The Causes of Consciousness

[Ataraxia]

Not relevant, I'm afraid. It doesn't matter how expansive a consciousness becomes and how many zillions of senses it might acquire, it will always be trapped within its own subjective experience. By default, it is impossible for anyone or anything to go beyond its own consciousness and peek at what lies beyond.

But lets conceive the alien that has expanded his consciousness and his zillions of sense to 'know' everything.A being so advanced it is god-like in it's all knowingness.

Or lets conceive of the 'programmer' and his computer that hypothetically created our totally in the thought experiment you are fond to use and must be considered.They have aquired knowledge of the Totality,after all 'they' created it.

It is now not subjective,but objective.

I'm putting it much more strongly than that. I am saying that there is literally nothing to know about what is beyond consciousness, due to the fact that what is "there" can never be reduced down into a form. When you understand this point, the issue becomes utterly resolved. All mystery vanishes. Everything that can ever be known about what is beyond the mind is now known.

-

But you've conceived of this logic within the totality,while you were inside the 'computer', if you like.

I think Victor made this point in your first reasoning show too.I think it's a good point.One that I can't resolve.

[xpsyuvz]

David Quinn,

That's right. The formlessness of what is beyond the mind has some superficial similarities to the formlessness of the Totality. Both involve an inability to be contained within a form, but for different reasons. What is beyond the mind cannot be contained within a form because forms can only occur within the mind. The Totality cannot be contained within a form because a form is necessarily limited in extent and depends on what is not it for its very existence.

I like that you acknowledge the idea of something (potentially) being formless, yet not being Totality. (Earlier, I got the impression that this idea was too incomprehensible for your beliefs.)

For example, the truth that all things have causes doesn't depend on the assumption that existence is appearance. Logically speaking, causality would still be a universal reality even in a completely objective world. Objective things and events are still dependent on their parts for their own existence, and by external things like time and space.

Since things like “time” and “space” are only understood through a subjective perspective, I think you may be convoluting “conscious interpretations” with a “completely objective world” (with your reasoning that “(completely) ...objective things and events are still dependant on their parts for their own existence…”).
My point here is that, you can’t always assume that things that are unknowable require things that you usually assume are knowable require.

xpsyuvz: (You earlier even said, “This isn't to say that consciousness is the sole creator of our experiences, but it is a necessary element to them. It is part of an array of necessary causes.” And this seems to imply that not everything that “exists” (i.e. “something that causes appearances to exist“) is an appearance itself.

DQ: I was thinking here of an object's parts and the like. An object's existence is not only dependent upon a perspective generated by an observer, but also upon the object's parts being assembled together in the proper manner. These parts are still existences which only find their reality in their appearing to an observer.

With your idea of an “object’s parts”, you seem to still be just assuming it’s parts must function according to how the mind understands things.
However, the “object” (that we’re talking about here) would have no knowable parts. So I see this conclusion as only based upon an (uncertain) assumption extrapolated from assuming unknowable things "behave" the same way as knowable things.

Even if a thing is intrinsically unknowable, it is still governed by the laws of logic. For example, if the unknowable thing in question is finite in extent, it will necessary be caused. This is because a finite thing necessarily depends on what is not it to give it definition.

A “definition” only has meaning to a conscious mind. (I.e. you’re deducting your assumptions about unknowable things upon things that are knowable.)

The stove, electricity, pot, water faucet, and all the other countless things which contribute to the water boiling are all existences which only find their reality in their appearing to the mind.

The stove, electricity, pot, etc… are all only perceptions that the mind imagines or is able to relate to. (I.e. They essentially only deal with appearances.) Yet it is possible/probable, that what appears inside of the mind is not entirely what causes the other appearances to occur.

DQ to Ataraxia: I'm putting it much more strongly than that. I am saying that there is literally nothing to know about what is beyond consciousness, due to the fact that what is "there" can never be reduced down into a form. When you understand this point, the issue becomes utterly resolved. All mystery vanishes. Everything that can ever be known about what is beyond the mind is now known.

I agree, that there is “literally nothing to know about what is beyond consciousness”. However, you seem to have just told me that whatever it is that is beyond conscious appearances, must still have been caused by something else (i.e. it‘s parts “assembled in a proper manner“). (And from what I can tell, you weren’t just talking about the conscious appearances/effects that it may or may not cause.)

DQ to Cory: 3) That reality is infinite, or that it is finite, are both momentary realities which spring spontaneously out of the Void. Neither are ultimately real.

To me, the idea of “infinity” is just a concept a mind can point to, but never fully understand (or experience). And since, to me, the idea that something has infinite causes (i.e. causes that can never be fully “reached“ to be able to cause that something), the “infinite causes” idea is absurd. So I find it more coherent/consistent to just say, some things aren’t understandable.
So, here, it’s not so much about an idea being “ultimately real”, but more about the idea being consistent and accurate about what reality seems to be.

[David Quinn]

Ataraxia,

DQ: Not relevant, I'm afraid. It doesn't matter how expansive a consciousness becomes and how many zillions of senses it might acquire, it will always be trapped within its own subjective experience. By default, it is impossible for anyone or anything to go beyond its own consciousness and peek at what lies beyond.

Ataraxia: But lets conceive the alien that has expanded his consciousness and his zillions of sense to 'know' everything.A being so advanced it is god-like in it's all knowingness.

Two points:

(1) The idea of "knowing everything through the senses" is a contradiction in terms, since the senses operate by letting a particular mode of data through and excluding the rest. As such, the alien will always have gaps in his knowledge of the world, no matter how many senses he might have. His awareness will always be broken up into tentacles - with each sense-field corresponding to a tentacle of awareness - and there will always be blind spaces between these tentacles.

Moreover, the operation of consciousness itself is exclusivist by nature. In order to be conscious of some particular thing, it necessarily has to exclude everything which is not that thing. At the very least, in order to be conscious of everything in the present, the alien would have to exclude everything that has ever been in the past and everything that will ever be in the future.

(2) The alien has no way of knowing that his entire subjective experience isn't an hallucination of some kind. He might think that he is being aware of everything, but he has no means of finding out if that is really the case, and that is because, like the rest of us, he cannot go beyond his own consciousness and find out.

Or lets conceive of the 'programmer' and his computer that hypothetically created our totally in the thought experiment you are fond to use and must be considered.They have aquired knowledge of the Totality,after all 'they' created it.

