GENIUS FORUMS

paco wrote:White

Black

@OP, the only way you can "fell" the axiom of identity is by using the axiom of identity, so the entire premise of the topic is nonsensical.

cousinbasil wrote:A=A, while apparently significant philosophically when taken as a logical statement or [identity] axiom, is in math what is known as a trivial relation, for it offers no further insight into the nature of A.

All mathematical equations, no matter how complex, must comply with A=A though, so they must all essentially be trivial relations. Simplicity beneath complexity, and all that.

Of course, one could equally well say that the reverse is true - that A=A must comply with all complex mathematical equations, so it is essentially not trivial. Complexity beneath simplicity, and all that. :-)

jupiviv wrote:
All mathematical equations, no matter how complex, must comply with A=A though, so they must all essentially be trivial relations. Simplicity beneath complexity, and all that.

Think very carefully about this, jupiviv. If A=A must apply to every true mathematical equation, no matter how complex, then it cannot tell us anything about any particular equation with respect to any other, since it is true in all cases. This is indeed the definition of triviality.

In any nontrivial example, the general form is A=B. The trivial identities A=A and B=B are assumed. A=B is not the identity relation but an equation and is in general not assumed or else it would not be stated.

For instance, the idea that matter and energy were two manifestations of the same thing was not a new notion with Einstein, but the equation E = mc^2 had not been assumed to be true. Even now, there are those who refute it despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that corroborates the theoretical arguments.

jupiviv wrote:@OP, the only way you can "fell" the axiom of identity is by using the axiom of identity, so the entire premise of the topic is nonsensical

Yes i did use the axiom of identity.
I'm not saying it is totaly invalid but that it does not describe "all that is real".

chikoka wrote:

jupiviv wrote:@OP, the only way you can "fell" the axiom of identity is by using the axiom of identity, so the entire premise of the topic is nonsensical

Yes i did use the axiom of identity.
I'm not saying it is totaly invalid but that it does not describe "all that is real".

Well, obviously not. It does not apply to any part of reality that is as yet unknown, for example.

cousinbasil wrote:If A=A must apply to every true mathematical equation, no matter how complex, then it cannot tell us anything about any particular equation with respect to any other, since it is true in all cases.

It can, to the degree that two different equations are identical.

In any nontrivial example, the general form is A=B.

If A=B, then A and B must be identical, so their form would still be that of A=A.

chikoka wrote:Yes i did use the axiom of identity.
I'm not saying it is totaly invalid but that it does not describe "all that is real".

I don't know what you mean by "real." The point is that for anything to exist, it must appear to the mind, or be identified. In this sense, everything can be explained through A=A, or rather, the explanation of everything must conform to A=A.

I don't know what you mean by "real." The point is that for anything to exist, it must appear to the mind, or be identified. In this sense, everything can be explained through A=A, or rather, the explanation of everything must conform to A=A.

What about the hidden void oft spoken about these parts.
Because its hidden that means its not appearing but you people maintain its reality.
How can u maintain that all properties of this void were "made" to appear.
Thats what i got from reading wisdom of the infinite.

Reality must also aply to it or else i'm saying imaginary things are part of this "hidden" void.

cousinbasil wrote:

chikoka wrote:

jupiviv wrote:@OP, the only way you can "fell" the axiom of identity is by using the axiom of identity, so the entire premise of the topic is nonsensical

Yes i did use the axiom of identity.
I'm not saying it is totaly invalid but that it does not describe "all that is real".

ginary
Well, obviously not. It does not apply to any part of reality that is as yet unknown, for example.

I would have thought you were going to say that if imaginary things can exist at the same time as not exist the the not exist part obviuosly is cut off leaving only the exists and so conform to the axiom of identity here.
I would say they must for existance but not for all properties.

I want it to be clear that I don't see the "axiom of identity" as ever being "felled."

My point was rather that the imaginary numbers are no more imaginary than the so-called real numbers. It is a continuous source of fascination for me that any numbers describe actual physical quantities as well as they do, and that arguments translated into the language of mathematics produce the stunning results that they do.

For instance, the state vector of a quantum mechanical physical system does not correspond to anything physical. Many QM practitioners prefer to think of the "square" of a state vector to be the actual "state vector," since at least it corresponds to the (somewhat vague) notion of a probability.

