Hi again & who wants to give me some genius guidance?

[Andrew]

That you come back to whinge shows you have a bit of courage in you than the cowards who've left. More than someone like James Jonathan, Mitchell Porter, or Andrew Wiseman. That's not to say that the current membership are courageous. By and large, they're not.

-

Did someone say my name!?

Hey, I never really left as such. I was very active on Genius-L, but only on sporadic occasions. I joined that list and spoke for a while, but then vanished for about a year, only to return, only to vanish. I put off coming to the forum for a long time for various reasons. But again, once I joined, I spoke for a while, and vanished.

I have spent the past few years paying most attention to my university course. When it comes to philosophy, I haven’t stopped thinking, and have gone through several revolutions in how I understand the world. Every now and then, I feel drawn to come back here and get into some discussion but each time I have found myself unable to get involved.

So much of what is discussed here doesn’t interest me or is only comprehensible to people who have been involved in the discussion for some time. I feel awkward starting my own thread (but I’m going to here now) so I have ended up reading this forum every now and then, but contribute very infrequently.

I suppose you could call that cowardice, but it’s not fear of the heat of the arguments. On the contrary, in my time away from this discussion environment, I have often been frustrated at the impossibility to engage in many types of arguments because of the practical requirement to avoid hurting people’s feelings – outside of GF.



There is another reason why I have been so absent. I have become fairly convinced of the truth behind much of what Rhett was trying to explain to me, mainly through connections I have made long after speaking to him. But what has developed in me is more of an understanding of how the world *might* be, as opposed to a belief that this understanding is true. I am sure that to really understand much of what I have come to suspect about reality, I need to go through a revolution in how I understand myself (through serious meditation for example).

I am most interested in trying to validate or invalidate my suspicions, but in order to do this, I think I need guidance regarding such things as meditation rather than engage in high level conscious debate. The latter is what this place is all about, thus I have turned my attention elsewhere. I feel like I am in the position of having come to an understanding of some amazing theory, but without personally knowing anything about the research or experiments that this theory is based on other than their conclusions. Hence, I just need that experience, and maybe everything will click into place.

Basically, the problem I originally had while talking to people about what can perhaps be generally termed the QSR philosophy was that I was being highly sceptical and was adamantly passing everything through my critical filter. I don’t think I or anyone else will ever come to believe half of what QSR think without a degree of crucial experience or understanding of themselves as well as good reasoning. The difference for me is that I have become convinced ahead of the game that this experience is there to be had. (Initially I would have been sceptical of that). So, suggestions anyone?

Anyway, Hi again, I hope to stick around for a while this time!

Andrew

[Kelly Jones]

I have often been frustrated at the impossibility to engage in many types of arguments because of the practical requirement to avoid hurting people’s feelings – outside of GF.

I don't recognise that "practical requirement". Suffering is an inevitable part of philosophy.

To me, tact is consciousness of a person's likely capabilities. And mindfulness of the difference between absolute logical truths, and scientific inductions.

I am most interested in trying to validate or invalidate my suspicions, but in order to do this, I think I need guidance regarding such things as meditation rather than engage in high level conscious debate. The latter is what this place is all about, thus I have turned my attention elsewhere. I feel like I am in the position of having come to an understanding of some amazing theory, but without personally knowing anything about the research or experiments that this theory is based on other than their conclusions. Hence, I just need that experience, and maybe everything will click into place.

There is no "research" or "experiment" that can be performed outside one's own thinking, to understand Ultimate Reality. All things together are evidence.

Meditation just means thinking. Satori, wierd mental states, epiphanies, and whatever, will not unlock the all-important understanding, without logical thinking.

All you need to do is find the core logical truth for all things, then meditate on it as often as you can. While eating, lying down, standing, walking, talking. Seeing it in everything.


-

[Carl G]

There is no "research" or "experiment" that can be performed outside one's own thinking, to understand Ultimate Reality.

Yes there is, there is emotional research that can be performed, and experiments using one's body...

All things together are evidence.

Exactly.

Meditation just means thinking.

You have that backwards. Meditation means stopping thinking.

weird mental states, epiphanies, and whatever,

These have nothing to do with meditation.

Satori...will not unlock the all-important understanding,

Satori literally means understanding.

without logical thinking.

Logic is your religion, your faith, your God, isn't it. But, you're right. It's important.

All you need to do is find the core logical truth for all things,

Ah, so simple. So easy.

then meditate on it as often as you can.

Don't you mean contemplate? Meditation is an emptying, not a considering.

While eating, lying down, standing, walking, talking. Seeing it in everything.

Why? Why, other than you must, if you must? Why focus on the buzz phrase, Ultimate Reality. So important it warrants capitalization. What does seeing it in everything get you?

[Mitchell Porter]

Andrew quotes Kelly on

the cowards who've left

Are these new words or old? I feel like I might have read them on genius-l.

The fundamental reason I am not here is because answers are not. So being here reduces to trying to demonstrate this, or otherwise trying to identify the particular pitfall which has captured quite a few good minds in an illusion of ultimate knowledge. - There are fringe benefits to being here, but I'm talking about the essential issue.

[Carl G]

The fundamental reason I am not here is because answers are not.
There are fringe benefits to being here, but I'm talking about the essential issue.

What are your questions?

Have you found the answers anywhere?

Where have you found them?

What are the answers you have found?

[Mitchell Porter]

Carl - We could start with, what is the mind? And, why does anything exist?

[Jason]

Hi Andrew.

When it comes to philosophy, I haven’t stopped thinking, and have gone through several revolutions in how I understand the world.

Can you briefly describe those revolutions?

On the contrary, in my time away from this discussion environment, I have often been frustrated at the impossibility to engage in many types of arguments because of the practical requirement to avoid hurting people’s feelings – outside of GF.

I find that interesting, what were the arguments exactly?

There is another reason why I have been so absent. I have become fairly convinced of the truth behind much of what Rhett was trying to explain to me, mainly through connections I have made long after speaking to him. But what has developed in me is more of an understanding of how the world *might* be, as opposed to a belief that this understanding is true.

I think a core problem with much philosophy is that people seem to think there is somehow more truth in how the world might be instead of simple how it is. The grass is always greener I suppose.

I am sure that to really understand much of what I have come to suspect about reality, I need to go through a revolution in how I understand myself (through serious meditation for example).

What do you suspect about reality?

I am most interested in trying to validate or invalidate my suspicions, but in order to do this, I think I need guidance regarding such things as meditation rather than engage in high level conscious debate.

So you're after low level unconscious agreement then? :)

Basically, the problem I originally had while talking to people about what can perhaps be generally termed the QSR philosophy was that I was being highly sceptical and was adamantly passing everything through my critical filter. I don’t think I or anyone else will ever come to believe half of what QSR think without a degree of crucial experience or understanding of themselves as well as good reasoning. The difference for me is that I have become convinced ahead of the game that this experience is there to be had. (Initially I would have been sceptical of that). So, suggestions anyone?

As far as I have seen, a deeply critical and skeptical mind(and method) is a cornerstone of philosophical development. Don't abandon this method, and don't let anything slip by unprocessed by it. That includes QSR philosophy.

Of course, it could get interesting if that method/mindset turns back on itself, and you get to the point of being skeptical of skepticism.

[Carl G]

Carl - We could start with, what is the mind? And, why does anything exist?

Those are great questions.

[Andrew]

Firstly, about quoting people… As on genius-l, I much prefer the idea of, for example, quoting the quotes of quotes, using the quote function. But I’ve seen lots of people here correct for this and simply replace the start of successive arguments with a letter indicating who was speaking. I realise using nested quotes may take up more space, but in many situations it would seem necessary to retain the nesting information. I just wonder if this kind of issue is well understood by people who have been here for a while and if so if there is any simple advice about it. For this post I will use the quote function throughout and see what happens!

Hi Andrew.

When it comes to philosophy, I haven’t stopped thinking, and have gone through several revolutions in how I understand the world.