The programmer is in the exact same position as we are. He would have to consider who or what created his own reality.

It is now not subjective,but objective.

No, it is still subjective.

DQ: I'm putting it much more strongly than that. I am saying that there is literally nothing to know about what is beyond consciousness, due to the fact that what is "there" can never be reduced down into a form. When you understand this point, the issue becomes utterly resolved. All mystery vanishes. Everything that can ever be known about what is beyond the mind is now known.

Ataraxia: But you've conceived of this logic within the totality,while you were inside the 'computer', if you like.

I think Victor made this point in your first reasoning show too.I think it's a good point.One that I can't resolve.

I didn't find it very convincing. Logic operates in the same way on all existences, without exception. So to the degree that we want to conceive of things existing beyond our consciousness, logic will necessarily apply to them.

From what I can recall, Victor tried to say that we can't talk about the possibility of the world being a computer simulation because we are inside the world and not outside it. But that is clearly groundless. The mere fact that we can create simulations in our own computers automatically throws up the possibility that our own world could be a simulation. The possibility is definitely real and cannot be dismissed. The fact that we are conceiving of this possibility within the world makes no difference.

-

[David Quinn]

xpsyuvz,

DQ: That's right. The formlessness of what is beyond the mind has some superficial similarities to the formlessness of the Totality. Both involve an inability to be contained within a form, but for different reasons. What is beyond the mind cannot be contained within a form because forms can only occur within the mind. The Totality cannot be contained within a form because a form is necessarily limited in extent and depends on what is not it for its very existence.

xpsyuvz: I like that you acknowledge the idea of something (potentially) being formless, yet not being Totality. (Earlier, I got the impression that this idea was too incomprehensible for your beliefs.)

Well, strictly speaking, I don't have any beliefs. I just do logic.

What is beyond the mind is certainly formless - not just potentially formless, but definitely so. But this particular formlessness is nowhere near as interesting or as profound as the formlessness of the Totality itself, which lies at the heart of all philosophical and spiritual endeavour.

Understanding the nature of what lies beyond consciousness is just a stepping stone to greater things. It is still far removed from ultimate understanding.

DQ: For example, the truth that all things have causes doesn't depend on the assumption that existence is appearance. Logically speaking, causality would still be a universal reality even in a completely objective world. Objective things and events are still dependent on their parts for their own existence, and by external things like time and space.

xpsyuvz: Since things like “time” and “space” are only understood through a subjective perspective, I think you may be convoluting “conscious interpretations” with a “completely objective world” (with your reasoning that “(completely) ...objective things and events are still dependant on their parts for their own existence…”).
My point here is that, you can’t always assume that things that are unknowable require things that you usually assume are knowable require.

The very idea of an objective world carries with it the assumption that space and time are objective as well.

We can't have it both ways. We can't argue for the existence of an objective world and then lay down the law that we can't logically reason about this objective world. That is a case of having one's cake and eating it too.

xpsyuvz: (You earlier even said, “This isn't to say that consciousness is the sole creator of our experiences, but it is a necessary element to them. It is part of an array of necessary causes.” And this seems to imply that not everything that “exists” (i.e. “something that causes appearances to exist“) is an appearance itself.

DQ: I was thinking here of an object's parts and the like. An object's existence is not only dependent upon a perspective generated by an observer, but also upon the object's parts being assembled together in the proper manner. These parts are still existences which only find their reality in their appearing to an observer.

xpsyuvz: With your idea of an “object’s parts”, you seem to still be just assuming it’s parts must function according to how the mind understands things.
However, the “object” (that we’re talking about here) would have no knowable parts. So I see this conclusion as only based upon an (uncertain) assumption extrapolated from assuming unknowable things "behave" the same way as knowable things.

It doesn't matter what the mind knows or doesn't know, it is still the case that an object cannot exist without its parts. This kind of logic is absolute. It all applies to all things necessarily, both knowable and unknowable.

Now you might want to argue differently, but to do so you would have to apply logic to these unknowable things, which would immediately put you in a self-contradictory position.

Again, we cannot have it both ways. Either we apply logic to these unknowable things and do it properly, or we cease doing it altogether.

DQ: Even if a thing is intrinsically unknowable, it is still governed by the laws of logic. For example, if the unknowable thing in question is finite in extent, it will necessary be caused. This is because a finite thing necessarily depends on what is not it to give it definition.

xpsyuvz: A “definition” only has meaning to a conscious mind. (I.e. you’re deducting your assumptions about unknowable things upon things that are knowable.)

As are you. You are reaching conclusions about unknowable things based on your own definitions of them. We all do this. It is part and parcel of reaching any kind of conclusion at all. It's just a matter of doing it properly.

DQ: The stove, electricity, pot, water faucet, and all the other countless things which contribute to the water boiling are all existences which only find their reality in their appearing to the mind.

xpsyuvz: The stove, electricity, pot, etc… are all only perceptions that the mind imagines or is able to relate to. (I.e. They essentially only deal with appearances.) Yet it is possible/probable, that what appears inside of the mind is not entirely what causes the other appearances to occur.

That is true. For example, I accept that the formation of hydrogen during the Big Bang and oxygen inside stars are contributing causes of the water boiling, even though I have never been directly aware of their formation.

DQ to Ataraxia: I'm putting it much more strongly than that. I am saying that there is literally nothing to know about what is beyond consciousness, due to the fact that what is "there" can never be reduced down into a form. When you understand this point, the issue becomes utterly resolved. All mystery vanishes. Everything that can ever be known about what is beyond the mind is now known.

xpsyuvz: I agree, that there is “literally nothing to know about what is beyond consciousness”. However, you seem to have just told me that whatever it is that is beyond conscious appearances, must still have been caused by something else (i.e. it‘s parts “assembled in a proper manner“). (And from what I can tell, you weren’t just talking about the conscious appearances/effects that it may or may not cause.)

I was speaking hypothetically about an objective world. I don't believe in this objective world myself, but I can still tease out the logical implications contained within the idea of it.

