Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Beingof1 »

C = dA + A ^ A

Let C stand for consciousness.
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Ataraxia »

David Quinn wrote:
Ataraxia is wrong in linking the truth of A=A to a particular metaphysical stance, whatever it might be. A=A is always true, regardless of what metaphysical views a person might have, or what the metaphysical truth might be.

For example, an objectivist who believes that forms can exist beyond consciousness is, in the very act of positing this belief, affirming that these forms beyond consciousness are indeed what they are and not what they are not.

In other words, the truth of A=A is belief-neutral.
I've never said otherwise.

In fact I affirmed that Fujaro would never lay a blow on you in regards to A=A--it's not possible.

But he may have a meaningful debate with you on the term "to exist" and suggested that may a more fruitful approach.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Jason »

David Quinn wrote:Kevin and I agree that consciousness is a necessary condition for existence. This is because an existing thing can only exist by virtue of having a form of some kind and, in turn, a form can only exist by virtue of presenting an appearance to an observer.

In other words, without the perspective generated by an observer, there can be no basis for a form to come into existence.
Instead of positing consciousness as a necessity in this, why not just simply assert that appearances alone exist? Adding consciousness to the mix could be seen as an unnecessary extra step.
This is not to say there is nothing beyond consciousness, as nothingness too is a form. In the end, it is impossible for us to describe what is there in any definite sense. All we can say is that what exists beyond consciousness is reality in its unformed and unknowable state, while what we experience within our consciousness is reality manifested as forms.
I've always found this argument of yours kind of odd, you refer to it as the "hidden void" in Wisdom of the Infinite. Is it really necessary that there must be something beyond consciousness, something beyond appearances?

Suppose the All were split into only two parts, two "things". Let's call those two things "A" and "B". Where "A" ends, "B" begins; and where "B" ends, "A" begins. They mutually support each other. Co-dependence is enough, I see no reason why there must be anything existing beyond those two things in such a scenario. Basically what I'm saying is that a finite number of finite things could mutually support each other's existence, and that all of those things could exist as appearances. So no need for a hidden void.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

DQ wrote:All we can say is that what exists beyond consciousness is reality in its unformed and unknowable state, while what we experience within our consciousness is reality manifested as forms.
I could almost agree with this. If the word unknowable were replaced by the word unknown, I would agree.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Fujaro »

David Quinn wrote: Kevin and I agree that consciousness is a necessary condition for existence. This is because an existing thing can only exist by virtue of having a form of some kind and, in turn, a form can only exist by virtue of presenting an appearance to an observer.

In other words, without the perspective generated by an observer, there can be no basis for a form to come into existence.

Consciousness isn't the sole creator of existence (i.e. solipsism is untrue), but it is a necessary condition of existence - just as a mirror is a necessary condition for the reflections occurring in its reflecting glass, but not the sole cause of them. However, unlike the mirror where the reflections are caused, in part, by objects external to the mirror, there are no objects or forms external to consciousness.

This is not to say there is nothing beyond consciousness, as nothingness too is a form. In the end, it is impossible for us to describe what is there in any definite sense. All we can say is that what exists beyond consciousness is reality in its unformed and unknowable state, while what we experience within our consciousness is reality manifested as forms. (Keeping in mind that "reality in its unformed and unknowable state" is still just another form and therefore a part of consciousness - but we don't want to get ahead of ouselves).

These conclusions are logically derived from the truth that a form cannot exist without the perspective generated by an observer.

I can't really describe my stance as either idealistic or objectivist. Although I recognize that consciousness and forms necessarily arise together, that there can't be the one without the other, it doesn't stop from me also recognizing the utility of the standard objectivist view when it comes to practical matters.

For example, if I decide to walk out the door, I fully expect the next room to be waiting there for me, even though I am not directly aware of it at the moment. At the same time, I realize that the room cannot exist in any shape or form without an observer giving it form.