To clarify this a bit, the state vector is a complex number. The real part is more or less understandable. We know real numbers: the number 6 can stand for the six sides of a normal die, for example. 6 i (where i x i = -1) does not correspond to any physical quantity that we know. In fact, when the state vector is "squared," it is actually multiplied by its complex conjugate rather than itself* so that the resulting expression is always real and greater than or equal to zero, and less than or equal to one. This is the necessary form of a probability, since any probability P must be such that 0 < P < 1 or else P = 0 or 1.

For those interested, the complex conjugate of a complex number a + b i is simply a - bi.

chikoka, I think what you are referring to is the following.

A QM object is fully described by its state vector. When the question arises, what is its momentum (or energy or position, etc.), the procedure is to apply the corresponding QM operator on the state vector. This involves straightforward (well-defined) mathematical calculations, although they are often quite involved.

They key point is that if you applied the operator to a "state vector" with just a real part, you would obtain a real answer. However, the real answer would be utterly meaningless - it would not describe or predict anything ever observed.

However, since the state vector is complex, it has an imaginary component which corresponds to nothing. When you apply the operator, the calculations are complex in nature, and often much more complicated than they would be with just a real-valued operand (state vector.)

The answer that comes out of the calculations is also usually a complex number. At this point, the complex part is simply discarded, since it doesn't have any physical interpretation. However, since you have carried it throughout the computation, it has completely altered the real part of the answer. Here is the magic!! The real component of the answer now perfectly describes the system's momentum, position, energy, etc., depending on which operator you have used!

In fact, carrying this "imaginary" part of the state vector (which corresponds to no physical quantity) through the calculation, then discarding the imaginary part at the end, yields the most precise physical theory known to man.

Therefore, we can say the identity relation holds that the state vector = the state vector, even though this is a defined quantity and corresponds to nothing in reality. Somewhere along the line of employing it under an operator, an actual physical quantity becomes unearthed.

So the identity relation cannot ever be felled, as you put it.

But I maintain that it is a trivial relation. I gave as an example E = mc^2, but since this is a physical relationship, let me restate Euler's identity from an earlier post:

e[/i]^(i * pi) + 1 = 0.

This single expression combines the transcendental (not rational) numbers i, pi, and e with the two algebraic identity numbers 1 and 0.

The identity relation applied to 0 is trivial, for instance: 0 = 0.

Euler's identity is only an identity, since the left hand side and the right hand side are not the same, if one has followed the proof, or else one accepts that the proof has been verified countless times. Failing one of these two conditions, it has the form A = B, which is not an identity.

* If interested for clarification, see my next post after paco's insight.

FU

chikoka wrote:What about the hidden void oft spoken about these parts.
Because its hidden that means its not appearing but you people maintain its reality.
How can u maintain that all properties of this void were "made" to appear.

The hidden void has no properties, other than that of its logical necessity of being a hidden void. It simply means that which is not within conscious detection, forever outside of our attempts to discover or know about. The word 'hidden' is possibly poorly chosen in this instance since it can give the impression that maybe there's something to 'unhide'.

The most interesting thing about the hidden void is that it's really no different from the non-hidden void, or whatever you're conscious of, whatever has the quality of appearance. There is a sense in which they are one and the same.

Simply squaring a complex number a +bi yields another complex number:

(a + bi)(a +bi) = a(a + bi) + bi(a + bi)
= a^2 + abi + abi + (b^2)(i^2) where i^2 = -1 (by definition)
= (a^2 - b^2) + (2ab)i

But multiplying a complex number a + bi by its conjugate a - bi gives a real number (or a complex number with the imaginary coefficient set to 0):

(a + bi)(a - bi) = a(a - bi) + bi(a - bi)
= a^2 -abi + abi + (b)(-b)(i^2)
=a^2 + b^2

cousinbasil:

You could never prove something by reducto absurdum if it ends up implying the square root of -1.
I stayed right clear from qm since all i represents is a quantity and thats how it should be interprated in any physical theory.

BTW. i think i is only irrational and not transcendental.

Robert wrote:

chikoka wrote:What about the hidden void oft spoken about these parts.
Because its hidden that means its not appearing but you people maintain its reality.
How can u maintain that all properties of this void were "made" to appear.