DQ to Cory: 3) That reality is infinite, or that it is finite, are both momentary realities which spring spontaneously out of the Void. Neither are ultimately real.

xpsyuvz: To me, the idea of “infinity” is just a concept a mind can point to, but never fully understand (or experience). And since, to me, the idea that something has infinite causes (i.e. causes that can never be fully “reached“ to be able to cause that something), the “infinite causes” idea is absurd. So I find it more coherent/consistent to just say, some things aren’t understandable.

I don't have a problem with the idea of causality stretching back forever. What problems do you have with it?

-

[Ataraxia]

It doesn't matter what the mind knows or doesn't know, it is still the case that an object cannot exist without its parts. This kind of logic is absolute. It all applies to all things necessarily, both knowable and unknowable.

Now you might want to argue differently, but to do so you would have to apply logic to these unknowable things, which would immediately put you in a self-contradictory position.

Again, we cannot have it both ways. Either we apply logic to these unknowable things and do it properly, or we cease doing it altogether.

When you put it like that it does make more sense.Definately something for me to think about.

cheers.

[xpsyuvz]

David,

The very idea of an objective world carries with it the assumption that space and time are objective as well.

As far as I can tell, the only way we can have any meaningful idea of what “space” and “time” might possibly mean, is by relating them to (changing) forms -- i.e. things we’ve been describing as subjective. So in a realm without forms, the ideas of “space” and “time” seem to have no understandable meaning.
And since here they are meaningless, there is no reason to assume that the formless realm requires it. (You can try to explain further what you mean by what space and time mean in a formless realm, but I don’t think you’ll get anywhere without resorting to the realm of forms).

We can't have it both ways. We can't argue for the existence of an objective world and then lay down the law that we can't logically reason about this objective world. That is a case of having one's cake and eating it too.

I don’t mind reasoning about the unknowable formless realm as long as our reasons are sound. It’s just that since we’re talking about something that has no forms, this seems to suggest that there is very little we can assume for sure about it.

It doesn't matter what the mind knows or doesn't know, it is still the case that an object cannot exist without its parts. This kind of logic is absolute. It all applies to all things necessarily, both knowable and unknowable…

The idea of a “part” seems to get it’s meaning from objects that have form. Meanwhile if something has no form, what possible parts could it have? (Any potential answers I can think of, always fall back into the realm of forms.)
Since the idea of “parts” is meaningless in the context of an unknowable, formless thing, it seems like there is no reason to assume that it must have them.

…Now you might want to argue differently, but to do so you would have to apply logic to these unknowable things, which would immediately put you in a self-contradictory position.

Again, we cannot have it both ways. Either we apply logic to these unknowable things and do it properly, or we cease doing it altogether

The logic I’m applying is basically noticing that something can’t be understood, and realizing that therefore you can’t automatically assume it requires things that understandable things seem to require.

Meanwhile you seem to be improperly applying logic, by jumping to the conclusion that unknowable/formless things require the same things that forms require.
It might be interesting to see your explanation as to why all unknowable things require parts or causes -- but without basing your reasoning on examples that have forms.
My prediction is you will either end up resorting to forms as the foundation of the reasoning (which will most likely discredit the reasoning) or you will end up with “it’s just fundamental, and can’t be explained” (which to me suggests you may just believe it for no logical reason, but rather some unconscious faith/motive).

I don't have a problem with the idea of causality stretching back forever. What problems do you have with it?

My opinion isn’t too solid here, but this is roughly how I see it…

To me, it seems for the mind to understand things, it has to start from somewhere and work from there -- so the idea of never starting seems a bit incoherent. If you ask why is something (e.g. today) the way it is, and you get an infinite regress for an answer, you’ve not really come up with a final answer.
Put it slightly differently: If we say for today to exist, yesterday needs to occur, and for yesterday to occur the day before that needs to occur, etc, etc… with no end to this chain, then since it has no end, today should never be able to occur.
Meanwhile the understandable answers for “why today is in the form it is in“, seems to rely on finite forms (where maybe the answers will always be incomplete).
So to give the infinite history idea a less-abstract context with forms, let’s say one form in this present day is some immortal being saying, “one“, and yesterday he said, “two”, and the day before that he said “three”… (so he’s been counting backwards to “one“, day by day). If he had always been doing that and there was no beginning, then why would he finish this task today? For example, let’s say his immortal friend said, “two” today, and has similarly been counting backwards (at the same rate and increments as the first). Since infinity isn’t a specific amount (where infinity +1 is infinite and infinity +2 is equally infinite), things just don’t seem to add up for there to be specific forms appearing at specific times with an infinite history.

[Cory Duchesne]

Not relevant, I'm afraid. It doesn't matter how expansive a consciousness becomes and how many zillions of senses it might acquire, it will always be trapped within its own subjective experience. By default, it is impossible for anyone or anything to go beyond its own consciousness and peek at what lies beyond.

But let's conceive the alien that has expanded his consciousness and his zillions of sense to 'know' everything. A being so advanced it is god-like in it's all knowingness.

Ah, but not so fast. How would it be possible for the alien to know for certain that his evolution had achieved the maximum level of sensory power? Also consider that no matter how powerful your senses are, you are limited to sensing appearances, and those appearances are always a barrier, dividing you from what is possibly beyond them.

Or lets conceive of the 'programmer' and his computer that hypothetically created our totality in the thought experiment you are fond to use and must be considered.They have aquired knowledge of the Totality, after all 'they' created it.

No, if we define totality as 'everything' then they certainly did not create a totality because they are part of the totality prior to their attempt at creating it. How did they come into existence to begin with? That is all part of the totality. So basically, in their effort to create a totality, they merely created a single world among zillions.

[Cory Duchesne]

We can't really apply any of the terms that we use to describe what we experience within the mind to what is beyond it. As soon as we try to do so, we immediately transform what is utterly beyond the mind into just another piece of mind.

You know, I'm starting to think that the more traditional concept of causality really make understanding this difficult. For instance, earlier you tried to help me understand how the objective world is an illusion, but also, in the same sentence, suggested that the mind was generated by neurons. You were relying on the more mechanistic conception of cause and effect, which seems inappropriate. To say the mind is generated by neurons or biology must be false. The only description that seems close to being true is the one which says that all consciousness is existing spontaneously without cause. But it's not as if that really explains anything! When it's all said and done, the predicament of existing is simply absurd.

The fact that we can never empirically investigate what is beyond the mind means that the issue cannot be resolved by empirical means. We can only make logical deductions about it.

