn't kill him because he was a man (see, it doesn't sound right).

Your intro...

Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.

In other words: Socrates is mortal, because he is a man (right?)

Man=mortal, so, by being a man, he will eventually die from a cause in question (I have a problem with the word "caused" - for instance - An apple is caused to rot, because it is a fruit.).

Change only exists relative to an observer. If there is no observer, then there is no change.

If there was no change then there wouldn't be an observer.

[Sapius]

Cory;

We say undivided because a particular thing is always the expression of other things. No thing can exist separately. It's always connected.

Don’t you see a leap on faith in there? Yes, no causally created individual thing is actually separate, and is causally connected to ONE – ANOTHER, but they still remain as THEY are however; as and according to causal conditions. The moment one says that connectivity makes all things ‘undivided’, that necessarily implies a WHOLE.

In my opinion, a particular thing being the expression of all that it is not, does not in any way remove the boundary (dividedness) between the all and what it is. Or does it?

One thing is always the expression of other things. E.G., water is the expression of the right temperature, elements, etc

Sure, but how does that make that ONE thing the same as the other things, even if you consider that they ALL are merely expression of some ONE UNIQUE…. what exactly? Totality, Tao, God, as I understand, cannot bloody well express any thing at all since it is said not to be a thing at all.

When you say water, you don’t mean temperature, and when you say temperature you don’t mean elements, and when you say elements, you don’t mean water; do you? They remain exactly what you mean by them.

We can't have exact or complete knowledge of what 'it' is that reasons about the totality.

As far as I am concerned, if one removes the factor of an individual thinking entity, reasoning cannot happen. So what “complete” knowledge are you talking about? I think in that one is essentially running after self-created ghosts.

If an observer is absent, then 'a thing' is impossible.

And yet you say you don’t know how reasoning comes about. Your particular Self is very real indeed; I find it foolish to go looking for some thing more “real” beyond that. Once you really know that the Self is Real, everything that once had doubts, becomes Real indeed.

[Sapius]

Sagerage, in case you are following this; my responses to Cory are essentially also relative to your thinking…

It's ALL nature (do you agree?).

Sure, why not, but IT is not a thing in and of its-self, and so is causality for that matter. So I don't give "it" any higher degree of importance than say a grain of sand. I am not awestruck by that word.

The "casually interactive parts" of which you speak of is what I mean by the flow of nature (like a river - constant change, causation etc). It's just when I think of parts, I think of separation, which cause and effect is not. Instead, it's all connected to one another in many different ways. It's sorta like trying to figure out the parts of a flowing river and how each molecule reacts with the next. You know what I mean.

In essence, what I am saying is that there isn’t a RIVER at all, unless one superimposes his earth-bound logical reasoning, that ultimately there MUST be a “whole” river, since we are used to adding up things abstractly. Existence is already necessarily divided, (A=A), otherwise even consciousness cannot be, and abstraction can add-up the already divided, or further sub-divide a relative whole. Ultimately there can’t be a WHOLE (River), only just the flow. I know it is quite hard to even imagine.

[sagerage]

Sapius,

Sagerage, in case you are following this; my responses to Cory are essentially also relative to your thinking…

Yeah, it gets a little tough to understand at times.

Sure, why not, but IT is not a thing in and of its-self, and so is causality for that matter. So I don't give "it" any higher degree of importance than say a grain of sand. I am not awestruck by that word.

How about, "it", being "consciousness" (the "I" in I, or the "you" in you - and that's not limited to only a sense of the self - it's EVERYTHING (our consciousness as a whole): every thought, feeling, observation that we've ever experienced). Moreover, consciousness is created by nature's ever so changing causal interactions. I'm a being that arose from the flow. The flow arose in myself, the I. It is a part of me. If there was no I, then there would not be you or anything for that matter (Or would there?). Am I a God, which created everything. Or am I a part of God (nature), which was created within nature. There's no "outside" (external world), yet, observation influences our thinking to think otherwise. For instance:

My grandmother was another being, such as myself and also a part of myself, but also much separated, as another entity. My perception tells me that she was another consciousness, much like myself, within this nature (MY perceived nature of my own creation - "I" created by that creation). She died, yet nature exists, but not for her. Similarly, when I die, nature will also go on, for I am, all, but a part of the flow of interconnected causal processes (things) ...ALL THIS, within myself, yet strangely separated and part of something...

