Welcome to my intelligence

[Simon]

Kevin, please consider the reasons why I might be confused by the following exchange:

Simon de Complexio wrote:
Given that all I feel I have is my sensory perception, what would you say is the first absolute truth that I should think about?


Kevin: You could start with "Empirical evidence doesn't give us absolute certainty." That is an absolute truth. All other absolute truths are arrived at in the same way that you arrived at this one.

Isn’t this absolute truth derived from empirical evidence? The logic seems circular here!

We assert that it is an absolute truth that empirical evidence doesn’t give us absolute truth, but this truth is derived via empirical evidence! isn’t it?

If not, then what do you call the process that processes absolute truths?

Earlier, I made the distinction between empirical/sense perception and “rational reflection”

Do you agree with these distinctions? Is it an appropriate dichotomy?

[Kevin Solway]

You could start with "Empirical evidence doesn't give us absolute certainty." That is an absolute truth. All other absolute truths are arrived at in the same way that you arrived at this one.

We assert that it is an absolute truth that empirical evidence doesn’t give us absolute truth, but this truth is derived via empirical evidence! isn’t it?

No. This absolute truth is about empirical evidence, but it's not based on empirical evidence.

That is, it doesn't rest on any particular empirical experience being accurate.

The truth does however depend on there being something called "empirical evidence", and there certainly is such a thing if that thing appears to us.

If not, then what do you call the process that processes absolute truths?

Logic.

Earlier, I made the distinction between empirical/sense perception and “rational reflection”

Do you agree with these distinctions? Is it an appropriate dichotomy?

Yes. Rational reflection operates on definite objects - it is abstract - while empirical experiences are uncertain and subjective.

[Simon]

Kevin,

Simon: We assert that it is an absolute truth that empirical evidence doesn’t give us absolute truth, but this truth is derived via empirical evidence! isn’t it?

If not, then what do you call the process that processes absolute truths?

Kevin: Logic.

Let's go into the origin of logic. Where does logic begin?

Doesn't it begin at the very moment we accept sense experience as a truth?

For instance, as soon as a baby or animal makes a (an apparently non-verbal, but conceptual) distinction between its sense of experience and the distinct sensations that color its sense of being, could we not say that the baby or animal is at some level being logical?

It seems like logic begins the moment that there is acceptance of this sense of existing, and this sense of existing is sort of this involuntary response to various qualities that involuntarily appear to be distinct.

[Simon]

Keep in mind, my most recent post above is a bit inspired by the predicament Descartes reportedly dug himself when he used skepticism to doubt everything and after doubting everything and he was left only with his sense of existing. He then formulated the "cognito" - - "I think therefore I am".

However, Descartes appears to be a great fool, in that, following his formulation of the cognito, he decided that the existence of a benevolent, all powerful God was an absolute truth.

[Philosophaster]

Descartes admitted from the outset that he would not permit God to be disproven:

"Above all we should impress upon our memory as an infallible rule that what God has revealed to us is incomparably more certain than anything else; and that we ought to submit to the Divine authority rather than to our own judgment even though the light of reason may seem to suggest, with the utmost clearness and evidence, something opposite."

[Katy]

However, Descartes appears to be a great fool, in that, following his formulation of the cognito, he decided that the existence of a benevolent, all powerful God was an absolute truth.

Descartes had to prove God. Scientists and philosophers and people who were going against christianity were being heavily persecuted. Proving God allowed Descartes to stay at least sort of on the good side of the church.

Plus the God he proves isn't really God in the traditional sense. As I recall, it is simply "Something perfect exsists" thus one could easily think of the Totality as God in that sense.



Though on the topic of Descartes, I'm having trouble combining the thoughts that nothing inherently exists including myself with his basic point that there is something that is thinking, and I can't see a way for that to not be true short of me ceasing to think - but what am I to do? Think about stopping thinking?

[Simon]

Descartes admitted from the outset that he would not permit God to be disproven:

"Above all we should impress upon our memory as an infallible rule that what God has revealed to us is incomparably more certain than anything else; and that we ought to submit to the Divine authority rather than to our own judgment even though the light of reason may seem to suggest, with the utmost clearness and evidence, something opposite."

...hmmm....so he's not a fool then. lol.

oh no, he's still a fool!

:) You can't let God off the hook that easily.