The hidden void has no properties, other than that of its logical necessity of being a hidden void. It simply means that which is not within conscious detection, forever outside of our attempts to discover or know about. The word 'hidden' is possibly poorly chosen in this instance since it can give the impression that maybe there's something to 'unhide'.

The most interesting thing about the hidden void is that it's really no different from the non-hidden void, or whatever you're conscious of, whatever has the quality of appearance. There is a sense in which they are one and the same.

Then the hidden void (together with what appears) make up objective reality.

How do things come from a period of not appearing to appearing?
How does reality choose what appears and where does it come from?

chikoka wrote:BTW. i think i is only irrational and not transcendental.

I think irrational numbers are defined as a subset of the reals only, so i is not irrational, by definition, although it cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers. Also, from the Wikipedia entry on irrational numbers:

Almost all irrational numbers are transcendental and all transcendental numbers are irrational

If all transcendental numbers are irrational and irrationals are real numbers only by definition, then transcendental numbers cannot be either purely imaginary or complex. Therefore, i is not considered either irrational or transcendental.

Thanks for the clarification!

PS: chikoka, you may have steered clear of QM, but my own exposure to a lot of math was through QM, and since physicists and mathematicians are entirely different beasts, some of my math definitions are a bit loose, as you can see!

chikoka wrote:Then the hidden void (together with what appears) make up objective reality.

This reminds me of a passage from one of the Don Juan books by Castaneda. Castaneda and Juan are sitting in a cantina and Juan is trying to explain how there can be an alternative reality. He points to the table top and says to Carlos, picture everything you know or have ever known or have ever seen or can see as being on this table top. He then indicates the surrounding space with a sweep of his arm. This is the rest of reality. This is the nagual.

(I am necessarily paraphrasing since I forget which book this is from but I do know it has been many years since I read it.)

From the Wikipedia article on Castaneda:

Castaneda wrote that he was identified by don Juan Matus as having the energetic configuration of a "nagual", who, if the spirit chose, could become a leader of a party of warriors. He also used the term "nagual" to signify that part of perception which is in the realm of the unknown yet still reachable by man, implying that, for his party of seers, don Juan was in some way a connection to that unknown. Castaneda often referred to this unknown realm as nonordinary reality, which indicated that this realm was indeed a reality, but radically different from the ordinary reality experienced by human beings who are well engaged in everyday activities as part of their social conditioning. Ordinary reality as experienced by humans was simply a "description" that had been pounded into their awareness since they were infants.

(Bold sections above indicated by myself.)

Hidden void = nagual.

chikoka wrote:How do things come from a period of not appearing to appearing?
How does reality choose what appears and where does it come from?

Even ordinary reality must be pounded into a person, if we agree with Don Juan. Therefore, there must be a period prior to this pounding, where even ordinary reality has not yet appeared, and subsequently appears.

This leads to the interesting discussion of whether a mathematical or physical insight is invented or discovered. The lasting results, the ones that possess simplicity (beauty?) seem to have more of the character of having been discovered rather than invented. Einstein's apparent hubris at saying his theories had to be correct was more of an admission that he was finding them, not founding them. Exposed to them for the first time, as counter-intuitive as they may have seemed, I felt they had a ring of truth and that subsequent exposure to them would further convince me of their veracity.

Therefore while A=A must be true before any further meaningful statements can be made, it remains trivial. If A=A, the we can define the energy of a system to be E, and without further discussion or analysis, state with absolute certainty that E=E.

Similarly, we can define an object's potential energy as U and its kinetic energy as K. For an object of mass M moving with speed V at a height of H above the ground, we can define its total energy as E = U + K, where K = 1/2MV^2 and U = MgH, where g is the gravitational constant.

It took Einstein to formulate what was not really a new idea that mass and energy were two manifestation of the same thing. Therefore, this same object also has a rest energy = Mc^2.

Total Energy = M(1/2V^2 + c^2 + gH)

This prceeds from the trivial, but is not itself trivial until it is learned (or discovered by the student after the learning period chikoka mentions). If accepted, it becomes the identity relation. If not accepted - as it is not, by many working physicists - it is never the identity relation.

chikoka wrote:What about the hidden void oft spoken about these parts.
Because its hidden that means its not appearing but you people maintain its reality.
How can u maintain that all properties of this void were "made" to appear.