Can you briefly describe those revolutions?

Hi again Jason.

Well I suppose these revolutions relate a lot more to the practical world than to ultimate reality.

I think the best way to describe what I have gone through in general is a breaking down of prior beliefs rather than the constructing of new ones. I have a vastly more open mind now (I think). I am far less inclined to trust the scientific process and feel a much deeper attitude of scepticism towards anything and everything inside mainstream science. One reason for this change was due to my research of “the psi effect”. I read of an experiment which proved that the (practical) scientific process is wildly biased against controversial theories. It showed that selection for publication in scientific journals of research papers was actually based very largely upon the conclusions the research came to, irrespective of the integrity of the scientific method employed in the research.

While losing faith in mainstream science, as it is practically exercised, I have opened the door to any ideas which appear to directly contradict it. Essentially, I have lost a fair chunk of my prior comfort zone. Even though I would not consciously have deferred judgement of any particular idea to scientific thought, there was always this deeply held faith that regardless of all the arguments here, I would always have science to turn to, and it would always set me on the right track.

But there are some beliefs, or suspicions, which I have nonetheless built up during my time away. In particular is the idea that consciousness itself is so much more central to the problem of understanding reality than even I originally suspected. At any rate, if mainstream science is to go through a new revolution, accepting that consciousness is relevant to reality is absolutely essential. I read the books “The Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra, “Mysticism and the New Physics” by Michael Talbot and “Wholeness and the Implicit Order” by David Bohm. Largely through this (and knowledge of the paradoxes of quantum phyics) I came to realise the error in the pervading dualistic paradigm of reality. I always consciously accepted that duality doesn’t make sense – but could not ever see how consciousness could exist without this distinction. I can probably pre-empt some people and acknowledge that it is the conscious distinction that brings it into existence in the first place.

Anyway, I notice I’m not being particularly brief … next point.

On the contrary, in my time away from this discussion environment, I have often been frustrated at the impossibility to engage in many types of arguments because of the practical requirement to avoid hurting people’s feelings – outside of GF.

I find that interesting, what were the arguments exactly?

I’m not thinking of any particular arguments. I mean just in general. The big difference I find with discussion here and with (most) people I meet elsewhere, is that here the focus usually stays on topic and if someone implies disrespect in their language, it does not normally become the *entire* focus of the conversation – as it does elsewhere.

I made this point because it seemed Kelly Jones was suggesting I couldn’t stand the type of environment where people are not quite so careful and respectful towards one another.

There is another reason why I have been so absent. I have become fairly convinced of the truth behind much of what Rhett was trying to explain to me, mainly through connections I have made long after speaking to him. But what has developed in me is more of an understanding of how the world *might* be, as opposed to a belief that this understanding is true.

I think a core problem with much philosophy is that people seem to think there is somehow more truth in how the world might be instead of simple how it is. The grass is always greener I suppose.

Well, if your aim is to reduce the amount of BS within philosophy, then if people were to aspire less towards “greater understanding” then there would certainly be less unrealistic stabs at it. But had I lived during the time that the Earth was considered flat, I would have been one to hypothesize that it really was not – in order to come to a more elegant way of explaining the movement of the heavenly bodies.

Assuming there is greener grass out there, the only way to find it is to suppose that it exists, and go looking for it. I’m not at the stage that I am totally convinced that it is there. I am at the stage where it seems to me that it is there, and I want to spend some time verifying that hypothesis.

I am sure that to really understand much of what I have come to suspect about reality, I need to go through a revolution in how I understand myself (through serious meditation for example).

What do you suspect about reality?

I *suspect* that consciousness is one side of the coin of reality - not just a strange phenomena that occurs inside the head of this entity I call “me”. I have read of very many people coming to deep revelations about the nature of the whole of reality through gaining a deep insight into the functioning of their own consciousness. Originally, I was extremely sceptical that these revelations were in any way “true” – how could you tell that they were trustworthy and not just delusions. But I have become much more interested to gain this kind of insight for myself.

I am suspicious that I need this kind of insight as well as reasoned analysis because there are many things that I can accept through reason, but nevertheless cant *see* it.

I am most interested in trying to validate or invalidate my suspicions, but in order to do this, I think I need guidance regarding such things as meditation rather than engage in high level conscious debate.

So you're after low level unconscious agreement then? :)

Well I’m not interested in meditation for the sake of developing a sense of peace etc etc. Like I said in the previous paragraphs, I am suspicious that I may come to realise something crucial through paying less attention to thoughts, and more attention to consciousness itself (achievable through the effort of “listening” to the empty spaces between thoughts, or so I hear).

Basically, the problem I originally had while talking to people about what can perhaps be generally termed the QSR philosophy was that I was being highly sceptical and was adamantly passing everything through my critical filter. I don’t think I or anyone else will ever come to believe half of what QSR think without a degree of crucial experience or understanding of themselves as well as good reasoning. The difference for me is that I have become convinced ahead of the game that this experience is there to be had. (Initially I would have been sceptical of that). So, suggestions anyone?

As far as I have seen, a deeply critical and skeptical mind(and method) is a cornerstone of philosophical development. Don't abandon this method, and don't let anything slip by unprocessed by it. That includes QSR philosophy.

Of course, it could get interesting if that method/mindset turns back on itself, and you get to the point of being skeptical of skepticism.

I think I’ve made the mistake that I have recently accused others of elsewhere… “Scepticism” has come to mean two different things. On one hand it means being careful to weigh up the merits of an idea before accepting it, on the other, it means tending to reject ideas. Originally, I think I was quite heavily biased in favour of rejecting many aspects of the QSR philosophy because it contradicts so much of what I had (non-sceptical) faith in. Now, while I will still be sceptical (and pass it through my conscious filter) I will not filter out parts for relatively unfounded reasons.

But having said that, I am worried that the largest part of how I have adapted to the world, and hence my mental model of how it works, is based much more on information which I have absorbed throughout my life without any critical filtering (what children do). So it seems that I may now be at the stage of having accepted most of what this deluded civilisation believes, and now that my scepticism has finally kicked in (as an adult), it will be very difficult to unlearn this maladjustment. As QSR believe – the best way to teach them is to get to them when they are young.

A child would base their level of scepticism completely upon whether or not they believed the person is trustworthy. Having developed relatively little method by which to judge ideas themselves, this is the only criterion they have. But once they can trust QSR (which would be more straightforward in person than online) they could then absorb the ideas like a sponge. The problem I have is that I (as an adult) have put my faith more in my ability to judge ideas than in my ability to judge the trustworthiness of people. I doubt I could ever be convinced that QSR are trustworthy people – I know that the majority of people have crazy ideas so how do I know they are any different.

So I have to judge everything they say. It is frustrating to know that if they really do speak “The Truth” that my critical filter might actually be the reason why I will never understand them properly.

If it’s any consolation, there is still much of their philosophy I am quite far from accepting – especially all that stuff about women.

[Andrew]

Andrew quotes Kelly on

the cowards who've left

Are these new words or old? I feel like I might have read them on genius-l.

I got them from Kelly's post on March 13th of this year from this thread: (I cant figure out how to link to a specific post :/)

http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... d74017ddbd

[Andrew]

I have often been frustrated at the impossibility to engage in many types of arguments because of the practical requirement to avoid hurting people’s feelings – outside of GF.

I don't recognise that "practical requirement". Suffering is an inevitable part of philosophy.

Well I agree, but the problem is that most people just don't have the desire to risk hurting their own feelings, or even mine, simply to get to the bottom of any particular argument. Like I said to Jason, the focus shifts to personal issues, and it just becomes impossible to talk to most people about a whole range of subjects. In that sense, I miss talking here. Here the limit of the depth we can get to is normally bounded by time, not by lack of focus or hurt feelings.

There is no "research" or "experiment" that can be performed outside one's own thinking, to understand Ultimate Reality. All things together are evidence.

I don't dismiss that thinking is necessary, but I do think that I need to have certain new experiences before it will all make sense. It may be the case that I will have these experiences by deep thinking in place of meditation.