Ok, so I got it a bit wrong. But my point is that I feel Descartes skepticism, if taken a bit further, is a good idea, in that it really leaves a person in to the position to clearly think about what they can/should conclude, in order to establish a foundation of certainly to further build on.

Lets put aside this trivial Descartes pop trivia Philophaster, and lets get down to business:

What do you think about my ideas on the origins of logic philophaster?

[Simon]

However, Descartes appears to be a great fool, in that, following his formulation of the cognito, he decided that the existence of a benevolent, all powerful God was an absolute truth.

Descartes had to prove God. Scientists and philosophers and people who were going against christianity were being heavily persecuted. Proving God allowed Descartes to stay at least sort of on the good side of the church.

Plus the God he proves isn't really God in the traditional sense. As I recall, it is simply "Something perfect exsists" thus one could easily think of the Totality as God in that sense.

Though on the topic of Descartes, I'm having trouble combining the thoughts that nothing inherently exists including myself with his basic point that there is something that is thinking, and I can't see a way for that to not be true short of me ceasing to think - but what am I to do? Think about stopping thinking?

I was considering modifying the cognito.....

Instead of 'I' think therefore 'I' am

a person might want to settle for:

"there is this sensation of thinking and existing"

That statement avoids the assumption that it is "I" who am thinking and existing.

Instead there is only: the sensation of thinking and existing.

If you deny that, then logic would seem impossible.

[clyde]

Simon;

Why raise thought about other experiences (e.g. – sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch)? And why abstract (depersonalize) the statement and eliminate the first-person? I experience.

clyde

[Simon]

Why raise thought about other experiences (e.g. – sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch)?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking me why I don't address those issues?

And why abstract (depersonalize) the statement and eliminate the first-person? I experience.

This was done only because it is not certain what this "I" is that is experiecing, or if it has any concrete existence at all.

What is it that is registering the sensations, thinking, etc?

However, perhaps this logic is faulty.

If "I" is left out of the equation on the grounds that logic can't know for sure what it exactly is, then it follows that it would be logically unjustified to accept an equation that includes 'sensation', 'thinking', etc.

Maybe Descartes 'cognito' is indeed sufficient.....

[clyde]

Simon;

Sorry, but it seems a typo may have contributed to the miscommunication. I meant “above”, not “about”.

My point, which I hope is now evident, is that thought is not preeminent over other experiences.

And while I agree that we may not be certain what we are, our direct experience is certain.

I experience.

clyde

[Simon]

My point, which I hope is now evident, is that thought is not preeminent over other experiences.

Well, I don't see why factoring 'sight, smell, hearing, taste, etc' into the equation justifies the existence of an 'I' any more than the sensation of thought does!

You see what I mean?

Who is hearing, tasting, smelling, etc? Who is thinking?

Maybe Descartes was taking it too far with his cognito.

It seems possible that 'I' very well might not be experiencing, but it only seems like there is an 'I' experiencing.

[clyde]

Simon;

Yes, but my intent was not to “justif[y] the existence of an 'I'”.

Because the ‘I’ that sees, hears, etc. and thinks is not eternal, self-existent and independent, does not mean that it doesn’t exist in the same way that seeing, hearing, etc. and thinking exists. All phenomena arises and passes away, including you and me.

clyde

[Simon]

Yes, but my intent was not to “justif[y] the existence of an 'I'”.

Because the ‘I’ that sees, hears, etc. and thinks is not eternal, self-existent and independent, does not mean that it doesn’t exist in the same way that seeing, hearing, etc. and thinking exists. All phenomena arises and passes away, including you and me.

Ok, so it seems very obvious that subscription to empirical sense data occurs and precedes rational reflection.

Our first bit of empirical data, involves the notion of an "I" who is experiencing "otherness", although these initial concepts are not verbal, but must be more non-verbal.

[clyde]

Simon;

I don’t know what was the “first bit”, or if it involved an “I” or “otherness”, or what. The best I can do is state that when I awoke this morning such concepts as “I” and “otherness” were not first and did not arise for some time.

clyde

[Simon]

Simon;

I don’t know what was the “first bit”, or if it involved an “I” or “otherness”, or what. The best I can do is state that when I awoke this morning such concepts as “I” and “otherness” were not first and did not arise for some time.