But these logical deductions defeat themselves. All that stands when we are done is the unexplainable absurdity that is this involuntary sensation of being.

For example, we can deduce that the order and regularity that we experience in our world cannot be generated out of nothing whatsoever, that there is not absolutely nothing beyond the mind.

Well then, it seems by your logic, the sense that something is 'generated' or 'created' is ultimately a false one.

Cory: Ok, well, how about this: If existence is appearance, and appearance is limited, how is it that you know for certain that reality is infinite?

Three points:

1) There is no reason to think that appearances and observers are limited in number.

What reason is there to think that appearances are infinite in number?

2) Reality is infinite in the sense that it is formless. It has no particular form and thus cannot be contained within dualistic, finite categories such as "existence", "thingness", "birth", "death", etc.

Ok.

3) That reality is infinite, or that it is finite, are both momentary realities which spring spontaneously out of the Void. Neither are ultimately real.

Do you sometimes question the sagacity of naming your book, wisdom of the 'infinite'?

[Sapius]

David wrote;

Reality is infinite in the sense that it is formless. It has no particular form and thus cannot be contained within dualistic, finite categories such as "existence", "thingness", "birth", "death", etc.

Then Reality must lie beyond consciousness; since it has no particular form, whereas forms are necessary for consciousness to be. And how is - “Reality is infinite in the sense that it is formless” – not a form too? That is, not an object of consciousness in and of duality?

That reality is infinite, or that it is finite, are both momentary realities which spring spontaneously out of the Void. Neither are ultimately real.

So momentary realities that spring out of the Void (with a capitol V), either way that is, are not ultimately real. So how real is ultimately the difference between them? It can’t be real… so why argue from either point of view as if they are ultimately real? From an individual set of values or point of view that is. Shouldn’t that then be an illogical exercise, any ways?

[Bilby]

Cory Duchesne said: “A thing only finds its existence in the perspective generated by an observer.”

I disagree here. We have to be able to rationalise as well as philosophise. There is nothing mystical about consciousness. It’s just matter/energy quanta, and would be fully explainable by physics, if physicists were tiny enough.

The universe has always existed, long before human consciousness, and people just pop in and out of the universe’s fabric. But an interesting question arises whether consciousness, or free-will, evolves. I’ve often wondered whether free-will has its genesis at a sub-atomic level, and increases in complexity as an organism’s complexity increases. Some people see consciousness in cellular organisation, for example. So consciousness might not just relate to people’s minds.

[David Quinn]

Cory,

DQ: We can't really apply any of the terms that we use to describe what we experience within the mind to what is beyond it. As soon as we try to do so, we immediately transform what is utterly beyond the mind into just another piece of mind.

Cory: You know, I'm starting to think that the more traditional concept of causality really make understanding this difficult. For instance, earlier you tried to help me understand how the objective world is an illusion, but also, in the same sentence, suggested that the mind was generated by neurons. You were relying on the more mechanistic conception of cause and effect, which seems inappropriate. To say the mind is generated by neurons or biology must be false. The only description that seems close to being true is the one which says that all consciousness is existing spontaneously without cause.

That is just as false as the other views expressed above, for nothingness is also a piece of mind.

Using mechanistic concepts of cause and effect to tease out delusions have their place, particularly with those who are still trying to grapple with how conscious existence is mechanistically created by what is beyond consciousness. It is only later when they resolve the issue logically that they can abandon these mechanistic conceptions.

It is like using a thorn to dig out another thorn which is stuck in your finger. Once the thorn is out, you can throw both thorns away.

But it's not as if that really explains anything! When it's all said and done, the predicament of existing is simply absurd.

This perception of absurdity is itself absurd, because it arises out of the groundless view that complete nothingness or non-existence should be the "natural" state of affairs and that anything other than this is "absurd" by default. It is vitally important to go beyond this kind of duality.

When it comes down to it, we are not in a position to decide what Reality should be, or how it should manifest itself, if at all. It is important to accept that the nature of Reality is such that existence is one its natural consequences. Who are we to say that it is absurd?

DQ: The fact that we can never empirically investigate what is beyond the mind means that the issue cannot be resolved by empirical means. We can only make logical deductions about it.

C: But these logical deductions defeat themselves. All that stands when we are done is the unexplainable absurdity that is this involuntary sensation of being.

The experience of this absurdity shows that you haven't yet taken your logic all the way.

DQ: For example, we can deduce that the order and regularity that we experience in our world cannot be generated out of nothing whatsoever, that there is not absolutely nothing beyond the mind.

C: Well then, it seems by your logic, the sense that something is 'generated' or 'created' is ultimately a false one.

I don't understand your point here.

Cory: Ok, well, how about this: If existence is appearance, and appearance is limited, how is it that you know for certain that reality is infinite?

DQ: Three points:

1) There is no reason to think that appearances and observers are limited in number.

Cory: What reason is there to think that appearances are infinite in number?

The mere fact they are arising now means there is nothing intrinsic in Reality to stop them from arising in the future.

DQ: 3) That reality is infinite, or that it is finite, are both momentary realities which spring spontaneously out of the Void. Neither are ultimately real.

Cory: Do you sometimes question the sagacity of naming your book, wisdom of the 'infinite'?

The word serves its purpose well enough. The term "Infinite" refers to the totality of all there is, which is a formless Void.

-

[David Quinn]

Sapius,

DQ: Reality is infinite in the sense that it is formless. It has no particular form and thus cannot be contained within dualistic, finite categories such as "existence", "thingness", "birth", "death", etc.

Sapius: Then Reality must lie beyond consciousness; since it has no particular form, whereas forms are necessary for consciousness to be.

Reality encompasses everything, including what is within the mind and what is beyond it. The only significant thing about what is beyond the mind is that it can never be experienced by anyone or anything. Other than that, it is in exactly the same boat as what is experienced within the mind. It is just another dualistic illusion which needs to be abandoned.

And how is - “Reality is infinite in the sense that it is formless” – not a form too? That is, not an object of consciousness in and of duality?

While the conception of formlessness is an object of consciousness, the meaning behind the conception serves to negate all possible forms, even the form of formlessness. In other word, if a person were to conceive of formlessness as having a particular form of formlessness and if he were to cling to this in the belief that what he is apprehending is ultimately true, then he would be deluding himself.