In essence, what I am saying is that there isn’t a RIVER at all, unless one superimposes his earth-bound logical reasoning, that ultimately there MUST be a “whole” river, since we are used to adding up things abstractly. Existence is already necessarily divided, (A=A), otherwise even consciousness cannot be, and abstraction can add-up the already divided, or further sub-divide a relative whole. Ultimately there can’t be a WHOLE (River), only just the flow. I know it is quite hard to even imagine.

River was just a metaphor for life and the flow - the continuity of that life. When we look at a river we don't see the whole, there is no whole, it's just constant change.

Btw, if we take a picture of the flow of water, would you consider it to be whole in the moment and within the framework that the picture allows? (I'm using some weird thinking process...Sorry)

What is meant by whole or totality?

[Cory Duchesne]

Mortal means that man is susceptible to dying of a cause. Being mortal is like an unclosed cup filled with water. The water in the cup represents life and the emptying of that cup represents death. Now, lets say something happens and the cup flips over and spills (death). Was the cause of this spillage due to the cup being unsecured (opened), or was it caused by whatever made the cup empty its contents?

There are multiple causes. The fact that the cup has an opening for spilling to take place is one of the causes contributing to the spillage. The spill is caused by whatever knocked the cup over, but the spill is also caused by the opening of the cup. That's why baby's are given cups whose tops are covered with a little spout to suck from, or conversely, that's why a soldier might be given a bullet proof helmet.

Mortal - means that death is inescapable, but I don't see how it's a cause of death. It's more like an open door to death. The cause is whatever creeps through that door.

One's mortality is definitely a cause of death. That's why a police officer might where a bullet proof vest, to cover over those areas that might cause death if struck by bullets.

Man is not the cause of death - the poison and its interaction within the man is part of the cause.

A man's mortality is caused (in part) by certain vulnerable areas of his body. These areas can cause death if punctured, impaled, etc.

Also, another man might have lived after drinking the same amount of that same poison. So, would it be OK to say that the poison didn't kill him because he was a man (see, it doesn't sound right).

The poison didn't kill him because he was a man of a different constitution. Simply being a particular constitution can either be the cause of your death or the cause of your life.

CD: Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.

SageRage: In other words: Socrates is mortal, because he is a man (right?)

Hey, not so fast. You omitted one of the premises: All men are mortal. But I'll concede, those two premises are not enough to constitute a very certain conclusion.

Man=mortal, so, by being a man, he will eventually die from a cause in question (I have a problem with the word "caused" - for instance - An apple is caused to rot, because it is a fruit.)

Yes, and Socrates is caused to die, because he is a mortal man. (among many other causes)

[Sapius]

Sagerage, I don’t mean to ignore you in any way, but I think you better give it some time and read the link I mentioned in the ‘mind and matter’ thread. Once you have some basic background, most of what is discussed here will be quite easy to follow.

[Cory Duchesne]

We say undivided because a particular thing is always the expression of other things. No thing can exist separately. It's always connected.

Don’t you see a leap on faith in there? Yes, no causally created individual thing is actually separate, and is causally connected to ONE – ANOTHER, but they still remain as THEY are however; as and according to causal conditions.

I'm not sure what you mean. The way a thing presents itself has everything to do with the nature of the mind which perceives it. The same object can look vastly different depending on the kind of mind that is looking.

In my opinion, a particular thing being the expression of all that it is not, does not in any way remove the boundary (dividedness) between the all and what it is. Or does it?

Boundaries are created by the mind. If you remove the mind, then there cannot be boundaries.

CD: One thing is always the expression of other things. E.G., water is the expression of the right temperature, elements, etc

Sapius: Sure, but how does that make that ONE thing the same as the other things

All things have infinite roots.

even if you consider that they ALL are merely expression of some ONE UNIQUE…. what exactly?

Empirically, it is beyond human comprehension. But there are things we can say about it. E.G., it's not subject to time, change, form, etc.

Totality, Tao, God, as I understand, cannot bloody well express any thing at all since it is said not to be a thing at all.