I would think that it would be impossible to have a notion of self without a notion of otherness. The two seemingly seperate notions by logical neccesity arise simultaneously, rather than one after the other. And here I think is why cause and effect is an absolute truth and not merely empirical. The truth of cause and effect is realized by reflecting on the conceptualizations that one instinctively aquires in order to interact. Self causes otherness, and vice versa.

[clyde]

Simon;

I don’t disagree that the concepts self and other arise together.

I understand truth as either a synonym for reality or as a statement that corresponds to an aspect of reality. If by “absolute truth” you mean reality, OK; but if by “absolute truth” you mean a statement that corresponds to an aspect of reality, that hardly seems absolute to me.

clyde

[Simon]

I understand truth as either a synonym for reality or as a statement that corresponds to an aspect of reality.

If by “absolute truth” you mean reality, OK; but if by “absolute truth” you mean a statement that corresponds to an aspect of reality, that hardly seems absolute to me.

Ok, I'm not quite sure I follow. It seems you are making a distinction between relative truth and absolute truth.

Now, are you saying that an 'absolute truth' cannot be a statement - period? (I don't think you are, but we have to tread slowly and surely here)

Or are you saying that absolute truth cannot be a statement that corresponds with what our senses percieve?

I was under the impression that absolute truths were statements 'about' the data that our senses aquire....

For instance, my senses aquire concepts of self and other(these concepts correspond with non-verbal, non-conceptual appearances), and through rational reflection, I realize that these concepts are mutually caused by one another, and caused by the other distinctions I have conceptualized. This is an absolute truth.

This absolute truth is a statement that says: all things (appearances, concepts) arise via causation, contrast.

Now does this absolute truth correspond to an aspect of reality?

Well, to be frank I'm a bit confused about what you mean in that regard.

It seems to me that the absolute truth that I expressed above corresponds to not only the the aspect of reality that involves conceptualization of that which was percieved, but also to the distinctions of raw perception, the non-conceptualized and non-verbal appearances that give us the concept of mountain, tree, etc.


However, perhaps that is all reality is?

It is, perhaps, strictly the conceptualizations, and non-conceptualized appearances that one has inherited via sense perception.

[Jamesh]

"Above all we should impress upon our memory as an infallible rule that what God has revealed to us is incomparably more certain than anything else; and that we ought to submit to the Divine authority rather than to our own judgment even though the light of reason may seem to suggest, with the utmost clearness and evidence, something opposite."

I would reword this quote to be

"Above all we should impress upon our memory as an infallible rule that what The Totality has revealed to us is incomparably more certain than anything else; and that we ought to submit to this authority rather than to our own emotional judgment even though the light of reason, when dimly shone, may seem to suggest, with the utmost clearness and evidence, something opposite."

In other words when developing absolute truths one should use the material world as the basis, not what one imagines might be true, as our imaginations are too subject to emotionally (or ego) induced delusions.

For example
Initially one's "light of reason" suggests there is a god - the basic "God must have created the first cause" scenario. There is also the metaphysical Mind/Matter crap that people have so much difficulty getting over.

[Sapius]

Simon,

Let's go into the origin of logic. Where does logic begin?

In my opinion, it all depends on how one defines ‘logic’, and from the point of view of causality, there is nothing that would be illogical in a sense, for every effect necessarily has a cause, and has only that particular result, including the “I”. So causality is necessarily “logical”, or one could say that the principle is necessarily imbedded in the process. There is a sense of logic in what the causes create, including ‘delusions’ so to speak. That is the reason, that with all the limitations of our non-conceptualized sense perceptions, I mean the direct raw sense perceptions, we can, to a certain extant predict through conceptualization. We may not know how certain effects came to be, but we can be sure that that necessarily has causes.

Causality is necessary for eventual conceptualization to occur; hence causality cannot depend on conceptualization alone. It cannot be the other way around. Yes, causaily may be just a sense, but the question is, how does it make any logical sense?

(Clyde, I think you were asking me about how I perceive causality some time back. I think this should give you an idea.)

Simon: It is, perhaps, strictly the conceptualizations, and non-conceptualized appearances that one has inherited via sense perception.

Without sense perception, which does not necessarily depend on our conceptualization, conceptualization cannot occur. Otherwise, all of existence would necessarily be illogical, and what is it that does not operate through causality created “sense perception”? Even an atom has to “sense” something to react, but it need not “perceive” in the sense that we do.