It is a bit like what happens in a dream. I can dream that I decide to walk out a door in the expectation that the next room will be waiting when I get there, even though the waiting room only appears the moment I observe it.
Your stance is not a logical conclusion derived from rigorous deductive reasoning about existence at all, but a metaphysical claim. I feel we're entering the territory of belief here rather than that of logic or hard evidence about existence. So far you haven't provided conclusive evidence for your absolute claim. Your stance imo results from a deadlock in your thinking. By asserting that to you only YOUR conscious thought is absolute, you derive the stance that conscious thought is a necessary condition for ALL existence. This is an inductive step, not a deductive one. The step is neither necessary nor sufficient. t is only a conclusive argument for your own conscious existence, not a necessay condition for all that exists. I can say here A=A, i.e.<your conscious thought> = <your conscious thought>, it's not <your conscious thought> = <necessary for all existence>. There is no hard reason that there cannot exist a form without the perspective generated by an observer.

In fact your claim is that there is some miraculous and deeply elusive way in which we think up all things we become aware of from its exterior appearance to the very minute detail at the subatomic level over and over again. This is how you think up your own body from exterior to interior from macroscopic level to the microscopic level, every cell of it and in it every nucleus, and in that every string of DNA and the whole composition of that DNA, and from there on to the atomic and subatomic level, detailing every atom, defying Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, every electron, every neutrino (billions of them per second to label for you) passing through it at any time, and encompassing all literature about the human body we can find in a library, all thougths spoken about it, all research that is going on. We somehow manage to think it all up, we don't know how, but we call that conscious thought and we still can't properly diagnose most diseases that our body suffers from and we keep wrestling with the nature of existence in philosophy like we have done for thousands of years. It really is a big mystery, not an answer arising from A=A, but defeat of reason arising from hardheadedness about your metaphysical claim. Some might call it religion.

Furthermore your metaphysics provides no explanation whatsoever for observed consistency in behaviour and interaction of these forms. There's the choice to either a) deny all observed consistency and interaction of forms, thereby crippling the predictive powers of your stance to absolute zero or b) accepting independent existence, either b1) objectivist existence independent of thought or b2) existence of hidden thoughts doing miraculous overwork on making things purposelessly consistent on the fly. So by rejecting independent existence of objects you have the choice between crippling your metaphysical stance to a useless artificial thought experiment or of a paranoid reality where hidden processes mysteriously arrange all events you experience. Both forms are extremely antropomorphic and even autistic in nature. Nothingness btw, only has logical form but no existential form. It's logical nature is that of no substance.
David Quinn wrote: Reality is utterly everything - which includes all the forms that are perceived in consciousness, as well as the unformed aspect of Reality "beyond" consciousness.

Ataraxia is wrong in linking the truth of A=A to a particular metaphysical stance, whatever it might be. A=A is always true, regardless of what metaphysical views a person might have, or what the metaphysical truth might be.

For example, an objectivist who believes that forms can exist beyond consciousness is, in the very act of positing this belief, affirming that these forms beyond consciousness are indeed what they are and not what they are not.

In other words, the truth of A=A is belief-neutral.

The truth about A=A is not neutral for metaphysics. By positing that, you are merely and quite dishonestly denying the objectivist stance as a possible stance and just restating yours. In the objectivist's metaphysics you definitely need an operational criterion to link logical existence with independent existential existence. I don't deny that within your metaphysical asumptions A=A is all logical and therefore logically absolute. I will even agree with you that objectivism has no absolute basis. But instead of seeing this as a weakness, it is a strong feature in the quest for truth, for only by allowing it to be non-absolute the possibility of incremental growth of knowledge is possible, while a rigid seemingly absolutistic framework as yours leads you nowhere. In an absolutistic framework, there can be no next step. That's like sending god to a rehab. You even promote a flatlander view on reality, negating possibilities that are yet beyond our thinking. In fact there is a strong analogy between your viewpoint and the slogan "from nothing, nothing can come" that proponents of ID, notwithstanding all evidence for evolution, regularly use as an argument for a gap that needs to be filled with a supernatural designer. There also is a deadlock in their thinking, created from a metaphysical stance they are in most cases unable to shake off. This is contrasted with naturalism which enables very deep levels of insight into the consistency of behaviour and interactions of things we perceive.
David Quinn wrote:
The objectivst worldview supposes that some thought, most conclusively thought that seems to stem from our senses, has its origin in a reality that is not entirely conscious thought. This is a very common view indeed and many philosophers have been proponents of it.
You're right, it is a standard view and, as I mentioned above, a perfectly valid one as far as practical matters are concerned. But it does break down under analysis. It has no ultimate basis.
It is able to supply a detailed description of all consistency in interaction of 'forms' where your stance does not have the potential to raise itself above the level of the trivial. You cannot even build a fridge from it, let alone supply the advanced medical care available in every modern hospital.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:In this worldview there is a dichotomy between logical validation of LOI and the validation in that part of reality that is not thought. Here a mapping from the physical thing to the logical is needed to interpret LOI in the physical world. Something like this:

(A) <the real object> <--(pointer 1)--- logical subject A is logical predicate A --(pointer 2)--> <the real object>

While in the idealist view and in the realm of objectivism that concerns thought itself it would be:

(B) <thought of A> <--(pointer 1)--- Logical subject A is logical predicate A --(pointer 2)--> <thought of A>

In (B) the tought of A is not discernible from what is labeled with a logical A and therefore LOI always is complete. There are no hidden properties of A. In (A) the problem of non-conclusive indiscernability arises. This is because identity in the physical realm becomes independent from identity in the realm of thought. To make a complete mapping for the real object all properties of A have to be known with infinite precision.

You're confusing the issue of what is there in Nature with our ability or inability to map it.

It doesn't matter whether we can map a thing completely or not. The fact still remains the thing in question is what it is and not something else. Even if it turns out that we can't map a thing completely (and of course, we can never completely map an object with simplified models), the thing still remains exactly what it is - namely, an object that can't be mapped completely with finite models.
How can you ever in an absolute sense talk about what is there in nature, without even knowing to what properties you are referring? You're not naming the object, you're guessing, abstracting what there is to what you think there is.
David Quinn wrote:
A contradiction I perceive in the statements from Kevin and David but cannot resolve is that is claimed by them that LOI holds in all possible worlds. I would counter that by suggesting that the objectivist view imo constitutes a possible world in which the mapping from logical to the physical becomes relevant. So LOI in a logical sense is true in this world but does not hold conclusively for real objects because a fundamental indiscernability is present. In this way LOI can be denied in the possible world of objectivist reality.
Again, you are falsely linking the validity of A=A to our ability or inability to discern objects. They are two separate issues.
This is not about the validity of A=A, it's about independent existence of things that can be mapped to.
David Quinn wrote:
So it seems that underlying all the fuzz is the difference in the metaphysical viewpoints adhered to by the debaters. These differences in stances are best shown I think in the flatlander example David gave. For me as a naturalist the 3-D pyramid passing through the flatlanders plane comes closest to what I would call the truth about reality, while David is forced to a dichotomy between flatland and 3-D.
It would only be a dichotomy if I insisted that the object was really a square, or really a pyramid, or really both at once, or whatever. That is, if I insisted that the object has a true, objective, unsullied form underneath the appearances.

Instead, I recognize that no such "objective" form is possible. Things only gain their form in relation to an observer's perspective - in this case, a square from a flatlander's perspective and a pyramid from a 3Der's perspective. And who knows, it might have an entirely different form from a 4Der's perspective.
Although you persist in your claim you also compromise it on a regular basis. You allow other causes of existence, other states of existence (unformed) and you make parasitic use of objectivist reasoning to operate in live on a daily basis. When you say "Even if it turns out that we can't map a thing completely…., the thing still remains exactly what it is - namely an object that can't be mapped completey with finite models" you are almost there, allowing the object to have independent existence. Also you give no explanation why I can't just think the new book that I want in existence on the table in front of me, while at the same time things that I have had no prior conscious thought of do appear in front of me. So at least in this one sense the conscious has no control over form and there is independance of existence.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Nick »

Jason wrote:Instead of positing consciousness as a necessity in this, why not just simply assert that appearances alone exist?
Because they don't. Consciousness is a neccessary cause for an appearance to enter Existence.
Jason wrote:I've always found this argument of yours kind of odd, you refer to it as the "hidden void" in Wisdom of the Infinite. Is it really necessary that there must be something beyond consciousness, something beyond appearances?
There are no appearances beyond consciousness because consciousness is a necessary cause for them to enter Existence.
Jason wrote:Suppose the All were split into only two parts, two "things". Let's call those two things "A" and "B". Where "A" ends, "B" begins; and where "B" ends, "A" begins. They mutually support each other. Co-dependence is enough, I see no reason why there must be anything existing beyond those two things in such a scenario. Basically what I'm saying is that a finite number of finite things could mutually support each other's existence, and that all of those things could exist as appearances. So no need for a hidden void.
The Hidden Void is just as much an appearance as a chair is. The only difference is that the chair can be seen, touched, and used unlike the Hidden Void which can only be imagined in our head as a set of unknown causes, factors, and appearances. So consciousness is also a necessary cause for the Hidden Void to enter Existence.