The hidden void is only hidden to deluded people. And in any case, what you and cousinbasil are talking about doesn't have anything to do with the hidden void. Our senses are limited, so there are many things which cannot appear to us as sensory perceptions, but can nevertheless appear to us. There are more things in heaven and earth than can be imagined in your philosophy.

Ultimately, everything else except the mind must of necessity appear to the mind. And since the mind is nothing but that which appears to the mind, that statement really means - there is mind, and everything else. That is the true meaning of the "hidden void". I've read "Wisdom of the Infinite," but wasn't impressed by it. I can't remember the sense in which "hidden void" is used there.

jupviv wrote:The hidden void is only hidden to deluded people. And in any case, what you and cousinbasil are talking about doesn't have anything to do with the hidden void.

This is another sweeping statement which misses the point. If we take person A, we can say that there are things "hidden" from person A, but we cannot say those things do not exist. Person B, for example, may be quite familiar with those things, yet there are necessarily things hidden from person B which person A is plainly aware of, and person C is as well. If we continue this line of thought, we can see that every single person is aware of things which another is not; likewise, there are things hidden from every single person which are not hidden from someone else.

By your reasoning, then, everyone is deluded. Moreover, since no one has nothing hidden from him in the above sense (in which the thing is not "hidden" to someone else), then everyone is not only deluded but must remain that way.

What I was speaking of (and I believe chikoka was as well) is the process of discovery, where hidden things become manifest. In your terminology, the process of shedding delusions.

Ultimately, everything else except the mind must of necessity appear to the mind. And since the mind is nothing but that which appears to the mind, that statement really means - there is mind, and everything else. That is the true meaning of the "hidden void".

But picking this apart, it seems to vanish.
"There is mind, and everything else." Yes - and there is my left foot, and everything else.
"Everything else except the mind must of necessity appear to the mind" AND "...the mind is nothing but that which appears to the mind..."
What this statement really means is that the mind IS everything but the mind. I, for one, am confused by your meaning here, jup.

What you seem to be missing - the weakest link in your reasoning - is that it is not true that everything else except the mind must appear to the mind. A true statement - and perhaps what you meant to say - is that everything that appears must necessarily appear to the mind. It was my very point that most things - Don Juan Matus' nagual - do not appear to the mind, yet are not in principle inaccessible to the mind. Such things are therefore hidden --- until they are not.

But this is not the "hidden void" of David's WOTI. Nothing more, apparently, can be said about it than it is hidden. It is not nothingness, and it is not reachable as some sort of nonordinary reality (via drugs, for example) as is Don Juan's nagual. It is not something which has not been discovered yet (I think David uses a cure for cancer as such a thing the hidden void is not).

David Quinn, in Wisdom of the Infinite, wrote:In the final analysis, there are only two things we can know about the hidden void for sure - namely, (a) that it is not nothingness and (b) that it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live. To know anything more than this is impossible - for anyone or anything. Not even the hidden void itself can know anything more about it. For there is literally nothing more to know. As such, our understanding of what lies beyond consciousness is now complete.

It would seem he is speaking of the noumenal world, which gives rise but is not identical with the phenomenal world, the construction in which we exist.

It is obvious that David's use of "hidden void" and yours, jupiviv, are entirely unrelated, since in your view things are only hidden to deluded people. It is also unrelated to my use of the term, since to my way of thinking, there are things hidden from literally everybody which can then become unhidden, perhaps by undoing the definitions hammered into us (Don Juan.) I also find myself disagreeing with your definition, since I hold it as pointless to identify "hidden things" with delusions, since then everybody without exception is deluded, a state of affairs which is meaningless, since it asserts that one is blind and whoever leads one must also be blind. If this is true, then it is pointless to pay attention to statements about delusions because whoever makes them is deluded as well.

David's point is that no point can be made about the hidden void as he proposes it, which is why I find his view of it... pointless.

cousinbasil wrote:

jupviv wrote:The hidden void is only hidden to deluded people. And in any case, what you and cousinbasil are talking about doesn't have anything to do with the hidden void.