Just because God isn't a thing, doesn't mean it's nothing.

C: If an observer is absent, then 'a thing' is impossible.

S: And yet you say you don’t know how reasoning comes about.

Given the reasoner has infinite roots, how could I know?

[ataxas]

Now, given that everything has a beginning, and so is an effect, would it not be reasonable to say that its causes must be continuously present, so long as the thing (effect) persists?

No.

Let us say that one of my parents dies. By your words, this event must have a mortal effect on my person, and on my children, if I have them.

As it is not commonplace for entire chains of deaths to occur when a patriarch expires, and as there exists a thriving business regarding mortal Wills, I conclude that this is not the case, and a cause may sometimes simply cause an effect for the effect to persist.

[Sapius]

Cory;

S: Yes, no causally created individual thing is actually separate, and is causally connected to ONE – ANOTHER, but they still remain as THEY are however; as and according to causal conditions.

C: I'm not sure what you mean.

Heheheeee… you have learnt well my friend; how to lead a discussions away from the issue at hand by saying “I’m not sure what you mean”. Actually Kevin holds the patent to that quote, but I believe he might have licensed it to you.

However, I meant exactly what I said. Do you agree or disagree, is the question.

Overall, if you haven’t noticed, I’m saying the opposite of what you are claiming. That existence is not ‘undivided’ and I am showing you how, and that the ‘undivided’ is a leap of faith and wishful thinking rather than logical deduction.

Boundaries are created by the mind. If you remove the mind, then there cannot be a boundaries.

Really? Tell that to the guy who sledgehammers your skull from behind. Or hopefully if you do recover, think over how the hell did the mind create a boundary behind the skull.

All things have infinite roots.

May be, and yet for some strange reason thing's are exactly what they are; somehow a coconut tree does not produce bananas. I wonder why? May be that has something to do with divisions?? Some real thinker once said; a rose by any other name would smell as sweet; for example, ba-na-na. Things are exactly what they are, mate, and a lowly "non-philosopher" knew that.

Empirically, it (Totality, Tao, God) is beyond human comprehension. But there are things we can say about it. E.G., it's not subject to time, change, form, etc.

Empirically? I am not asking you to perform a laboratory experiment, am I? If you can say (describe) anything about IT, then IT is a thing by definition. Just like the mind is a thing, a though is a thing. No?

BTW, I'm not talking in any "empirical" terms in the rest of the post either. If you want to go nit picking in that direction, then that would be a different discussion for some other time.

Just because God isn't a thing, doesn't mean it's nothing.

Of course not… IT is a “not nothing whatsoever”; I know. And that I call wishful delusion, for logical reasoning has then left the building. On the other hand, it is not wise to say things you DON"T mean.

S: what exactly is it that points to an “undivided” – “continuum”, even in the absence of an observer?

C: We can't have exact or complete knowledge of what 'it' is that reasons about the totality.
If an observer is absent, then 'a thing' is impossible.

S: And yet you say you don’t know how reasoning comes about.
C: Given the reasoner has infinite roots, how could I know?

Did you say REASONER? Given the fact that you acknowledge there is a reasoner, how do you thing reasoning would be possible without one?

However, it would then logically follow, that you do not know that you are conscious either, because that too entails infinite roots. Well, I can’t argue with beliefs. I give up...

[Cory Duchesne]

Boundaries are created by the mind. If you remove the mind, then there cannot be a boundaries.

Really? Tell that to the guy who sledgehammers your skull from behind.

You aren't really doing a good job of disproving my point, because in that case, there are obviously minds present, and thus there are boundaries experienced.

Or hopefully if you do recover, think over how the hell did the mind create a boundary behind the skull.

The mind extends beyond mere vision. Tactile sensation is a type of perception too you know.

[Sapius]

Cory;

The mind extends beyond mere vision. Tactile sensation is a type of perception too you know.

Sure, but for some unknown reason I blindly believe that it is not the mind that creates sensations, nor the (prerequisite) boundaries that seem necessary for such sensations to occur.

What can I say...