Meditation just means thinking. Satori, wierd mental states, epiphanies, and whatever, will not unlock the all-important understanding, without logical thinking.

Well like I and someone else pointed out, meditation is more related to the absence of thought. Though of course that is related to "thought-control" which could be said to come under the category of thinking. Again, I don't disagree. I know that thought will be necessary, but I think that my reasoning is not the bottleneck. I think I am being held back by not "seeing" something about consciousness.

All you need to do is find the core logical truth for all things, then meditate on it as often as you can. While eating, lying down, standing, walking, talking. Seeing it in everything.
-

I think that's putting the cart before the horse. If Einstein had suggested his theory of special relativity before anyone had discovered that light is always measured at the same speed, regardless of the context, no one would have accepted it, nor given it any attention - even though they may have accepted that technically it is well reasoned and cannot be disproved. If they nonetheless trusted Einstein, they may have enough interest to go test the theory, in particular by measuring the speed of light in different contexts. I feel like I am in this sort of position. There is so much about the nature of reality that I can accept is reasonable. But I have no particular reason to believe that any of it is actually true and so have little motivation to test any particular idea. More importantly, in order to verify half of the ideas I come across, the way to validate them is to have an insight into consciousness which I am missing. So this is analogous to the situation where there is the Theory of Special Relativity, but no one has the means to measure the speed of light.

[Kelly Jones]

K: There is no "research" or "experiment" that can be performed outside one's own thinking, to understand Ultimate Reality.

C: Yes there is, there is emotional research that can be performed, and experiments using one's body...

Here is a different point of view:

Asking the question, "What is the nature of Ultimate Reality?", immediately creates the experiment, the hypothesis and its proof. It happens because one has used thinking, even to form the question.

Nothing but absolute logical definitions bring one to intellectual understanding.

Carl, I'm thinking you're more interested in comfort than philosophy. Is that true?

K: Meditation just means thinking.

C: You have that backwards. Meditation means stopping thinking.

Oh?

Achieved any meditation lately?

K: weird mental states, epiphanies, and whatever,

C: These have nothing to do with meditation.

They can be very thought-stimulating experiences, which means, one can meditate on them.

K: Satori...will not unlock the all-important understanding,

C: Satori literally means understanding.

To me, satori is any mindstate in which one is experiencing a deep consciousness of Nature, as if that consciousness is Nature. So, though extremely valuable as a breakthrough into a deeper understanding of Nature, it is still a delusional mindstate.

K: Satori, weird mental states, epiphanies, and whatever, will not unlock the all-important understanding, without logical thinking.

C: Logic is your religion, your faith, your God, isn't it. But, you're right. It's important.

Odd kind of rebuke, Carl. Do you believe that the conscious, enlightened mind has no use for logic?

K: All you need to do is find the core logical truth for all things,

C: Ah, so simple. So easy.

It is, if you're a logical thinker.

K: then meditate on it as often as you can.

C: Don't you mean contemplate?

No, I mean meditate, namely think. Realise. Create pathways out of delusional habits.

Meditation is an emptying, not a considering.

Emptying what out of what?

K: While eating, lying down, standing, walking, talking. Seeing it in everything.

C: Why? Why, other than you must, if you must? Why focus on the buzz phrase, Ultimate Reality. So important it warrants capitalization. What does seeing it in everything get you?

There's no inherent reason why enlightenment is more valuable than delusion. If one is caused to value one over the other, then so be it.

Speaking for myself, if delusions arise, then I value correcting them. I happen to value logic and reason --- more often than not.

But, if one is constantly free of delusion, and one's consciousness of Truth is perfect, then there's no need to correct anything.

I see that it is possible to correct errors, and not to settle for less than perfection. So, that interests me.



-

[Carl G]

Here is a different point of view:

Asking the question, "What is the nature of Ultimate Reality?", immediately creates the experiment, the hypothesis and its proof. It happens because one has used thinking, even to form the question.

Yes, that is the intellectual point of view, which sees mind as king, and everything being refracted through the mental process. Dogma of mentality. Mentality as religion.

Not to say the mind isn't important. I didn't say it wasn't.

Nothing but absolute logical definitions bring one to intellectual understanding.

This is beside the point, the point being that intellectual understanding is not the only type of understanding possible. The heart can know. The body can know.

Carl, I'm thinking you're more interested in comfort than philosophy. Is that true?

What would lead you to think that?

No, Kelly, I'm just as much of a soldier as you.

K: Meditation just means thinking.

C: You have that backwards. Meditation means stopping thinking.

K: Oh? Achieved any meditation lately?

Yes, but why do I suspect you are mocking? You don't value going beyond thinking?

K: weird mental states, epiphanies, and whatever,

C: These have nothing to do with meditation.

K: They can be very thought-stimulating experiences, which means, one can meditate on them.

Obviously we have different definitions of mediation, so, maybe let's leave it at that.

K: Satori...will not unlock the all-important understanding,

C: Satori literally means understanding.

K: To me, satori is any mindstate in which one is experiencing a deep consciousness of Nature, as if that consciousness is Nature.

I don't follow. Why would you tack this idea onto the experience of a deep consciousness of Nature. If I am conscious of Nature, you're saying that necessarily means I make the mistake of thinking that my consciousness is Nature?

K: Satori, weird mental states, epiphanies, and whatever, will not unlock the all-important understanding, without logical thinking.

C: Logic is your religion, your faith, your God, isn't it. But, you're right. It's important.

K: Odd kind of rebuke, Carl. Do you believe that the conscious, enlightened mind has no use for logic?

That's an odd reply, right after I said "But, you're right. It's important."

K: All you need to do is find the core logical truth for all things,

C: Ah, so simple. So easy.

K: It is, if you're a logical thinker.

Like I say...

K: then meditate on it as often as you can.

C: Don't you mean contemplate?

K: No, I mean meditate, namely think. Realise. Create pathways out of delusional habits.

Again, fine, we have different definitions of meditation.

Meditation is an emptying, not a considering.

Emptying what out of what?

The mind. Thinking.

There's no inherent reason why enlightenment is more valuable than delusion. If one is caused to value one over the other, then so be it.

Speaking for myself, if delusions arise, then I value correcting them. I happen to value logic and reason --- more often than not.

But, if one is constantly free of delusion, and one's consciousness of Truth is perfect, then there's no need to correct anything.

I see that it is possible to correct errors, and not to settle for less than perfection. So, that interests me.

Fair enough, and thanks for sharing.

[Kelly Jones]

K: Meditation just means thinking.

C: You have that backwards. Meditation means stopping thinking.

K: Oh? Achieved any meditation lately?

C: Yes, but why do I suspect you are mocking? You don't value going beyond thinking?

How do you know you meditated, if you weren't identifying anything?

K: weird mental states, epiphanies, and whatever,

C: These have nothing to do with meditation.

K: They can be very thought-stimulating experiences, which means, one can meditate on them.

C: Obviously we have different definitions of mediation, so, maybe let's leave it at that.

I don't see any reasoning in your use of "meditation" so far.

K: Satori...will not unlock the all-important understanding,

C: Satori literally means understanding.

K: To me, satori is any mindstate in which one is experiencing a deep consciousness of Nature, as if that consciousness is Nature.

C: I don't follow. Why would you tack this idea onto the experience of a deep consciousness of Nature. If I am conscious of Nature, you're saying that necessarily means I make the mistake of thinking that my consciousness is Nature?

If that mindstate of deep awareness is interpreted as the true face of Nature, then it is a delusion, though subtle.

K: Satori, weird mental states, epiphanies, and whatever, will not unlock the all-important understanding, without logical thinking.

C: Logic is your religion, your faith, your God, isn't it. But, you're right. It's important.

K: Odd kind of rebuke, Carl. Do you believe that the conscious, enlightened mind has no use for logic?

C: That's an odd reply, right after I said "But, you're right. It's important."

Should I take your answer to be, no ?