This is another sweeping statement which misses the point. If we take person A, we can say that there are things "hidden" from person A, but we cannot say those things do not exist. Person B, for example, may be quite familiar with those things, yet there are necessarily things hidden from person B which person A is plainly aware of, and person C is as well. If we continue this line of thought, we can see that every single person is aware of things which another is not; likewise, there are things hidden from every single person which are not hidden from someone else.

By your reasoning, then, everyone is deluded. Moreover, since no one has nothing hidden from him in the above sense (in which the thing is not "hidden" to someone else), then everyone is not only deluded but must remain that way.

What I was speaking of (and I believe chikoka was as well) is the process of discovery, where hidden things become manifest. In your terminology, the process of shedding delusions.

Ultimately, everything else except the mind must of necessity appear to the mind. And since the mind is nothing but that which appears to the mind, that statement really means - there is mind, and everything else. That is the true meaning of the "hidden void".

But picking this apart, it seems to vanish.
"There is mind, and everything else." Yes - and there is my left foot, and everything else.
"Everything else except the mind must of necessity appear to the mind" AND "...the mind is nothing but that which appears to the mind..."
What this statement really means is that the mind IS everything but the mind. I, for one, am confused by your meaning here, jup.

What you seem to be missing - the weakest link in your reasoning - is that it is not true that everything else except the mind must appear to the mind. A true statement - and perhaps what you meant to say - is that everything that appears must necessarily appear to the mind. It was my very point that most things - Don Juan Matus' nagual - do not appear to the mind, yet are not in principle inaccessible to the mind. Such things are therefore hidden --- until they are not.

But this is not the "hidden void" of David's WOTI. Nothing more, apparently, can be said about it than it is hidden. It is not nothingness, and it is not reachable as some sort of nonordinary reality (via drugs, for example) as is Don Juan's nagual. It is not something which has not been discovered yet (I think David uses a cure for cancer as such a thing the hidden void is not).

David Quinn, in Wisdom of the Infinite, wrote:In the final analysis, there are only two things we can know about the hidden void for sure - namely, (a) that it is not nothingness and (b) that it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live. To know anything more than this is impossible - for anyone or anything. Not even the hidden void itself can know anything more about it. For there is literally nothing more to know. As such, our understanding of what lies beyond consciousness is now complete.

It would seem he is speaking of the noumenal world, which gives rise but is not identical with the phenomenal world, the construction in which we exist.

It is obvious that David's use of "hidden void" and yours, jupiviv, are entirely unrelated, since in your view things are only hidden to deluded people. It is also unrelated to my use of the term, since to my way of thinking, there are things hidden from literally everybody which can then become unhidden, perhaps by undoing the definitions hammered into us (Don Juan.) I also find myself disagreeing with your definition, since I hold it as pointless to identify "hidden things" with delusions, since then everybody without exception is deluded, a state of affairs which is meaningless, since it asserts that one is blind and whoever leads one must also be blind. If this is true, then it is pointless to pay attention to statements about delusions because whoever makes them is deluded as well.

David's point is that no point can be made about the hidden void as he proposes it, which is why I find his view of it... pointless.

Good post cousinbasil.

cousinbasil wrote:If we take person A, we can say that there are things "hidden" from person A, but we cannot say those things do not exist.

Any logical thing can be thought of as existing, regardless of whether we perceive them with our senses or not.

What I was speaking of (and I believe chikoka was as well) is the process of discovery, where hidden things become manifest. In your terminology, the process of shedding delusions.

The process of discovery you are speaking of is the discovery of things which can already be logically thought of as existing, even if we don't always think about them or perceive them. The hidden void spoken about in Taoism and Buddhism, etc., are those things which we cannot even logically conceive of as existing. For example, "everything", or a square circle, cannot exist, and therefore we cannot be conscious of it.

"There is mind, and everything else." Yes - and there is my left foot, and everything else.

...your point being?

"Everything else except the mind must of necessity appear to the mind" AND "...the mind is nothing but that which appears to the mind..."
What this statement really means is that the mind IS everything but the mind. I, for one, am confused by your meaning here, jup.

No, it means the opposite. The fact that there is mind, and everything else except the mind, is itself something that appears to the mind. So to convert this into a syllogism:

1.) There appears to be mind.
2.) If mind appears, then it also appears that there is something else.
2.) Therefore, there appears to be something else other than the mind.