The only thing that remains without consciousness is Existence itself.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Nick »

brokenhead wrote:
DQ wrote:All we can say is that what exists beyond consciousness is reality in its unformed and unknowable state, while what we experience within our consciousness is reality manifested as forms.
I could almost agree with this. If the word unknowable were replaced by the word unknown, I would agree.
Unknown wouldn't work because that would imply it could potentially be known. Being that Existence is necessarily formless and beyond all states there is nothing there to know about it in the first place, as far as forms and states go.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Nick Treklis wrote:Unknown wouldn't work because that would imply it could potentially be known. Being that Existence is necessarily formless and beyond all states there is nothing there to know about it in the first place, as far as forms and states go.
See, this I can't agree with. "Unknown" would work for the very reason you say it wouldn't. Being that your second sentence is a nightmare of groundless assertions.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

brokenhead wrote:"Unknown" would work for the very reason you say it wouldn't.
By what means do you propose to know what lies on the other side of consciousness?
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Steven Coyle wrote:With all that abstraction, + a million different ways to say "Hello," I'd probably be a little schizoid, too.
To the Chinaman's credit, the old wise man did manage, with some dexterity, to concoct a true sentence without the use of the verb "to be" that, as a result, can't be translated faithfully into English. As far as the need for a logically perfect languages goes, the first six characters of the Tao te Ching show that you can have a logically abhorrent language and still speak sense about reality. You just have to be creative.
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Nick »

brokenhead wrote:
Nick Treklis wrote:Unknown wouldn't work because that would imply it could potentially be known. Being that Existence is necessarily formless and beyond all states there is nothing there to know about it in the first place, as far as forms and states go.
See, this I can't agree with. "Unknown" would work for the very reason you say it wouldn't. Being that your second sentence is a nightmare of groundless assertions.
Existence is necessarily formless and stateless because forms and states only mean something in contrast to something they are not. Being that Existence by definition lacks nothing, it can not be contrasted with anything, meaning it has no form. So as you should be able to see, it's not that Existence's form is unknown to us, and could potentially be known by someone else, it's that it has no form in the first place.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Fujaro »

Kevin Solway wrote:
Fujaro wrote:Maybe the appearance of the past in the now is a false one
The appearance of it can't be false.

The past exists for essentially the same reason that A=A. It does so because of memory.
Oh, and memories can't be false? Is this the hotline-with-god-thing again?
Kevin Solway wrote:
Fujaro wrote:If so, how is it possible that there appears an appaerance of a logical "I"?
All things, such as the "I", arise because they are caused to.
The magical boogeyman must be working overtime causing all these magical events all over the place. But in any case we're clear on the fact that "I" is an appearance. It appears to us and its real origin, cause or route from cause to perception can't be traced. Then why should this appearance of "I" be free from error?

Kevin Solway wrote:
Fujaro wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:We can imagine a category which contains all unknown things (ie, all things not as yet consciously experienced). In this manner, all the things that we are not consciously aware of, exist.
But what about the categories you can't imagine?
They are all part of the category of unknown things. I can imagine all unknown things being part of the one category.
That is a nifty bag of tricks to pop up the missing parts if needed. So here are all our future thoughts hiding to be risen from the nothing?