Formlessness, when understood aright, negates its own form just as much as it negates every other form.

DQ: That reality is infinite, or that it is finite, are both momentary realities which spring spontaneously out of the Void. Neither are ultimately real.

Sapius: So momentary realities that spring out of the Void (with a capitol V), either way that is, are not ultimately real. So how real is ultimately the difference between them? It can’t be real… so why argue from either point of view as if they are ultimately real? From an individual set of values or point of view that is. Shouldn’t that then be an illogical exercise, any ways?

Both views have to be abandoned, yes.

-

[Ataraxia]

Your response to my 'alien' hypothetical is the correct one.The senses will always pose a problem to the aliens ability to be 'all knowing'.I'm happy to discard it.

I do however still have a problem with the response to the computer hypothetical....

Ataraxia: But you've conceived of this logic within the totality,while you were inside the 'computer', if you like.

I think Victor made this point in your first reasoning show too.I think it's a good point.One that I can't resolve.

DQ:I didn't find it very convincing. Logic operates in the same way on all existences, without exception. So to the degree that we want to conceive of things existing beyond our consciousness, logic will necessarily apply to them.

I'm not so sure you can make such a broad statement and then claim pure logic.How can you know this?It is only your/our logic-the logic developed within the computer.Surely it can be only usable logic within the computer.

Cory Duchesne respone to my computer hypothetical is true too.Totality was not a good word to use on my part,it is only one 'totality',hence not the complete totality.I should've used a term like 'universe'.However it seems to only affirm my/Victors/xpsyuv's position.

David,you can say you stepped outside the computer to conceive this,but how can one?How can the logic be necessarily applied to things outside the 'universe'/computer simulation? It appears to me, too presumptious.Too ,Ad hoc.

Xpsyuvz seems of the same opinion to I-I'll be interested in your response to this;

xpsyuz:The logic I’m applying is basically noticing that something can’t be understood, and realizing that therefore you can’t automatically assume it requires things that understandable things seem to require.

Meanwhile you seem to be improperly applying logic, by jumping to the conclusion that unknowable/formless things require the same things that forms require.
It might be interesting to see your explanation as to why all unknowable things require parts or causes -- but without basing your reasoning on examples that have forms.
My prediction is you will either end up resorting to forms as the foundation of the reasoning (which will most likely discredit the reasoning) or you will end up with “it’s just fundamental, and can’t be explained” (which to me suggests you may just believe it for no logical reason, but rather some unconscious faith/motive).

DQ:From what I can recall, Victor tried to say that we can't talk about the possibility of the world being a computer simulation because we are inside the world and not outside it. But that is clearly groundless. The mere fact that we can create simulations in our own computers automatically throws up the possibility that our own world could be a simulation. The possibility is definitely real and cannot be dismissed. The fact that we are conceiving of this possibility within the world makes no difference.

I agree on this score,the computer simulation is an acceptable possibility,it can't be dissmissed.

[Jamesh]

I agree on this score,the computer simulation is an acceptable possibility,it can't be dissmissed.

No it is not "an acceptable possibility", and it should be immediately dismissed as having any relevance to understanding the universe. To me it is no different from Intelligent Design. Both are logical possibilities, but possibilities where rationally the probability of either being "real" is so low, that the concept can be safely competely ignored. In terms of developing ultimate truths, nothing would change even if they were real.

[David Quinn]

Yes, in terms of philosophically understanding ultimate truth, the possibility that the world is a simulation (or a hallucination or a dream or whatever) doesn't have any bearing. But it does cast doubt on the process of using empirical and scientific methods to uncover truth.

-

[David Quinn]

xpsyuvz,

DQ: The very idea of an objective world carries with it the assumption that space and time are objective as well.

xpsyuvz: As far as I can tell, the only way we can have any meaningful idea of what “space” and “time” might possibly mean, is by relating them to (changing) forms -- i.e. things we’ve been describing as subjective. So in a realm without forms, the ideas of “space” and “time” seem to have no understandable meaning.

Agreed. It should be stressed again that the objective world that I have been talking about is a world of forms beyond the mind which more or less resembles the world that we experience in our subjective consciousness. This is how most people conceive of the situation - namely, that the world we experience is an imitation or reflection of an objective world beyond the mind. It is not a conception that I subscribe to.

And since here they are meaningless, there is no reason to assume that the formless realm requires it. (You can try to explain further what you mean by what space and time mean in a formless realm, but I don’t think you’ll get anywhere without resorting to the realm of forms).

Agreed.

DQ: We can't have it both ways. We can't argue for the existence of an objective world and then lay down the law that we can't logically reason about this objective world. That is a case of having one's cake and eating it too.

xpsyuvz: I don’t mind reasoning about the unknowable formless realm as long as our reasons are sound. It’s just that since we’re talking about something that has no forms, this seems to suggest that there is very little we can assume for sure about it.

There are plenty of conclusions that can be deduced. For example, if is true that the world beyond the mind is without form, then we can conclude that there is no objective world, no God, no computer, no virtual reality machine, no dreamer, etc, beyond the mind. Thousands of deluded views are successfully undermined in an instant.

DQ: It doesn't matter what the mind knows or doesn't know, it is still the case that an object cannot exist without its parts. This kind of logic is absolute. It all applies to all things necessarily, both knowable and unknowable…

xpsyuvz: The idea of a “part” seems to get it’s meaning from objects that have form. Meanwhile if something has no form, what possible parts could it have? (Any potential answers I can think of, always fall back into the realm of forms.)
Since the idea of “parts” is meaningless in the context of an unknowable, formless thing, it seems like there is no reason to assume that it must have them.

Agreed. If a thing lacks form, then, by default, it doesn't exist. So to talk about whether it has or doesn't have parts would be meaningless.

DQ: Now you might want to argue differently, but to do so you would have to apply logic to these unknowable things, which would immediately put you in a self-contradictory position.

Again, we cannot have it both ways. Either we apply logic to these unknowable things and do it properly, or we cease doing it altogether

xpsyuvz: The logic I’m applying is basically noticing that something can’t be understood, and realizing that therefore you can’t automatically assume it requires things that understandable things seem to require.

Well, now we've moved onto a different issue. The formlessness of what is beyond the mind can indeed be understood, so there is no reason to bring up the issue of understanding and non-understanding.