Now that is what I think about “logic”, be it a conceptualized one, but that seems to underpin all conceptualized systems.

If that does not make sense, I would like to know how?

Also, Clyde,

I don’t disagree that the concepts self and other arise together.

In my opinion, a sense of self and other has to necessarily arise before one goes about conceptualizing about it. If other things did not have a sense of “self”, nothing would operate or react logically, in other words, causaly.

[clyde]

Simon;

I only used the term “absolute truth” because you introduced it and I was attempting to understand your usage. My point was that any statement is not “absolute truth”, where absolute means eternal, self-existent, and independent.

For example, you wrote,

This absolute truth is a statement that says: all things (appearances, concepts) arise via causation, contrast.

Let’s examine this statement. I understand you to use the term “things” in the broadest sense, including appearances and concepts. Does this mean that causation is a thing and if it is, then does causation cause causation to arise?? And if causation is not a thing, what is it? Further, does causation precede things and, if so, what would that mean to have causation without things? Or does causation arise with things? In which case, the statement is not true.

clyde

[clyde]

Sapius;

What do you mean by “a sense of self”? Can you give me an example?

And forgive my ignorance, but why is causation logical? I understand causation as the principle that effects have a cause, but how is that logical? I understand logic as a system of reasoning. For example, A = A. But there is no cause and effect in operation.

I will readily concede that causation often seems “logical” (e.g. - We press a button and the bell rings.), but I believe that this is due to familiarity and habit, not logic. It’s like gravity, it describes how the universe functions, we accept it, but it is not logical or illogical. It just is.

clyde

[Simon]

Hi again Clyde.

Ok, the definition of absolute truth that I feel is most appropriate is:

"complete, pefect, absolutely certain, undoubtable, and always and under any circumstances, true"

This stands in stark contrast to relative truths, which are only true from certain perspectives.

Simon;

I only used the term “absolute truth” because you introduced it and I was attempting to understand your usage. My point was that any statement is not “absolute truth”, where absolute means eternal, self-existent, and independent.

For example, you wrote,

This absolute truth is a statement that says: all things (appearances, concepts) arise via causation, contrast.

I understand you to use the term “things” in the broadest sense, including appearances and concepts. Does this mean that causation is a thing and if it is, then does causation cause causation to arise?

Well, that is a very interesting question, one that I am excited to explore, however, before we do so, let us, for a moment, go back to the foundation that we both agreed would serve as the basis of our logical thought:

"I experience".

I want to become clear about this very first step, before we get too carried away in more complicated concerns.

The statement: "I experience" is a vague empirical claim. It is by no means certain because in order for the statement to have any meaning, we need to define "I" and define "experience".

Now, can we ever be absolutely certain that our definition of 'experience' or especially our definition of 'the self' is perfect, complete, undoubtable and true under all circumstances?

By asking myself such a question and rationally reflecting, I deduce that:

Any definitions that are based on distinct appearances sensed emprically are inherently uncertain, and that is because all emprical sense experience is by natural law inherently uncertain and relative to finitely percieved causal conditions.

How does that sound to you?

[clyde]

Simon;

It doesn’t matter to me whether my senses (including thought) are “inherently uncertain”. I am aware of arisings. The nature of the “I”, the nature of awareness, and the nature of the arisings are phenomena which have the characteristics of impermanence and dependence.

clyde

[Kevin Solway]

Let's go into the origin of logic. Where does logic begin?

Logic begins with a person identifying something. (eg, "self" and "other").

Doesn't it begin at the very moment we accept sense experience as a truth?

It begins the moment we accept what appears to us in our minds. We don't know where those appearances ultimately come from. All we know is that they appear to us.

And we don't have any choice about accepting those appearances or not. They are just there, no matter what we do. There's no denying them.

For instance, as soon as a baby or animal makes a (an apparently non-verbal, but conceptual) distinction between its sense of experience and the distinct sensations that color its sense of being, could we not say that the baby or animal is at some level being logical?

If distinctions are happening then logical operations are taking place.

It seems like logic begins the moment that there is acceptance of this sense of existing, and this sense of existing is sort of this involuntary response to various qualities that involuntarily appear to be distinct.

Yes.