Kevin Solway wrote:
Fujaro wrote: . . . you call it the obervation of "I". Following your terminology so far this means it is an appearance, as I suggested to you. And since the appearances are within snapshots you demolish your own argument with this.
It doesn't matter that things are appearances within snapshots, since snapshots, by definition, exist within time, and the "I", outside of time altogether.
Like god outside the natural world? This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to ask the question of questions: whatever made you cause the big bang 13.7 billion years ago?
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Nick Treklis wrote:
brokenhead wrote:
Nick Treklis wrote:Unknown wouldn't work because that would imply it could potentially be known. Being that Existence is necessarily formless and beyond all states there is nothing there to know about it in the first place, as far as forms and states go.
See, this I can't agree with. "Unknown" would work for the very reason you say it wouldn't. Being that your second sentence is a nightmare of groundless assertions.
Existence is necessarily formless and stateless because forms and states only mean something in contrast to something they are not. Being that Existence by definition lacks nothing, it can not be contrasted with anything, meaning it has no form. So as you should be able to see, it's not that Existence's form is unknown to us, and could potentially be known by someone else, it's that it has no form in the first place.
You know you are just blowing smoke out there and hoping some of it makes its way up my ass. You do not have a clue as to where your own consciousness begins and ends, all you know for sure is that it is limited in some fashion, and you presume to speak for every other human, not to mention for orders of intelligence that could very possibly exist that would outstrip our own the way ours outstrips an ant's. Why is it you philosophers have all these words that "by definition" seem to mean everything and nothing all at once? Pick one, for Pete's sake. Existence? The Absolute? Reality? Totality? God? The One?

I am aware my consciousness is finite. That is all. If it were not, it would not be possible to learn. Since I can learn, I can conclude that at any point in time I would be able to say "My consciousness is finite" and it would be a true statement. Therefore, what is "beyond consciousness" is unknown. This cannot be argued. If it is unknown, whatever "it" may include, then it is patently senseless to further categorize it in any way, such as to say that it is, in principle, "unknowable."

You must not make the all too common mistake of substituting philosophy for thinking.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

brokenhead wrote:Why is it you philosophers have all these words that "by definition" seem to mean everything and nothing all at once?
Everyone has these words, and uses them constantly. Take the word "is", for instance: existence's verb. Try re-writing your last post in E-Prime, and you will see how even you use words that mean nothing and everything.

(Yes, I intentionally wrote this reply in E-Prime. I do not usually do so.)
A mindful man needs few words.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
brokenhead wrote:"Unknown" would work for the very reason you say it wouldn't.
By what means do you propose to know what lies on the other side of consciousness?
The same goes for you, Trevor. What do you mean, precisely, by "what lies on the other side of consciousness?" Whose consciousness? Anybody's? The sum total of everybody's? Or more realistically, my own?

Consciousness when? At what point in time? I already know a shitload that was once on the other side of my own consciousness. It's called learning.

If philosophers weren't so freaking smug that they have all the answers, they just might acquire new ones as they go along, like everybody else.

Here's the one good argument for wanting to believe in life after death. It's not that this world is so peachy-keen that I couldn't bear to see it go. It's that I cannot imagine a cessation of learning, of the inexorable unfolding and expansion of knowledge.

No wonder people who cannot or will not believe in the soul's potential eternal existence are so determined to believe they know everything already and spare no effort in "demonstrating" this fact to whomever will listen. It's because they can hear the clock ticking - they are afraid of running out of time.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Nick »

Brokenhead,

Your rant did nothing to directly address the logic of my statement, so I'll spell it out for you in a slightly different manner. Do you believe Existence is lacking something? If so then what? Whatever you imagine Existence to be lacking would definitely hold some form, meaning it is definitely existing, within Existence no doubt. That said, I'll repeat this again, something only gains its form in contrast to something else, and since Existence lacks nothing it is impossible for it to have a form. This can not be logically refuted.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
brokenhead wrote:Why is it you philosophers have all these words that "by definition" seem to mean everything and nothing all at once?
Everyone has these words, and uses them constantly. Take the word "is", for instance: existence's verb. Try re-writing your last post in E-Prime, and you will see how even you use words that mean nothing and everything.

(Yes, I intentionally wrote this reply in E-Prime. I do not usually do so.)
The difference is, I don't use them intending them to mean everything and nothing. I use the verb "to be" in its basic, colloquial sense which nearly everybody - except, that is, for philosophers - readily comprehends.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Nick Treklis wrote:Brokenhead,

Your rant did nothing to directly address the logic of my statement, so I'll spell it out for you in a slightly different manner. Do you believe Existence is lacking something? If so then what? Whatever you imagine Existence to be lacking would definitely hold some form, meaning it is definitely existing, within Existence no doubt. That said, I'll repeat this again, something only gains its form in contrast to something else, and since Existence lacks nothing it is impossible for it to have a form. This can not be logically refuted.
Again, we are getting back to the same old issue. You are proposing a definition for the word "Existence" identical to the definitions of those other terms I listed (Totality, Reality, etc.) That definition is "that which lacks form." If it lacks form, it is meaningless in every possible circumstance. It can carry no conceptual significance whatsover, as it includes every possible concept and therefore cannot be contrasted with any other concept to give it form.