Meanwhile you seem to be improperly applying logic, by jumping to the conclusion that unknowable/formless things require the same things that forms require.
It might be interesting to see your explanation as to why all unknowable things require parts or causes -- but without basing your reasoning on examples that have forms.

An existing thing necessarily has a form, regardless of whether it is knowable or unknowable, and therefore it is necessarily composed of parts.

To talk about unknowable things beyond the mind having or not having parts is meaningless, because there cannot be any things beyond the mind in the first place. The very formlessness of what is beyond the mind means that there are no things in this realm at all, either knowable or unknowable.

My prediction is you will either end up resorting to forms as the foundation of the reasoning (which will most likely discredit the reasoning) or you will end up with “it’s just fundamental, and can’t be explained” (which to me suggests you may just believe it for no logical reason, but rather some unconscious faith/motive).

I don't think you really understand my thinking on this issue as yet. Hopefully, my responses in this post will help you see more clearly where I am coming from.

DQ: I don't have a problem with the idea of causality stretching back forever. What problems do you have with it?

xpsyuvz: My opinion isn’t too solid here, but this is roughly how I see it…

To me, it seems for the mind to understand things, it has to start from somewhere and work from there -- so the idea of never starting seems a bit incoherent. If you ask why is something (e.g. today) the way it is, and you get an infinite regress for an answer, you’ve not really come up with a final answer.

That is only a problem if you are wanting this final answer to involve some kind of finite basis to Reality, or some kind of concrete starting point - something that your ego can grasp hold of in the belief that it is fundamental. Once a person disabuses himself of that illusion, then accepting that Reality is timeless and that the past stretches back infinitely ceases to be a problem.

There is no underlying foundation to Reality. There is no part of Reality which can be held up as the ultimate basis. Instead, Reality itself - the totality of all there is - is the ultimate basis.

Put it slightly differently: If we say for today to exist, yesterday needs to occur, and for yesterday to occur the day before that needs to occur, etc, etc… with no end to this chain, then since it has no end, today should never be able to occur.
Meanwhile the understandable answers for “why today is in the form it is in“, seems to rely on finite forms (where maybe the answers will always be incomplete).
So to give the infinite history idea a less-abstract context with forms, let’s say one form in this present day is some immortal being saying, “one“, and yesterday he said, “two”, and the day before that he said “three”… (so he’s been counting backwards to “one“, day by day). If he had always been doing that and there was no beginning, then why would he finish this task today? For example, let’s say his immortal friend said, “two” today, and has similarly been counting backwards (at the same rate and increments as the first). Since infinity isn’t a specific amount (where infinity +1 is infinite and infinity +2 is equally infinite), things just don’t seem to add up for there to be specific forms appearing at specific times with an infinite history.

This is a contrived problem generated out of a mathematical quirk. If instead of counting, the immortal being emitted a beep each day, then the reaching of today would pose no problem. Having him count instead only serves to introduce a manufactured problem associated with the mathematical concept of infinity. It doesn't have any real impact on the reality of Nature's beginninglessness.

I don't see how it would even be possible for an immortal being to count backwards towards one because it would be impossible for him to decide which number to associate with a particular day. If he were to start from the present and work backwards, counting the days back into the beginningless past, there would be no problem. He could just keep going back indefinitely. But going the other way is intrinsically impossible.

-

[David Quinn]

Ataraxia wrote:

Ataraxia: But you've conceived of this logic within the totality,while you were inside the 'computer', if you like.

I think Victor made this point in your first reasoning show too.I think it's a good point.One that I can't resolve.

DQ: I didn't find it very convincing. Logic operates in the same way on all existences, without exception. So to the degree that we want to conceive of things existing beyond our consciousness, logic will necessarily apply to them.

Ataraxia: I'm not so sure you can make such a broad statement and then claim pure logic.How can you know this?It is only your/our logic-the logic developed within the computer.Surely it can be only usable logic within the computer.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I reason that all finite things - i.e. all things that are limited in extent and don't embrace the totality of all there is - are limited in extent and don't embrace the totality of all there is. And let's say that I reason that all things beyond the computer, without exception, can be classed as "finite things". Do you think I am correct or incorrect to reach this conclusion, despite the fact that I am still stuck inside the computer?

David,you can say you stepped outside the computer to conceive this,but how can one?How can the logic be necessarily applied to things outside the 'universe'/computer simulation? It appears to me, too presumptious.Too ,Ad hoc.

Logically, we can step outside the computer because, from the perspective of the Totality, what is outside the computer is in the same boat as what is inside it.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn, are you basically saying that there is a reality beyond the mind, but the imagination cannot capture what that reality is because that entire activity is still a movement of the mind. However, the important point I see here is that things still do interact in the absence of an observer, but those interactions that occur in the absence of an observer do not have clear defined forms in the same way as when an observer is present.

So even though the things that are interacting in the absense of an observer are ‘unformed’ as you say, they are still interacting in some way, as this is what all our scientific data confirms.

[Sapius]

David: Reality is infinite in the sense that it is formless. It has no particular form and thus cannot be contained within dualistic, finite categories such as "existence", "thingness", "birth", "death", etc.

Sapius: Then Reality must lie beyond consciousness; since it has no particular form, whereas forms are necessary for consciousness to be.

D:Reality encompasses everything, including what is within the mind and what is beyond it.

What exactly is beyond the mind?

Isn’t it the mind itself (yours to be precise) that wishfully imagines some “Reality” for the simple reason… (making use of your own expression here) … “something that your ego can grasp hold of in the belief that it is fundamental”.

The only significant thing about what is beyond the mind is that it can never be experienced by anyone or anything.

So what does your reasoning say about a cat? Does it not experience, or does it have a mind? And what is so significant about saying that the mind cannot experience that which the mind cannot experience?

Other than that, it is in exactly the same boat as what is experienced within the mind. It is just another dualistic illusion which needs to be abandoned.

Well, then basically you have said nothing; and what dualistic illusion? One can imagine that one has abandoned all dualistic illusions, but all the while one thinks that, one is necessarily immersed in a dualistic existence. Consciousness cannot be without “I” AND all that is “not I”. There has to necessarily be two things (forms), for existence to be, albeit one can always conceptualize a fundamental ONE, a formless reality, the immortally infinite Void; from which all things “arise”, but I don’t think it is any more than an egoistical hope for the fundamental.