[sagerage]

Cory Duchesne,

sagerage wrote:
Mortal means that man is susceptible to dying of a cause. Being mortal is like an unclosed cup filled with water. The water in the cup represents life and the emptying of that cup represents death. Now, lets say something happens and the cup flips over and spills (death). Was the cause of this spillage due to the cup being unsecured (opened), or was it caused by whatever made the cup empty its contents?


There are multiple causes. The fact that the cup has an opening for spilling to take place is one of the causes contributing to the spillage. The spill is caused by whatever knocked the cup over, but the spill is also caused by the opening of the cup. That's why baby's are given cups whose tops are covered with a little spout to suck from, or conversely, that's why a soldier might be given a bullet proof helmet.

Yeah, there are always multiple causes. However, when a man dies of a heart-attack, we don't start listing all the causes which caused a heart-attack, no. Instead, we simplify and use a word which represents a whole slew of causes which led up to the current situation - the death and the cause of death, was a heart attack.

What you're saying is that the cause of death is life. A person has to be alive to die, yes, but the death is caused by something in life itself, not by life itself. Sure, the opening of the bottle allowed whatever knocked it over to spill its contents, but it's not a cause. Then... EVERYTHING is a cause. Everything is connected in some way, so when one thing happens to another, the cause is everything. We separate things only to understand.

In order to understand, we can't say that a cause of death is mortality. Mortality allows the real cause to take effect and kill. If something wasn't mortal, then it wouldn't die. It's all connected.

What does "cause" mean to you? What if I said, that everything is a cause (would you agree?).

Btw, you will die because you are a man. Part of the cause is life. Fine, it makes sense, but it doesn't tell use anything. It's not specific, in why, death occurred.

One's mortality is definitely a cause of death. That's why a police officer might where a bullet proof vest, to cover over those areas that might cause death if struck by bullets.

Yeah, yeah... I see. HOWEVER (!!!) Answer this: why don't we all just die?

The poison didn't kill him because he was a man of a different constitution. Simply being a particular constitution can either be the cause of your death or the cause of your life.

I can all say (just like you're saying) that he didn't die because he is a man. If he did die, I can say: he died because he is a man...But you see, that doesn't tell use anything. So, it can be interpreted as a non-cause.

Hey, not so fast. You omitted one of the premises: All men are mortal. But I'll concede, those two premises are not enough to constitute a very certain conclusion.

So, we're both right.

Yes, and Socrates is caused to die, because he is a mortal man. (among many other causes)

It's part of the cause, but it's not the reason, why. It's part a the reason. If there was no other reason, then man would be immortal. Therefore it can't be seen as a cause, cause.

[sagerage]

Cory Duchesne,

You aren't really doing a good job of disproving my point, because in that case, there are obviously minds present, and thus there are boundaries experienced.

If there were no minds, then there'd be nothing. How is that possible? How can the mind arise from nothing? Maybe, it always was...

I can see what you're saying (I think) and I don't think that anyone can disprove, anything which you say, because it's logically consistent (I think) and using logic is the only means of disproving something. So, it's kinda like fighting fire with fire... It can't be done.

[Sapius]

Cory Duchesne,

You aren't really doing a good job of disproving my point, because in that case, there are obviously minds present, and thus there are boundaries experienced.

If there were no minds, then there'd be nothing. How is that possible? How can the mind arise from nothing? Maybe, it always was...

I can see what you're saying (I think) and I don't think that anyone can disprove, anything which you say, because it's logically consistent (I think) and using logic is the only means of disproving something. So, it's kinda like fighting fire with fire... It can't be done.

I don’t know about the ‘mind always was’ part… but you are right that only logic (sound reasoning) can disprove something, but then again, since there is no other option, it is logic that should prove a point, not an unfounded claim, like…

Cory: We say undivided because a particular thing is always the expression of other things. No thing can exist separately. It's always connected.

"We say" does not logically suppore a claim, does it? That's more of a misuse of the word 'undivided'; by definition if I may add. I simply want to understand since I'm not one of the 'we'.

I have yet so see some sound reasoning that makes causal connectivity of different things, (things, that are necessarily not one and the same thing, by definition, and necessarily remain different however, unless consciousness is not), somehow an undivided whole at some level, or as Cory mentioned… unfathomable whole. ‘No thing can exist separately’, in no way logically suggests that they are undivided. “Undivided” seems to be nothing more than adding an extra poetical expression, to justify another poetical expression, God.