K: All you need to do is find the core logical truth for all things,

C: Ah, so simple. So easy.

K: It is, if you're a logical thinker.

C: Like I say...

It's cause and effect.

K: then meditate on it as often as you can.

C: Don't you mean contemplate?

K: No, I mean meditate, namely think. Realise. Create pathways out of delusional habits.

C: Again, fine, we have different definitions of meditation.

What is the purpose of your "meditation", that excludes thinking, realising, and halting delusion ?

C: Meditation is an emptying, not a considering.

K: Emptying what out of what?

C: The mind. Thinking.

Would you mind describing how you empty the mind of thinking, while never thinking ?

I take it you define thinking as reasoning?

K: There's no inherent reason why enlightenment is more valuable than delusion. If one is caused to value one over the other, then so be it.

Speaking for myself, if delusions arise, then I value correcting them. I happen to value logic and reason --- more often than not.

But, if one is constantly free of delusion, and one's consciousness of Truth is perfect, then there's no need to correct anything.

I see that it is possible to correct errors, and not to settle for less than perfection. So, that interests me.

C: Fair enough, and thanks for sharing.

So, were you experiencing your "meditation without reasoning" while you concluded that this was "fair enough"....... ?



-

[Kelly Jones]

A: I have often been frustrated at the impossibility to engage in many types of arguments because of the practical requirement to avoid hurting people’s feelings – outside of GF.

K: I don't recognise that "practical requirement". Suffering is an inevitable part of philosophy.

A: Well I agree, but the problem is that most people just don't have the desire to risk hurting their own feelings, or even mine, simply to get to the bottom of any particular argument. Like I said to Jason, the focus shifts to personal issues, and it just becomes impossible to talk to most people about a whole range of subjects. In that sense, I miss talking here. Here the limit of the depth we can get to is normally bounded by time, not by lack of focus or hurt feelings.

There is no philosophy without considering personal ramifications. Or rather, it is academic nonsense.

Jason recently pulled out of an email discussion when it got to his livelihood, which is inventing "cool stuff". One has to choose between Woman or Liberation. There's no in-between.

Being offended is easy. Pushing pride out of the way is hard.

K: Meditation just means thinking. Satori, wierd mental states, epiphanies, and whatever, will not unlock the all-important understanding, without logical thinking.

A: Well like I and someone else pointed out, meditation is more related to the absence of thought. Though of course that is related to "thought-control" which could be said to come under the category of thinking.

Rather than try to control thoughts (like subtracting memories, which is impossible), I just remember my purpose, whenever I wonder what I should be doing.

Then the rest follows.

I know that thought will be necessary, but I think that my reasoning is not the bottleneck. I think I am being held back by not "seeing" something about consciousness.

Consciousness is just appearances. It can change.

So, to find an absolutely reliable understanding, it's more logical to find out what is ultimately true. That which cannot change.

K: All you need to do is find the core logical truth for all things, then meditate on it as often as you can. While eating, lying down, standing, walking, talking. Seeing it in everything.

A: I think that's putting the cart before the horse. If Einstein had suggested his theory of special relativity before anyone had discovered that light is always measured at the same speed, regardless of the context, no one would have accepted it, nor given it any attention - even though they may have accepted that technically it is well reasoned and cannot be disproved. If they nonetheless trusted Einstein, they may have enough interest to go test the theory, in particular by measuring the speed of light in different contexts. I feel like I am in this sort of position.

All one needs is a logical definition for "thing" (e.g. appearances), and "cause" (e.g. whatever brings a thing into existence).

Then put these two ideas together.

There is so much about the nature of reality that I can accept is reasonable. But I have no particular reason to believe that any of it is actually true and so have little motivation to test any particular idea.

I look at Reality as a concept meaning Everything, the Totality of all things.

If you look at it this way, then there will be only one logical meaning that you can accept for Reality. There won't be any others.

And fortunately, being a logical truth for the Totality, it will be absolute. That means, full stop.

More importantly, in order to verify half of the ideas I come across, the way to validate them is to have an insight into consciousness which I am missing. So this is analogous to the situation where there is the Theory of Special Relativity, but no one has the means to measure the speed of light.

Since consciousness is always whatever appears to mind, it is not logical to use a state of consciousness to define Reality. That is arse-about.

I define consciousness as whatever appears to mind, and define the Totality as all consciousnesses (all appearances), so I end up looking at the nature of Reality rather than the nature of consciousness. The conclusion that I have for the nature of Reality inevitably applies to consciousness.

It's like having a universal ticket. But the ticket has to be stamped by the Totality Government, rather than the Consciousness Officer.


-

[Andrew]

There is no philosophy without considering personal ramifications. Or rather, it is academic nonsense.

I was only making the point to argue that I'm not put off by hurt feelings in arguments. Beyond that it is a bit academic.

I know that thought will be necessary, but I think that my reasoning is not the bottleneck. I think I am being held back by not "seeing" something about consciousness.

Consciousness is just appearances. It can change.

So, to find an absolutely reliable understanding, it's more logical to find out what is ultimately true. That which cannot change.

Well to highlight my quandary. I can easily accept that consciousness "is just appearances". But that appears to me as nothing other than semantics. To understand that "consciousness is just appearances" makes perfect logical sense, but I have this defeated sense of "So what?".

It's perhaps like someone trying to teach a kid calculus. The child can accept every separate fact he is told, but he may nevertheless still not "see" the grand picture.

K: All you need to do is find the core logical truth for all things, then meditate on it as often as you can. While eating, lying down, standing, walking, talking. Seeing it in everything.

A: I think that's putting the cart before the horse. If Einstein had suggested his theory of special relativity before anyone had discovered that light is always measured at the same speed, regardless of the context, no one would have accepted it, nor given it any attention - even though they may have accepted that technically it is well reasoned and cannot be disproved. If they nonetheless trusted Einstein, they may have enough interest to go test the theory, in particular by measuring the speed of light in different contexts. I feel like I am in this sort of position.

All one needs is a logical definition for "thing" (e.g. appearances), and "cause" (e.g. whatever brings a thing into existence).

Then put these two ideas together.

If you are saying that this will ultimately lead me to a paradigm shift in how I view reality, this seems similar to giving a child the basic axioms of mathematics then expecting him to deduce the rest for himself.

I can accept that what you say about "things" and "causes" is true, but I would have to take it on faith that this was actually going to lead me anywhere particularly worthwhile. Worse still I am quite convinced I have already gone down that road and it has not led me to any breakthroughs. Also, I am suspicious, along with what Jason implied earlier, that there is no greener grass on the other side. Perhaps I already do understand "Reality".

There is so much about the nature of reality that I can accept is reasonable. But I have no particular reason to believe that any of it is actually true and so have little motivation to test any particular idea.

I look at Reality as a concept meaning Everything, the Totality of all things.

If you look at it this way, then there will be only one logical meaning that you can accept for Reality. There won't be any others.

And fortunately, being a logical truth for the Totality, it will be absolute. That means, full stop.

Hrm, again, it just seems like semantics. I don't disagree with anything there. Perhaps the real issue is that while I have no problem understanding the Totality, I hunger for a more categorised, practical understanding. As an example, I have studied AI in great depth, but have discovered that there is no theory which is anywhere close to being able to model conscious perception in the same sense that we are experts at modelling many physical interactions. In order to model a "hill" object, we just need to define it according to a set of criteria we choose. But for some reason there is a complete absence of criteria by which we can model a pain sensation "object". It seems to absolutely escape any objective categorisation.

More importantly, in order to verify half of the ideas I come across, the way to validate them is to have an insight into consciousness which I am missing. So this is analogous to the situation where there is the Theory of Special Relativity, but no one has the means to measure the speed of light.

Since consciousness is always whatever appears to mind, it is not logical to use a state of consciousness to define Reality. That is arse-about.