S: And how is - “Reality is infinite in the sense that it is formless” – not a form too? That is, not an object of consciousness in and of duality?

D: While the conception of formlessness is an object of consciousness, the meaning behind the conception serves to negate all possible forms, even the form of formlessness. In other word, if a person were to conceive of formlessness as having a particular form of formlessness and if he were to cling to this in the belief that what he is apprehending is ultimately true, then he would be deluding himself.

Formlessness, when understood aright, negates its own form just as much as it negates every other form.

And yet, forms remain, even after one has understood formlessness aright. What could that be other than the grandest delusion?

And if such profound meaning negates forms, then what is your reasoning, or thereby your conclusions based on? Negated illusory forms? What you are effectively saying is that if I believe that what I am apprehending (say reasoning) is ultimately true, then I would be deluding myself. So in effect, reasoning is being negated here.

D: That reality is infinite, or that it is finite, are both momentary realities which spring spontaneously out of the Void. Neither are ultimately real.

S: So momentary realities that spring out of the Void (with a capitol V), either way that is, are not ultimately real. So how real is ultimately the difference between them? It can’t be real… so why argue from either point of view as if they are ultimately real? From an individual set of values or point of view that is. Shouldn’t that then be an illogical exercise, any ways?

D: Both views have to be abandoned, yes.

So there is no real difference between a logical and an illogical view, truth and untruth, since both arise form the same Void. So why is one more valued than another? Isn’t that a real delusion?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

So even though the things that are interacting in the absense of an observer are ‘unformed’ as you say, they are still interacting in some way, as this is what all our scientific data confirms.

You are mixing your realities in this statement. Scientific data confirms scientific truth, which may or may not be true in UR.

[xpsyuvz]

David,

I don't think you really understand my thinking on this issue as yet. Hopefully, my responses in this post will help you see more clearly where I am coming from.

I still don’t quite understand…

It seems you are saying that anything beyond the mind has no form (where we seem to agree). And only things that have form can exist. So therefore there is nothing beyond the mind that exists at all.
With this POV, aren’t you implying that there is nothing outside of the mind that can cause the mind to see what it sees? And likewise, that there can be no external cause for the mind?
My confusion here is I don’t see how your POV reconciles with earlier quotes of you saying:
“I'm not denying there is reality beyond the mind.” (It seems like in the end you are.)
“This isn't to say that consciousness is the sole creator of our experiences, but it is a necessary element to them. It is part of an array of necessary causes.” (If there is no mind, then how do forms exist? How can there be anything else that can be external to the mind to cause the mind? (?))


To compare, my POV is that something can be considered to exist if it can cause forms to appear. So even if the causes of what the mind sees are outside of the mind (and therefore have no forms), it does have some sort of existence. (And from there, it seems that we can’t conclude “absolutely” whether those formless causes themselves needed a prior cause for their existence.)

That is only a problem if you are wanting this final answer to involve some kind of finite basis to Reality, or some kind of concrete starting point - something that your ego can grasp hold of in the belief that it is fundamental. Once a person disabuses himself of that illusion, then accepting that Reality is timeless and that the past stretches back infinitely ceases to be a problem.

I’ve read this from you before, but to be honest, it doesn’t seem to resonate much for me. Regardless of the past, the experiences I experience still feel the way they do. My “concrete starting point” seems to stem from that and from there I try to optimize the situations to something preferred over un-preferred. (I’m not sure how relevant this is to your idea of “ego”, but thought I’d mention it.)

This is a contrived problem generated out of a mathematical quirk. If instead of counting, the immortal being emitted a beep each day, then the reaching of today would pose no problem. Having him count instead only serves to introduce a manufactured problem associated with the mathematical concept of infinity. It doesn't have any real impact on the reality of Nature's beginninglessness.

I don't see how it would even be possible for an immortal being to count backwards towards one because it would be impossible for him to decide which number to associate with a particular day…

Yes, it does seem absurd for an immortal to count backwards (as we end up with no reason for him to associate any specific number with any specific day). But I think that this problem exists even beyond my “numbers” example.

One idea with a causal chain is that one event builds off of another previous event.
The example of an immortal just saying, “beep”, seems to conveniently skip this part of the issue…

So to attempt another example:
Let’s say an immortal says either, “beep“, “bonk“, “boink“, or “bip”, and he is repeatedly cycling through the words in that order. (So if he said “beep” yesterday, he’ll say “bonk’ today. Or if he said “bip” yesterday, he’ll say, “bonk” today. Etc.)
Since there was no starting point, the reason the immortal said “beep” today falls into an infinite regress. (I.e. “y occurred today, because x occurred yesterday, and x occurred yesterday because w occurred the day before… etc, etc…”)

So as I’m seeing still seeing it, if the causes of what happens now fall into an infinite regression, we seem to be left with the problem of there still being no reason/cause as to why any of those specific events occurred at their specific times. (So it seems that everything falls into your problem described at the end of your above quote.)

[Ataraxia]

Let's consider an example. Let's say I reason that all finite things - i.e. all things that are limited in extent and don't embrace the totality of all there is - are limited in extent and don't embrace the totality of all there is. And let's say that I reason that all things beyond the computer, without exception, can be classed as "finite things". Do you think I am correct or incorrect to reach this conclusion, despite the fact that I am still stuck inside the computer?

I take your point.

You are correct,but you are correct because you set the terms finite and totality(within the computer I may add) so that one proves the other.Me being inside the same computer as you,can accept these terms,then agree.

Furthermore,you aren't saying very much at all-Only that there is always 'other' within 'everything' when armed with the understanding of what you mean by the 2 terms.

It's a shame Wittgenstein is dead,he would make a great guest on one of your reasoning shows. :)

Anyway,good thread,it's given me a better understanding on what you are on about.

[Ataraxia]

I agree on this score,the computer simulation is an acceptable possibility,it can't be dissmissed.

No it is not "an acceptable possibility", and it should be immediately dismissed as having any relevance to understanding the universe.

Fine,I'm happy to agree it is about as likely as Christian God.

I don't agree that the idea has no utility ,however.Surely that it can be used in place of the word 'universe' as in this thread makes it useful for purpose of discussion and exploration.

To me it is no different from Intelligent Design. Both are logical possibilities, but possibilities where rationally the probability of either being "real" is so low, that the concept can be safely competely ignored. In terms of developing ultimate truths, nothing would change even if they were real.