A syllogism that follows from this one, but I'm not using the word "appears" at the beginning:

1.) The nature of mind is nothing other than the appearance of things to the mind.
2.) There are things that are not the mind.
3.) Therefore, those things must appear to the mind.

You may also notice that the statements in each of those syllogisms can be used in any order, and would still mean the same thing.

I've created two perfect syllogisms, and if you'll excuse me, I'll now go and wank off about that.

...OK, I'm back.

What you seem to be missing - the weakest link in your reasoning - is that it is not true that everything else except the mind must appear to the mind.

Think of a thing that can never appear to the mind - what is it? Nothing, since it does not appear to your mind. Therefore, nothing cannot appear to the mind. The concept of the hidden void or "nothingness" was probably originally created to combat the delusion that there are things beyond our consciousness that are "real", but nevertheless still beyond our consciousness. The moment that delusion is overcome, the concept of the hidden void looses its usefulness, as the hidden void is no longer "hidden."

It is obvious that David's use of "hidden void" and yours, jupiviv, are entirely unrelated, since in your view things are only hidden to deluded people.

I already said that I don't know how he's using the term. I have to read the whole book, and I can't be bothered doing that. It was boring when I first read it anyways. However, in the extract you provided, he seems to be talking about the mind itself.

jupiviv wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:If we take person A, we can say that there are things "hidden" from person A, but we cannot say those things do not exist.

Any logical thing can be thought of as existing, regardless of whether we perceive them with our senses or not.

What I was speaking of (and I believe chikoka was as well) is the process of discovery, where hidden things become manifest. In your terminology, the process of shedding delusions.

The process of discovery you are speaking of is the discovery of things which can already be logically thought of as existing, even if we don't always think about them or perceive them. The hidden void spoken about in Taoism and Buddhism, etc., are those things which we cannot even logically conceive of as existing. For example, "everything", or a square circle, cannot exist, and therefore we cannot be conscious of it.

"There is mind, and everything else." Yes - and there is my left foot, and everything else.

...your point being?

"Everything else except the mind must of necessity appear to the mind" AND "...the mind is nothing but that which appears to the mind..."
What this statement really means is that the mind IS everything but the mind. I, for one, am confused by your meaning here, jup.

No, it means the opposite. The fact that there is mind, and everything else except the mind, is itself something that appears to the mind. So to convert this into a syllogism:

1.) There appears to be mind.
2.) If mind appears, then it also appears that there is something else.
2.) Therefore, there appears to be something else other than the mind.

A syllogism that follows from this one, but I'm not using the word "appears" at the beginning:

1.) The nature of mind is nothing other than the appearance of things to the mind.
2.) There are things that are not the mind.
3.) Therefore, those things must appear to the mind.

You may also notice that the statements in each of those syllogisms can be used in any order, and would still mean the same thing.

I've created two perfect syllogisms, and if you'll excuse me, I'll now go and wank off about that.

...OK, I'm back.

What you seem to be missing - the weakest link in your reasoning - is that it is not true that everything else except the mind must appear to the mind.

Think of a thing that can never appear to the mind - what is it? Nothing, since it does not appear to your mind. Therefore, nothing cannot appear to the mind. The concept of the hidden void or "nothingness" was probably originally created to combat the delusion that there are things beyond our consciousness that are "real", but nevertheless still beyond our consciousness. The moment that delusion is overcome, the concept of the hidden void looses its usefulness, as the hidden void is no longer "hidden."

It is obvious that David's use of "hidden void" and yours, jupiviv, are entirely unrelated, since in your view things are only hidden to deluded people.

I already said that I don't know how he's using the term. I have to read the whole book, and I can't be bothered doing that. It was boring when I first read it anyways. However, in the extract you provided, he seems to be talking about the mind itself.

Just because we can only conceive of things by bringing them to mind , why would that of necessity mean that that is all that exists.
All that can be conceived maybe , but all that exists ? I would like to see a proof.
Yes there are minds and yes there are things that appear to minds but the jump to *all that exists must do so by appearing to minds* is not supportable.
It has to be taken as faith for anyone to beleive.