Unless and until one does not imagine a boundary to Totality, (literally all that there is) which cannot have a boundary by definition, (and I take it that Cory is well aware of that), one cannot apply any characteristics, including that of ‘undivided’. Well, not logically at least; wishfully, yes.

If no mind (or no consciousness), then nothing is, (agreed?). Now as long as consciousness is, divided-ness is, because without the discriminatory divided-ness, consciousness can’t be. So, as long as consciousness is, undivided-ness is not, except imagined, and if and when consciousness (or mind) is not, then nothing is, (remember?), so then neither the divided nor undivided is. So either way, undivided is not.

I’m simply asking to show the possible reasonable necessity of Totality being undivided according to some “whole” level.

[divine focus]

Now as long as consciousness is, divided-ness is, because without the discriminatory divided-ness, consciousness can’t be.

How's this? You can be conscious of yourself without discriminating between different aspects of yourself. Even when you discriminate, are your aspects divided? Is your hand separate from your foot? The discrimination is only for functional understanding.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sagerage,

There are multiple causes. The fact that the cup has an opening for spilling to take place is one of the causes contributing to the spillage. The spill is caused by whatever knocked the cup over, but the spill is also caused by the opening of the cup. That's why baby's are given cups whose tops are covered with a little spout to suck from, or conversely, that's why a soldier might be given a bullet proof helmet.

Yeah, there are always multiple causes. However, when a man dies of a heart-attack, we don't start listing all the causes which caused a heart-attack, no. Instead, we simplify and use a word which represents a whole slew of causes which led up to the current situation - the death and the cause of death, was a heart attack.

What you're saying is that the cause of death is life. A person has to be alive to die, yes, but the death is caused by something in life itself, not by life itself. Sure, the opening of the bottle allowed whatever knocked it over to spill its contents, but it's not a cause. Then... EVERYTHING is a cause. Everything is connected in some way, so when one thing happens to another, the cause is everything. We separate things only to understand.

Yes, that's right.

Also, remember, the aim of my initial opening post was to say something meaningful about logic.

In order to understand, we can't say that a cause of death is mortality. Mortality allows the real cause to take effect and kill. If something wasn't mortal, then it wouldn't die.

If something wasn't mortal then it wouldn't be caused to die.

What does "cause" mean to you? What if I said, that everything is a cause (would you agree?).

There's two ways of viewing that appear to be contradictory, but both are correct:

On the one hand each form is caused by every other contrasting form.

On the other hand, everything is and has always been without cause.

Btw, you will die because you are a man. Part of the cause is life. Fine, it makes sense, but it doesn't tell use anything.

It helps us understand logic. But I agree, if a doctor is trying to figure out what's wrong with a patient, it isn't sensible to focus on the fact that the patient is 'a mortal man', instead the doctor should gather facts such as: does the patient have inflammations, high blood pressure, insomnia, poor diet, etc.

One's mortality is definitely a cause of death. That's why a police officer might where a bullet proof vest, to cover over those areas that might cause death if struck by bullets.

Yeah, yeah... I see. HOWEVER (!!!) Answer this: why don't we all just die?

Because there are multiple causes contributing to death that, hitherto, haven't been fulfilled.

SR: I can all say (just like you're saying) that he didn't die because he is a man. If he did die, I can say: he died because he is a man...But you see, that doesn't tell use anything. So, it can be interpreted as a non-cause.

CD: Hey, not so fast. You omitted one of the premises: All men are mortal. But I'll concede, those two premises are not enough to constitute a very certain conclusion.

SR: So, we're both right.

You're right that multiple causes are necessary for death to occur. And I'm correct to say that life is the cause of death, and death is the cause of life.

Sage: If there were no minds, then there'd be nothing.

If there are no minds, then 'appearance' is impossible. The mind filters out some and detects others creating things. Without a mind, this process of filtering out and creating is impossible.

How is that possible? How can the mind arise from nothing? Maybe, it always was...

There is no such thing as nothing, or nothingness. But when there is no mind present, a thing is impossible.