It is different because of the way Intelligent Design advocates use the idea.The god-of-the gaps explanatory power.

i havn't used the computer for this purpose.

[Cory Duchesne]

To say the mind is generated by neurons or biology must be false. The only description that seems close to being true is the one which says that all consciousness is existing spontaneously without cause.

That is just as false as the other views expressed above, for nothingness is also a piece of mind.

Can you put that in other words? I don't understand what you mean.

Using mechanistic concepts of cause and effect to tease out delusions have their place, particularly with those who are still trying to grapple with how conscious existence is mechanistically created by what is beyond consciousness.

But according to your logic, consciousness, along with all other things we can think of, are not mechanistically created. Are you claiming you understand how consciousness is created?

It is only later when they resolve the issue logically that they can abandon these mechanistic conceptions.

But it seems like there really isn't even an act of resolving the issue logically. You push logic to it's limits, and what you end up with isnt really a solution. It's kind of like we just draw a blank. There really is no explanation, no concept, no thought - there just isn't anything for the mind to grasp. Am I right?

It is like using a thorn to dig out another thorn which is stuck in your finger. Once the thorn is out, you can throw both thorns away.

Exactly, blank stupor.

This perception of absurdity is itself absurd, because it arises out of the groundless view that complete nothingness or non-existence should be the "natural" state of affairs and that anything other than this is "absurd" by default.

When I said absurdity - perhaps that was just the word I used when maybe I should have said 'amazing'. Having my logic eaten up by itself leaves me feeling amazed by what stands before me, and I guess in response to that feeling I reached for a word and came up with 'absurd'. Not that I'm claiming enlightenment here, I'm just saying that when I follow your logic to the end I am left utterly amazed and there is a certain sense of ridiculousness and unbelievability to it all. I'm amazed by the sheer fact that there is this sense of being alive, which is ultimately unexplainable.

When it comes down to it, we are not in a position to decide what Reality should be, or how it should manifest itself, if at all. It is important to accept that the nature of Reality is such that existence is one its natural consequences. Who are we to say that it is absurd?

You once said that enlightenment for you was amazing. Who are you to say it is amazing, David?

The experience of this absurdity shows that you haven't yet taken your logic all the way.

I just can't help but laugh at the implications. The hidden void is just a term that means so much, yet, we can't see it or know it in any way.

DQ: For example, we can deduce that the order and regularity that we experience in our world cannot be generated out of nothing whatsoever, that there is not absolutely nothing beyond the mind.

Cory: Well then, it seems by your logic, the sense that something is 'generated' or 'created' is ultimately a false one.

DQ: I don't understand your point here.

I'm just saying that your logic implies that - the order and regularity we experience is not generated or created at all. In fact creation and generation are logically impossibile. And again I find this leaves me with a certain sense of ridiculousness, a feeling of amazement and when it comes to intellectually comprehending how the fish sees the same lure as I see, I am left mentally blank and helpless.

[David Quinn]

xpsyuvz,

I still don’t quite understand…

It seems you are saying that anything beyond the mind has no form (where we seem to agree). And only things that have form can exist. So therefore there is nothing beyond the mind that exists at all.
With this POV, aren’t you implying that there is nothing outside of the mind that can cause the mind to see what it sees? And likewise, that there can be no external cause for the mind?
My confusion here is I don’t see how your POV reconciles with earlier quotes of you saying:
“I'm not denying there is reality beyond the mind.” (It seems like in the end you are.)

The reality that is beyond the mind cannot be described as either existing or not existing. It is neither nothing nor something. It is wholly beyond our ability to conceive or imagine.

Even the phrase "beyond the mind" is misleading, as it gives the inaccurate suggestion that what is beyond the mind is out there in a spatial or temporal sense. In the end, it is impossible for us to conceive of it without distortion.

To compare, my POV is that something can be considered to exist if it can cause forms to appear. So even if the causes of what the mind sees are outside of the mind (and therefore have no forms), it does have some sort of existence. (And from there, it seems that we can’t conclude “absolutely” whether those formless causes themselves needed a prior cause for their existence.)

All we can say is that there is not nothing whatsoever beyond the mind, that conscious existence doesn't arise all by itself. To go any further than this is to enter into distortion.

DQ: This is a contrived problem generated out of a mathematical quirk. If instead of counting, the immortal being emitted a beep each day, then the reaching of today would pose no problem. Having him count instead only serves to introduce a manufactured problem associated with the mathematical concept of infinity. It doesn't have any real impact on the reality of Nature's beginninglessness.

I don't see how it would even be possible for an immortal being to count backwards towards one because it would be impossible for him to decide which number to associate with a particular day…

xpsyuvz: Yes, it does seem absurd for an immortal to count backwards (as we end up with no reason for him to associate any specific number with any specific day). But I think that this problem exists even beyond my “numbers” example.

One idea with a causal chain is that one event builds off of another previous event.
The example of an immortal just saying, “beep”, seems to conveniently skip this part of the issue…

So to attempt another example:
Let’s say an immortal says either, “beep“, “bonk“, “boink“, or “bip”, and he is repeatedly cycling through the words in that order. (So if he said “beep” yesterday, he’ll say “bonk’ today. Or if he said “bip” yesterday, he’ll say, “bonk” today. Etc.)
Since there was no starting point, the reason the immortal said “beep” today falls into an infinite regress. (I.e. “y occurred today, because x occurred yesterday, and x occurred yesterday because w occurred the day before… etc, etc…”)

I still don't see the problem.

So as I’m seeing still seeing it, if the causes of what happens now fall into an infinite regression, we seem to be left with the problem of there still being no reason/cause as to why any of those specific events occurred at their specific times. (So it seems that everything falls into your problem described at the end of your above quote.)

A specific event happens at a specific time and place simply because it is caused to happen by the conditions which happen to be present. And that is it. End of story. There is nothing else to say about it.

This is the way things have always happened and always will. This is the nature of reality.

It is meaningless to conceive of a starting point in all of this. For whatever starting point you want to conceive of will itself be a product of causes. Indeed, the very idea of a starting point to reality has no meaning because if the term "reality" is to mean anything at all it would have to refer to that which is timeless. Timelessness is an essential attribute of reality.

-