I'm not suggesting that consciousness is in some way "the real reality" or anything like that. I am interested in it because I don't understand it. Or at least I am suspicious of my understanding of it. I'm also interested in it because many have said that breaking down one's delusions about the nature of consciousness is necessary to understand "Truth". I think the most direct way to do this may be to try and "see" consciousness for what it is, rather than try to find arguments to construct an understanding of it.

I define consciousness as whatever appears to mind, and define the Totality as all consciousnesses (all appearances), so I end up looking at the nature of Reality rather than the nature of consciousness. The conclusion that I have for the nature of Reality inevitably applies to consciousness.

It's like having a universal ticket. But the ticket has to be stamped by the Totality Government, rather than the Consciousness Officer.

In light of that, I can say that I am, like you, interested in studying the Totality as you have defined it. I think you are suggesting that I should approach the problem in a top down fashion as opposed to bottom up. Instead of trying to make sense of consciousness first, then develop insight into the totality, I should perhaps concentrate more on the totality and through that will be able to see the part that is consciousness for what it really is. Well I will certainly put much effort into that sometime. But I want to stay relatively focussed on the route I am on unless you can explain why it will not get me to the solution in the end.

[Carl G]

How do you know you meditated, if you weren't identifying anything?

One can identify consciousness without thinking. One can simply be aware, and aware of the awareness.

Do you value thinking so much that you cannot see any other valid way to be?

I don't see any reasoning in your use of "meditation" so far.

Again, meditation as I define it does not involve reasoning. It involves quieting the mind.

C: I don't follow. Why would you tack this idea onto the experience of a deep consciousness of Nature. If I am conscious of Nature, you're saying that necessarily means I make the mistake of thinking that my consciousness is Nature?

K: If that mindstate of deep awareness is interpreted as the true face of Nature, then it is a delusion, though subtle.

Ah, finally, we come to the all-important "if".

C: Logic is your religion, your faith, your God, isn't it. But, you're right. It's important.

K: Odd kind of rebuke, Carl. Do you believe that the conscious, enlightened mind has no use for logic?

C: That's an odd reply, right after I said "But, you're right. It's important."

K: Should I take your answer to be, no ?

That is correct: no, I do not "believe that the conscious, enlightened mind has no use for logic?" In other words, as I said twice , Logic is important.

K: then meditate on it as often as you can.

C: Don't you mean contemplate?

K: No, I mean meditate, namely think. Realise. Create pathways out of delusional habits.

C: Again, fine, we have different definitions of meditation.

K: What is the purpose of your "meditation", that excludes thinking, realising, and halting delusion ?

Meditation as I, and many others define it, has various purposes. Stilling the mind is a beneficial exercise in will power, in attention, as a rest for the mental function, and also as a key to unlock doors to other sorts of perception of self and of greater reality. It allows one to go deeper into oneself, and deeper into the silence of the larger place/ experience.

C: Meditation is an emptying, not a considering.

K: Emptying what out of what?

C: The mind. Thinking.

K: Would you mind describing how you empty the mind of thinking, while never thinking ?

I take it you define thinking as reasoning?

There are many methods. One common one involves following the breath.

C: Fair enough, and thanks for sharing.

K: So, were you experiencing your "meditation without reasoning" while you concluded that this was "fair enough"....... ?

You're cute when you're sarcastic.

[Jason]

Firstly, about quoting people… As on genius-l, I much prefer the idea of, for example, quoting the quotes of quotes, using the quote function. But I’ve seen lots of people here correct for this and simply replace the start of successive arguments with a letter indicating who was speaking. I realise using nested quotes may take up more space, but in many situations it would seem necessary to retain the nesting information. I just wonder if this kind of issue is well understood by people who have been here for a while and if so if there is any simple advice about it. For this post I will use the quote function throughout and see what happens!

I often compose my replies in a text editor, and I generally find it easier not to use nested quotes because of that, and I also think the posts are easier to read with just the capital-letter/s representing the poster's names all within a single quotation block.

AW: On the contrary, in my time away from this discussion environment, I have often been frustrated at the impossibility to engage in many types of arguments because of the practical requirement to avoid hurting people’s feelings – outside of GF.

So you understand there is the possibility of serious danger in exploring philosophy, and dicussing it here? It's not just the chance of hurt feelings, I'd say there is the chance of hurting your life and even your sanity. I just want you to be aware of how damaging philosophy can sometimes be.

AW: Assuming there is greener grass out there, the only way to find it is to suppose that it exists, and go looking for it. I’m not at the stage that I am totally convinced that it is there. I am at the stage where it seems to me that it is there, and I want to spend some time verifying that hypothesis.

Andrew, I did read through your entire post, and I'm not trying to ignore or avoid the specific ideas and points you raised, but I think it's better right now for me to concentrate on some other issues, like your motivations. So..

What drives you to seek out understanding? What do you hope you will find with philosophy, and if or when you do find what you are looking for, what do you hope or believe the ramifications will be?

During my own search for truth, a question I probably didn't ask myself enough, or pay enough attention to, was actually a very simple complementary question to "What is true?", and that question was "What truth am I lacking right now? What is it about reality and existence that I think I am missing, if anything?" I'd like to know what you think is missing or lacking.

As you wrote above, you're "assuming there is greener grass out there". Now obviously you are repeating the same phrasing that I wrote, but doesn't "greener grass" sound more like an emotion-based value judgment rather than a purely rational/logical/philosophical understanding or truth? Many people say that the search for truth is ignited(at least partly) by suffering. That generally rings true for me too. So perhaps many philosopher's central question "What is true?", should really be appended with "Because I'm hoping it will help me to escape my current suffering." Do you think that applies to you?

AW: But having said that, I am worried that the largest part of how I have adapted to the world, and hence my mental model of how it works, is based much more on information which I have absorbed throughout my life without any critical filtering (what children do). So it seems that I may now be at the stage of having accepted most of what this deluded civilisation believes, and now that my scepticism has finally kicked in (as an adult), it will be very difficult to unlearn this maladjustment.

Why do you seek to unlearn the possibly deluded beliefs that you absorbed as a child? What do you think would be the outcome of this? Do you think you would be better off? What if you life would be worse as a direct result of unlearning these things, would you still follow this path?

[Jason]

There is no philosophy without considering personal ramifications. Or rather, it is academic nonsense.

Jason recently pulled out of an email discussion when it got to his livelihood, which is inventing "cool stuff". One has to choose between Woman or Liberation. There's no in-between.

Are you suggesting there is contradiction between my fundamental understanding of reality and me inventing "cool stuff"? There might be, if I agreed with the ideas of QSR, like you do, but it so happens that I don't, so there is no contradiction or hypocrisy there. I pulled out of the email discussion because you initially appeared to want to discuss inventing and inventors, but you ended up largely wanting to make the discussion about criticizing both through the lens of QSR-beliefs. I have no interest in that because it is approaching the issues from the wrong end. Instead, discussing the underlying problems that you believe you see in my understanding of reality would be the right way to go about it.

(Also, I never said anything about it being my "livelihood", dunno were you got that from.)

[Kelly Jones]

K: There is no philosophy without considering personal ramifications. Or rather, it is academic nonsense.

Jason recently pulled out of an email discussion when it got to his livelihood, which is inventing "cool stuff". One has to choose between Woman or Liberation. There's no in-between.

J: Are you suggesting there is contradiction between my fundamental understanding of reality and me inventing "cool stuff"? There might be, if I agreed with the ideas of QSR, like you do, but it so happens that I don't, so there is no contradiction or hypocrisy there.

I did not say you were a hypocrite. But you do seem to find Woman's pantihose inexplicably interesting.

J: I pulled out of the email discussion because you initially appeared to want to discuss inventing and inventors, but you ended up largely wanting to make the discussion about criticizing both through the lens of QSR-beliefs.

Please pin-point exactly what it is about my beliefs that you're obscuring with this QSR doodlemuckery.

J: I have no interest in that because it is approaching the issues from the wrong end. Instead, discussing the underlying problems that you believe you see in my understanding of reality would be the right way to go about it.