Quote
-----
Think of a thing that can never appear to the mind - what is it? Nothing, since it does not appear to your mind
-----

That assumes that our minds have the capability to think of all things that exist.
That nothing you used there is not the correct answer to the preceding question .
The correct answer is "i can't". Which does not imply nothing, and your justification of saying nnothing is circular since it assumes what you are trying to prove.

chikoka wrote:Just because we can only conceive of things by bringing them to mind , why would that of necessity mean that that is all that exists.
All that can be conceived maybe , but all that exists ?

I for one am comfortable understanding that there always must be more that exists than appears to any individual mortal mind. The question is can there exist a thing which does not appear to any mind? Here I am leaving the qualifier mortal out, like leaving the lid off Pandora's box.

cousinbasil wrote: The question is can there exist a thing which does not appear to any mind? Here I am leaving the qualifier mortal out, like leaving the lid off Pandora's box.

you do need to define what you're talking about, but let me try..:

by the usual definition then no, mind is what appears, that which doesn't appear is what the mind is not; that which causes mind.

What appears is what exists, simply because existence is thing-ness, it is a quality, and appearance is quality as opposed to something else, because that is the nature of quality, hence, mind = existence, so without mind there is no existence, and neither mind nor non mind in this case.

Anders Schlander wrote:

cousinbasil wrote: The question is can there exist a thing which does not appear to any mind? Here I am leaving the qualifier mortal out, like leaving the lid off Pandora's box.

you do need to define what you're talking about, but let me try..:

by the usual definition then no, mind is what appears, that which doesn't appear is what the mind is not; that which causes mind.

What appears is what exists, simply because existence is thing-ness, it is a quality, and appearance is quality as opposed to something else, because that is the nature of quality, hence, mind = existence, so without mind there is no existence, and neither mind nor non mind in this case.

Hi, Anders

I asked if there can exist a thing which does not appear to any mind. The first part of your response was:

by the usual definition then no, mind is what appears, that which doesn't appear is what the mind is not; that which causes mind.

This really doesn't address the question, though. The mind is what appears - I agree so far. You then say that which doesn't appear is what the mind is not - it must be what causes mind. Then your answer is really "yes" and not "no." Because you are saying "that which does not appear to the mind" which would plainly answer my question that yes, there can exist a thing which does not appear to any mind.

But then you go on to say:

What appears is what exists, simply because existence is thing-ness, it is a quality, and appearance is quality as opposed to something else, because that is the nature of quality, hence, mind = existence, so without mind there is no existence, and neither mind nor non mind in this case.

This explicitly answers my question in the negative.

By Pandora's Box, I meant just these contradictory views. What can cause mind if nothing can exist which does not appear to some mind, since existence presupposes some mind?

For a concrete example, take the light of a distant galaxy picked up by the Hubble telescope. Simple logic tells us the photons being collected by the telescope and analyzed by us have been emitted by what is not a random collection of sources, but by what is clearly a galactic structure. They began their journey millions of years ago. Therefore, what emitted them existed before they could have appeared to any sentient mind of which we are aware - certainly before the existence of a telescope capable of making them apparent to any type of life form on earth, sentient or otherwise.

Can we not then conclude that existence came before appearance? Or does this force us to postulate the existence of a mind which predates the human mind? Pandora wants to know.

cousinbasil wrote:

Anders Schlander wrote:

cousinbasil wrote: The question is can there exist a thing which does not appear to any mind? Here I am leaving the qualifier mortal out, like leaving the lid off Pandora's box.

you do need to define what you're talking about, but let me try..:

by the usual definition then no, mind is what appears, that which doesn't appear is what the mind is not; that which causes mind.

What appears is what exists, simply because existence is thing-ness, it is a quality, and appearance is quality as opposed to something else, because that is the nature of quality, hence, mind = existence, so without mind there is no existence, and neither mind nor non mind in this case.

Hi, Anders

I asked if there can exist a thing which does not appear to any mind. The first part of your response was:

by the usual definition then no, mind is what appears, that which doesn't appear is what the mind is not; that which causes mind.

This really doesn't address the question, though. The mind is what appears - I agree so far. You then say that which doesn't appear is what the mind is not - it must be what causes mind. Then your answer is really "yes" and not "no." Because you are saying "that which does not appear to the mind" which would plainly answer my question that yes, there can exist a thing which does not appear to any mind.