If I'm not directly addressing the logic of your statement, it is because you seem to be making statements that imply nothing one can address.

But we weren't talking about Existence. We were talking about consciousness, weren't we? No need to spell it out in any other manner. Are you equating Consciousness with Existence?
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Nick »

brokenhead wrote:That definition is "that which lacks form."
That's not exactly it's definition, but more along the lines of an attribute. We could say the definition of Existence is The All (nothing is absent from it). So based on this definition we can logically conclude that it lacks form.
brokenhead wrote:If it lacks form, it is meaningless in every possible circumstance. It can carry no conceptual significance whatsover, as it includes every possible concept and therefore cannot be contrasted with any other concept to give it form.
We can recognize it and draw logical conclusions from it which are world shattering if it is in one's karma to do so.
brokenhead wrote:If I'm not directly addressing the logic of your statement, it is because you seem to be making statements that imply nothing one can address.
Let go of whatever is holding you back and look again.
brokenhead wrote:But we weren't talking about Existence. We were talking about consciousness, weren't we? No need to spell it out in any other manner. Are you equating Consciousness with Existence?
No, but I wanted to point at that when you said Existence's form is unknown, it is based on the false assumption that there is in fact some ultimate form Existence possesses, and that we just do not yet know it yet because of some perceived limitation. So I then went on to show you how it is logically impossible for Existence to posses a form.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Fujaro »

Nick Treklis wrote:
Jason wrote:Instead of positing consciousness as a necessity in this, why not just simply assert that appearances alone exist?
Because they don't. Consciousness is a neccessary cause for an appearance to enter Existence.
You are contrdicting yourself here. That's good, but "entering Existence", with a capital for reverence and awe, is a very shallow form of mystification. When mystifying the trivial my advice is to avoid any clear thinking and use of CamelCase for extra DeepNeSS of FunDAmental ThoughT.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Nick »

Fujaro wrote:You are contrdicting yourself here.
So you believe appearances can exist independent of consciousness?
Fujaro wrote:That's good, but "entering Existence", with a capital for reverence and awe, is a very shallow form of mystification. When mystifying the trivial my advice is to avoid any clear thinking and use of CamelCase for extra DeepNeSS of FunDAmental ThoughT.
The capitalization is for emphasis, so as not to confuse Existence simply with what we physically perceive as the world around us. There is nothing mystical about it, just cold hard logic. It's silly that you interpreted it as anything else.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by David Quinn »

Jason wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Kevin and I agree that consciousness is a necessary condition for existence. This is because an existing thing can only exist by virtue of having a form of some kind and, in turn, a form can only exist by virtue of presenting an appearance to an observer.

In other words, without the perspective generated by an observer, there can be no basis for a form to come into existence.
Instead of positing consciousness as a necessity in this, why not just simply assert that appearances alone exist? Adding consciousness to the mix could be seen as an unnecessary extra step.

If I was talking to someone who has already broken down the illusion of materialism/objectivism, you would have a point. But Fujaro is still locked into the view that the world objectively exists.

In the same way that I utlize the word "God" when talking to Christians and the like, I like to utlize the objectivist conceptions when talking to objectivists. There is no way around this, short of allowing oneself to disappear over people's heads. You have to use conceptions that people are familiar with.

Jason wrote:
This is not to say there is nothing beyond consciousness, as nothingness too is a form. In the end, it is impossible for us to describe what is there in any definite sense. All we can say is that what exists beyond consciousness is reality in its unformed and unknowable state, while what we experience within our consciousness is reality manifested as forms.
I've always found this argument of yours kind of odd, you refer to it as the "hidden void" in Wisdom of the Infinite. Is it really necessary that there must be something beyond consciousness, something beyond appearances?

There is if it appears to us.