If you take away the QSR flippery, then you will see what I was getting at.

How about responding to these questions and criticisms:

[edit: Jason requested I remove his part of the conversation. I decided not to paraphrase it, as it's mostly the same sentence.]


K: Is Jason a pseudonym?


J: -

K: That would boil down to: "the problem is boredom; the solution is to avoid boredom at all costs".

-

J: -

K: Do you find that designing takes up most of your mind, most of the time?

-

J: -

K: What do you think Reality is, having realised that all realities and all things, are so open to altered perspectives ?

-

J: -

K: What is your purpose for making these devices ?

-

J: -

K: What is an example of something "cool" ?

-

J: -

K: So your entire goal in life is --- what? To be rich? To be a famous inventor like Leonardo da Vinci or like Marc Newson ? To be an unpopular, impoverished, but wholly truthful thinker and philosopher ? To be married and have kids ?

-

J: -

K: What exactly is "make it"?

-

J: -

K: It may help if I contextualise my views.

I was on the verge of becoming a self-employed inventor when my UNSW design degree and internship finished in January 2004. My "drylands inventions" plan was approved for a 12-month government grant, to kickstart me off. I had just enough in loans to carry it off, but it would have been extremely demanding. So, I wasn't really worried about money, because I am a frugal person, and was never interested in glamorous advertising or graphics.

However, my underlying purpose was to avoid criticism about my philosophical ideas, by supporting myself within an "ethical" mask. During the internship, I copped quite a lot of flak for my views on logic, and lots of support for my "eco" self-employment plans. So I was nervous about whether I could live as a philosopher. The problem was, detailed work schedules and financial plans showed I'd have to work 7 days a week, and not have much time for thinking about philosophy. I wanted to be a philosopher full-time. Yet, I still couldn't pull out. Only when I couldn't find premises to rent, that'd allow business activities plus living onsite in outback South Australia, did I pull out.

I was extremely relieved, but also embarrassed at my cowardice.

Being an inventor for me, meant creating efficient machines that could deal with a number of different problems. These problems were always related to drylands living -- soil salinity, desalinating water, creating oases in the desert, versatile shelters, and the like. I saw humans as generally stupid and unimaginative, like you do. My aim was to create more efficient lifestyles, and shift the majority of humans into "intelligent communities". The problem with this was, I knew no one was really interested in becoming more intelligent --- not just environmentally adaptive, but really intelligent, in a philosophical sense. I also knew that I'd be quite popular for "helping" the environmental movement along, and this really grated at me. I saw such a life as being an imposter. So, I dropped out of society, and chose the path that directly reflected my values. I felt like I'd been rescued from hell.

I used virtually the same thinking process in forging that path, into philosophy, as I did as a young inventor. Namely, identifying the general design concept (my goal) based on my values; then identifying any similar concepts that are not quite the same thing (the side-tracks); then refining the concept (developing an intellectual understanding, and applying it). I kept coming up with wierd mindstates to reach the goal, which were mild satori's, and also kept on thinking and refining the idea.

J: -

K: As a design student, I invented a few different simple locks, a portable stove base, a flute with a few hinged keys, gardening tools, a folding horizontal electric light with a relay switch for "meditation", a portable picnic table made of cupressus macrocarpa (Student Design Awards finalist), a collapsible bike pannier, a pamphlet holder for bicycle activists, a flexible fountain pen made of anodized aluminium knuckles (to look like a skeletal finger), an interactive animation to advertise a community garden, reusable bleeding pads for women (less fuss than the RadPads idea), and so on. I also helped to invent a system to measure graphically the possibility of static apnea in free-diving, along with a system for teaching free-diving. Stuff I'd never waste my time on, nowadays.

Nowadays, when I'm having an occasional break from philosophy, I might design a "living", including property, shelter, bio-zones, efficient interactions to sustain the living. I usually come to the end of my dream when I see that, no matter how minimised the design, it is a lot of work. In other words, it invades my philosophy space. So, my real inventions are wholly philosophical. That's what satisfies me most ---- all my creativity and character are engaged in "riding the bull".

-

J: Also, I never said anything about it being my "livelihood", dunno were you got that from.

I realise it's not how you currently get money. But it seems to be what you "do". When people ask you "what do you do", I expect you think of inventing.


-

[Kelly Jones]

I can easily accept that consciousness "is just appearances". But that appears to me as nothing other than semantics. To understand that "consciousness is just appearances" makes perfect logical sense, but I have this defeated sense of "So what?".

It's perhaps like someone trying to teach a kid calculus. The child can accept every separate fact he is told, but he may nevertheless still not "see" the grand picture.

What happens when everything you experience ---all the things--- are labelled "appearances", such that there are no real boundaries anywhere?

And what happens when the kid puts himself into the equation? Is he now still there?

Is anything?

K: All one needs is a logical definition for "thing" (e.g. appearances), and "cause" (e.g. whatever brings a thing into existence). Then put these two ideas together.

A: I can accept that what you say about "things" and "causes" is true, but I would have to take it on faith that this was actually going to lead me anywhere particularly worthwhile. Worse still I am quite convinced I have already gone down that road and it has not led me to any breakthroughs. Also, I am suspicious, along with what Jason implied earlier, that there is no greener grass on the other side. Perhaps I already do understand "Reality".

Your philosophising seems to be driven by a need to experience something. Whereas I see philosophy as finding out what is ultimately true. And letting my desires for something to live on .....die.

Nietzsche criticised so-called "philosophers" (using the word sarcastically) for being driven by certain prejudices:

Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir; also that the moral (or immoral) intentions in every philosophy constituted the real germ of life from which the whole plant had grown.

Indeed, if one would explain how the abstrusest metaphysical claims of a philosopher really came about, it is always well (and wise) to ask first: at what morality does all this (does he....) aim? Accordingly, I do not believe that a "drive to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but rather that another drive has, here as elsewhere employed knowledge (and mis-knowledge!) as a mere instrument. But anyone who considers the basic drives of man to see to what extent they may have been at play just here as in inspiring spirits (or demons and kobolds) will find that all of them have done philosophy at some time - and that every single one of them would like only too well to represent just itself as the ultimate purpose of existence and the legitimate dominator of all the other drives. For every drive is domineering - and it attempts to philosophize in that spirit.

And here, Nietzsche wrote about the real philosopher, the "Free Spirit" :

Need I still say expressly after all this that they, too, will be free, very free spirits, these philosophers of the future - though just as certainly they will not be merely free spirits but something more, higher, greater, and thoroughly different that does not want to be misunderstood and mistaken for something else. But saying this I feel an obligation - almost as much to them as to ourselves who are their heralds and precursors, we free spirits! - to sweep away a stupid old prejudice and misunderstanding about the lot of us: all too long it has clouded the concept "free spirit" like a fog. In all the countries of Europe, and in America, too, there now is something that abuses this name: a very narrow, imprisoned, chained type of spirit who wants just about the opposite of what accords with our intentions and instincts - not to speak of the fact that regarding the new philosophers who are coming up they must assuredly be closed windows and bolted doors. They belong, briefly and sadly, among the levellers - these falsely so-called "free spirits" - being eloquent and prolifically scribbling slaves of the democratic taste and its "modern ideas"; they are all human beings without solitude, without their own solitude, clumsy good fellows whom one should not deny either courage or respectable decency - only they are unfree and ridiculously superficial, above all in their basic inclination to find the cause of all human misery and failure in the forms of the old society as it has existed so far just about - which is a way of standing truth happily upon her head! What they would like to strive for with all their powers is the universal green-pasture happiness of the herd, with security, lack of danger, comfort, and an easier life for everyone; the two songs and doctrines which they repeat most often are: "equality of rights" and "sympathy for all that suffers" - and suffering itself they take for something that must be abolished. We opposite men, having opened our eye and conscience to the question where and how the plant "man" has so far grown most vigorously to a height - we think that this has happened every time under the opposite conditions, that to this end the dangerousness of his situation must first grow to the point of enormity, his power of invention and simulation (his "spirit") had to develop under prolonged pressure and constraint into refinement and audacity, his life-will had to be enhanced into an unconditional power-will. We think that hardness, forcefulness, slavery, danger in the alley and the heart, life in hiding, stoicism, the art of temptation and devilry of every kind, that everything evil, terrible, tyrannical in man, everything in him that is kin to beasts of prey and serpents, serves the enhancement of the species "man" as much as its opposite does. Indeed, we do not even say enough when we say only that much; and at any rate we are at this point, in what we say and keep silent about, at the other end from all modem ideology and herd desireableness - as their antipodes perhaps? Is it any wonder that we "free spirits" are not exactly the most communicative spirits? that we do not want to betray in every particular from what a spirit can liberate himself and to what he may then be driven?

