You're pretty confident! Well.....Dan Rowden wrote: I defy you to show the boundary between anything at all, let alone the body and its environment.
If your philosophy can take any physical thing and render it not objectively real, it can obviously do the same for the physical thing's apparent boundaries.Isaac wrote:Hi all,
This thread is about whether or not boundaries are objectively real. I always thought they were.
But Dan seems to be insisting otherwise:
You're pretty confident! Well.....Dan Rowden wrote: I defy you to show the boundary between anything at all, let alone the body and its environment.
My skin and the hair that grows from it seem like a pretty definable boundary between my body and it's environment. How can you deny such obvious boundaries? In what way are they not objectively real?
This section in particular is of relevance (taken from Chapter 5):Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:David did a good job of explaining that in Wisdom of the Infinite.
-Similarly, the perception of contrasts between different objects also cannot be disputed - for example, the visible contrast between what seems like a tree and what seems like empty space surrounding the tree. This direct perception of contrasts is beyond the possibility of being an hallucination. It is real. And yet, at the same time, these contrasts are never anything more an appearance to us as an observer. The perspective that we create as observers is what allows these contrasts to come into being in the first place. They have no other reality outside of this.
A white cloud can seem sharply divided from the blue sky from our perspective here on the ground, yet if we were to zoom up to the cloud and try to establish where the boundary between the cloud and sky actually lies, we would not be able to do it. The seemingly sharp boundary would give way to a fuzzy continuum in which the cloud gradually thins out. Even the densest pieces of matter lack clear-cut edges when viewed from the molecular or sub-atomic perspective. This illustrates the more general truth that the boundaries and contrasts we perceive directly in the world are appearances only. They are entities which only exist to an observer with a particular kind of perspective. Outside of this perspective, they have no existence at all.
The contrasts that we perceive directly in the world obviously play a very large role in determining how we should mentally carve up the world into "things". So when I said earlier that the carving up process was an arbitrary one, I was using term "arbitrary" rather loosely. Even though the way we mentally carve up the world is arbitrary in the sense that we could easily choose to carve it up in a different manner if we wanted to, it is undeniable that there are ways of carving which seem more natural and practical than others.
For example, it is usually more natural for us to draw boundaries around a tree at the interface of its bark (or branches or leaves) and the surrounding space, rather than, say, at a line ten meters further out into space. It is more natural because the tree presents a natural outline due to the contrast between its dense molecular structure and the relative emptiness of the surrounding space. We generally find it more useful to think of the tree as consisting solely of the dense molecular part, as opposed to, say, the "dense molecular part + ten meters of surrounding space".
There are many instances, though, where this is not the case. Consider, for example, the boundaries of Australia. Although there appears to be a natural outline of Australia in the interface of its coasts and the adjoining seas, it is politically more useful to extend its boundaries further out to sea, thus enabling the Australian Government to patrol its coastlines and protect its interests more effectively. The strip of ocean between the coastline and this projected boundary is officially regarded as being part of Australia. Importantly, the widening of Australia in this manner is no more contrived or artificial than that of confining it to its coastlines. Whether one chooses to lay the boundaries at the coastlines or further out to sea, the process is exactly the same. In both cases, a mental boundary is cutting up what is essentially a causal continuum.
In the end, how we choose to carve up the world is not so much an arbitrary process on our parts, but one that is specifically determined by our goals and values. It is our desires and values which determine what goals we have, and, in turn, what kind of world we ultimately perceive. Hence the profound comment by the Buddha that "the world is created by desire".
Of course he believes it. The real question is why he believes it and why you should.Isaac wrote:I mean this when I ask it: do you seriously believe this stuff?
Yes, but they are real in the same sense the number 3 is real. And all the other numbers. Boundaries are not something a rational person would dismiss as "having no reality" in the same way he would dismiss a fairy tale.Dan Rowden wrote:Boundaries are simply where we perceive differentiation. They have no reality beyond that.
It's the truth.Isaac wrote:Ok, so I've read a great deal of your book, David, and I must say, I just can't bring myself to swallow it.
I think the "totality" is just your perspective on what I see as a vast number of discrete bits and pieces.
In your book, you said something along the lines of: "the causal processes inside our bodies merge seamlessly with the causal processes in the outer environment to form one vast sea of causation. In a very real sense, "we" are not even there.
I'm imagining you sitting in a yoga pose chanting nonsense syllables!