From the objectivist point of view, the past history of the world appears to be objectively real, which thus generates the problem of what existed in the world before consciousness arose. The "hidden void" is the only possible answer.

If one sees through the objectivist outlook, and thus sees through the "problems" which are generated by it, then fine. We don't need conceptions like the hidden void. But not many people have reached that level of insight.

Suppose the All were split into only two parts, two "things". Let's call those two things "A" and "B". Where "A" ends, "B" begins; and where "B" ends, "A" begins. They mutually support each other. Co-dependence is enough, I see no reason why there must be anything existing beyond those two things in such a scenario. Basically what I'm saying is that a finite number of finite things could mutually support each other's existence, and that all of those things could exist as appearances. So no need for a hidden void.
What about when "A" refers to the entire realm of consciousness (or if you don't like the word "consciousness", the entire realm of experience)? What is its corresponding "B"?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by David Quinn »

Ataraxia wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Ataraxia is wrong in linking the truth of A=A to a particular metaphysical stance, whatever it might be. A=A is always true, regardless of what metaphysical views a person might have, or what the metaphysical truth might be.

For example, an objectivist who believes that forms can exist beyond consciousness is, in the very act of positing this belief, affirming that these forms beyond consciousness are indeed what they are and not what they are not.

In other words, the truth of A=A is belief-neutral.
I've never said otherwise.

In fact I affirmed that Fujaro would never lay a blow on you in regards to A=A--it's not possible.

But he may have a meaningful debate with you on the term "to exist" and suggested that may a more fruitful approach.
Fair enough.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by David Quinn »

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote: Kevin and I agree that consciousness is a necessary condition for existence. This is because an existing thing can only exist by virtue of having a form of some kind and, in turn, a form can only exist by virtue of presenting an appearance to an observer.

In other words, without the perspective generated by an observer, there can be no basis for a form to come into existence.

Consciousness isn't the sole creator of existence (i.e. solipsism is untrue), but it is a necessary condition of existence - just as a mirror is a necessary condition for the reflections occurring in its reflecting glass, but not the sole cause of them. However, unlike the mirror where the reflections are caused, in part, by objects external to the mirror, there are no objects or forms external to consciousness.

This is not to say there is nothing beyond consciousness, as nothingness too is a form. In the end, it is impossible for us to describe what is there in any definite sense. All we can say is that what exists beyond consciousness is reality in its unformed and unknowable state, while what we experience within our consciousness is reality manifested as forms. (Keeping in mind that "reality in its unformed and unknowable state" is still just another form and therefore a part of consciousness - but we don't want to get ahead of ouselves).

These conclusions are logically derived from the truth that a form cannot exist without the perspective generated by an observer.

I can't really describe my stance as either idealistic or objectivist. Although I recognize that consciousness and forms necessarily arise together, that there can't be the one without the other, it doesn't stop from me also recognizing the utility of the standard objectivist view when it comes to practical matters.

For example, if I decide to walk out the door, I fully expect the next room to be waiting there for me, even though I am not directly aware of it at the moment. At the same time, I realize that the room cannot exist in any shape or form without an observer giving it form.

It is a bit like what happens in a dream. I can dream that I decide to walk out a door in the expectation that the next room will be waiting when I get there, even though the waiting room only appears the moment I observe it.
Your stance is not a logical conclusion derived from rigorous deductive reasoning about existence at all, but a metaphysical claim. I feel we're entering the territory of belief here rather than that of logic or hard evidence about existence. So far you haven't provided conclusive evidence for your absolute claim. Your stance imo results from a deadlock in your thinking. By asserting that to you only YOUR conscious thought is absolute, you derive the stance that conscious thought is a necessary condition for ALL existence.

I'm not saying that "my" conscious thought is a necessary condition for all existence, nor even conscious thought generally. Conscious thought is only one aspect of conscious experience.

When I experience a physical mountain, for example, my conscious thought only plays a minor contributing role. My senses, my position in time and space, my size, the way my brain is wired, my subconscious memories, my unresolved emotional issues, etc - these are all contributing factors in my experience of the mountain as well.

In fact your claim is that there is some miraculous and deeply elusive way in which we think up all things we become aware of from its exterior appearance to the very minute detail at the subatomic level over and over again.
That would be a ridiculous claim indeed. But I'm not making such a claim.