But then you go on to say:

What appears is what exists, simply because existence is thing-ness, it is a quality, and appearance is quality as opposed to something else, because that is the nature of quality, hence, mind = existence, so without mind there is no existence, and neither mind nor non mind in this case.

This explicitly answers my question in the negative.

By Pandora's Box, I meant just these contradictory views. What can cause mind if nothing can exist which does not appear to some mind, since existence presupposes some mind?

For a concrete example, take the light of a distant galaxy picked up by the Hubble telescope. Simple logic tells us the photons being collected by the telescope and analyzed by us have been emitted by what is not a random collection of sources, but by what is clearly a galactic structure. They began their journey millions of years ago. Therefore, what emitted them existed before they could have appeared to any sentient mind of which we are aware - certainly before the existence of a telescope capable of making them apparent to any type of life form on earth, sentient or otherwise.

Can we not then conclude that existence came before appearance? Or does this force us to postulate the existence of a mind which predates the human mind? Pandora wants to know.

Right, i'll focus on your example which i hightlighted in bold, it all comes down to the mind-trick that can confuse you, willingly or unwillingly in the case of *appearance of no mind is no mind* which, i'll explain, is wrong. Here we go, sorry if you have to read all of it to get to my quite short point.

Think of the light that we experience as the light from distant galaxies travels in space towards earth emitting light onto the telescope, which is recorded in a form that can then display the light again into our eyes...

Simply, the galaxies are thus appearing to us. Knowing the speed of light and the distance, it appears to us that those galaxies has had light coming towards us before we ever knew about them. However, that is still just an appearance right now, where we do in fact know about them, while it may be true that light was on this way before we existed, this could be very true, but that light did not actually exist before mind, because you are forgetting the fact that light and mind are one thing.

As an example to get closer to that perspective, think of the trees outside our eyes, when you look at a tree, when you consider that it's image only exists when the light reflection of it's atomic structure sends light towards your eyes, is it separate from you?

You could ask: where is the tree really? n your eyes? or outside? then think about the fact that you can feel where the tree is, it feels three-dimensional and solid, it is obviously outside your eyes. Well, you are the one feeling the tree through the nerves of your body so is the tree not just as much in your mind, and through your body as it is standing right before you? I'm pulling towards the idea that mind and existence is one.

I'll reiterate your example:
:
For a concrete example, take the light of a distant galaxy picked up by the Hubble telescope. Simple logic tells us the photons being collected by the telescope and analyzed by us have been emitted by what is not a random collection of sources, but by what is clearly a galactic structure. They began their journey millions of years ago. Therefore, what emitted them existed before they could have appeared to any sentient mind of which we are aware

in bold;

Maybe they existed before they appeared to any sentient mind, but because it is appearance of mind that there was appearance before mind, it doesn't contradict that mind is appearance. Take away mind from the equation and we cannot conceive of those things that happened before mind

Anders wrote:Maybe they existed before they appeared to any sentient mind, but because it is appearance of mind that there was appearance before mind, it doesn't contradict that mind is appearance. Take away mind from the equation and we cannot conceive of those things that happened before mind

I agree, mind is what appears to it, as jupiviv likes to say. I am asking something different, because I can easily conceive of those things that happened before my mind. That's my point - I know those photons began their journey before any mind of which I am aware existed. A photon cannot be at rest, and it's speed in a vacuum is always the same. So there is no choice but to conceive of a thing happening before mind - unless I postulate or admit a primordial consciousness.

Anders Schlander wrote:

cousinbasil wrote: The question is can there exist a thing which does not appear to any mind? Here I am leaving the qualifier mortal out, like leaving the lid off Pandora's box.

you do need to define what you're talking about, but let me try..:

by the usual definition then no, mind is what appears, that which doesn't appear is what the mind is not; that which causes mind.

What appears is what exists, simply because existence is thing-ness, it is a quality, and appearance is quality as opposed to something else, because that is the nature of quality, hence, mind = existence, so without mind there is no existence, and neither mind nor non mind in this case.

I dont get it.

That which does not appear is what mind is not , that which causes mind.
So the mind is "caused" to be by things that do not appear.
Isnt that proof that there must be things that dont appear in order for there to be mind.