Perhaps the real issue is that while I have no problem understanding the Totality, I hunger for a more categorised, practical understanding. As an example, I have studied AI in great depth, but have discovered that there is no theory which is anywhere close to being able to model conscious perception in the same sense that we are experts at modelling many physical interactions. In order to model a "hill" object, we just need to define it according to a set of criteria we choose. But for some reason there is a complete absence of criteria by which we can model a pain sensation "object". It seems to absolutely escape any objective categorisation.

I have no problem defining a pain sensation according to a set of criteria I choose. I don't know, ultimately, whether the pain sensation is really a pain sensation, but that doesn't stop me having quite a lot of success in staying alive. That's scientific uncertainty for you: causes are infinite, so the things we experience cannot be pinned down as intrinsic. No one knows ultimately what particular things really are. Or rather, they aren't ultimately anything. Or even more accurately, they are just what they are.

And, if your scenario were taken to its extreme, the fundamental error is that any model created as an ultimate representation for consciousness, is appearing in, and affected by, consciousness. And trying to model the Totality is an extremely impractical way to approach it.

I mean, how can you ever represent something that has absolutely no ultimate nature at all? Any model that is made-up is completely decentralised. The meaning for the Totality can not be anchored anywhere.

I am interested in [consciousness] because I don't understand it. Or at least I am suspicious of my understanding of it.

So you would throw away the Absolute, for some thing that has meaning relative to the Absolute?

Why do you find this kind of "greener pasture" more satisfying, I wonder........

I'm also interested in it because many have said that breaking down one's delusions about the nature of consciousness is necessary to understand "Truth". I think the most direct way to do this may be to try and "see" consciousness for what it is, rather than try to find arguments to construct an understanding of it.

Again, the nature of consciousness can only be found by understanding the nature of Reality.

There is no other certain and logical way to do it.

Consciousness is a part of the Totality. What is true for the Totality is necessarily true for all its parts.

K: I define consciousness as whatever appears to mind, and define the Totality as all consciousnesses (all appearances), so I end up looking at the nature of Reality rather than the nature of consciousness. The conclusion that I have for the nature of Reality inevitably applies to consciousness.

It's like having a universal ticket. But the ticket has to be stamped by the Totality Government, rather than the Consciousness Officer.

A: I think you are suggesting that I should approach the problem in a top down fashion as opposed to bottom up. Instead of trying to make sense of consciousness first, then develop insight into the totality, I should perhaps concentrate more on the totality and through that will be able to see the part that is consciousness for what it really is. Well I will certainly put much effort into that sometime. But I want to stay relatively focussed on the route I am on unless you can explain why it will not get me to the solution in the end.

The approach to understanding the Totality is not top-down vs. bottom-up. It is simply that what is true for the Totality is true for all its parts.

One's aim should be to find out what is the ultimate, true, nature for anything. So, instead of looking at the unique identity for any particular thing, such as "white, shiny, square, heavy, perishable" and so on, one should be looking at the ultimate identity for the Totality.

It's really very simple. It isn't a particular form.

And that is Ultimate Truth, present everywhere. One's own true nature.


-

[Andrew]

I often compose my replies in a text editor, and I generally find it easier not to use nested quotes because of that, and I also think the posts are easier to read with just the capital-letter/s representing the poster's names all within a single quotation block.

Ok I think I’ll give that a shot now.

So you understand there is the possibility of serious danger in exploring philosophy, and dicussing it here? It's not just the chance of hurt feelings, I'd say there is the chance of hurting your life and even your sanity. I just want you to be aware of how damaging philosophy can sometimes be.

Yes I am aware that there are probably many things about my current understanding of the world that I would feel extremely eager to protect and would feel completely destabilised if I undermine these beliefs. But I am quite sure that ultimately reducing delusion within my own mind will also reduce suffering in general, not just in me but in the lives of other people that I affect. But that’s me trying to justify my motivation…

Describing it instead, I have the impression that knowing the “Truth” would “make me a better person”. I can see so many people around me who seem to be totally deluded about so many different things. They bring themselves such misery and screw up the lives of other people. I can imagine that if there were an afterlife (for example) they may one day be asked to look back on their lives and realise how they had put their faith in all the wrong things, and had done far more harm than good.

But taking that to another level, I don’t even know if the aim to reduce suffering is necessarily the “right” thing to do. Hence it becomes a bit circular… I want to study philosophy because of my current set of motivations, in order to find out how I should be motivated.

I could go on… As I mentioned earlier, I hunger for a technical understanding of such things as consciousness because I am interested in AI. I might find out through QSR type philosophy that true AI is actually impossible to construct for instance.

AW: Assuming there is greener grass out there, the only way to find it is to suppose that it exists, and go looking for it. I’m not at the stage that I am totally convinced that it is there. I am at the stage where it seems to me that it is there, and I want to spend some time verifying that hypothesis.

…

J: What drives you to seek out understanding? What do you hope you will find with philosophy, and if or when you do find what you are looking for, what do you hope or believe the ramifications will be?

Well there are some specific things. I mentioned a list of books earlier that I have read recently. They all centred largely on consciousness and its relationship with the rest of reality. Since reading those books I have spent hundreds of hours reading through similar stuff on the internet and keep making connections, particularly between ideas relating to modern physics, ancient mysticism, and “psi”. I hope that I will one day be able to either understand, or discount what people are saying about these issues. I expect that this understanding will help me to carve a meaningful path in my life – not necessarily help me carve an efficient path to what I currently want.

During my own search for truth, a question I probably didn't ask myself enough, or pay enough attention to, was actually a very simple complementary question to "What is true?", and that question was "What truth am I lacking right now? What is it about reality and existence that I think I am missing, if anything?" I'd like to know what you think is missing or lacking.

I don’t understand consciousness. According to how I understand it, I could not say one way or the other whether or not consciousness is an emergent phenomenon based on the activities of individual brains, or whether it is a categorised part of a universal consciousness – which our physical brains “tap into”. In the former case, “psi” (telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance etc) is extremely hard to explain, in the latter, it is all too clear. But I don’t even expect to find answers to these questions. I would be happy even with enough understanding to show me why these questions are silly, for example.

As you wrote above, you're "assuming there is greener grass out there". Now obviously you are repeating the same phrasing that I wrote, but doesn't "greener grass" sound more like an emotion-based value judgment rather than a purely rational/logical/philosophical understanding or truth? Many people say that the search for truth is ignited(at least partly) by suffering. That generally rings true for me too. So perhaps many philosopher's central question "What is true?", should really be appended with "Because I'm hoping it will help me to escape my current suffering." Do you think that applies to you?

Well like I said at the start, that is how I would best justify my efforts I think. But this idea that one can be motivated solely by reason/logic or philosophy is … unreasonable I would have said. You can always ask “why do you want to do X” and it will always come down to seeking pleasure or avoiding suffering. I can accept that by taking things to their limits, the best one can do is avoid all suffering but in order to achieve this one must also dispense with all pleasure. But still, at that state, all would be motivated to maintain this balance.