Nature is ultimately the creator of everything that we experience, and our conscious thought-processes only play a minor role.

Furthermore your metaphysics provides no explanation whatsoever for observed consistency in behaviour and interaction of these forms.

The consistency comes from Nature itself - i.e. from cause and effect. Things and events are consistent when the causal conditions dictate them to be so.

Stirpping away the illusion of objective reality doesn't suddenly turn the world into a random and arbitrary place.

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote:In other words, the truth of A=A is belief-neutral.

The truth about A=A is not neutral for metaphysics. By positing that, you are merely and quite dishonestly denying the objectivist stance as a possible stance and just restating yours. In the objectivist's metaphysics you definitely need an operational criterion to link logical existence with independent existential existence.

I have no idea what "independent existence" means. The existence of a thing is always dependent on other things - e.g. its own constituent parts, time and space, things not coming along and obliterating it, etc. So even in the objectivist world-view, independent existence is impossible.

But regardless, A=A is unaffected either way. If you want to argue that a thing can independently exist, then you are affirming that such an independently-existing thing is what it is and not something else (i.e. a dependently-existing thing).

I don't deny that within your metaphysical asumptions A=A is all logical and therefore logically absolute. I will even agree with you that objectivism has no absolute basis. But instead of seeing this as a weakness, it is a strong feature in the quest for truth, for only by allowing it to be non-absolute the possibility of incremental growth of knowledge is possible, while a rigid seemingly absolutistic framework as yours leads you nowhere.

This is your "absolute philosophic knowledge is incompatible with open-ended scientific progress" belief shining through again. It is an absolutistic belief which confuses the roles of philosophy and science.

In an absolutistic framework, there can be no next step.
Without the absoluteness of things like A=A, there can also be no next step.

-
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

brokenhead wrote:What do you mean, precisely, by "what lies on the other side of consciousness?"
Well, I was rephrasing the position that you were attacking, so, let's see... reality in its unformed state. How do you, personally, propose to know what unformed reality is like, without giving it some form? The process of learning gives form, so it will have to be some other method.
If philosophers weren't so freaking smug that they have all the answers, they just might acquire new ones as they go along, like everybody else.
Hold it, there. I was asking a question that I do not have an answer to -- namely, how a person goes about knowing about unformed reality. Personally, I don't think it's possible, but that could be a problem on my end. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, that you had an answer to a difficult epistemological question, since you were so confident that David and Nick were wrong. But the answer you gave is "learning"! Come on now, if that were the answer, do you think I'd be so confused that I'd overlook it? Talk about smug. You behave as though I'm an idiot.
I use the verb "to be" in its basic, colloquial sense which nearly everybody - except, that is, for philosophers - readily comprehends.
What makes you suppose that I'm using the verb "to be" in a special sense? I simply took the simple, dictionary-definition ("to exist"), and combined it with my metaphysical know-how. Looking at it closely, even how it is used in day-to-day speech -- including right there, in this very sentence -- I discover that it's a bizarre word. It has a lot of baggage.

If you slow down and extend the basic, colloquial use of the verb "to be" to Being itself, well, you've got a huge fucking problem there. What is Being? (eg. in the common phrase, "a human being", or in the less common phrase "every being in existence", or when it needs to be capitalized as in "Being-in-itself"?) How accurately can we use it to identify things? And, well, this leads naturally to the next question: what's the thingness that makes a thing a thing?

Yes, you readily comprehend these words. But that is actually the problem, not the answer. It shows that there's a lot of bizarre work going on in your thought processes that's caused simply by how inconsiderately language is used.

And before you suggest I'm an idiot again -- or, hell, that philosophers talk about irrelevant things -- look at the thread title. Hey, wow, I'm actually on topic. How can you be certain that you're reasoning properly? "Because I'm not a philosopher and don't think about the consequences of colloquial word-use" isn't a very good answer.

English is a logically imperfect language: we have already gone over a grammatical convention that directly interferes with interpretation of a logical sentence. (Fujaro, who referenced a philosopher of language who dealt with this very problem -- namely, Wittgenstein -- surprisingly was unable to recognize such a limitation of language when it was right in front of his face.) If this topic bores you, why discuss it?
Last edited by Trevor Salyzyn on Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
A mindful man needs few words.
Locked