I mean this when I ask it: do you seriously believe this stuff?
I wonder how many philosophers were gunned down at the Berlin Wall?And that is the main point about boundaries. They only appear to exist from certain perspectives and disappear as soon as you going looking for them.
You mean, killed by those who were very attached to an imagined political boundary?brokenhead wrote:I wonder how many philosophers were gunned down at the Berlin Wall?And that is the main point about boundaries. They only appear to exist from certain perspectives and disappear as soon as you going looking for them.
Dan Rowden wrote:Where are your reasons not to? You don't seem to have mounted any real argument to this point. All you're really saying is that you don't want to accept something because it seems counterintuitive.Isaac wrote: I mean this when I ask it: do you seriously believe this stuff?
Dan Rowden wrote:And regarding the "totality" - there has to be one irregardless of whether its bits and pieces are "discreet" or not.
When I walk out of a room, everything that is within my skin or is physically attached to my skin comes with me. Everything else stays behind. That's a meaningful boundary.Dan Rowden wrote: I don't recall, ever, anyone giving a proper example of a boundary where one thing begins and another ends in all the years of discussing this issue. Boundaries are simply where we perceive differentiation. They have no reality beyond that.
Inject some morphine into the chair that you're sitting on. Next, inject some under your skin. You've just discovered an objectively real boundary.David Quinn wrote:When you look through the eyes of causality and see everything as a vast causal process, it becomes an arbitrary choice as to where to demarcate "things". What is the difference between the causal processes inside an object and those which act externally upon it? None, from a causal perspective. It is seamless causality at play.
And that is the main point about boundaries. They only appear to exist from certain perspectives and disappear as soon as you go looking for them. In other words, their existence is merely apparent, like a mirage, and not objectively real.
Well, Dan? I'm tired of bumping into walls that are not there. Give me a hint. If a wall is not objectively real, then something else must be, or you wouldn't waste time making this distinction.brokenhead wrote:Do you mean do I "get" your philosophy? Yes, quite.
What is objectively real, then?
If the boundary between myself and the rest of Nature was objectively real, then the needle wouldn't be able to pass through it and reach in under my skin. Similarly, I would not able to take advantage of the chair's mass and use it to support my body. It is precisely because boundaries are merely imaginary that interactions between things can take place at all - indeed, as easily as the interactions that occcur within things.Isaac wrote:David Quinn,
Inject some morphine into the chair that you're sitting on. Next, inject some under your skin. You've just discovered an objectively real boundary.David Quinn wrote:When you look through the eyes of causality and see everything as a vast causal process, it becomes an arbitrary choice as to where to demarcate "things". What is the difference between the causal processes inside an object and those which act externally upon it? None, from a causal perspective. It is seamless causality at play.
And that is the main point about boundaries. They only appear to exist from certain perspectives and disappear as soon as you go looking for them. In other words, their existence is merely apparent, like a mirage, and not objectively real.
Well, I think it is quite clear, but could all three agree that it is food and satisfies hunger? What difference would it make if personally perceived details differ? What if all three don’t speak or think in the same language… would the plate (perceived in English) or what is on the plate be any different? Are personal definitional boundaries necessary for things or existence to be what it IS?Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Isaac,
I think that you are too attached to seeing things your way to be able to understand what David is saying. The following is not what David is trying to tell you, but it should help you hear him.
If you and David were seated at a table, and a waitress put identical plates of food in front of each of you, where David saw dinner, you might see ribs, mashed potatoes, and green beans. It does not matter nearly so much what is on the plate as it matters how you could see how David could see that as dinner, and David can see how you see that as ribs, potatoes, and green beans. What would be even better is if both of you could also see how the waitress might see them both as House Special #5.
“And yet, at the same time” is the problem here. And how come in this instant it is WE who CREATE the perspective, tucking causality under the carpet? This seems inconsistent.David: This direct perception of contrasts is beyond the possibility of being an hallucination. It is real. And yet, at the same time, these contrasts are never anything more an appearance to us as an observer. The perspective that we create as observers is what allows these contrasts to come into being in the first place. They have no other reality outside of this.
Ok, I'll admit, this has gone right over my head. I don't understand why the chair couldn't be used to support your weight if the boundaries were real.David Quinn wrote:If the boundary between myself and the rest of Nature was objectively real, then I would not able to take advantage of the chair's mass and use it to support my body.