AW: But having said that, I am worried that the largest part of how I have adapted to the world, and hence my mental model of how it works, is based much more on information which I have absorbed throughout my life without any critical filtering (what children do). So it seems that I may now be at the stage of having accepted most of what this deluded civilisation believes, and now that my scepticism has finally kicked in (as an adult), it will be very difficult to unlearn this maladjustment.

J: Why do you seek to unlearn the possibly deluded beliefs that you absorbed as a child? What do you think would be the outcome of this? Do you think you would be better off? What if you life would be worse as a direct result of unlearning these things, would you still follow this path?

I would only seek to unlearn a particular belief as a result of undermining it somehow. If I came to understand something and, for example, realised that I could no longer (ethically for example) continue doing something which I used to enjoy, then I doubt I could continue. I expect I would be relieved that I caught myself than be disappointed that I could no longer continue.

Similarly, if I broke down something central in the way I understand the world, I may feel as though I was losing touch of reality and might go through some form of mental breakdown. Again, I am naturally extremely adventurous and expect the exhilaration of finally *really* altering my understanding (presumably in the right direction) would easily outweigh any sense of horror that may accompany it.

As another example, if I came to realise that seeking any pleasure (and therefore also avoiding suffering) was based totally on delusion, then by that stage I would have completely undermined the method by which I currently motivate myself. In which case, my course of action would depend on my new motivation (obviously). If I came to believe that it is possible to be motivated purely by reason, and I justified that seeking pleasure or avoiding suffering is unreasonable, then I would give up a life of happiness if I came to believe that was the “reasonable” course.

I hope this in some way gets to the bottom of what you are trying to get from me.

[Kelly Jones]

Carl,

Logic is "when" awareness is identified as what it is (or as anything).

Do you agree?

-

[Carl G]

Logic is "when" awareness is identified as what it is (or as anything).

Do you agree?

I would agree that it is logical to identify awareness as awareness.

If you asking me if the act of identifying awareness as awareness is the definition of logic, I would say no. First, logic is a noun, not a verb. Second, employing logic may include more than that act, such as the process of following and analyzing a string of experiences.

What is your point?

[Jason]

AW: Yes I am aware that there are probably many things about my current understanding of the world that I would feel extremely eager to protect and would feel completely destabilised if I undermine these beliefs. But I am quite sure that ultimately reducing delusion within my own mind will also reduce suffering in general, not just in me but in the lives of other people that I affect. But that’s me trying to justify my motivation…

Describing it instead, I have the impression that knowing the “Truth” would “make me a better person”. I can see so many people around me who seem to be totally deluded about so many different things. They bring themselves such misery and screw up the lives of other people. I can imagine that if there were an afterlife (for example) they may one day be asked to look back on their lives and realise how they had put their faith in all the wrong things, and had done far more harm than good.

Don't you think it's possible that removing delusions could itself cause more suffering? For example, questioning the delusions of society whilst in itself may free one from some forms of suffering, at the same time it can conflict with and cause alienation from society. I question whether removing delusion always necessarily leads to less suffering overall.

AW: But taking that to another level, I don’t even know if the aim to reduce suffering is necessarily the “right” thing to do. Hence it becomes a bit circular… I want to study philosophy because of my current set of motivations, in order to find out how I should be motivated. I could go on… As I mentioned earlier, I hunger for a technical understanding of such things as consciousness because I am interested in AI. I might find out through QSR type philosophy that true AI is actually impossible to construct for instance.

I am very interested in AI too, and I've also thought that philosophy might be a way to gain insight into how to create strong AI. Can you program?

Amongst other things, philosophical enquiry has suggested to me that there is no discernable difference between consciousness and the appearance of consciousness: if something appears to be conscious then for all intents and purposes it is. If you take that argument on board, then simply creating an absolutely massive program just consisting of the correct "if-then" statements would make AI "consciousness" theoretically feasible, but perhaps not very practical to create in the real world.

On the flip-side, have you considered the possibility that AI/computers could already be described/defined as conscious? How do you even define consciousness? What tests would need to be carried out to prove something was conscious? What tests are there even now, just for humans, that prove they are conscious and not just clever unconscious zombies?

"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim. - Dijkstra"

J: What drives you to seek out understanding? What do you hope you will find with philosophy, and if or when you do find what you are looking for, what do you hope or believe the ramifications will be?

AW: Well there are some specific things. I mentioned a list of books earlier that I have read recently. They all centred largely on consciousness and its relationship with the rest of reality. Since reading those books I have spent hundreds of hours reading through similar stuff on the internet and keep making connections, particularly between ideas relating to modern physics, ancient mysticism, and “psi”. I hope that I will one day be able to either understand, or discount what people are saying about these issues. I expect that this understanding will help me to carve a meaningful path in my life – not necessarily help me carve an efficient path to what I currently want.

'round these parts the official line, and one that I also observe, is that we're looking for "Ultimate Reality", what is utlimately real, ultimately true. Philosophy and truth to the extreme, dude! Are you interested in that? Are you interested in finding absolute certainty?

As far as science is broadly concerned, what do you make of criticism such as "the problem of causation" and "the problem of induction"? Do you think science can be a source of certain truth and certain knowledge?

J: During my own search for truth, a question I probably didn't ask myself enough, or pay enough attention to, was actually a very simple complementary question to "What is true?", and that question was "What truth am I lacking right now? What is it about reality and existence that I think I am missing, if anything?" I'd like to know what you think is missing or lacking.

AW: I don’t understand consciousness. According to how I understand it, I could not say one way or the other whether or not consciousness is an emergent phenomenon based on the activities of individual brains, or whether it is a categorised part of a universal consciousness – which our physical brains “tap into”. In the former case, “psi” (telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance etc) is extremely hard to explain, in the latter, it is all too clear. But I don’t even expect to find answers to these questions. I would be happy even with enough understanding to show me why these questions are silly, for example.

There are a few very fundamental hurdles that I see here - if you are willing to take on skeptical philosophy. Central one: how do you even know for sure that any consciousness other than your own even exists? You can only infer, assume, that consciousness in others exists or does not. Could you say for sure that an electricity pylon is not conscious? Being a personal subjective thing, by most definitions, consciousness in others is never going to be directly perceivable by you.

In fact, I wonder whether this could be why so many people have a view of consciousness as being special and sort of mystical, magical and unexplainable - because they have a tendency to ignore this fact of its complete subjectivity. That leads to all sorts of problems, such as arguing about whether consciousness is neurons and neurotransmittors and so on, when in the final analysis it is not these things, it is simply subjective experience.

I don't necessarily hold to these viewpoints, just a few things to ponder.

AW:Similarly, if I broke down something central in the way I understand the world, I may feel as though I was losing touch of reality and might go through some form of mental breakdown. Again, I am naturally extremely adventurous and expect the exhilaration of finally *really* altering my understanding (presumably in the right direction) would easily outweigh any sense of horror that may accompany it.

Ok, but you've been warned. Let me state for the record that I don't think it's inherently necessary to go through, or even near, such potentially dangerous experiences if what you want is a fundamental understanding of reality.

AW:As another example, if I came to realise that seeking any pleasure (and therefore also avoiding suffering) was based totally on delusion, then by that stage I would have completely undermined the method by which I currently motivate myself. In which case, my course of action would depend on my new motivation (obviously). If I came to believe that it is possible to be motivated purely by reason, and I justified that seeking pleasure or avoiding suffering is unreasonable, then I would give up a life of happiness if I came to believe that was the “reasonable” course.

In my experience a quite common state of affairs is to first come to an undestanding in a more intellectual, detached and academic way, whilst still having a large part of one's emotions, attachments, habits and motivations still engaged in pre-understanding old ways. That's a serious and painful problem. The intellect is pulling one way and the emotions and instincts the other. Although, again, I'm not so sure this type of torturous route is necessary on the path to understanding "ultimate" reality.

AW:I hope this in some way gets to the bottom of what you are trying to get from me.

You don't feel like I'm interrogating you do you? Well maybe I am, but in a good way. I'm hoping you get something out of this too, I'm not doing it just for me - or am I, is there any other way? :)